Hey guys, it's been a while but I was doing an awfully written paper for my Psych 3700 class and
decided to post it. It's a conceptualization of music as a language and explores the ways in which it \
functions similarly to language in our lives. Enjoy!
The Language of Music
Music has been used by humans as a mode of communication for centuries. From the original Gregorian chants, to Mozart, to contemporary pop, music has served innumerable roles in human history. However numerous the roles though, at it’s core, music is communicative. Certainly, lyrical music has stories to tell. Even beyond lyricism, the very structure of music mimics the ways in which verbal language is structured. In the 19th century, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow called music “the universal language of the people”. The profound truth of his words wouldn't be uncovered until later, but they have profound implications. Music can be viewed as a language in its own right, based both on its structure. Furthermore, the neurological effects of music on the brain have profound implications; especially where memory is concerned.
In order to assess music as innately linguistic, we must first explore what constitutes a language. What are the common structures? In language, the smallest unit of sound that changes the meaning of a word is a phoneme. A phoneme, from the perspective of an English speaker, may consist of a single letters, or a pairing of letters which constitute a single, unique sound. The musical equivalent of this is a note. Just as everything is built upon phonemes in traditional language, everything is structurally dependent on notes in music. Likewise, both language and music are capable being manipulated in endless ways to form larger structures. Languages make use of letters or symbols to form words, and subsequently, sentences and paragraphs. In music, eight different notes form an octave, which is then repeated in higher or low pitches. This octave structure can be worked outside of to create melodies, harmonies, and songs. There’s also a certain logical component to both language and music. Under each structure, a sequence of sounds can be heard by a listener as either “right” or “wrong”. In language, this would be the difference between hearing sensical and nonsensical words. In music, some note sequences sound pleasing and right together, and some do not. It’s worth noting that this interpretation of right and wrong sounds in music can vary culturally.
Key to both languages and music are the systems’ infinite generativity. Infinite generativity is “the ability to produce an infinite number of sentences using a limited set of rules and words” (Santrock and Mitterer 2001). This generativity is immensely important in the classification of both language and music as tools. They're similar in the mode of function. Much more than a fixed structure, both are fluid, full of potentiality, and adaptable.
Sound elements are yet another important piece of language and music. The major sound elements include pitch and timbre. According to Zhang, “both music and language make use of pitch contrast” (Zhang 6). In most cultures, a rich pitch contrast is the major device is the creation of music. In some languages, pitch plays a significant role in meaning (tone languages) whereas in others, pitch contrast does not infer lexical meaning (non-tonal languages). Next is timbre. Timbre is the character or quality of a musical sound as distinct from its pitch and intensity. In music, timbre would be the device by which we are able to distinguish the difference between different instruments being played or a voice singing. As Zhang cites, “Pitch contrast is the main device in most musical systems, while timbre contrast is the prominent device in language” (Zhang 8). There’s a bit of a gap in the literature regarding musical and linguistic timbre perception. There have not been a significant number of studies conducted in the area. Regardless, both pitch and timbre are salient techniques in the expression of both language and music.
So now we’ve outlined some ways in which language and music are structurally similar, but what about functionality? What purpose does each system play in our lives? This is where there are some larger observable differences between the two systems. Language’s primary function is that of communication. It’s essential for the creation of social bonds. Without it, life as we know it would not be possible. While music is functionally similar, it’s not quite so essential to our societal systems. Music can certainly be (and is) used for communicative purposes, but communication is not, generally speaking, music’s primary function. It’s primary purpose is more often for entertainment or personal expression. Expression is essentially communication, but the difference with music lies in the urgency. We use language to communicate things with immediacy, whereas musical expression is typically for more secondary emotions, thoughts, and desires. The driving force behind musical expression isn't survival or the every day. It’s for the profound. It’s for emotional release and identification. I would argue that a lack of music would also render life as we know it impossible, as the emotional release and subsequent audience identification is essential to the mental health of millions of people. If we view music also as a cultural conversation, one could argue that the sharing of emotions involved in music function as an expression of a very natural social urge. The disconnection of emotional identification with one another in this way would have serious societal consequences.
Another way in which music and language are related is in the area of production. There is a wide range of production ability in language. Most people are fluent in a language, or can communicate using language of some kind. Some people are very limited in their means of communication. Others may be proficient in several different languages. The same holds true of musical production ability. There is certainly an overall lower level of musical production ability than there is language production ability. This goes back to the functional difference in which language is more essential and music is more secondary. However, one may observe the same level of variability in musical production ability. Many people have no musical production ability. Not everyone can sing, play, or write music, which differentiates from the way in which most are able to express some language. Indeed, one could argue that, given a cultural emphasis on musical production (or, if music were to be essential for our daily functioning) then we would see a similar level of widespread musical production ability as we currently see with language production ability.
A significant way in which language and music are at odds are with regards to interpretation. To interpret a language means to understand it. The mark of an effective language is understanding. Ideally, a spoken word or sentence will mean the same thing to a multitude of people. After all, how can we communicate if we’re not on the same page? To interpret music, in contrast, does not call for an understanding of music, as there is no one culminating meaning for a piece of music. In music, an interpretation may be as simple as performing or producing music. The same notes may be played, but not everyone will have the same interpretation of the piece. This has to do with the ways in which music serves in part as expression. Just as human emotion is dynamic and irreducible to concrete answers, the same is true of music.
Now that we have an outline of the ways in which music behaves-- and does not behave-- as a language, the question becomes one of applicability. What do these similarities tell us? When Henry Wadsworth Longfellow called music “the universal language of the people”, he had no clue how correct, scientifically speaking, he was. More recent studies have illustrated music’s cross-cultural applicability. Others provide strong evidence that music may play a role in memory and development.
One recent study set out to observe similarities in musical interpretation between two dissimilar cultures. The experiments were conducted in the Congolese rainforest with an isolated population of Mebenzele Pygmies without any exposure to Western music and culture. The second set of experiments involved Western listeners with no prior experience with Congolese music. Each group listened to music from the culture of the other group. "Subjective and psychophysiological emotional responses to music from two different cultures were compared within these two cultures" (Chuen et. al. 2015). Clearly, the reactions of each group to the music was not always true to the original intent of the music. However, the "results suggest that while the subjective dimension of emotional valence might be mediated by cultural learning, changes in arousal might involve a more basic, universal response to low-level acoustical characteristics of music" (Chuen et. al. 2015). So clearly there's always going to be a certain degree of cultural barrier that affects the interpretation of music across cultures; particularly when the two cultures in question have no prior experience with each other. This aside, the fact that there was a base level reaction to the unfamiliar music, along with an attribution to a specific musical characteristic, is huge!
There's been a long and winded debate in the field of linguistics about whether or not language is innate, and now it appears that there's some relation in this argument to music. Not only can this response to music contribute to the innate language ability debate, but it can help further determine just how linguistic music is. The music had to have communicated something in order for there to have been a cross cultural base level emotional response to it. And if there's communication, it logically follows that there are commonly understood structures at play between these very different cultures. The evidence continues to point us towards music as a universal language.
One recent study set out to observe similarities in musical interpretation between two dissimilar cultures. The experiments were conducted in the Congolese rainforest with an isolated population of Mebenzele Pygmies without any exposure to Western music and culture. The second set of experiments involved Western listeners with no prior experience with Congolese music. Each group listened to music from the culture of the other group. "Subjective and psychophysiological emotional responses to music from two different cultures were compared within these two cultures" (Chuen et. al. 2015). Clearly, the reactions of each group to the music was not always true to the original intent of the music. However, the "results suggest that while the subjective dimension of emotional valence might be mediated by cultural learning, changes in arousal might involve a more basic, universal response to low-level acoustical characteristics of music" (Chuen et. al. 2015). So clearly there's always going to be a certain degree of cultural barrier that affects the interpretation of music across cultures; particularly when the two cultures in question have no prior experience with each other. This aside, the fact that there was a base level reaction to the unfamiliar music, along with an attribution to a specific musical characteristic, is huge!
There's been a long and winded debate in the field of linguistics about whether or not language is innate, and now it appears that there's some relation in this argument to music. Not only can this response to music contribute to the innate language ability debate, but it can help further determine just how linguistic music is. The music had to have communicated something in order for there to have been a cross cultural base level emotional response to it. And if there's communication, it logically follows that there are commonly understood structures at play between these very different cultures. The evidence continues to point us towards music as a universal language.
Music clearly runs deep. It’s also recently come to light via various studies that music is heavily related to memory. One study by Hans Baumgartner on the phenomena in which “a piece of music becomes associated with an event from a person’s life so that hearing the piece of music evokes memories of the original experience” (Baumgartner 613). Participants in the study were made to fill out a questionnaire in which they were asked about a particular song which they strongly identified with a personal experience. The results conclusive. The majority of participants recalled a song that they associated with a lover or relationship, or with friends and family. The experiences were a range of positive and negative, but the majority of the participants said that the song strongly evoked the event which they associated it with. According to Baumgartner, “The recollections triggered by the music were described as vivid and emotional as involving a reliving of, and being accompanied by imagery descriptive of, the original episode” (Baumgartner 620). This is an extremely powerful reaction to music that appears to be common. In fact, it’s so common that researchers like Dan Cohen wondered why it hadn’t been applied to certain problems earlier.
Cohen took it upon himself to explore music's powerful association with memory and apply it where it was greatly needed-- with dementia patients. He has documented much of his work in his movie Alive Inside: a Story of Music and Memory. In it, he travels to many different nursing homes across America. He is, rightly appalled by the conditions he found. He found that senior living today is filled with sterility and inhumanity, with many unhappy patients. He set out to provide music and some life to dementia patients in these homes. He brought them music that they would have listened to in their youth, and the results were profound. Patients who were usually minimally responsive came to life. They were capable of remembering events and people that they had believed long lost to them (Cohen 2014). Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia are widely feared. The public as a whole generally sees it as a living death sentence. After all, who are you without your memories? The fact that music alone was and is capable of pulling so many people out of such a deep darkness is a great testament to its psychological and communicative power.
Cohen took it upon himself to explore music's powerful association with memory and apply it where it was greatly needed-- with dementia patients. He has documented much of his work in his movie Alive Inside: a Story of Music and Memory. In it, he travels to many different nursing homes across America. He is, rightly appalled by the conditions he found. He found that senior living today is filled with sterility and inhumanity, with many unhappy patients. He set out to provide music and some life to dementia patients in these homes. He brought them music that they would have listened to in their youth, and the results were profound. Patients who were usually minimally responsive came to life. They were capable of remembering events and people that they had believed long lost to them (Cohen 2014). Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia are widely feared. The public as a whole generally sees it as a living death sentence. After all, who are you without your memories? The fact that music alone was and is capable of pulling so many people out of such a deep darkness is a great testament to its psychological and communicative power.
Reconceptualizing music as a form of language, or language-like in significant ways, has led to some interesting research with strong results. The research into the implications of music’s innate power has only just begun. Music therapies are already helping so many people. With further research, and enough public attention, perhaps music therapy will gain high enough regard to be considered a relevant treatment. If we, as a nation and global community, funded music therapies widely. we could potentially create a lot of joy and health for millions of people. A language that’s open to interpretation puts the power in the hands of the individual while maintaining a cultural cohesion. Maybe what we’ve been missing in our healthcare equation is just that.
Works Cited
Alive Inside: A Story of Music and Memory. Dir. Michael Rossatto-Bennett. Perf. Dan Cohen. 2014.
Baumgartner, Hans. "Remembrance of Things Past: Music, Autobiographical Memory, and Emotion." Advances in Consumer Research 19 (1992): 613-20. Web.
Egermann, Hauke, Nathalie Fernando, Lorraine Chuen, and Stephen Mcadams. "Music Induces Universal Emotion-related Psychophysiological Responses: Comparing Canadian Listeners to Congolese Pygmies."Frontiers in Psychology Front. Psychol. 5 (2015): Web.
Santrock, John W., and John Otto Mitterer. Psychology. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 2001. Print.
Zhang, Shuo. "Music and Language: Current State of Research." University of Pittsburgh (n.d.): 1-32. Web.
