Aspects of pitch in textsetting: a suprasegmental analysis of two Turkish versions of Franz Schubert’s Ellens Gesang III (D. 839)
-
Mine Güven
Abstract
Focusing on the interaction of linguistic stress with the poetic and musical meters, and the melodic contour, this paper provides a qualitative suprasegmental analysis of two Turkish versions (T1: Ah! Güzel yavrum; T2: Duy ey sevgili sesimi!) of Franz Schubert’s Ellens Gesang III (D. 839). The acceptability of Turkish lyrics despite the failure of T1/T2 to align stressed syllables with strong positions in the iambic feet points towards the relative insignificance of poetic meter. Based on an analysis of the 36 downbeats, alignment rates (the second German version [95.8 %] > the original German version [91.7 %] > T2 [66.7 %] > T1 [50 %]) suggest that factors such as word length and default final stress may have proven counter-productive for Turkish in stress-meter alignment. As long as musical phrasing is in conformity with linguistic phrasing, a melodic contour that mirrors phrasal/sentential intonation may reinforce intended meaning despite mismatched syllables. Singable lyrics need not exhibit absolute stress-peak alignment such that various degrees of mismatches may be tolerable, depending on factors such as melismatic versus syllabic notation, the relative duration of adjacent syllables, and whether or not the mismatch occurs at tactus level.
Appendix 1: Some features of the audio files
| T1 | G1 | G2 | T2_1 | T2_2 | T2_3 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total duration | 263.1 s | 375.9 s | 267.5 s | 420 s | 424 s | 424 s |
| Sampling frequency | 48,000 Hz | 44,100 Hz | 48,000 Hz | 44,100 Hz | 44,100 Hz | 44,100 Hz |
| Bitrate | 1,536 kbit/s | 1,411 kbit/s | 1,536 kbit/s | 2,116 kbit/s | 2,116 kbit/s | 2,116 kbit/s |
| Duration of the introduction (8 beats) | 17.62 s | 15.93 s | 13.06 s | 17.09 s | 18.27 s | 17.91 s |
| Duration of the refrain (5 beats) | 11.24 s | 9.45 s | 11.8 s | 11.6 s | 11.6 s | 12.03 s |
| Duration per beat (the refrain) | 2.25 s | 1.89 s | 2.36 s | 2.32 s | 2.32 s | 2.41 s |
Appendix 2: Some features of Syllable no. 31 in the versions
| Syllable no | Version/Stanza | Onset | Nucleus | Coda | Onset segment | Coda segment | Syllable type | Syllable | Word Stress | First note | Other notes | Note length | Length index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 31 | G1a | d | iɐ | – | obstruent | – | CV | dir | M | F5 | D5 | 16th | 2.7 |
| 31 | G1b | f | ɛ | ls | obstruent | c. cluster | CVCC | Fels | M | F5 | D5 | 16th | 2.7 |
| 31 | G1c | b | ai | – | obstruent | – | CV | bei | M | F5 | D5 | 16th | 2.7 |
| 31a | G2a | – | ai | – | – | – | V | ei- | I_2 | F5 | 16th | 1.3 | |
| 31b | G2a | n | ə | n | sonorant | sonorant | CVC | -nen | U_2 | D5 | 16th | 1.3 | |
| 31a | G2b | tr | aʊ | – | c. cluster | – | CCV | trau- | I_2 | F5 | 16th | 1.3 | |
| 31b | G2b | r | i | ç | sonorant | obstruent | CVC | -rig | U_2 | D5 | 16th | 1.3 | |
| 31a | T1a | ʧ | a | r | obstruent | sonorant | CVC | -çar | U_2 | F5 | 16th | 1.3 | |
| 31b | T1a | j | y | – | sonorant | – | CV | yü- | I_3 | D5 | 16th | 1.3 | |
| 31 | T2a | s | i | r | obstruent | sonorant | CVC | -sir- | PU_3 | F5 | D5 | 16th | 2.7 |
| 31 | T2b | ɟ | ɛ | ʧ | obstruent | obstruent | CVC | -geç- | PU_3 | F5 | D5 | 16th | 2.7 |
| 31 | T2c | v | a | z | obstruent | obstruent | CVC | vaz- | I_4 | F5 | D5 | 16th | 2.7 |
Appendix 3: An overview of the alignment of syllables with musical beats and poetic meter
| Strong position | Weak position | Well-matched syllables/total number of syllables | Percentage of felicitous alignment (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ✗ Unstressed | ✓ Stressed | ✓ Unstressed | ✗ Stressed | ||||
| G1 | 1st beat | 3 | 15 + 6 m | 6 | 6 | 27/36 | 75 |
| 3rd beat | 2 | 20 + 8 m | 3 | 0 | 31/33 | 93.9 | |
| 2nd and 4th beats | 7 + 4 mf | 22 + 15 m | 59 + 20 mf | 3 + 20 m | 116/150 | 77.3 | |
| 174/219 | 79.5 | ||||||
| G2 | 1st beat | 1 | 15 | 4 | 4 | 19/24 | 79.2 |
| 3rd beat | 1 | 19 | 1 + 1 mf | 0 | 21/22 | 95.5 | |
| 2nd and 4th beats | 11 + 5mf | 22 + 14 m | 37 + 20 | 15 m | 93/125 | 74.4 | |
| 133/171 | 77.8 | ||||||
| T1 | 1st beat | 6 | 2 | 0 | 2 + 2 m | 2/12 | 16.7 |
| 3rd beat | 3 | 6 + 1 m | 0 | 1 | 7/11 | 63.6 | |
| 2nd and 4th beats | 24 | 11 + 4 m | 21 | 12 + 2 m | 36/74 | 48.7 | |
| 45/97 | 46.4 | ||||||
| T2 | 1st beat | 12 | 10 + 2 m | 0 | 6 + 6 m | 12/36 | 33.3 |
| 3rd beat | 17 + 2 mf | 9 + 2 m | 1 | 2 | 12/33 | 36.4 | |
| 2nd and 4th beats | 30 + 4 mf | 6 + 8 m | 46 + 4 mf | 33 + 19 m | 64/150 | 42.7 | |
| 88/219 | 40.2 | ||||||
Appendix 4: Mean pitch of syllables no. 28–32 (in spoken and sung form)
| (i) | Mean pitch of syllables (Hz) in the spoken sentences | Duration | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T2a | Ko- | ru, | gö- | zet, | e- | sir- | ge | be- | ni. | 2,163 ms |
| 220 | 192 | 206 | 192 | 189 | 199 | 216 | 183 | 153 | ||
|
↘ | ↗ | ↘ | ↘ | ↗ | ↗ | ↘ | ↘ | ||
| T2b | Per- | va- | ne- | yim, | vaz- | geç- | mem | sen- | den | 2,082 ms |
| 198 | 198 | 222 | 195 | 179 | 184 | 184 | 207 | 270 | ||
|
|
|
↗ | ↘ | ↘ | ↗ |
|
↗ | ↗ | ||
| T2c | Bül- | bül | gül- | den | hiç | vaz- | ge- | çer | mi! | 1,940 ms |
| 233 | 254 | 254 | 256 | 247 | 233 | 229 | 172 | 250 | ||
|
|
↗ |
|
|
↘ | ↘ | ↘ | ↘ | ↗ | ||
| (ii) | Standard pitch of notes in the notation | (ms) | ||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
| 587–523 | 523 | 440 | 392–493 | 587 | 698–587 | 466 | 523…392 | 349 | 13,000 | |
| ↘ |
|
↘ | ↘ ↗ | ↗ | ↗ ↘ | ↘ | ↗ ↘ | ↘ | ||
| (iii) | Mean pitch of syllables in T2_3 and G1 (Recordings) | |||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
| T2a | 441 | 398–489 | 588 | 690–584 | 493 | 13,213 | ||||
| T2b | 449 | 401–490 | 592 | 697–581 | 475 | 13,104 | ||||
| T2c | 376 | 393–406 | 583 | 683–588 | 488 | 13,501 | ||||
| G1a | Soll | mein | Ge- | bet | zu | dir | hin- | we- | hen. | |
| 444 | 396–492 | 584 | 686–590 | 491 | 11,016 | |||||
Appendix 5: T2a (Stanza 1) indicating the weak and strong positions, the numbers assigned to each syllable (Sy), the downbeats (grey cells), the pitch movements (arrows) and the melodic peak scores (MPS)
| Weak | Strong | Weak | Strong | Weak | Strong | Weak | Strong | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sy | 1/69 | 2/70 | 3/71 | 4/72 | 5/73 | 6 | 7 | 8 | |
| Duy |
ey ↘ | sev- ↗ | gi- ↗↘ | li ↘ | se- ↗↗↘↘↘ | si- ↘↗ | mi ↗ | Rest | |
| MPS | – | 1 + 1 | 3 + 1 | 3 + 3 | 1 + 1 | 3 + 3 | 1 + 1 | – | |
| Sy | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| Dur |
din- |
le ↘↘ | sen- ↘ | den ↘ | di- ↗ | le- ↗ | ği- ↘ | mi ↘ | |
| MPS | – | 2 + 3 | 1 + 3 | 1 + 3 | 1 + 1 | 3 + 1 | 3 + 1 | 1 + 3 | – |
| Sy | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | |
| Ku- |
lak ↗ | ver ↘ | se- ↘↗ | ven ↗ | bu ↘↘ | kal- ↘ | be ↗ | ||
| MPS | – | 3 + 1 | 1 + 3 | 1 + 1 | 3 + 1 | 3 + 3 | 1 + 1 | – | |
| Sy | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 |
| Ko- ↘ |
ru |
gö- ↘ | zet ↘↗ | e- ↗ | sir- ↘↘ | ge ↘ | be- ↗↘↘↗↗↗↘↘↘ | ni ↘ | |
| MPS | – | 2 + 3 | 1 + 3 | 1 + 1 | 3 + 1 | 3 + 3 | 1 + 1 | 3 + 3 | – |
| Sy | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 |
| Sı- |
ğın- ↗ | dım |
se- |
nin ↘ | ı- ↗ | şı- ↗ | ğı- ↘↗ | na ↘ | |
| MPS | – | 3 + 2 | 2 + 2 | 2 + 3 | 1 + 1 | 3 + 1 | 3 + 3 | 1 + 3 | – |
| Sy | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | |
| Bu |
dün- ↗ | ya |
öy- ↘ |
le ↗ | za- ↗↘ | lim ↘ | ki ↘ | Rest | |
| MPS | – | 3 + 2 | 2 + 2 | 2 + 1 | 3 + 1 | 3 + 3 | 1 + 3 | – | |
| Sy | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 |
| Sen- |
siz- ↗ | sem |
in- ↗ | ler |
bu ↘ |
can ↗ | bu ↗↘ | ten |
|
| MPS | – | 3 + 2 | 2 + 1 | 3 + 2 | 2 + 2 | 2 + 1 | 3 + 1 | 3 + 2 | – |
| Sy | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | |
| Dur |
din- ↗↘ | le |
ya- ↘↘ | ka- ↗ | rı- ↗↘ | şı- ↘ | mı ↗ | Rest | |
| MPS | – | 3 + 2 | 2 + 3 | 1 + 1 | 3 + 1 | 3 + 3 | 1 + 1 | – |
References
Apel, Willi (ed.). 1944. Harvard dictionary of music. Boston: Belknap Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Boersma, Paul & David Weenink. 2024. Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 6.4.17. http://www.praat.org/ (accessed 16 August 2024).Suche in Google Scholar
Bolthouse, Colleen R.. 1995. Was ist Silvia? Englanderin oder Deutsche? Restoring the Original English Texts to Songs Schubert Set in Translation. A Lecture Recital, Together with Three Recitals of Selected Works of H. Purcell. G. F. Haendel. W. A Mozart. F. Schubert. J. Brahms. H. Wolf. F. Poulenc and Others Ph.D. dissertation, University of North Texas.Suche in Google Scholar
Deutsch, Otto Erich. 1928. The Walter Scott songs (trans. A. H. F. S.). Music & Letters 9(4). 330–335.10.1093/ml/IX.4.330Suche in Google Scholar
Domene Moreno, Christina & Barış Kabak. 2022. Prominence alignment in English and Turkish songs: Implications for word prosodic typology. In Mathias Scharinger & Richard Wiese (eds.), How language speaks to music: Prosody from a cross-domain perspective, 191–222. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110770186-009Suche in Google Scholar
Güneş, Güliz. 2015. Deriving prosodic structures. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Groningen.Suche in Google Scholar
Halle, John & Fred Lerdahl. 1993. A generative textsetting model. Current Musicology 55. 3–23.Suche in Google Scholar
Hartman, Charles O. 2015. Verse: An introduction to prosody. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Suche in Google Scholar
Hayes, Bruce & Abigail Kaun. 1996. The role of phonological phrasing in sung and chanted verse. The Linguistic Review 13. 243–303. (pre-print). https://doi.org/10.1515/tlir.1996.13.3-4.243.Suche in Google Scholar
Inkelas, Sharon & C. Orhan Orgun. 2003. Turkish stress: A review. Phonology 20(1). 139–161. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0952675703004482.Suche in Google Scholar
Jun, Sun-Ah. 2006. Prosodic typology: The phonology of intonation and phrasing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199249633.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar
Kabak, Barış & Irene Vogel. 2001. The phonological word and stress assignment in Turkish. Phonology 18(3). 315–360. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0952675701004201.Suche in Google Scholar
Kamali, Beste A. A. 2011. Topics at the PF interface of Turkish Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard University.Suche in Google Scholar
Ladd, D. Robert & Amalia Arvaniti. 2023. Prosodic prominence across languages. Annual Review of Linguistics 9. 171–193. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031120-101954.Suche in Google Scholar
Lerdahl, Fred & Ray Jackendoff. 1981. On the theory of grouping and meter. The Musical Quarterly 67(4). 479–506. https://doi.org/10.1093/mq/lxvii.4.479.Suche in Google Scholar
Levi, Susannah V. 2005. Acoustic correlates of lexical accent in Turkish. Journal of the International Phonetic Association 35(1). 73–97. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0025100305001921.Suche in Google Scholar
Malin, Yonatan. 2010. Songs in motion: Rhythm and meter in the German lied. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Minchin, Leslie. 1984. Schubert and language. The Musical Times 125(1699). 497–498. https://doi.org/10.2307/962809.Suche in Google Scholar
Özçelik, Öner. 2014. Prosodic faithfulness to foot edges: The case of Turkish stress. Phonology 31(2). 229–269. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0952675714000128.Suche in Google Scholar
Palmer, Caroline & Michael H. Kelly. 1992. Linguistic prosody and musical meter in song. Journal of Memory and Language 31. 525–542. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-596X(92)90027-U.Suche in Google Scholar
Patel, Aniruddh D. 2006. Musical rhythm, linguistic rhythm, and human evolution. Music Perception: An Interdisciplinary Journal 24(1). 99–104. https://doi.org/10.1525/mp.2006.24.1.99.Suche in Google Scholar
Temperley, David. 2022. Music and language. Annual Review of Linguistics 8. 153–170. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-031220-121126.Suche in Google Scholar
Temperley, Nicholas & David Temperley. 2013. Stress-meter alignment in French vocal music. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 134. 520–527. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4807566.Suche in Google Scholar
© 2024 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Research Articles
- A different kind of phrasal comparatives with a non-transformational Schönfinkelization in semantic composition: the case of Jordanian Arabic
- On the relation between negation and phases
- Aspects of pitch in textsetting: a suprasegmental analysis of two Turkish versions of Franz Schubert’s Ellens Gesang III (D. 839)
- The role of biased polar question particles in discourse: the case of Macedonian zar and neli
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Research Articles
- A different kind of phrasal comparatives with a non-transformational Schönfinkelization in semantic composition: the case of Jordanian Arabic
- On the relation between negation and phases
- Aspects of pitch in textsetting: a suprasegmental analysis of two Turkish versions of Franz Schubert’s Ellens Gesang III (D. 839)
- The role of biased polar question particles in discourse: the case of Macedonian zar and neli
