Music: Language We All Speak
Section A: Music is one of the human species’ relatively few universal abilities. Without formal training, any individual, from Stone Age tribesman to suburban teenager, has the ability to recognise music and, in some fashion, to make it. Why this should be so is a mystery. After all, music isn’t necessary for getting through the day, and if it aids in reproduction, it does so only in highly indirect ways. Language, by contrast, is also everywhere- but for reasons that are more obvious. With language, you and the members of your tribe can organise a migration across Africa, build reed boats and cross the seas, and communicate at night even when you can’t see each other. Modem culture, in all its technological extravagance, springs directly from the human talent for manipulating symbols and syntax. Scientists have always been intrigued by the connection between music and language. Yet over the years, words and melody have acquired a vastly different status in the lab and the seminar room. While language has long been considered essential to unlocking the mechanisms of human intelligence, music is generally treated as an evolutionary frippery-mere “auditory cheesecake,” as the Harvard cognitive scientist Steven Pinker puts it.
Section B: But thanks to a decade-long wave of neuroscience research, that tune is changing. A flurry of recent publications suggests that language and music may equally be able to tell us who we are and where we’re from – not just emotionally, but biologically. In July, the journal Nature Neuroscience devoted a special issue to the topic. And in an article in the August 6 issue of the Journal of Neuroscience, David Schwartz, Catherine Howe, and Dale Purves of Duke University argued that the sounds of music and the sounds of language are intricately connected. To grasp the originality of this idea, it’s necessary to realise two things about how music has traditionally been understood. First, musicologists have long emphasised that while each culture stamps a special identity onto its music, the music itself has some universal qualities. For example, in virtually all cultures, the sound is divided into some or all of the 12 intervals that make up the chromatic scale – that is, the scale represented by the keys on a piano. For centuries, observers have attributed this preference for certain combinations of tones to the mathematical properties of sound itself. Some 2,500 years ago, Pythagoras was the first to note a direct relationship between the harmoniousness of a tone combination and the physical dimensions of the object that produced it. For example, a plucked string will always play an octave lower than a similar string half its size and a fifth lower than a similar string two-thirds its length. This link between simple ratios and harmony has influenced music theory ever since.
Section C: This music-is-moth idea is often accompanied by the notion that music, formally speaking at least, exists apart from the world in which it was created. Writing recently in The New York Review of Books, pianist and critic Charles Rosen discussed the long-standing notion that while painting and sculpture reproduce at least some aspects of the natural world, and writing describes thoughts and feelings we are all familiar with, music is entirely abstracted from the world in which we live. Neither idea is right, according to David Schwartz and his colleagues. Human musical preferences are fundamentally shaped not by elegant algorithms or ratios but by the messy sounds of real life, and of speech in particular -which in turn is shaped by our evolutionary heritage.” The explanation of music, like the explanation of any product of the mind, must be rooted in biology, not in numbers per se,” says Schwartz.
Schwartz, Howe, and Purves analysed a vast selection of speech sounds from a variety of languages to reveal the underlying patterns common to all utterances. In order to focus only on the raw sound, they discarded all theories about speech and meaning and sliced sentences into random bites. Using a database of over 100,000 brief segments of speech, they noted which frequency had the greatest emphasis in each sound. The resulting set of frequencies, they discovered, corresponded closely to the chromatic scale. In short, the building blocks of music are to be found in speech.
Far from being abstract, music presents a strange analogy to the patterns created by the sounds of speech. “Music, like the visual arts, is rooted in our experience of the natural world,” says Schwartz. “It emulates our sound environment in the way that visual arts emulate the visual environment.” In music, we hear the echo of our basic sound-making instrument- the vocal tract. The explanation for human music is simple, still than Pythagoras’s mathematical equations. We like the sounds that are familiar to us. Specifically, we like sounds that remind us of ourselves.
This brings up some chicken-or-egg evolutionary questions. It may be that music imitates speech directly, the researchers say, in which case it would seem that language evolve first. It’s also conceivable that music came first, and language is in effect an Imitation of song – that in everyday speech, we hit the musical notes we especially like. Alternately, it may be that music imitates the general products of the human sound-making system, which just happens to be mostly speech. “We can’t know this,” says Schwartz. “What we do know is that they both come from the same system, and it is this that shapes our preferences.”
Section D: Schwartz’s study also casts light on the long-running question of whether animals understand or appreciate music. Despite the apparent abundance of “music” in the natural world- birdsong, whalesong, wolf howls, synchronised chimpanzee hooting, previous studies have found that many laboratory animals don’t show a great affinity for the human variety of music-making. Marc Hauser and Josh McDermott of Harvard argued in the July issue of Nature Neuroscience that animals don’t create or perceive music the way we do. The act that laboratory monkeys can show recognition of human tunes is evidence, they say, of shared general features of the auditory system, not any specific chimpanzee musical ability. As for birds, those most musical beasts, they generally recognise their own tunes – a narrow repertoire – but don’t generate novel melodies as we do. There are no avian Mozarts.
But what’s been played to the animals, Schwartz notes, is human music. If animals evolve preferences for sound as we do – based upon the soundscape in which they live – then their “music” would be fundamentally different from ours. In the same way, our scales derive from human utterances; a cat’s idea of a good tune would derive from yowls and meows. To demonstrate that animals don’t appreciate sounds the way we do, we’d need evidence that they don’t respond to “music” constructed from their own sound environment.
Section E: No matter how the connection between language and music is parsed, what is apparent is that our sense of music, even our love for it, is as deeply rooted in our biology and in our brains as language is. This is most obvious with babies, says Sandra Trehub at the University of Toronto, who also published a paper in the Nature Neuroscience special issue.
For babies, music and speech are on a continuum. Mothers use musical speech to “regulate infants’ emotional states.” Trehub says. Regardless of what language they speak, the voice all mothers use with babies is the same: “something between speech and song.” This kind of communication “puts the baby in a trance-like state, which may proceed to sleep or extended periods of rapture.” So, if the babies of the world could understand the latest research on language and music, they probably wouldn’t be very surprised. The upshot, says Trehub, is that music maybe even more of a necessity than we realise.
| A | B | C | D | E | F | G | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Steven Pinker | |||||||
| 2 | Musicologists | |||||||
| 3 | Greek philosopher Pythagoras | |||||||
| 4 | Schwartz, Howe, and Purves | |||||||
| 5 | Marc Hauser and Josh McDermott | |||||||
| 6 | Charles Rosen | |||||||
| 7 | Sandra Trehub |
AI explanationShows the answer. Tap to open.
Question Focus: Context shift - how music is valued compared with language in science
Why this is correct: The answer is Music is not treated equally well compared with language. Pinker is quoted saying music is treated as "auditory cheesecake", showing it is seen as less important than language, especially in scientific study. This is clearly stated in Section A.
Passage Reference: While language has long been considered essential to unlocking the mechanisms of human intelligence, music is generally treated as an evolutionary frippery-mere 'auditory cheesecake,' as the Harvard cognitive scientist Steven Pinker puts it.
Common Mistake: Some students choose Humans need music because Pinker talks about music and humans. This is a Context shift trap because Pinker is not saying music is necessary.
Paraphrasing: Passage: 'treated as an evolutionary frippery' = Statement: 'not treated equally well compared with language'
Tips: When a person is directly quoted, focus on their opinion words. Quotes often signal the correct match.
Key Vocabulary:
- frippery = something unimportant
- auditory = related to hearing
Question Focus: Synonym match - 'universal qualities' equals 'common feature'
Passage Reference: First, musicologists have long emphasised that while each culture stamps a special identity onto its music, the music itself has some universal qualities. For example, in virtually all cultures, the sound is divided into some or all of the 12 intervals that make up the chromatic scale
Why this is correct: The answer is Music has a common feature though cultural influences affect. Musicologists say music has universal qualities, but each culture gives it a special identity. This is explained in Section B.
Common Mistake: Students may pick Discovery of mathematical musical foundation because numbers are mentioned later. This is a Wrong section trap because that idea belongs to Pythagoras, not musicologists.
Paraphrasing: Passage: 'universal qualities' and 'each culture stamps a special identity' = Statement: 'common feature though cultural influences affect'
Tips: Look for plural professional groups like 'musicologists'. Their views are often summarised clearly.
Key Vocabulary:
- universal = common to everyone
- chromatic scale = set of musical notes
Question Focus: Direct statement match - mathematics behind harmony
Passage Reference: Some 2,500 years ago, Pythagoras was the first to note a direct relationship between the harmoniousness of a tone combination and the physical dimensions of the object that produced it. For example, a plucked string will always play an octave lower than a similar string half its size and a fifth lower than a similar string two-thirds its length. This link between simple ratios and harmony has influenced music theory ever since.
Why this is correct: The answer is Discovery of mathematical musical foundation. Pythagoras is described as the first to link simple ratios and musical harmony. This clearly shows a mathematical basis for music.
Common Mistake: Some choose Music exists outside of the world. This is a Context shift trap because that idea comes from Charles Rosen, not Pythagoras.
Paraphrasing: Passage: 'direct relationship' and 'simple ratios' = Statement: 'mathematical musical foundation'
Tips: Dates and historical phrases often point to discoveries or first ideas.
Key Vocabulary:
- harmony = pleasant combination of sounds
- ratio = mathematical relationship
Question Focus: Paraphrase understanding - messy sounds of real life
Passage Reference: Human musical preferences are fundamentally shaped not by elegant algorithms or ratios but by the messy sounds of real life, and of speech in particular -which in turn is shaped by our evolutionary heritage.' The explanation of music, like the explanation of any product of the mind, must be rooted in biology, not in numbers per se,' says Schwartz. Schwartz, Howe, and Purves analysed a vast selection of speech sounds from a variety of languages to reveal the underlying patterns common to all utterances. In order to focus only on the raw sound, they discarded all theories about speech and meaning and sliced sentences into random bites. Using a database of over 100,000 brief segments of speech, they noted which frequency had the greatest emphasis in each sound. The resulting set of frequencies, they discovered, corresponded closely to the chromatic scale. In short, the building blocks of music are to be found in speech. Far from being abstract, music presents a strange analogy to the patterns created by the sounds of speech. 'Music, like the visual arts, is rooted in our experience of the natural world,' says Schwartz. 'It emulates our sound environment in the way that visual arts emulate the visual environment.' In music, we hear the echo of our basic sound-making instrument- the vocal tract. The explanation for human music is simple, still than Pythagoras's mathematical equations. We like the sounds that are familiar to us. Specifically, we like sounds that remind us of ourselves.
Why this is correct: The answer is Music priority connects to the disordered sound around. They argue music comes from messy sounds of real life, especially speech. This idea is explained across Section C.
Common Mistake: Students may choose Music has a common feature because scales are mentioned. This is a Partial truth trap because their main point is about real-life sound, not universals.
Paraphrasing: Passage: 'messy sounds of real life' = Statement: 'disordered sound around'
Tips: When researchers reject old theories, focus on what they replace them with.
Key Vocabulary:
- messy = not orderly
- utterances = spoken sounds
Question Focus: Synonym match - shared auditory features
Passage Reference: Marc Hauser and Josh McDermott of Harvard argued in the July issue of Nature Neuroscience that animals don't create or perceive music the way we do. The act that laboratory monkeys can show recognition of human tunes is evidence, they say, of shared general features of the auditory system, not any specific chimpanzee musical ability.
Why this is correct: The answer is Humans and monkeys have similar traits in perceiving sound. They say monkeys recognising tunes shows shared general features of the auditory system, not true musical understanding. This is in Section D.
Common Mistake: Some choose Music exists outside of the world. This is a Context shift trap because Hauser and McDermott focus on animals, not abstraction.
Paraphrasing: Passage: 'shared general features of the auditory system' = Statement: 'similar traits in perceiving sound'
Tips: When animals are mentioned, check if the focus is ability, limitation, or comparison.
Key Vocabulary:
- auditory = related to hearing
- perceive = notice or understand
Question Focus: Direct opinion reporting
Passage Reference: Writing recently in The New York Review of Books, pianist and critic Charles Rosen discussed the long-standing notion that while painting and sculpture reproduce at least some aspects of the natural world, and writing describes thoughts and feelings we are all familiar with, music is entirely abstracted from the world in which we live.
Why this is correct: The answer is Music exists outside of the world in which it is created. Rosen is described as supporting the idea that music is entirely abstracted from real life. This appears in Section C.
Common Mistake: Students may choose Music priority connects to the disordered sound. This is a Contradiction trap because Schwartz later argues Rosen's idea is wrong.
Paraphrasing: Passage: 'entirely abstracted from the world' = Statement: 'exists outside of the world'
Tips: Be careful when the passage says an idea exists but is later criticised.
Key Vocabulary:
- abstracted = separated
- notion = idea
Question Focus: Inference - music as a necessity
Passage Reference: No matter how the connection between language and music is parsed, what is apparent is that our sense of music, even our love for it, is as deeply rooted in our biology and in our brains as language is. This is most obvious with babies, says Sandra Trehub at the University of Toronto, who also published a paper in the Nature Neuroscience special issue. For babies, music and speech are on a continuum. Mothers use musical speech to 'regulate infants' emotional states.' Trehub says. Regardless of what language they speak, the voice all mothers use with babies is the same: 'something between speech and song.' This kind of communication 'puts the baby in a trance-like state, which may proceed to sleep or extended periods of rapture.' So, if the babies of the world could understand the latest research on language and music, they probably wouldn't be very surprised. The upshot, says Trehub, is that music maybe even more of a necessity than we realise.
Why this is correct: The answer is Humans need music. Trehub explains that music is deeply rooted in our biology, especially in babies, and may be a necessity. This is clearly stated in Section E.
Common Mistake: Some choose Music has a common feature. This is a Wrong section trap because Section E focuses on babies and biology, not culture.
Paraphrasing: Passage: 'more of a necessity than we realise' = Statement: 'humans need music'
Tips: When a section mentions babies and biology, think about necessity and instinct.
Key Vocabulary:
- continuum = gradual range
- regulate = control
General Tips:
- Matching Features can jump around the passage - do not expect answers in order.
- Scan for names first. Proper nouns help you locate the right paragraph quickly.
- Match meaning, not just topic. Many options mention 'music' but say different things.
- Options can be used more than once in this question type. Do not cross them off too early.
The rest of this explanation is for members. Sign in free to read why the other options are wrong, key words and tips.
Sign in to read the full explanation