Syntax in language and music: what is the right level of comparison?

Rie Asano,Cedric Boeckx

doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00942

Abstract

It is often claimed that music and language share a process of hierarchical structure building, a mental “syntax.” Although several lines of research point to commonalities, and possibly a shared syntactic component, differences between “language syntax” and “music syntax” can also be found at several levels: conveyed meaning, and the atoms of combination, for example. To bring music and language closer to one another, some researchers have suggested a comparison between music and phonology (“phonological syntax”), but here too, one quickly arrives at a situation of intriguing similarities and obvious differences. In this paper, we suggest that a fruitful comparison between the two domains could benefit from taking the grammar of action into account. In particular, we suggest that what is called “syntax” can be investigated in terms of goal of action, action planning, motor control, and sensory-motor integration. At this level of comparison, we suggest that some of the differences between language and music could be explained in terms of different goals reflected in the hierarchical structures of action planning: the hierarchical structures of music arise to achieve goals with a strong relation to the affective-gestural system encoding tension-relaxation patterns as well as socio-intentional system, whereas hierarchical structures in language are embedded in a conceptual system that gives rise to compositional meaning. Similarities between music and language are most clear in the way several hierarchical plans for executing action are processed in time and sequentially integrated to achieve various goals.

Highlights

Comparative approaches to music and language as cognitive systems have recently gained interest in language and music research, but there seems no general consensus about the fundamental nature of this relationship (e.g., Rebuschat et al, 2012; Arbib, 2013; Honing et al, 2015)
The conceptual framework we develop in terms of action-related components such as goal of action, action planning, motor control, and sensory-motor integration provides a new possibility for comparative research on music and language from theoretical as well as empirical perspectives
The very similarity of syntax in music and language is the fact that hierarchical structures bundling different types of information should be mapped onto/constructed from linear strings to make sense of sequences by building structural expectancy by temporal integration

Summary

Introduction

Comparative approaches to music and language as cognitive systems have recently gained interest in language and music research, but there seems no general consensus about the fundamental nature of this relationship (e.g., Rebuschat et al, 2012; Arbib, 2013; Honing et al, 2015). It is a tough task because we have to bridge gaps between different research fields, diverse levels of comparison, and distinctive cognitive domains This issue is the focus of research frameworks investigating biological foundations of language and music called Biolinguistics (Boeckx and Grohmann, 2007) and Biomusicology (Wallin, 1991; Brown et al, 2000). To find the proper level of comparison, “syntax” should be decomposed into basic components, in line with current “divide-and-conquer” approaches in cognitive biology (Poeppel and Embick, 2005; Fitch, 2006, 2010; Boeckx, 2010, 2013; Boeckx and Theofanopoulou, 2014; Boeckx et al, 2014) This is a necessary first step toward future investigations of important questions such as whether syntax is best studied apart from semantics or whether the term “syntax” is appropriate for music research. Our framework regarding syntax as “a cognitive planning tool” (Baars and Gage, 2010, pp. 390–391) enables us to examine the role of meaning in syntax as well as the account of syntax in music and language processing. Investigating flexible action planning of music and language in terms of mechanisms, ontogeny, phylogeny, and adaptive significance (Tinbergen, 1963) will reveal the biological foundations of both cognitive systems

Conundrums of Syntax

Yes Yes Yes

Conclusion