Compositional Control of Phonetic Non Phonetic Perception

8/3/2019 Compositional Control of Phonetic Non Phonetic Perception

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/compositional-control-of-phonetic-non-phonetic-perception 1/19

Compositional Control of Phonetic/Nonphonetic PerceptionAuthor(s): David Evan JonesReviewed work(s):Source: Perspectives of New Music, Vol. 25, No. 1/2, 25th Anniversary Issue (Winter -Summer, 1987), pp. 138-155Published by: Perspectives of New MusicStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/833096 .

Accessed: 12/02/2012 14:05

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Perspectives of New Music is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Perspectives

of New Music.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=pnm

http://www.jstor.org/stable/833096?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

http://www.jstor.org/stable/833096?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=pnm



COMPOSIT'IONALONTROLOF

PHONE'lIC/NONPHONEI'ICPERCEPTION

DAVIDEVAN ONES

N PERCEIVING ORDINARY speech,we interpret continuouslyvariable tream

of diverse timbres (the auditory speech signal) in terms of categories-

phonemes,syllables,words,phrases-whichwe recognize.In thusattending o

the patternsof speechsounds as caiers of information verbalmeaning),wehaveless attentionalcapacityo hear hesepatternsas structuresf (purely onic)information. In makingthe categorizationsnecessary o understandverbal

meaning,we reducesomewhatthe overwhelmingly omplexsonic interactionswhich characterize ctualspeech to familiarand much simplerreconstructions

which, in turn, makespeechsoundpatterns eem somehowsimple.There s a widebody of literature,both poetryandmusic,whichadoptsas a

centralcompositionaldevice the presentation f speechsounds in wayswhichdraw the attention

(at times)to the

purelysonic information n

speech.This

literature includes some of the work of Italian Futurists such as Filippo



Phonetic/Nonphonetic erception

Marinetti,earlysound poets such as Hugo Balland KurrSchwitters,Lettristssuch as MauriceLemaitre,andmanyothers.With the adventof musiquecon-

crete and electronicmusic, composerssuch as Stockhausen(e.g. Gesangder

Junglinge),HerbertEimert(e.g. Epitaphir AikichiKuboyama), ndLuciano

Berio(e.g. Thenma-OmiggiaJoyce)eganusingrecordedandprocessed peechsounds (alongwith nonspeech materials) o focus listeners' attentionon the

sounds of speech. Composers uch as LucianoBerio(e.g. Circles),GyorgyLigeti

(e.g. Nouvelles ventures),Kenneth Gaburo(e.g. Maledetto), nd manyothers

wrotepurely

acousticcompositions

to the sameeffect. Morerecently,

com-

posersof computermusichavebroughtdigital echnologyto bearon the prob-lem. These worksincludeCharlesDodge's Speechongs,Tod Machover'sSoft

Morning,City!,JohnChowning'sPhone,PaulLansky'sSixFantasiesnaPoembyThomasCampion, ndmanyothers.

A varietyof perceptualambiguitiescan be found in these pieces. Theseincludeambiguities oncerning:

SOURCE RECOGNITION:Is the sourcevocal, instrumental, lectronic?

Whatvoice?Whatinstrument?

PHONETIC/NONPHONETICPERCEPTION: s the listenerreceivinga

phoneticmessage?Whatphonetic segmentsarebeingreceived?

MORPHEMIC/NONMORPHEMIC INTERPRETATION: Do the

phonemesreceivedormfunctionalunits(wordsorsyllableswhichdetermine

verbalmeaning) n a naturallanguageknown to the listener?

SYNTACTICSTRUCTURE:Do the morphemescombine to formhigher-levelsyntactic tructuresn anaturallanguageknown to the listener?

While a fewwritershaveapproachedhespeech-as-sound oeticand musical

literaturerom an historicalperspectivee.g.Ruppenthal 975),orhaveanalyzed

specific compositions (e.g.Stockhausen1964), there currentlyexists no the-

oretical rameworkwhich attemptsto explainthe perceptualssuesunderlyingthe varietyof approacheso compositionwith speechsound. Indeed, the arrayof

entangledambiguitiesisted above

suggeststhat such a framework

maybe

extremelydifficult o establish.I wish to address ome fundamentalssuesregarding verysmallpartof the

puzzle. I will examinesituationsn whichlistenersareawareof receivinga spe-cific and intelligiblephoneticmessage(not necessarilymorphemic),while the

focusof theirattention s primarily n the sounds f speech-not only as cues for

phonetically odedinformation,but astimbres,pitches,durations.In definingmy topic rathernarrowlyaroundthe issuesof phonetic/non-

phonetic perception, I focus upon the most elementaldistinction between

speechand sound. Nonetheless, t will beimpossibleo avoiddiscussion f other

139



PerspectivesfNew Music

levelsof the speechhierarchy phonetic,morphemic,syntactic).As willbe illus-tratedbelow, perceptionon one level of the hierarchynformsand often deter-

mines perception on both higherand lower levels. Questions as to source,

phoneticandmorphemiccontent,andsyntactic tructure reoften almost nex-

tricablyntertwined.It will be useful, then, to beginwith some fundamentaldistinctionsand a

brief heoreticaldiscussionof some of the perceptualprinciplesnvolved. It will

then be possible o examinespecific ompositional trategieswhichmakeuse of

theseprinciples.

VOICE-LIKENESS

The most heavilyprocessedsections of Eimert'sEpitaphir AikichiKuboyama

conveythe rhythms,rates,anddirectionsofformantchangewhichwe associate

withspeech.It is evenpossible n these sections o identifymanysyllablebound-

ariesand even some classesf phones (sonicrepresentationf phonemes).It is

possible, orexample, o distinguish tops, as a class, romfricatives nd vowelsas classes.And yet, while it isclear hattheseheavilyprocessed oundsarevoice-

like(or"speech-like"),no specific ndintelligible honeticmessagesconveyed.We cangeneralizehe distinction:"Voice-likeness"nvolves ourcerecognitionanddescription; sound canbevoice-likewithoutconveyingaspecificphonetic

message.A compositionally sefuldefinitionof "voice-like"aspectsof asoundmight

be: thoseaspectswhichcuelisteners' ssociationwith the humanvoice nagiven

context. The subjectivenatureof the definitionreflectshe speculative atureofcomposing or adiverseaudience. t is more usefulfor the analysis f perceptualeffects o define "voice-likeness"n termsoflisteners'associationshan in termsof the actualsource. Some extended vocal techniquesor other unusualsonic

output of the human vocal tractheard n isolationmightnot be "voice-like"

under the abovedefinition;soundsproducedby electronicor acoustic nstru-ments other than the voice areoftenconsidered oice-like nsomeaspects.Also,becausea signalmaybe voice-like n one aspect(e.g. vibratorateor intonation

contour)and unvoice-like n another(e.g. timbreof the glottalsourceetc.) it is

often moreusefulto refer o voice-like spectsf asoundthanto voice-likeounds.It is intuitivelyobviousthat an associationwith the humanvoice canbe pro-

duced-by clearinghe throator coughing,forexample-without anyphoneticmessage nvolved. On the other hand, the presentationof a specificphoneticmessage(whetherby humanvoice or electronicor acoustic nstruments)cer-

tainlycues an associationwith the humanvoice,and mustbe regarded s voice-like n thataspect-even ftheglottalsourceorotheraspectsof thesound arenotat allhuman-sounding r "voice-like."

Butthere s amuchstronger orrelation etweenvoice-likeness ndphonetic

140




perception. n derivingaphoneticmessage romanacousticsignal, isteners ou-tinelymakeuseofinformationtheyhaveasproducers f speechsound-ofinfor-mationaboutthe capabilitiesf the humanvocal tract.The case orthispointisreviewedcompellinglyby Libermanand Studdert-Kennedy1977)who cite awidebodyof supportive xperimentalvidence.As these authorspointout"...the keyto the (speech)code is in the mannerof itsproduction."Thisrequiredidentification f listenerwith the sourceof the signalhe isdecodingmayexplainthefact hat istenersmaynot hear hephoneticmessagensome "unvoice-like"sounds (seeRemezet al. 1981,forexample).Thus the issueof voice-likeness-

essentiallya questionof sourcerecognition-is stronglyrelated o the issue of

phonetic/nonphoneticperception.Voice-likenesswill bearupon some of the

compositional trategies utlined below.It should be noted in passingthat the close identificationof listenerwith

sourcein speechperception s one basis orthe affectexertedby compositionswhichplayat the thresholdbetween"unvoice-like" ounds and voice-like and

perhaps phonetic) sounds. The acoustic differencebetween voice-likeandunvoice-like s often verysmall; he psychological ifference s often verygreat.

Moreover, herearemarkeddifferences, iscussedbelow,betweenphoneticandnonphoneticperceptualmodes. Thus, whileStockhausenmayhavecreateda

roughacousticontinuumbetweenspeechandnonspeech or thecompositionof

Gesang erJinglinge, perceptionf the sounds alongthis continuum does not

changecontinuously(seeHouse et al. 1962). Still, the most strikingaspectofStockhausen'spiece maybe the closeassociation etweenfamiliar ocalsoundsand electronicsounds which could not be producedin any familiaracousticenvironment.

PHONETIC AND NONPHONETIC INFORMATION IN SPEECH

It is impossible o conveyonlyphoneticinformationaurally.Any sound whichcan be interpretedphoneticallyalso carriesnonphonetic information-sonicinformationwhichis not directlyrelevant o the phoneticcode. Thus, in manylanguages, oicequalityandpitchcarythephoneticmessagebut do not directlydeterminethat message: hey canvarywithinwide limits without altering he

phoneticmessage.Voicequality,intonationcontour, andother nonphoneticaspectsof the sound may, however,changethe meaningof the syntacticmes-

sage-turningastatement nto aquestion,negating hespoken ext withironyor

satire,andso forth.In synthesizedorelectronicallylteredspeech,thenonphoneticaspectof the

sound canbe made to behave n wayswhicharequite impossible or a humanvocaltract-in wayswhich, in fact,arequite "unvoice-like"-without directlyinterferingwith the phonetic message.In CharlesDodge's Speech ongs, or

example,he

glottalwaveform

often changespitchin unvoice-like iscretesteps

141




and at a rate which could not be approachedby a humanperformer.For themost part, the texts of these songsareintelligible-despitethe "unvoice-like"behaviorof the fundamentalfrequencyn the sections to which I refer.How-ever, the nonhuman behaviorand the "weighting"of the information(rapiddiscretepitch changeon a singlevowel) draws attention to the nonphoneticaspectsof thesound-sometimes to the extentthat the vowel istemporarilyost.

Thisrestates he pointmadein the preceding ection:unvoice-like ehaviors

maydraw isteners'attentionaway romphonetic nformationavailablen asig-nal. Moreover,the reversecan also

apply:voice-likebehaviors

maydrawlis-

teners'attention owardaphonetic nterpretationf anambiguous ignal. Forarelatedexperiment, eeTsunoda1971).Both of theseinfluencesplaya role n the

strategies utlined below.

PHONETIC/NONPHONETIC PERCEPTION

I have distinguishedabove between voice-likesounds and sounds which cue

phoneticinterpretation. havealsopointedout thatanyutterancewhichcon-tainsphonetic nformation lso containsnonphonetic nformation. t ispossibleto go one step further to saythat those aspectsof a sound which determine

phoneticcontent (e.g. formanttransitions n stop consonant/vowel syllables)can, to an extent, alsobe discriminated n a purelysonicbasis.That is to say,listeners an,withinlimits,discriminate etween two signalswhichtheyidentifyasbeingthe samephonetically both identifiedas the syllablebi/, forexample)and which are dentical n everyaspectexceptn the exactstructureof their for-

mant transitions.Moreover,under certaincircumstances, signalcan be per-ceived-and discriminated-eitheralternativelyrsimultaneously sspeechand

nonspeech(see,forexample,Bailey,et al.1977).Whensoundsareheardas both

speechandnonspeechsimultaneously,he phenomenonis called"duplex per-ception" (Rand1974;IsenbergandLiberman1978;Liberman 979).

Thus it is possibleto derive two differenttypes of information,sonic and

phonetic,fromthe sameaspectof thesamesignal.This isso becauseof the con-

trastingnatureof the two perceptualprocesseshe listenerbrings o bear.Phoneticperceptualprocessingnvolvesattending o a moreor lesscontinu-

ous streamof sound as a carrier f separateand seriallyorderedphoneticseg-ments. This is notto saythat the sonicsignal s itself"spliceable"nto separatephoneticrepresentations.t isnot. Adjacentphonesof anygiven syllable reco-articulatedbythespeaker nd"interleaved"ntheresultant cousticsignal. SeeLiberman ndStuddert-Kennedy977.)Theacousticsignalsdecoded ntosep-arateandserially rderedsegments,however,by the lister.

Sonicperceptualprocessing,on the otherhand,does not usually nvolvethediscriminationnd"labeling"ofsegments.Althoughwe candiscriminatesepa-

rateeventsin the signal,and canrecognizethe orderof those events,we often

142




have no ready-madeystemof classification ithwhichto label them. Instead,"echoic" memoryretainsa recordingf a sound we havejust heard.Phonetic

memory,in contrast,retainsacodedrepresentationf asound.'

COMPOSITIONALSTRATEGIES

I statedat the outset that I wished to discusscompositional trategies y meansof which

composersnfluenceistenerso focus theirattentionon

speechsound

whilealsoreceiving phoneticmessage. specifiedhegoalassituations nwhich"listenersareawareof receiving specificandintelligible honeticmessage not

necessarilymorphemic),while thefocusof theirattention is primarilyon thesounds f speech-not only as cues for phonetically oded information,but as

timbres,pitches,durations."In lightof the distinctions havemade thusfar, tis clear hat this attentional ocusinvolvessomethingof a balancebetweentwo

perceptualprocesses.In listeningto ordinaryspeech, our attention is often

occupiedwith the processof decodingthe phoneticandsyntacticmessages o

the extent that we have ittle attentionalcapacityeftto attendto speechsound.Thus, inorder o promotethe dualattentional ocusI describe bove,the task sto drawthe listeners'attentioneither:

* AWAY rom the phonetic information n the signaland TOWARDthesonic information in the case of sounds which lend themselveseasilyto

phonetic nterpretation),r...

* TOWARD a phonetic interpretation in the caseof sounds which carrymuchsonic nterestand of whichaphonetic nterpretationannotbe easilyorcontinuouslymade.)

Moreover, as pointed out by Liberman(1979) and others, in order to hearacousticcues forspeechas sound ather han only asthe phoneticfeaturestheyrepresent,we must partiallycircumvent our specializedauditoryperceptualprocessesorextractinghe phoneticallyelevantnformationnspeechbyutiliz-

ing sounds and contextsat the borderof speechand nonspeech.While this is

clearlypossibleunder some experimental ircumstancesRand1974; Isenbergand Liberman1978), it is not at all clear to what extent this occurs in lessfocussedlistening ituations.

Whatisclear, s that the listeners'attention an be influencedassuggested nthe two approaches utlined above. I dividestrategieso these ends into twoclasses:

*Strategies which may utilize a SINGLE PHONETIC SOURCEwhichCONTINUALLY ends tselfto phonetic nterpretation.

143




*Strategies which may utilize MULTIPLE SOURCES (includingnon-phonetic sounds) and/or INTERMITTENTLY INTELLIGIBLE

phoneticmaterials.

The firstclassof strategies as itseffectby de-emphasizing r destroying he

relationship f the sounds to a hierarchicallinguistic tructureandby drawingthe attention nstead o thepurely onic nformation.Bythemselves, hese strat-

egiesare often lesscompellingthan the classtwo strategies,discussedbelow,and,iflisteners llowtheirattention o remainon the

elementaryinuistic nfor-

mation n thesignal, hey mayfind theseapproaches nrewarding.Eachstrategymaybe more effective-as in most of the examples ited-when combinedwith

otherstrategies.Classone strategiesncludeuses of:

* syntacticallynd/ormorphemicallymeaninglessext,

* slow-motiondeliveryof text,

* multiplerepetitionsof text.

SYNTACTICALLY ND/OR MORPHEMICALLYMEANINGLESSTEXT

Some of the earliestexamplesof this approach aken n this centuryare the

nonsensepoemsof the dadaistsand the Italian uturists.Manyof them organ-ized theirnonsensepoems sonicallybyworkingwithahighlyrestrictedphonetic

vocabulary.More recentexamplesof this techniqueincludeLigeti'sNouvellesAventuresorthreevocalistsand seveninstrumentalists(Example ).I also include n thiscategory ext "deconstructions" uch as DanielLentz'

Songsof theSirens nd Cage's62 Mesostics e MerceCunninghambecause thetexts-in theirfragmented orm-draw the attentionawayfrom the syntacticlevelspecifically ymeansof their ackof morphemicandsyntactic ontent.

It shouldbenotedatthispointthat,justas tispossible oratextto besyntac-ticallynonsensical r morphemically onsensical,a text mayalso conform to orviolatethe phonologicalconventions of a given language.Thus the nonsense

word"shtimp"would be "phonotacticallywell-formed" nGermanbut not inEnglish-"sh" does not precede"t" asan initialsound in English.Moreover,the set of phonetic sounds itself varies rom language o language with largeareasof overlap).Tongueclicks, orexample,arephoneticin some African an-

guagesbut not in European anguages.Thuseven the questionof whetherlis-tenershearphoneticnonsenseor nonphoneticvocalsound in agiventext maydependto some extent on the languageswith which they arefamiliar.A non-sense text may thus saya greatdeal about itself even without involvingmor-

phemically rsyntacticallyntelligiblenformation.

144




4 X ABRUPTO:

me*l,l"^t,ur rt_.I-

.8 120 ^" P. CS- 1

[Fl.utoe:mtot._

. pl. cclo]

rpre)

r5 r-

o------------.._ i----1 L

?ki K T Ji

.~,.,.. ' we,o,,..,T;.I !ts!b! r!gE!:A riLdr! ka! tjz!

Alt' .~s* ^t .,.o,b;ots (Ite*FOOP Alt:tB I.....

Haibti..oc, sempfevo so Mo.tt ,^YO. T,4Lt=. 2 .t.*ooA5W k-3e$| r '/ f -St r r

rate, 4t. ~ 4bJsIt ,e 1 *JfY\) At;t- ^ -

if je`/ .Y

' '

jP.W

; , e pW^ -1 - -

-'.1 - -

7; ^fd^? ^7 1 T h ' ^ f?Syi KrIP3-

?,! co!

(-AWr^ '

?-J

V?! kv!

b4l;B"F - - iQ P-^K_e, -ooasroE,_f v -." '~"~"~~.d.- -":' et,

EXAMPLE 1

SLOW-MOTION DELIVERY OF TEXT

Thisapproachs utilizedalongwith othertechniquesnsectionsof PaulLan-

sky's computer tape Six Fantasies n a Poemby ThomasCampion, n Charles

Dodge'sSpeechongs,n RogerReynolds'Still,andin manyotherpieces.A listenerattemptingto decode speech sounds phoneticallymust derive

phoneticcuesfromtransitionshich areobscuredwhen they occurat a signifi-cantlyslower-than-normalate.Moreover,"slow motion" speech provides is-

tenerswith a slowed rateof phoneticandsyntacticnformationand thusgivesthem the timenecessaryo "hearout" harmonics n the vowelsand,in general,

to focus on timbralnformation n the signal.

I ' S

B

OLB tko-I - yq ---- 'l _

145

;!t<L'kthae! ra!6k.i o!' s-- 'y!

[":



PerspectivesfNewMusic

MULTIPLEREPETITIONSOF TEXT

Perhapshe best-knownexampleof thistechnique sfoundin theopeningtoSteve Reich'sComeOut. Literalrepetition n some form, however,is a funda-mentalstrategyn alargebodyof worksincludingmanyof the text-soundcom-

positions availableon disc from Fylkingenin Stockholm (e.g. Lars-GunnarBodin'sForjon II)and nmuchAmericansound-poetry e.g.CharlesAmirkha-

nian'sJust).Even asingle mmediate xact

repetitionobjectifies recordedword or

phrasebyannouncing, n effect,thatthe exactlyrepeatedverbalization,with itsassoci-ated rateandrhythmof delivery,ntonationcontour,and voicequality, sitselfaunit-a "buildingblock"which canberepeated nddivided-rather hansimplya single nstanceof an infinitely lexiblediscourse.After one or morepresenta-tions, listenershaveabsorbedanymorphemicandsyntacticnformationn the

signaland are eft to listento the speechsound in the remaining epetitions. fthe repeatedspeechsegment s shortenough andis repeated orlong enough,the listenerwillinvoluntarily deconstruct" he text into itsacousticallyelated

elements.Again,the bestknown instanceof thiseffect s foundin Reich'sComeOut where the perceptual"streaming"is aidedby other strategiesdiscussedbelow. (Fora discussionof "streaming"-the perceptual egregation f acous-

ticallyrelatedelements within a continuous auditorysequenceinto distinct"channels"-see Lacknerand Goldstein1974). Repetition s thus used to callattentionaway romsyntacticnformation ndtowards heacousticnformationin asignal.

Whereas he firstclassofstrategiesmay

involveasingle

sourcecontinuouslypresenting phonetic materials, the second class makes use of OTHER

SOURCESand/orINTERMITTENTLYNTELLIGIBLEphoneticmaterials.These latter trategies rawattention o sonicinformationbymeansof:

* JUXTAPOSITIONS/TRANSITIONS between phonetic and non-

phoneticsounds,

* coordinatedSUPERIMPOSITIONS f phoneticmaterials,

* extreme TEMPORAL FRAGMENTATION and/or TEMPORALREORDERING,

* "SOURCE/FILTER"EFFECTS.

By variousmeans, these strategiesdrawour attentionto auditorysimilaritiesbetween sounds perceivedas phoneticand sounds perceivedas nonphonetic.Moreover,the marginal honeticintelligibilityf textspresentedn these man-nersminimizes the syntacticnformation n the signalandrequiresisteners o

146




payconsciousttention o the soundof phoneticcuesin theirattemptto decodeanambiguousmessage.

JUXTAPOSITIONS AND TRANSITIONS

(Juxtapositionsof and transitionsbetween phonetic sounds and non-

phoneticsounds-vocal, electronic,or instrumental-having imilar im-

bralcharacteristics.)

When we describethe acousticattributesnecessaryor a sound to be per-ceivedphonetically,we are, in general,describing haracteristicsssociatedn

musicwith timbre. Givencertainfairlybroadconstraints n fundamentalre-

quency,we can describesimplesteady-state ontinuants vowels,nasals, iquids... ), forexample,purely n termsof theirspectrum formant enterfrequency,formantbandwidth,relative ormantamplitudes, ndso forth).Fricativesan be

describedn termsof the bandwidthand the qualityof the noise-source,and so

on.By juxtaposing

orcreating

ransitionsbetweenphonetic

sounds andnon-

phoneticsoundswhich haveaudibly imilar imbral haracteristics,ome com-

posershavesoughtto callattention o the timbre f the speechsounds.

Threecompositionsby LucianoBeriowillserveasillustrations. equenzaI1for female voice employsa marginallyntelligibleEnglish-languageext alongwith sounds which arenonphonetic in English(suchas tongue clicks,hand-

over-mouth,and so forth)which drawattentionto vocalsoundaswell as text.

Similartechniqueswereusedbythe "Lettrists"and otherearly oundpoets. In

Berio'sCircles,ome of the unvoiced ricatives nd rolled r/ soundsin the voice

are imitatedandoverlappedby sustainedpercussion oundsof similar imbre.Berio'sphoneticnotation at thesepointsin both the voicepartandthe percus-sionpartmakehis intentionsclear(Example ). In theopeningsectionof Visage,Beriouseselectronics o imitate he "quasi-phonetic"ext. ThusBeriohasused

nonphoneticvocalsounds, instrumentalounds, and electronic oundsto imi-

tate the timbreof phoneticsounds, and thus to drawthe listeners'attention o

speechsoundas timbre.

Curiously,aninverseprocessalso takesplace.In the aboveexamples, he lis-

tener'sattention s drawnaway romphonetic nformation ndtosonic informa-tion in asignal.In caseswherethe signaldoes not readilyenditself o phonetic

interpretation, balancebetweensonic andphoneticperceptualprocessescan

sometimes be obtained by drawingthe listener'sattention towardaphonetic

interpretation.n GesangderJuinglinge,orexample,Stockhausen's ffortto uti-

lize an acoustic continuum between the sounds of a singing voice (at one

extreme)andnonphoneticelectronic ounds (atthe otherextreme)sometimes

resultsn amarginallyntelligible honetic"sense"to electronic oundswhich-

in anothercontext-would be heardas nonphonetic.The filteredwhite noise

147




lends tself o interpretationsspecificricatives ttimes,whileaggregatesf sinewaves become interpretables specificvowel resonances.Thereare numerous

psycho-linguistic xperimentswhichillustratehispoint.Theseexperiments ti-lize sounds which arenot-at first-interpretedby listenersas being phonetic.When the researchersskthe subjects o listen to the soundsasspeech,he lis-teners are able to interpretthe signalphoneticallyand report the intended

phoneticmessage Bailey, t al.1977;Rand1974;IsenbergandLiberman 978).

Byutilizinga continuum romphoneticto nonphoneticmaterials, tockhauseninfluences he listenerof

GesagderJiinglingeo listen

phoneticallyo sounds at

the borderlinebetween speechand nonspeech. (Stockhausengivesa generaldescriptionof the "continuum"he createdn his article"SpeechandMusic.")

+ tf--- .t

. i i.

I I I

I~~~a

b

.I""' b

I I _

Luciano Berio-CIRCLES? Copyright 1961by Universal Edition (London) Ltd., LondonAll Rights ReservedUsed by permission of European American Music Distributors

Corporation, sole U.S. agent for Universal Edition

EXAMPLE 2

-

iI I --I

148




COORDINATEDSUPERIMPOSITIONOF TEXTS

(Multiple extssuperimposedn such awayasto temporally lignspeechsounds which aresonicallysimilarbut differentphonetically, therebydrawingattention to a class of speech sounds-e.g. fricatives,vowels,etc.-while obscuring, o someextent, the phoneticmessage.)

Simplysuperimposingtexts does not necessarilycallattention to speechsound. Dependingon how it isdone, superimpositionmayresult n ajumbleof

unintelligibleor quasi-intelligible exts compelling no particularattentionalfocus. However, if the texts arecarefullycoordinated,so as to superimposesonicallyimilarphonetic materials, he resultingtexturemaylend itself more

easily o soniccategorizationhanto phoneticcategorizationndidentification.

InDavidEvanJones'sPassagesorchamber hoir,two pianos,two percussionandorgan,a limitedvocabulary f speechsounds-an artificial onsense"lan-

guage"-is divided nto threecategories-vowels,unvoicedfricatives, ndstopconsonants.Vowelsaresuperimposedon othervowels, fricatives n otherfri-

catives,andstopswith other stops so that the phoneticidentityof the speechsounds sobscured,while the soniccharacteristicsf eachcategorypitched eso-

nances (vowels), broadbandnoise (fricatives),rapidtransients(stops)) are

emphasized.As eachcategory ervesa differentunction n the musicalanguageof the piece,the resultingextures end themselvesmoreeasily o soniccategori-zationandinterpretationhanto phoneticcategorizationExample ).

TEMPORALFRAGMENTATION/TEMPORAL EORDERING

(Extreme ragmentationand/orreorderingof text by electronicmeans,

resultingn incompleteandambiguousphonetic nformation.)

Textselectronicallyragmentedand/orreordered(playedbackwards,multi-

pletextssampledalternately, ndso on) can be distinguishedrom"nonsense"

texts or "deconstructed" exts produceddirectlyby humansin that the elec-

tronicalterations ften result n soundswhichcannotbe producedbya human

vocaltract.Unlesselectronicfragmentation

sperformed

with theintentto avoid

electronic"artifacts,"nstantaneous rabrupt ransitions ftenresultwhichare

beyond the physicalcapabilities f a humanvocaltract.Similarly,while some

speechsounds (voweltransitionsorexample)canbe producedboth forwards

and backwards y a humanperformer,other speechsounds (suchasplosives)canonly be exactlyreversedby electronicmeans.Lars-Gunnar odin'sForJon

ILfemploys lectronicfragmentationlongwithrapid epetitionof segmentsand

othertechniques.

149



Perspectives of New Music

6 (

SI

S2

A I

A2

TI

T2

BI

B2

PIANOI

PIANO2

PERCI

PERC2

ORGAN

EXAMPLE 3

150




SOURCE/FILTEREFFECTS

(Useof anunusualglottalwaveform-e.g. vocal"fry"(creak oice),vocal

multiphonics,or (byelectronicmeans)acoustic/electronicources.)

As I pointedout above,anysoundwhichcan beinterpreted honetically lsohasanonphoneticcomponent-sonic informationwhichisnot directly elevantto the phoneticcode. In manylanguages, hanges n voicequality(e.g. raspy,harsh,whispered,etc.) andpitchdo not change he phoneticmessage tself.

Byemploying lottalwaveformswhichdisplay ttack nddecaypatterns,par-tialfrequencies, ndbehaviors f pitchandtimbrechangewhich areunusualor

impossible or the humanglottisto produce,composershavedrawn istenersofocuson information n the speechsignalwhich is not directlyrelevant o the

phoneticcode. Moreover, his"nonphonetic"focus seemsto transfer,o some

extent, to a nonphoneticfocus on formantresonances ndotheraspectsof thesound which determinethe phoneticmessage.This transfer f attentiondoesnot preclude he possibilityof phoneticandsyntacticntelligibility, ut it leaves

lessattentionalcapacity vailableo thistask.In Still,forexample,RogerReynoldsuses"vocalfry"extensively andslowsthe rateatwhichthe text is presented o well below normalspeaking ates).In

SoftMorning,City.,TodMachoverusesthe sound of a contrabass sthe glottalsource(bymeansof a "crosssynthesis" echnique)forsome fragmentsof thetextin the tapepart.In TheStoy ofourLives,CharlesDodge uses awidebandof

converginganddiverging inewavesto represent he "book voice" in his syn-thesized-speech ettingof MarkStrand'spoem. BengtEmilJohnson's3/1970;(bland) II ends with electronicallyrocessedocalsounds most of which retain

theirformantstructure andhencetheirphoneticidentity)while the timbreofthe source is significantlyaltered. Thus vocal, instrumental,and electronicsourceshaveallbeenusedforthiseffect. In eachcase,the marginalntelligibilityof the text is due partly o the above-cited ransfer f the listener'sattentionto

nonphoneticaspectsof the speechsignal.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

The aim of both classesof strategiesdiscussed above is to createa balancebetween attention directed to two perceptualprocesses-the phonetic and

auditory. n mostcases,thisinvolvesattenuatinghe listener's ocuson the syn-tacticcontent of the signalandcallingattentionto the soniccontent. In othercases, his nvolvescalling ttention o thephonetic nformationn asignalwhichdoesnot readilyenditself o phonetic nterpretation.Byattenuatinghesyntac-ticmeaning n a clearlyphoneticsignal classone strategies) r bymeansof vari-ous juxtapositions, ransitions,and

superimpositionsf

phoneticsounds with

151




nonphonetic sounds (class wo strategies), hese approachesallow us to hearoverly amiliarspeechsoundswithfreshears-even aswe continue o decode the

phonetic message.They make available o poets and composers"elements"

(speechsounds)which would otherwisebe "bound" in theirphoneticroles.

Althoughtheperceptualssueswhichleadto and from thestrategiesutlined

abovearecomplex,the realization f each of thesestrategiesspotentiallyquitesimple.This is only to saythat, in itself,it is not a significant ccomplishmentmerelyo havebrought he listener'sattention o speechassound;havingdone

this,most serious

composerstill ace undamental

questionsasto how to

organ-ize theirpieces.Toanextent,theparticulartrategieselectedbythecomposern

bringing he listener'sattention o speechsound involve concomitantdecisionson compositional rganization.Theselectionof strategiesmustbeguidedbythe

composer'sfundamentalattitudetowardsthe phoneticsegments n the piece,whether:

* to order the phonetic fragmentscompositionally (as, for example, in

Ligeti'sNouvellesAventures),nd/or...

* to highlightor to otherwise nteractwith apreexisting honeticorder(as n

PaulLansky'sSixFantasiesna PoembyThomasCampion),nd/or...

* to constructthe compositionparallel o (but with little regard or) the

organization fthephonetic egments n the text.

There existformidablepieceswhich takeeach of theseapproaches.However, a

discussionof the waysin which the perceptualssuesdiscussedabove relate o

thesepiecesand to thesegeneralapproaches equires separate xposition.

Concernwithrelationships etween soundandmeaning n languagesbynomeansaninnovationof the twentiethcentury.But the intensitywithwhich theword hasbeen dissectedand reconstructeds certainlyuniqueto this century.Let me close then with a briefquote fromVelimirKhlebnikov,one of the cen-

tury'sfirst"sound poets."

The wordlivesa doublelife. At times it growslikeaplantandproducesa

clusterof sonorouscrystals, hen the beginningof the sound takeson itsown life,while thatpartof reasonwhichwe call"The Word"remains n

shadow;at other times the wordplaces tselfat the serviceof reason; hesound ceases o be "omnipotent" andabsolute-it becomes "NAME"and weaklycarries ut reason'sorders.Thus, now reasonobeys sound,now puresoundobeyspurereason.It isastrugglebetween two worlds,a

struggleof two powerswhich is constantlycarried n in the heartof the

word,givinga doublemeaning o language:wo circlesof shootingstars.

(Hausmann,1969, 53)

152




It gives me great pleasureto acknowledgethe many helpfiul riticisms,com-ments,andsuggestions rovidedbyspeechresearcher r. MaryReginaSmith n

supportof mywork on this article.Anyerrorswhichmayremain,however,are

entirelymy responsibility.

NOTES

1. There arenonphonetic stimuli-such as tonal melodies-which, undersomecircumstancesanbeshownto becodedratherhanmerelyrecordedin memory. My discussion here focussesspecificallyon the differencesbetweensonic andphoneticperceptionsof speechounds.

REFERENCES

ARTICLES

Bailey,PeterJ., QuentinSummerfield,and MichaelDorman. 1977. "On theIdentificationf Sine-WaveAnaloguesof CertainSpeechSounds."HaskinsLab-ortoriesStatusReportnSpeech esearchR-51/52:1-25.

Hausmann,Raoul.1969. "The OptophoneticDawn." Studiesn theTwentieth

Century, :51-54.

House, A.S., K.N. Stevens, T.T. Sandel, and J.B. Arnold. 1962. "On the

Learningof Speech-likeVocabularies. Journalof Verbal earning ndBehavior

1:133-43.Isenberg,D., andA.M. Liberman. 1962. "Speech and Nonspeech PerceptsfromtheSameSound."Journalofthe custicalSocietyfAmerica4, Suppl.No.

1:J20.

Lackner,JamesR, and Louis M. Goldstein.1974. "PrimaryAuditoryStream

Segregation f RepeatedConsonant-VowelSequences."Journal ftheAcoustical

SocietyfAmerica56:1651-2.

153




Liberman,A.M. 1979. "DuplexPerceptionandIntegration f Cues:Evidencethat Speech Is Differentfrom Nonspeech and Similar o Language." NinthInternationalCongressfPhonetic ciences,ymposiumo. 8.

Liberman,A.M., andM. Studdert-Kennedy.977. "PhoneticPerception."InHandbookfSensory hysiology, ol. 8, "Perception," edited by R1Held, H.

Leiboweitz,andH.L. Teuber.Heidelberg:Springer-Verlag.

Rand,TC. 1974. "Dichotic Release rom Masking orSpeech."Journalofthe

AcousticalSocietyfAmerica4,

Suppl.No. 1:J20.

Remez, RobertE., PhilipE. Rubin,David B. Pisoni,and Thomas D. Carrell.1981."SpeechPerceptionwithoutTraditionalSpeechCues."Scince212(4497):947-50.

Ruppenthal,Stephen.1975. "Historyof the DevelopmentandTechniquesofSoundPoetry n theTwentiethCentury n WesternCulture."Master'sThesis,California tateUniversitySanJose.

Stockhausen,Karlheinz. 964. "Music and

Speech." Die Reihe6:47-56.

Tsunoda, Tadanobu.1971. "The Differenceof the CerebralDominance ofVowel Sounds among DifferentLanguages."TheJournalofAuditoryResearch11:305-14.

SCORES

Berio, Luciano. Circles, or femalevoice, harp, and two percussionplayers.London:UniversalEdition,1961.

Berio, Luciano. SequenzaII, for femalevoice. London: UniversalEdition,1968.

Gaburo,Kenneth.LinguaII: Maledetto,orsevenvirtuosospeakers.La Jolla,California:LinguaPress,1976.

Ligeti,Gy6rgy.NouvellesAventures,orthreesingers,andseven nstrumentalists.New York:C. F. Peters,1966.

Machover,Tod. SoftMorning, City!for soprano,double bass,and computer-generated ape.Paris:RicordiPress,1980.

SOUND RECORDINGS

Amirkhanian,Charles. ust. (Phono-disc)1750ARCH 1752.

Berio,Luciano.Circles.Phono-disc)WergoSchallplattenverlagmbH, WER60021.

154




Berio,Luciano.SequenzaII. (Phono-disc)WergoSchallplattenverlagmbH,WER60021.

Berio, Luciano. Thema(Omaggio Joyce. Phono-disc)Turnabout(Vox)TV34177.

Berio,Luciano.Visage.Phono-disc)Candide31027.

Bodin, Lars-Gunnar. orJonIII (TheyExtricatedheirExtremitiesplus orJohn)(Phono-disc)FylkingenRecordsFYLP1029.

Cage, John. Sixty-TwoMesosticsRe. MerceCunningham.(Phono-disc)1750ARCH 1752.

Dodge, Charles.Speechongs. Phono-disc)ComposersRecordings, nc., CRISD 348.

Dodge, Charles. TheStory fourLives.(Phono-disc)ComposersRecordings,Inc., CRISD 348.

Eimert,Herbert.

EpitaphirAikichi Kuboyama.Phono-disc)WergoSchallplat-tenverlagGmbH, WER60014.

Gaburo,Kenneth.Lingua I: Maledetto.Phono-disc)ComposersRecordings,Inc., CRI SD 316.

Johnson,BengtEmil.3/1970;(bland)Ll. (Phono-disc)SverigesRadio20-1.

Lansky,Paul. Six Fantasiesna PoembyThomasCampion.Phono-disc)Com-

posersRecordings, nc., CRISD 456.

Lentz, Daniel.Songs ftheSirens.Phono-disc)ABCCommandCOMS 9005.

Ligeti,Gyorgy.Nouvelles ventures.Phono-disc)CandideCE 31009.

Machover,Tod. SoftMorningCity!(Phono-disc)ComposersRecordings, nc.,CRISD 506.

Reich,Steve.ComeOut. (Phono-disc)Odyssey3216 0160.

Reynolds,Roger.Still.(Phono-disc)VitalRecords,Inc., VR1801-2.

Stockhausen,Karlheinz.Gesangderunglinge. Phono-disc)Deutsche Gram-

mophon138 811.

155

Documents

Compositional Control of Phonetic Non Phonetic Perception