Publications

Abstract

The process of speaking is traditionally regarded as a mapping of thoughts (intentions, feelings, etc.) onto language. One requirement that this mapping has to meet is that the units of information to be expressed be strictly ordered. The channel of speech largely prohibits the simultaneous expression of multiple propositions: the speaker has a linearization problem - that is, a linear order has to be determined over any knowledge structure to be formulated. This may be relatively simple if the informational structure has itself an intrinsic linear arrangement, as often occurs with event structures, but it requires special procedures if the structure is more complex, as is often the case in two- or three-dimensional spatial patterns. How, for instance, does a speaker proceed in describing his home, or the layout of his town? Two powerful constraints on linearization derive, on the one hand, from 'mutual knowledge' and, on the other, from working memory limitations. Mutual knowledge may play a role in that the listener can be expected to derive different implicatures from different orderings (compare 'she married and became pregnant' with 'she became pregnant and married'). Mutual knowledge determinants of linearization are essentially pragmatic and cultural, and dependent on the content of discourse. Working memory limitations affect linearization in that a speaker's linearization strategy will minimize memory load during the process of formulating. A multidimensional structure is broken up in such a way that the number of 'return addresses' to be kept in memory will be minimized. This is attained by maximizing the connectivity of the discourse, and by backtracking to stored addresses in a first-in-last-out fashion. These memory determinants of linearization are presumably biological, and independent of the domain of discourse. An important question is whether the linearization requirement is enforced by the oral modality of speech or whether it is a deeper modality-independent property of language use.

Abstract

PHD thesis, defended at the University of Leiden

Abstract

Firstly, theories are reviewed on the explanation of tonal consonance as the singular nature of tone intervals with frequency ratios corresponding with small integer numbers. An evaluation of these explanations in the light of some experimental studies supports the hypothesis, as promoted by von Helmholtz, that the difference between consonant and dissonant intervals is related to beats of adjacent partials. This relation was studied more fully by experiments in which subjects had to judge simple-tone intervals as a function of test frequency and interval width. The results may be considered as a modification of von Helmholtz's conception and indicate that, as a function of frequency, the transition range between consonant and dissonant intervals is related to critical bandwidth. Simple-tone intervals are evaluated as consonant for frequency differences exceeding this bandwidth. whereas the most dissonant intervals correspond with frequency differences of about a quarter of this bandwidth. On the base of these results, some properties of consonant intervals consisting of complex tones are explained. To answer the question whether critical bandwidth also plays a rôle in music, the chords of two compositions (parts of a trio sonata of J. S. Bach and of a string quartet of A. Dvorák) were analyzed by computing interval distributions as a function of frequency and number of harmonics taken into account. The results strongly suggest that, indeed, critical bandwidth plays an important rôle in music: for a number of harmonics representative for musical instruments, the "density" of simultaneous partials alters as a function of frequency in the same way as critical bandwidth does.