rational organization of human societies. Darwin^7 also argued for a common origin, but
considered that music evolved out of the primate’s reproductive calls and that language was
first. Interestingly, most of the authors who addressed this issue in the book edited by
Wallin et al.^6 also seem to share the opinion of a common ancestor to language and music.
The concept that the first basic function of both language and music was to express emo-
tive meaning through variations in the intonation of the voice (intonational prosody) and
rhythm also seems to be an object of consensus.10–12In both language and music, emo-
tional excitement is expressed through fast, accelerating, and high-registered sound pat-
terns. In this again they join Rousseau,^9 who considered that the first languages were sung,
not spoken; they were aimed at expressing emotions, love, hate, and anger. They were
passionate before being rational.
Music and culture In Western cultures, music has evolved to become more and more iso-
lated from other expressive forms. Moreover, most studies in music cognition are con-
cerned with music perception, and music performance has received much less attention
(but see Ref. 13). By contrast, in other cultures, in which magical thought is still alive, the
bounds among music, song, dance, poetry, and rite have not been lost.14,15
Furthermore, ethnomusicological studies have often emphasized music as a voluntary
act: music is the acoustic result of action. Kubik,^16 for instance, pointed out that African
music is not just sound; action is an intrinsic part of musical performance. Motor patterns
are themselves sources of aesthetic pleasure, independent from the sound that they are
associated with. This strong intertwining between music and action is even reflected in lan-
guage, the same word being used in several African languages to refer to music and dance.
Blacking^14 defined music as ‘sound that is organized into socially accepted patterns’.
Moreover, he argues that every piece of music has its own inherent logic, as the creation of
an individual reared in a particular cultural background. However, his claim that patterns
of sound reflect patterns of social organization seems somewhat coarse and in need of fur-
ther elaboration. Still, in much the same way that a context-sensitive grammar is a more
powerful analytical tool than a context-free grammar, the cognitive systems underlying dif-
ferent styles of music shall be better understood if music is considered in context. Different
musical styles should therefore be considered not as ‘sonic objects’ but as humanly organ-
ized sound whose patterns are related to the social and cognitive processes of a particular
society and culture.
Cognitive perspective
Structural aspects Many definitions have been (and are still to be) proposed for language
and music. The amazing point, however, is that the definition given for music will often
apply to language as well, and vice versa. This is striking when we consider the comparison
between language and music from both a structural and a functional perspective. Arom,^17
for instance, proposed two structural criteria to define music. One is rhythm and the tem-
poral ratios that delineate a piece of music by the formalized segmentation of time. The
other is that all cultures have divided the sound continuum into discrete pitches that form
the musical scales. These two criteria may apply to language as well. Language is also com-
posed of sequential events that unfold in time with a specific rhythm and specific segmental
271