Before we tackle the formidable "universal" qualifier, let us try and conceptualize what it means for something to be a language. How does one define a Language? The linguists among us would have undoubtedly belted out that Language can be defined at varying levels of granularity. Perfect! Let us explore this very granularity. It should follow intuitively that each level of granularity might reveal a proportionally granular analogy for music.
So...as all scientists must, lets begin with an absolute minimal construct for a Language. Lets for the moment, describe a Language as:
A system of symbols that encode/decode information. [1]
Thus, a Language is a Collection of Symbols which when chained together temporally, gains a sort of semantic "meaning" - the meaning, of course, being the Information that we wish to decode/encode. Furthermore, the Encoding Process can be abstracted to the action of translating “mental” information into a chain of symbols, and consequently the Decoding Process translates the chain of symbols into the original information. Do note that we are not restricting our definition of Language to being either written or spoken. The definition is extensible to both.
For the moment let us also assume that we expect translation to be a perfectly symmetric function i.e. no ambiguity in a particular concept being encoded to some chain of symbols, and then decoded back to a different concept.
Is this a reasonable enough definition of Language? For the moment, I will leave the educated reader to make his/her assessment. Lets move on.
Could this definition of Language possibly offer us an analogy for music? After all, it is so simple...so primitive in its articulation. Lets give it a shot:
Collection of Symbols -> All notes in the chromatic scale [note that I am making no attempt to restrict this to the Western Tempered 12-note scale. There isn't any need to]
Information -> People, Places, Events, Cultural and Social Archetypes, and perhaps the entire human Emotional Spectrum. Its a free-for-all.
Encoding Process -> Converting “mental” information into a sequence of notes
Decoding Process -> Converting the sequence of notes back into the original information.
As we did for our definition of language, we are not restricting this definition to written [staff notation] music or performed [audible] music. It should be evident that the definition is extensible to both for music as well.
Is this a reasonable enough definition of music? If not, where are the points of contention? If I were a betting man, I would bet that most of us had a uneasy reaction to that definition at the very least. The uneasiness is starring us all right in the face! The answer is in the encoding/decoding process. Can ANY concept be encoded into a string of notes, transcribed and then played/read by another to decode the original concept? The answer is a resounding HELL NO. Quite obviously, we have violated the symmetry assumption we made with our definition of language. So:
Knee-jerk reaction: This level of granularity in defining a language does not provide a reasonably analogous definition of music
And such a reaction would be completely valid. But I believe we have overlooked a rather crucial detail, one that I have purposely omitted. Is our definition of language complete? After all, the definition appeared on Wikipedia. The ardent linguists will have undoubtedly beaten me to the punch, but for the rest of us mere mortals, note that our definition of language said NOTHING about syntax, formal grammar, structure or anything of the like. It is because of our innate predisposition toward language that we assumed its existence!
Again, as scientists, unless explicitly specified, we cannot assume the existence of structure. Now, given our recent revelation can we encode and decode information effectively in language? Consider the following chain of letters from the alphabet: Addaminustoall.
What can one decode from this sentence?
"Add a minus to all" - Perhaps an instruction for adding a minus sign to all numbers in a mathematical expression
"Adda minus Toall" - Perhaps Adda and Toall are a couple, and only Adda is expected to attend a party?
...
My profuse apologies for the completely contrived [and moronic] example. But I think it illustrates my point. And as such we come to:
Embarrassing conclusion: Without structure, any string of symbols is ultimately doomed to ambiguous interpretation. As such, the above definition of language suffers the same fate as its analogy for music. Stated another way, both language and music require additional structure to encode information effectively - structure that our above definition doesn't explicitly provide.
Adding the necessary structure to our definition of language follows intuitively. But that's a topic I'll tackle in the future. For now lets go back to our reactions to defining Language and music as we did above. Did you have an adverse reaction to Language being defined in the above construct before I pointed it out? If so, how would you compare that, in degree and kind, to the adverse reaction you had to the analogous construct for music? Again, tantalizing my gambling-addiction tendencies, I would say that a fair majority would have a stronger reaction to music's definition.
Here's the kicker. We are all, in a loose sense, experts at language: we can communicate our thoughts with a high level of proficiency and application. Comparatively speaking, most of us novices at best at music; even those of us with extensive musical training. But its definition above set our spidey senses tingling...
As I said, there are some rather large fundamental concepts on both Language and music at play here, and that fully addressing them is outside the scope of this article. The intention of the article is to make the reader question his/her own assumptions and predisposition about music and language. But I will leave you with a teaser. One of the greatest linguists of our time, Noam Chomsky, popularised a concept called Universal Grammar[2]. This draws on Nativist Philosophical thought that maintains that principles of grammar, shared by all languages, are innate to human beings. That is to say, that the skills necessary to learn and understand language are a function of Nature rather than Nurture.
At this time, I will defer commenting on the Universal Grammar concept itself. I will however pose the question:
Given the symmetry we saw in the construct for Language and the analogous construct for music (i.e. both succeeded and failed for the same parameters) and our knee-jerk reaction to the analogous definition, does the concept of a Universal Grammar extend to music?
This is a question we will keep coming back to in these articles. And instead of making another...knee-jerk reaction, let us arrive at the conclusion by exploring the connection between Language and music more profoundly. It should be quite obvious that exploring Chomsky's Universal Grammar's applicability to music is intrinsically tied to exploring the validity of our initial hypothesis – is music a universal language?
Until next time...
----
Bibliography
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language [1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammar
