Debate: Is music a universal language?

Blan · 04-18-2016, 02:13 AM

Interesting question... seems like the kind of question that should be graded based on the quality of the answer rather than whether you answer true or false, for the reason's you've already stated.

If Universal means all humans, than you could probably argue yes (with the exception of the hearing impaired I guess, though Beethoven was deaf for some time, and could read and write music... ). If by universal you would include non-humans, than that makes it even less conculsive, but makes the question more "can a universal language exist".

As for what constitutes language... the obvious criteria would be whether communication is occurring... by that we might suppose we're talking about communication of ideas and/or concepts. That could play either way... most of us can hear a piece of instrumental music and independently interpret it to mean similar things ie. this music is cheerful... or this music is sad.... at the same time, some music might be much more contextual... what one person/culture might interpret as being celebratory, another person/culture might hear as threatening or aggressive. So as a means of communication instrumentally (independent of the aid of spoken language in the form of lyrics) I think that music fails the test of communication. It's also inconclusive whether music can be understood universally, or whether a lot of it is learned context for the meaning of certain kinds of scales/tempos/dynamics.... in contrast to facial expressions for example, which have been shown to be hardwired and universally understood by humans.

That said... Noam Chomsky... who is a linguist first and foremost... has a theory of the development of language that says that language isn't developed to communicate with other people, but is a left over evolutionary product that has more to do with how we think... it's tied into the way that we process information... for example the fact that we have to learn to read out loud, before we can learn to read silently.

If you want to make an argument for music as a universal language I think you would do well to look up Noam Chomsky's works on linguistics related to evolution of language, and make that a part of your argument, in order to counter the idea that language is primarily about communication... a criteria that is harder to defend in the case of music.

DeadChannel · 04-18-2016, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blan

Interesting question... seems like the kind of question that should be graded based on the quality of the answer rather than whether you answer true or false, for the reason's you've already stated.

If Universal means all humans, than you could probably argue yes (with the exception of the hearing impaired I guess, though Beethoven was deaf for some time, and could read and write music... ). If by universal you would include non-humans, than that makes it even less conculsive, but makes the question more "can a universal language exist".

As for what constitutes language... the obvious criteria would be whether communication is occurring... by that we might suppose we're talking about communication of ideas and/or concepts. That could play either way... most of us can hear a piece of instrumental music and independently interpret it to mean similar things ie. this music is cheerful... or this music is sad.... at the same time, some music might be much more contextual... what one person/culture might interpret as being celebratory, another person/culture might hear as threatening or aggressive. So as a means of communication instrumentally (independent of the aid of spoken language in the form of lyrics) I think that music fails the test of communication. It's also inconclusive whether music can be understood universally, or whether a lot of it is learned context for the meaning of certain kinds of scales/tempos/dynamics.... in contrast to facial expressions for example, which have been shown to be hardwired and universally understood by humans.

That said... Noam Chomsky... who is a linguist first and foremost... has a theory of the development of language that says that language isn't developed to communicate with other people, but is a left over evolutionary product that has more to do with how we think... it's tied into the way that we process information... for example the fact that we have to learn to read out loud, before we can learn to read silently.

If you want to make an argument for music as a universal language I think you would do well to look up Noam Chomsky's works on linguistics related to evolution of language, and make that a part of your argument, in order to counter the idea that language is primarily about communication... a criteria that is harder to defend in the case of music.

+1 for The Chom.

04-18-2016, 02:13 AM	#1 (permalink)
Blan Groupie Join Date: Apr 2016 Posts: 9	Interesting question... seems like the kind of question that should be graded based on the quality of the answer rather than whether you answer true or false, for the reason's you've already stated. If Universal means all humans, than you could probably argue yes (with the exception of the hearing impaired I guess, though Beethoven was deaf for some time, and could read and write music... ). If by universal you would include non-humans, than that makes it even less conculsive, but makes the question more "can a universal language exist". As for what constitutes language... the obvious criteria would be whether communication is occurring... by that we might suppose we're talking about communication of ideas and/or concepts. That could play either way... most of us can hear a piece of instrumental music and independently interpret it to mean similar things ie. this music is cheerful... or this music is sad.... at the same time, some music might be much more contextual... what one person/culture might interpret as being celebratory, another person/culture might hear as threatening or aggressive. So as a means of communication instrumentally (independent of the aid of spoken language in the form of lyrics) I think that music fails the test of communication. It's also inconclusive whether music can be understood universally, or whether a lot of it is learned context for the meaning of certain kinds of scales/tempos/dynamics.... in contrast to facial expressions for example, which have been shown to be hardwired and universally understood by humans. That said... Noam Chomsky... who is a linguist first and foremost... has a theory of the development of language that says that language isn't developed to communicate with other people, but is a left over evolutionary product that has more to do with how we think... it's tied into the way that we process information... for example the fact that we have to learn to read out loud, before we can learn to read silently. If you want to make an argument for music as a universal language I think you would do well to look up Noam Chomsky's works on linguistics related to evolution of language, and make that a part of your argument, in order to counter the idea that language is primarily about communication... a criteria that is harder to defend in the case of music. Last edited by Blan; 04-18-2016 at 10:02 AM.