![]() ![]() Despite the different design features, such as the arbitrariness of speaking and regular beat and discrete set of pitches in singing, the two domains share some further features, such as hierarchical structure and complexity ( Fitch, 2006). Cognitive processing of speech and singing is also specific for each domain, as shown in patients with amusia who have intact speech processing and patients with aphasia who have no impairment of musical capacities ( Peretz and Coltheart, 2003). Singing and speech differ in the use of vocal anatomy ( Sundberg, 1977, 2018), require different patterns of breathing ( Leanderson et al., 1987), and neuroanatomy of production and appreciation is likewise specific to each of the two domains ( Zatorre and Baum, 2012). Interestingly, both human and bird songs tend to employ similar descending/arched melodic contour despite substantial differences in absolute pitch and duration, which indicates similar underlying motor constraints across cultures and species ( Savage et al., 2017). Moreover, despite a vast variability across cultures, the function of specific kinds of songs (e.g., a love song) is cross-culturally comprehensible based on their structural form ( Mehr et al., 2018). In particular, when referential and emotional functions are introduced into an artificial communication system, the system diverges into speech- and music-like vocalizations, respectively ( Ma et al., 2019). It has recently been shown that speech and singing may have diverged from a protolanguage and split in two systems based on their communicative function. It also seems that prosody, the musical part of speech which conveys mainly emotional information, is rooted already in the origins of both spoken and sung vocal production ( Filippi, 2016 Brown, 2017). It is assumed that they have a common ancestor ( Brown, 2001, 2017 Mithen, 2005) which evolved into two specialized systems of structured vocal communication ( Lehmann et al., 2009). ![]() Speech and singing are among the most common vocal productions in adult humans and their presence seems to be universally shared across modern human populations ( Brown, 1991). Both singing and speech may indicate evolutionarily relevant individual qualities shaped by sexual selection. Different vocal displays function as “backup signals” cueing to attractiveness and body size, but their relation to sexual strategies in men and women differs. Similarly, shorter speech VTL and longer singing VTL predicted higher sociosexuality in women. Lower-pitched male speech was related to higher sociosexuality, while lower-pitched male singing was linked to lower sociosexuality. Male speech but not singing attractiveness was associated with higher sociosexuality. In men, physical size positively predicted speech and singing attractiveness. Lower-pitched speech in men, higher-pitched speech and singing in women, individuals who like to sing more, and singing of individuals with a higher pitch modulation were perceived as more attractive. F0, VTL, and rated attractiveness of singing and speaking voice strongly correlated within the same individual. Using a sample of 81 men and 86 women from Brazil and the Czech Republic, we investigated vocal attractiveness rated from speech and singing and its association with fundamental frequency (F0), apparent vocal tract length (VTL), body characteristics, and sociosexuality. We tested whether speech and singing function as “backup signals” that indicate similar underlying qualities. Both speaking and singing voice provides relevant information about its producer. Research tends to focus on speech but singing is another highly evolved communication system that has distinct and universal features with analogs in other species, and it is relevant in mating. Perceived vocal attractiveness and measured sex-dimorphic vocal parameters are both associated with underlying individual qualities. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |