Abstract
The development of electricity, sound technology, electronics and computer science during the last 150 years has allowed the emergence of new kinds of musical devices. This paradigm shift from traditional to digital instruments has strong consequences for instrument identity and for the relationship between the musician and her/his instrument. Grounded in a situated cognitive linguistics perspective, this contribution first explores various definitions of the instrument (from general dictionaries and musicology literature) before analysing how members of the computer music community name and define their instrument/interface/device, etc. Analysing the different strategies of instrument naming used by designers and users of digital instruments and by authors in computer music literature allows us to study the on-going construction and negotiation of a new terminology. By highlighting the instability, the fuzziness but also the diversity of what an instrument is to these different speakers, these analyses contribute to a better understanding of the conditions of instrumentality in the digital era. More than just referring to a device, the notion of instrument rather qualifies the interaction with the users, thus allowing a new shift from the instrument as an ontological entity to an instrumental quality.
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
The ANR-2PIM Project in 2006–2009, involving music associations (Puce Muse, Grande Fabrique) and research laboratories (Labri, LAM, LIMSI, IRCAM, McGill).
- 2.
My own translation.
- 3.
For an extensive analysis see Cance et al. (2013).
- 4.
- 5.
All interviewees knew both the MI and the MM and had already used the MI and/or the MM before. As creators, developers, composers and/or performers, researchers, teachers or students from the conservatory, some of them combine different competencies and also use other devices they have or have not created themselves.
- 6.
Interface is defined in the field of computing as “a device or program for connecting two items of hardware or software so that they can be jointly operated or communicate with each other” (OD).
- 7.
Hedges in linguistics refer to all the markers of uncertainty used in discourse. In the following example they are underlined.
- 8.
All the “irregularities” in speech, such as hesitations, disruptions and false starts (truncated words, repeated words or syllables, etc.).
- 9.
Echoing the notion of “voiceless instrument” proposed by Bricout (2011) to take into account this particularity of the digital devices not generating sound by themselves but needing the computer and a specific algorithm to do so.
- 10.
These questions were also asked to JIM conference participants in 2009 (see Cance et al. 2013).
- 11.
Brunner in 2009 already developed a deep and sharp analysis of the “cultural implications embedded in the use and concept of instrument” in the computer music domain from a different perspective.
- 12.
Published in La musique et ses instruments in 2013, this paper was written in 2009 in the context of the CIM09 conference. Therefore the first analysis concerned prior publications.
- 13.
This is also the name of one of the main conferences in the domain: the NIME conference.
- 14.
Instrumental quality is here preferred to instrumental identity as it bypasses the ontological issue.
- 15.
This formulation alludes to Simone de Beauvoir’s famous “One is not born but rather becomes a woman.”
References
ATILF. (2016). Trésor de la Langue Française informatisé (TLFi). Nancy: UMR CNRS-Université Nancy 2. http://atilf.atilf.fr/tlf.htm. Accessed April 16, 2016.
Barsalou, L. W. (2008). Grounded cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 617–645.
Booth, G., & Gurevich, M. (2012). Collaborative composition and socially constructed instruments: Ensemble laptop performance through the lens of ethnography. In Proceedings of the International Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression (pp. 21–23), Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Bricout, R. (2011). Les interfaces musicales: La question des “instruments aphones”. Methodos, 11. https://methodos.revues.org/2493. Accessed April 16, 2016.
Brunner, C. (2009). A cultural approach toward the notion of the instrument. In Proceedings of the International Computer Music Conference (ICMC), Montreal, Canada. Montreal.
Cadoz, C. (1999). Musique, Geste, Technologie. In H. Genevois & R. de Vivo (Eds.), Les nouveaux gestes de la musique (pp. 47–92). Marseille: Editions Parenthèses.
Cance, C., & Dubois, D. (2015). Dire notre expérience du sonore: nomination et référenciation. Langue française, 188(4), 15–32.
Cance, C., Genevois, H., & Dubois, D. (2013). What is instrumentality in new digital devices? A contribution from cognitive linguistics & psychology. In M. Castellengo & H. Genevois (Eds.), La musique et ses instruments (pp. 283–298). Sampzon: Editions Delatour France.
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clark, H. H, & Wilkes-Gibbs, D. (1986). Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition, 22, 1–39.
Croft, W. (2009). Toward a social cognitive linguistics. In V. Evans & S. Pourcel (Eds.), New directions in cognitive linguistics (pp. 395–420). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
de Laubier, S., & Goudard, V. (2006). Meta-instrument 3: A look over 17 years of practice. In International Conference on New Interfaces for Musical Expression (NIME06), Paris.
de Laubier, S., & Goudard, V. (2007). Puce Muse – La Méta-Mallette. In Journées d’Informatique Musicale (JIM2007), Lyon.
Dournon, G. (1996). Guide pour la collecte des musiques et instruments traditionnels. Éd. rév. et augm. Paris: Unesco.
Dubois, D. (Ed.). (2009). Le Sentir et le Dire: Concepts et méthodes en psychologie et linguistique cognitives. Paris: Harmattan.
Eckert, P. (2006). Communities of practice. Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics, 2(2006), 683–685.
Hardjowirogo, S. (2016). Instrumentality. On the construction of instrumental identity (this volume).
Hutchins, E. (1995). Cultural cognition. In E. Hutchins (Ed.), Cognition in the wild (pp. 353–374). Cambridge: MIT Press.
McKean, E. (2007). New Oxford American Dictionary. New York: Oxford University Press.
Michaud-Pradeilles, C. (1983). L’organologie. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Mondada, L. (1997). Processus de catégorisation et construction discursive des catégories. In Catégorisation et cognition : de la perception au discours (pp. 291–313). Paris: Kimé.
Neufeldt, V., & Guralnik, D. B. (1994). Webster’s New World Dictionary Dictionary of American English. New York: Prentice Hall.
Rastier, F. (1991). Sémantique et recherches cognitives. PUF: Formes Sémiotiques. Paris.
Rey-Debove, J., & Rey, A. (Eds.). (2007). Le nouveau petit Robert: dictionnaire alphabétique et analogique de la langue française. Paris: Dictionnaires Le Robert.
Schaeffner, A. (1994). Origine des instruments de musique: Introduction ethnologique à l’histoire de la musique instrumentale. Paris: Editions de l’Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales.
Sève, B. (2011). L’instrument de musique: présentation du numéro. Methodos, 11. https://methodos.revues.org/2599. Accessed April 16, 2016.
Simondon, G. (1958). Du mode d’existence des objets techniques. Paris: Aubier.
Stowell, D., Plumbley, M. D., & Bryan-Kinns, N. (2008). Discourse analysis evaluation method for expressive musical interfaces. In Proceedings of NIME08, June 5–7, 2008, Genova, Italy.
te Molder, H., & Potter, J. (2005). Conversation and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Temmerman, R. (2000). Towards new ways of terminology description: The sociocognitive approach (vol. 3). Terminology and lexicography research and practice. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Acknowledgments
3DMIN project team and especially S.-I. Hardjowirogo, ANR 2PIM project, Puce Muse, LAM, S. de Laubier, H. Genevois, interviewees and A. Cristinoi for the proofreading.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cance, C. (2017). From Musical Instruments as Ontological Entities to Instrumental Quality: A Linguistic Exploration of Musical Instrumentality in the Digital Era. In: Bovermann, T., de Campo, A., Egermann, H., Hardjowirogo, SI., Weinzierl, S. (eds) Musical Instruments in the 21st Century. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2951-6_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-2951-6_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-2950-9
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-2951-6
eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)