scat syllables and markedness theory.pdf

47
Scat syllables and markedness theory* Patricia A. Shaw University of British Columbia T here could be no more appropriate dedication to Jack: ou Swell (scat solo) ou swell 1927. Words by Lorenz Hart, Music by Richard Rodgers. Scat solo by Betty Carter, transcribed by William R. Bauer (2002a: 251). A highly creative domain between the prosodies of human language and the riffs of instrumental jazz is the dynamic vocal jazz idiom of scat. e present analysis proceeds from the observation that, despite the distinly individualistic approaches to scatting by renowned jazz masters such as Louis Armstrong, Betty Carter, and Chet Baker, the inventory of the semantically empty syllables used in scat is extremely limited in comparison to the rich range of combinatorial possibilities that define well-formed syllables in English. is paper explores the degree to which the form of scat syllables in the performance repertoire of various artists conforms to postulated universal markedness constraints on natural language syllables. Significantly, markedness theory plausibly accounts for a considerable range of the data. Nonetheless, certain systematic deviations occur. It is proposed that the relative markedness of such properties may be genre-dependent, funioning in scat to enhance musical form or modality. 1. Introduction Like the majority of human languages in the world, which evolved and persist as strictly oral traditions, scat emerged in the realm of musical genres as a vibrant, expressive, and exclusively oral idiom. However, unlike human languages, scat does not build on a consistent, conventionalized relationship between sound and meaning. Its essence is creative, improvisational vocal tract sound. Its syllables and sequences are evocative and emotive, but not denotative. There is no standardized or systematic interpretability to the musically parsed cadences of scat syllables. For example, the title of Louis Armstrong’s 1926 hit Heebie Jeebies has a consistent interpretation, verifiable across different speakers, as Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 27: 145–191 Copyright © 2008 Patricia Shaw * I am deeply indebted to Mike Fitzgerald, Kate Hammett-Vaughn, Ted Moore, Tyler Peterson, Suzanne Pittson, Fred Stride, and particularly Bill Bauer and Alan Matheson for their generous guidance. Special thanks to Walter Pedersen for his enthusiastic assistance with transcription and in tracking recordings.

Transcript of scat syllables and markedness theory.pdf

  • Scat syllables and markedness theory*

    Patricia A. ShawUniversity of British Columbia

    There could be no more appropriate dedication to Jack:Th ou Swell (scat solo)

    Th ou swell 1927. Words by Lorenz Hart, Music by Richard Rodgers.Scat solo by Betty Carter, transcribed by William R. Bauer (2002a: 251).

    A highly creative domain between the prosodies of human language and the ri s of in rumental jazz is the dynamic vocal jazz idiom of scat. Th e present analysis proceeds from the observation that, despite the di inct ly individuali ic approaches to scatting by renowned jazz ma ers such as Louis Arm rong, Betty Carter, and Chet Baker, the inventory of the semantically empty syllables used in scat is extremely limited in comparison to the rich range of combinatorial possibilities that de ne well-formed syllables in English. Th is paper explores the degree to which the form of scat syllables in the performance repertoire of various arti s conforms to po ulated universal markedness con raints on natural language syllables. Signi cantly, markedness theory plausibly accounts for a considerable range of the data. Nonetheless, certain sy ematic deviations occur. It is proposed that the relative markedness of such properties may be genre-dependent, funct ioning in scat to enhance musical form or modality.

    1. Introduction

    Like the majority of human languages in the world, which evolved and persist as strictly oral traditions, scat emerged in the realm of musical genres as a vibrant, expressive, and exclusively oral idiom. However, unlike human languages, scat does not build on a consistent, conventionalized relationship between sound and meaning. Its essence is creative, improvisational vocal tract sound. Its syllables and sequences are evocative and emotive, but not denotative. There is no standardized or systematic interpretability to the musically parsed cadences of scat syllables. For example, the title of Louis Armstrongs 1926 hit Heebie Jeebies has a consistent interpretation, verifiable across different speakers, as

    Toronto Working Papers in Lingui ics 27: 145191Copyright 2008 Patricia Shaw

    * I am deeply indebted to Mike Fitzgerald, Kate Hammett-Vaughn, Ted Moore, Tyler Peterson, Suzanne Pittson, Fred Stride, and particularly Bill Bauer and Alan Matheson for their generous guidance. Special thanks to Walter Pedersen for his enthusiastic assistance with transcription and in tracking recordings.

  • 146

    Patricia A. Shaw

    refering to a kind of nervous energy or a scattered uneasy feeling, the jitters. However, the sequence of syllables in the scat line in (1) would elicit no coherent consensual meaning.

    (1) Bars 57 of the scat solo by Louis Armstrong in Heebie Jeebies (1926)WRB: | duw daw diy duw d | diy d d dow diy | dow di dow duw duw | | duw daw diy duw d | diy d d dow diy | dow d dow duw duw |

    In a formal linguistic sense, then, scat syllables are semantically empty.Nonetheless, of considerable linguistic interest is their form. The present analysis

    proceeds from the observation that, despite the distinctly individualistic approaches to scatting by great vocal jazz masters, the repertoire of the semantically empty syllables used in scat is extremely limited in comparison to the rich range of combinatorial possibilities that define well-formed syllables in English. For example, two properties of the excerpt in (1) are immediately noteworthy, and, as it turns out, are robustly characteristic of scat vocables produced by a broad diversity of performers. First, consider the onset and coda structure of the scat syllables in (1): of the 15 syllables, all have a single consonant as onsetthere are no clusters, no onsetless syllables, and none has even a single consonant as coda. In other words, all are open CV or CVG syllables, despite the fact that English words are built on an inventory of combinatorial possibilities that readily sanctions codas, and allows quite extensive complexity within both onset and coda clusters, e.g. as [str...] and [...ks] in strengths [strks]. Secondly, not only do all the scat syllables in (1) have a non-complex onset, but in fact they all have the same consonant [d] as the syllable onset.

    As a means of comparison, now consider in (2) the structure of the syllables in another scat solo by Louis Armstrong from Hotter Than That, recorded 3 years later (cited from Reeves 2001 by Bauer 2002b: 308). Just as in (1), all the syllables in (2) are canonical open syllables: all have a single segment onset, none has a complex onset, and none has a coda. However, in contrast to (1), there are no [d]s. Rather, here all 16 syllables have [b] as their onset.

    (2) Bars 4954 of the scat solo by Louis Armstrong in Hotter Than That (1929)WRB: | boh b boh | ba b biy | b biy | bow b bow | b ba biy | ba biy | | b b b | ba b biy | b biy | bow b bow | b ba biy | ba biy |

    An independent measure of what hasor has notconventionalized semantic interpretability is reflected by which sequences of sounds are accorded entry as words in standard English dictionaries. Consistent with the particular example chosen here, heebie-jeebies is listed as a word in the American Heritage dictionary: slang. A feeling of uneasiness or nervousness; the jitters.. However, none of the various potential spellings of the scat syllables (de, dee, deh, di, dih, du, duh, doo, etc. ) are.

    The transcription line labelled WRB is by Bauer 2002b: 308; the transliteration beneath it follows the principles of phonemic interpretation in Appendix 1.

    The use of the terms onset and coda here does not entail the attribution of category or constituency status within a formal theory of prosodic structure. Rather, these are simply cover terms to reference (i) as onset, the string (possibly null) of segments between the left edge of a syllable and the Nucleus, and (ii) as coda, the string (possibly null) of segments between the Nucleus and the right edge of a syllable. The Nucleus is assumed to be an independent category node, which in English dominates a short vowel (V), long vowel (V), or diphthong (VG). C abbreviates consonant, V vowel, G glide, syllable.

  • 147

    Scat syllables and markedness theory

    In sum, two generalizations are strikingly evident from the data in (1) and (2). First, of the 24 consonants available in the English phonemic inventory, the only two used in these excerpts are [b] and [d]. Secondly, the syllable structure is consistently open, i.e. not closed by a coda consonant. To an extreme then, Louis Armstrongs repertoire in these citations exemplifies the fundamental premise of this research: scat draws on a very limited subset of the sounds and of the syllabic groupings that are regularly used in English.

    However, how representative are these generalizations? Is the favouring of [b] and [d] part of Satchmos own particular idiosyncratic style, or is this genuinely something that is broadly characteristic of scat? Whatyou are doubtless wanting to interjectabout the [] in shoo be doo? And to what extent do other scat singers use a more diversified and complex range of syllable shapes? What about codas? After all, who put the bop in the bop shoo bop shoo bop?

    A diverse sampling of vocal scat is investigated here, ranging from classic jazz icons like Louis Armstrong, Betty Carter, and Chet Baker to pop music song-writers/recording artists like Johnny Cymbal and Barry Mann, who in the early 60s wittily transported the playful and unmistakably sexy edginess of scat directly into their rocknroll lyrics. Across these artists, generations, and genres, the basic introductory observations about scat are consistently affirmed: the inventory of sounds used and their syllabic organization constitute a significantly small subset of the full diversity of available English options. The principal goal is to identify just what generalizations about phonological form hold within this body of scat data, and to explore various hypotheses that might plausibly explain why the particular patterns that are attested emerge in scat.

    From the perspective of linguistic theory, the observations are evaluated in the context of postulated universal constraints on articulatory phonetics and phonological markedness. Interestingly, a considerable range of the data is plausibly accounted for by markedness theory. Equally interesting is the finding that certain systematically attested scat properties run directly counter to markedness expectations. The highly marked, yet robustly attested status of these characteristics suggests that over-riding the body of linguistic constraints on the scat phonological system are competing constraints on scat as a musical performance genre, constraints that function to enhance the melodic pitch contour, the musical phrasing, the auditory interpretation, or the distinctive trademarking of individual artistic style. What results from this analysis is a unique perspective into the structural and performative interface of two complex systems of human vocal expressionmusic and languageeach subject to distinct sets of constraints and conventions, sometimes convergent and sometimes conflicting, but ultimately combining in the creative exuberance of scat.

    1.1. Purview

    The analyses in 2 below are sequenced with respect to the recording date chronology. Beginning with the seminal 1926 Heebie Jeebies recording, the full context of the Louis Armstrong scat solo from which the three-bar excerpt in (1) was drawn is explored Barry Mann and Gerry Goffin did, in their 1961 hit single, Who Put the Bomp?

  • 148

    Patricia A. Shaw

    in 2.1. This is then compared to the phonological properties of a 1929 rendition of Hotter Than That. In 2.2, the focus shifts to Chet Baker (1955; 1989), an icon of consonantal minimalism. In contrast, Betty Carters repertoire, representatively examined (1955; 1979) in 2.3, introduces a considerably expanded consonantal inventory. Through the subsequent decades, these two artistsChet Baker and Betty Carterremained committed to the vocal jazz idiom of scat despite a significant shift in the general publics musical interests away from bebop. For each, a comparison of performances recorded nearly a quarter century apart provides an interesting measure of individual creative evolution, as well as of particular consistencies despite dramatic shifts in the musical and cultural backdrop of the latter half of the twentieth century.

    Although the popularity of bebopthe jazz medium that had become virtually synonymous with scathad significantly declined by the 60s, the vocabulary of scat itself surged into a different realm of wide-spread prominence in that same period: the American Hit Parade. As seen in 3.1 and 3.2, in major hits by recording artists like Barry Mann (1961) and Johnny Cymbal (1963; re-recorded by ShaNaNa in 1980), canonical scat syllables are directly imported into lyrics like Who Put the Bomp in the Bomp bah Bomp bah Bomp? Here scat is explicitly objectified, transported, and incorporated into a different and evolving musical genre. Although bereft of its improvisational core, this

    embedded scat phenomenon carries forward the continuing identification of scat as infectiously fun and irresistibly seductive. Despite rife competition for cornering the sex appeal market from a burgeoning and rapidly diversifying popular music scene in America, it was scat (the bop, the dip, and the rama lama ding dong) that made my baby fall in love with me, yeah!! By 1963, Mr. Bass Mans baw b b baw b baw b baw baw had elevated him to being the hidden King of RocknRoll ( Johnny Cymbal 1963), and scat had clearly spread from bebop jazz to become established in the RnR mainstream as eminently cool.

    1.2. Methodology

    Transcriptions of the body of scat data that informs the present study are presented in Appendix 2. With a few notable exceptions, particularly Bauer (2002a, b), there is a paucity of formal documentation of scat, and the diverse original sources that have been drawn on here differ considerably in transcription conventions and rigour.

    Bauers work constitutes an immensely detailed and valuable resource: in the extensive Appendix (2002a: 245343) to his outstanding contribution to the study of Betty Carters musical genius, Bauer provides a full transcription in musical notation of Carters melodic line, synchronized with the lyrics, for 15 tunes. Of these, six incorporate scat vocables, phonologically transcribed by Bauer in Trager-Smith notation. The two chosen for the analysis in 2.3 allow a comparison across a 24-year time frame stretching from 1955 to 1979. As well as Bauers Betty Carter material, the present analysis also incorporates his transcription (2002b) of Louis Armstrongs Heebie Jeebies and his

  • 149

    Scat syllables and markedness theory

    citation of Reeves (2001) transcription of bars 4955 of Louis Armstrongs Hotter Than That scat solo. Note, however, that the Trager-Smith system adopted by Bauer has been transliterated here, following the transcription conventions detailed in Appendix 1.

    Two other helpful sources were Kernfelds (1995) transcription of Armstrongs Hotter Than That and Bastians (Bastian and Alexander 1995) transcriptions of Chet Bakers scat solos. As both these writers used different non-standardized representations (duh, day, doe, etc.) that were ambiguously interpretable, these were re-transcribed from audio files of the original recordings, following the principles in Appendix 1. This re-transcription is directly paired with the source transcriptions in Appendix 2.

    For the other songs (3.1, 3.2), the transcriptions presented here are novel. It is worth foregrounding the complexity and relatively narrow focus of this task. Because the goal is to relate the articulatory expression of these singers to the range of phonological parameters that typologically characterize natural language systems, many features of the sophisticated manipulations of vocal tract sound are not represented in the relatively broad transcription system adopted here. Further, individual perceptions of the appropriate categorization of a constantly mutating cadence of vocables into segmental values may differ, as discussed in detail in Appendix 1. Given the paucity of literature on linguistic properties of scat, this preliminary study will hopefully open the door to further research into the nature of this interface.

    2. The Phonological Properties of Scat

    The analytical goal in this section is to examine the phonological inventory of onsets and codas in the scat syllables of the tunes documented in the database in Appendix 2, as well as to determine general properties of syllable shape in the output. Some challenges related to the fluidity of the medium or of individual expression are raised in the discussion of particular performances below. More general methodological issues pertaining to the classification of syllabic form are presented in Appendix 1.

    2.1. Louis Armstrong

    Of Louis Armstrongs vast repertoire, an examination of two of his recordings from the early heydey of jazz in the 1920s serves here to establish a frame of reference both for Armstrongs own style and for subsequent diachronic developments in scat. Reeves, Scott. 2001. Creative Jazz Improvisation. 3d ed. Upper Saddle River, J.J.: Prentice-Hall. This resource was not available to me, and hence is cited only through Bauers (2002b) reference.

    These were re-transcribed independently by myself and by a research assistant with both musical and linguistic training. Where there was variance in the transcriptions, either between us and/or with cited sources (e.g. 2.2), I assume sole responsibility for the interpretation adopted in this analysis.

    Thus, the present focus is on consonantal patterns. For analysis of vowel quality in scat syllable nuclei, the interested reader is referred to Bauer (2002b), which presents detailed discussion of vocalic timbre.

  • 150

    Patricia A. Shaw

    2.1.1. Louis Armstrong, Heebie Jeebies (1926)

    Even a cursory look at the first 4 non-lexical syllables ([e iyf gf mf]) that lead into the scat solo of Heebie Jeebies (see Appendix 2.1.1) suffices to identify them as unusual in comparison with the syllabic patterns which follow. Therefore, the analysis below focuses first on the subsequent 48 syllable tokens.

    The chart in (3) summarizes the findings about simplex syllable onsets. Consonants which are attested in onset position are in white cells, along with their raw frequency count. Possible, but unattested, onset consonants appear in shaded cells. Additional information about onsetless syllables and cluster behaviour is on the right.

    (3) Onsets: p t k No Onset: /b = d = g Onset clusters: sk =

    f s hv z m n

    l = r = y wViewed against the full backdrop of the 24 consonants which can function as syllable onsets in English, the fact that 20 (83.3) are not used at all (viz. the shaded grey cells) clearly underscores the initial premise that scat is highly selective in its segmental inventory. Of the four segments [d, b, l, r] that do appear as onsets, [d] is the clear favourite, initiating 37 of the 48 syllables (77.1). As one might expect from the discussion in 1, the runner-up is [b] and although it trails far behind with only five appearances (10.4), its occurrence is nonetheless salient. The liquids [l] and [r] make an early appearance in syllables 5 and 7 respectively of this set of 48, followed very shortly (beginning with 3 of bar 4) by a running stream of 19 consecutive [d]-initial syllables.

    Markedly heralding the start of a new phrase in bar 8, an initial [b] breaks the [d]-only alliteration, leading into an alternating b-d-b-d-d sequence. Then, after this cascade of 22 [d] onsets with only two [b] onsets having disrupted the auditory flow, in bar 9 the only consonant cluster hits: [sk]. Its alliterative sequencing (three in a row), its timing, and its composition all contribute to its striking impact. Nothing has primed the listener for an [sk] cluster. Although [sk] is not at all an uncommon English onset, in the context of the segmental composition of Louis Armstrongs scat sequence here, it is totally deviant: neither [s] nor [k] occur anywhere else, either before or after, and it has unique status as the only onset cluster. Frequency, then, is significantnot only at the high end in terms of ascertaining what segments might most commonly appear in scat vocalization, but also at the low end in terms of observing what segments and/or combinations are drawn on only very rarely, to powerful effect.

    Although the vast majority of syllables in the Heebie Jeebies solo are open (39/48 = 81), the identity and frequency of the attested coda consonants is shown in the chart in (4). Of the 21 possibilities, only three appear, with [p] being the most common. Note that there is no overlap at all in the identity of the consonants that occur as onsets

    As post-vocalic [w] and [y] appear only in diphthongs, they are not counted as possible codas.

  • 151

    Scat syllables and markedness theory

    [d, b, l, r, sk] and those that occur as codas [p, m, t]. This is patently not an inherent characteristic of English (cf. words like pad, tab, mask, etc.), but will be seen to be a common characteristic, particularly of obstruents, in scat.

    (4) Codas: p = t = k No Coda: /b d g Coda clusters: f s v z

    m = n []l r (y) (w)

    A final question is whether any particular syllabic forms, from a wholistic perspective, are preferred. In this 48-syllable sample, there are three favoured shapes: nine tokens of [d], eight each of [diy] and [duw]. Aside from these, there is remarkably little repetition of exactly the same phonological form in the residual 23 syllables. The frequency counts of the particular scat shapes are given in the following table:

    (5) Frequency/ Syllable form Frequency/ Syllable form (18.8) d (4.2) dp, daw, b (16.7) diy, duw

    (2.1)biy, bam, bp, duwt, dey, la, rp, p, skiyp skm, sk (6.2) d, dow

    Having established this body of generalizations about onsets (3), codas (4), and over-all syllabic form (5), let us return to formally consider the properties of the introductory four syllables: [e iyf gf mf]. Clearly the initial impression that these four syllables are unusual in the context of the entire scat sequence is indeed validated. Three of the four are onsetless, compared to only one of the 48 syllables that follow. The only onset consonant, [g], is unique: this segment appears nowhere else in the full scat database examined here. With respect to codas, note that there are no coda clusters anywhere else in the work, whereas this introductory sequence ends emphatically with an [mf] cluster. Moreover, the last three of these four syllables reiterate the coda [f]: not only are codas relatively infrequent in the rest of the work (there are only nine codas in 48 syllables: 18.7), but the particular segment [f] is unattested elsewhere as either a coda or an onset. Louis Armstrongs choice of such unusual scat form in this quadra-syllabic bridge functions dramatically to grab the listeners attention as Armstrong moves from the preceding English lyrics invoking everyone to cmon and do the Heebie Jeebies dance to settle into the full-blown canonical scat syllables that follow.

    2.1.2. Louis Armstrong, Hotter Than That (1929)

    The second Louis Armstrong tune analyzed here is the much longer 165 syllable scat solo from Hotter Than That (see Appendix 2.1.2), from which the excerpt cited earlier

  • 152

    Patricia A. Shaw

    in (2) was taken. Whereas bars 4954, as seen in (2), draw exclusively on a sequence of [b]-initial syllables, a full count of onsets throughout the solo shows that [d] (= 78) is in fact used more frequently than [b] (= 57). [d] and [b] are by far the most prevalent onset consonants, with [b] exceeding the next ranked candidate [w] by a difference of 49.

    (6) Onsets: d (), b (), w (), l (), r (), n (), m (), y (), h (), t () No Onset: / Onset clusters: zw (), mw (), bw ()

    Even in this work where the inventory of onsets stretches to 10 different segments, consistent patterns recur. For example, the four onsets attested in Heebie Jeebies, viz. [d, b, l, r] are all included within this larger set. Of the residual segments, all are attestedthough with low frequencyin the other scat data investigated here, except [t]. The occurrence of [t] as an onset is unique not only in this song (in the second syllable of the otherwise uniform [d]-initial syllables in line BK), but also in the entire sample of scat repertoire studied here.

    Moving to a consideration of the onset clusters attested in Hotter Than That, we encounter an interesting trio: [zw] (time 2:02), followed in the same line by [mw] and shortly thereafter by [bw]. Not only are none of these found elsewhere in the present database, but none of these /Cw/ sequences is part of the standard repertoire of English syllable onsets. Louis Armstrong here is clearly deviating from the canonical constraints on English well-formedness, and Native English listeners would, of course, attend to such novelty immediately. The hypothesis to be advanced here is that such cases illustrate a domain of tension between linguistic form and musical expression, where enhancement of the latter is achieved by violation of markedness constraints on the former.

    Consider next the coda inventory:(7) Codas: p (), t (), m (), (), n (), l (), g () No Coda: / Coda clusters:

    As was the case in Heebie Jeebies, most (76.4) of the syllables in this tune too are open. Although there is somewhat greater segmental diversity in the coda repertoire, it is still very limited: only six of the 21 possible consonantal codas are attested. There are no coda clusters. Interestingly, the three coda segments ([p, t, m]) that appear in Heebie Jeebies constitute a proper subset of the larger coda inventory here, with [p] again being significantly more frequent (2.75 times more; 52.4 of coda attestations) than its closest contender [t] (19.0). Three syllables in this work are realized exclusively as a syllabic []. Apart from these cases, [m] functions once as an onset (see (6)) and three times as a post-vocalic coda. Interestingly all instances of [] follow a coda [w] or a [u] in the preceding syllable. The shared labial gesture across this sequence is a kind of harmonic pattern which recurs in various forms in other case studies below.

    Although [d] is attested as an onset segment 20 more times than [b], when one looks at which full syllable shapes recur most frequently, the two are pretty comparable:

    For space reasons, for the rest of the discussion attested consonants will not be contextualized within the full inventory of English as in (3) and (4), but will simply be listed in rank order of frequency.

  • 153

    Scat syllables and markedness theory

    [ba] edges out [d] by a count of 16 to 15. [bi] in its variant realizations (i.e. with length and/or homorganic glide) is tied with [da] at twelve occurrences each, then the favoured [d] takes over in the next most frequent syllables [di] and [du].

    (8) Frequency/ Syllable form Frequency/ Syllable form (9.7) ba (6.7) di ~ di ~ diy (9.1) d (4.8) du ~ du ~ duw (7.3) bi ~ bi ~ biy, da

    Note that none of the most common syllables here have front/back lax or front/back mid vowels.

    2.2. Chet Baker

    Among the major scat artists through the decades, Chet Baker is renowned for the extreme minimalism of the consonant set that forms the basis for his scat improvisations. A comparison of different takes of the same tune, Everything Happens to Me, recorded more than three decades apart (1955 compared with 1989), illustrates remarkable consistency in the consonantal repertoire employed, despite major differences in the melodic and rhythmic structure.

    Transcriptions of the eight-bar scat bridge in these two versions are given in Appendix 2.2.1 and 2.2.2. Although Jim Bastians transcriptions (labelled JB) and my own (labelled PAS) differ in orthographic form, they are generally consistent in those features relevant to the present focus. However, two domains of difference merit comment.

    One pertains to vowel quality: Chet Bakers vocalization is extraordinarily mobile. The looseness and fluidity of movement in Bakers vocalic articulation present significant challenges, such that the transcribed values that I propose are at best an approximation of a nuclear target range within the interconsonantal domain. What emerges most reliably is a general pattern of lax quality (primarily [ ]) and the predominant openness of syllabic form.

    The second notable difference between Bastians notation and mine pertains to consonants. Whereas Bastian remarks on the fact that Chets scat vocabulary made predominant use of syllables beginning with the letter D (Bastian and Alexander 1995: 4), not all [d]s are distinctly articulated with a full stop closure. In a number of cases, what is phonetically realized is the corresponding fricative []. For example, the AIF wave file in (9) from the 1955 version (time = [2:37.62.38.4]) shows a sequence of two syllables,

    Whereas Bastians orthographic interpretation is English-like, e.g. ee for [i], the transcription I offer follows the principles in Appendix 1, with explicit representation of the more prominent glides but otherwise just length on the tense vowels.

    A discrepancy in bar 6 of the 1989 version is that JB documents 2 more syllables than I am able to discriminate. The present analysis is based on my total count of 53 syllables vs. Bastians 55. However, the strength of the generalizations is statistically robust, regardless of the difference in syllable count.

  • 154

    Patricia A. Shaw

    the first with a clear [d] stop closure attack in comparison with the lack of full closure [] in the onset of the second syllable:

    (9)

    JB: d eh d eh PAS: d This tendency is much more prevalent in the 1955 version, where of the 42 D

    onsets, 13 are realized as []. In the 1989 version, only one of 45 Ds is. It is entirely plausible that the phonological target in cases like the second consonantal onset in (9) is indeed a /d/, as consistently represented in Bastians transcriptions, but that its lenition to the smooth, non-punctuated continuant [] may reflect Chet Bakers airy, almost weightless, romantic crooner style, disarmingly characterized as being sweet talked by the void (Bastian and Alexander 1995: 4).

    Invoking Sapirs (1933) psychological reality of the phoneme argument, the hypothesis advanced here is that Bastians perceived D is interpretable as a more abstract level of representation, i.e. phonemic /d/, and that its sometimes lenited non-plosive phonetic realization as [] is a phonologically non-distinctive, surface level articulation. Consistent with this interpretation is the broad-based generalization in 1 that [d] is part of the standard scat repertoire; [] is not otherwise attested in any of the scat pieces by other artists studied here. In the analyses that follow, then, Bakers [] articulations are taken to be epiphenomenal and are not independently represented in his scat inventory.

    2.2.1. Chet Baker, Everything Happens to Me (1955)

    The onset repertoire of the early (1955) version of Everything Happens to Me reveals a highly skewed frequency distribution:

    (10) Onsets: d (), y (), b (), h () No Onset: / Onset clusters: Ambisyllabic [t] coda/onset: /

    Similar to what was seen in Louis Armstrongs rendition of Heebie Jeebies (2.1.1), where [d] initiates 37 of the 48 syllables (77), here /d/ accounts for 77.8 (42/54) of the onsets. Concomitantly, the relative infrequency of the residual segments raises questions as to their distribution and functional load. The next most frequent onset is [y]; it occurs only three times (3/54). Interestingly, the distribution of these markedly less frequent segments is often melodically significant. For example, both [h] and [b]which occur only once each

    The evaluation of No Onset status is challenged by Bakers fluidity of articulation. Specifically, there are six cases in Baker 1955 and three in Baker 1989 where a coda [t] precedes a syllabic []: as the [t] is interpretable as an ambisyllabic transition creating an onset for [], these are not counted as No Onset.

  • 155

    Scat syllables and markedness theory

    appear in particularly prominent prosodic positions. Each is phrase-initial: the only occurrence of [h] introduces the second major phrase in bar 3, and the sole instance of [b], in the up-take into bar 7, initiates the final phrase of the scat bridge.

    Summarized in (11), the coda inventory is even more minimal.(11) Codas: t (), (), n () No Coda: / Coda clusters:

    Combining the consonantal repertoires of (10) and (11), we see that Bakers 1955 improvisation utilizes a mere six segments from the full English set of 24 options: 25 of the available inventory.

    As observed in the previous works, here too there is a strong preference for open syllables (39/54 = 72.2). However, in contrast to Louis Armstrong, for whom [p] was the most frequent coda, Chet Baker does not use [p] at all, in either of the two scat performances examined here. Rather, his codas are exclusively alveolar [t, n], with [t] beingthe more prevalent.

    Somewhat parallel to the trans-syllabic gestural continuity of the feature [labial] leading into [] in Louis Armstrongs Hotter Than That, there is a consistent homorganic pattern observed in the distribution of [] in Bakers scat. Specifically, all instances of [] are immediately preceded by a homorganic coda [t]. Further, all cases of coda [n] or [] are followed by a homorganic /d/ onset of the subsequent syllable.

    In terms of syllable shape, Chet Bakers preferred forms in this 1955 take are syllables where his near-ubiquitous /d/ combines with a non-low, non-high lax vowel:

    (12) Frequency/ Syllable form (35.2) d() ~ () (16.7) d() ~ ()

    2.2.2. Chet Baker, Everything Happens to Me (1989)

    Although by no means identical in rhythmic, melodic, or expressive form, the 1989 performance of this same song is remarkably consistent in its consonantal inventory. The most transparent difference in the onset repertoire is the fact that [b], used only once in the 1955 version, is completely absent in the 1989 take.

    (13) Onsets: d (), y (), h () No Onset: / Onset clusters: Ambisyllabic [t] coda/onset: /

    As seen in (13), the prevalence of /d/ in the 1989 version emerges as even more disproportionate, accounting for 85 (45/53) of the onsets. Clearly, /d/ in and of itself constitutes the core of Chet Bakers consonantal inventory. Again, where another segment is used by Baker, it functions through its very uniqueness to demarcate a prosodically

    For example, a very rudimentary comparison shows the opening bar in the 1955 version has 6 syllables moving from Ebm to A b+ towards Db , whereas bar 1 in the 1989 recording has 10 syllables moduating from Fm through Bb towards Eb . (Note: = major 7).

  • 156

    Patricia A. Shaw

    prominent position. Thus, the sole occurrence of [h] introduces what is arguably the most prosodically salient position: the very first syllable of the first phrase of the scat bridge.

    In the 1989 version, Bakers sparse and tightly restrictive treatment of codas is remarkably consistent with his 1955 repertoire, though their particular distribution in the scat melodic lines is entirely divergent.

    (14) Codas: t (), (), n () No Coda: / Coda clusters:

    As documented in (14), the same 2 segmental values are attested as in Bakers 1955 coda chart in (11). Again, all three instances of [] are introduced by a dual function coda/onset [t], and are followed by a homorganic onset [d].

    Given the fluid mobility of Chet Bakers vowel articulations, a characterization of his favoured syllable shapes unequivocably identifies an open syllable with a [d] onset but is much less definitive in terms of vowel quality. Most generally, as in the 1955 version (see (12)), his articulation meanders around a mid lax vowel, either schwa [] or a neutral position [], identified for English as the characteristic articulatory setting for the onset of speech (Chomsky and Halle 1967). However, on notes of longer duration, his resonant crooning often ascends to a tenser high back [u]. Based on the transcriptions in Appendix 2, there is considerable consistency between the 1955 and 1969 versions in terms of a frequency of use ranking:

    (15) 1955 Frequency/ Syllable form 1969 Frequency/ Syllable form (35.2) d (17) d (16.7) d each (13.2) d, du, d

    However, as is evident from the lower frequency numbers and the three-way tie for second place in the 1969 count, there are no strongly identifiable constraints on his wide-ranging vocalic diversity.

    2.3. Betty Carter

    Even as the repertoire of scat vocabulary expanded through the creatively explosive bebop rush of the 1940s, [d] and [b] remained particularly prominent. For example, although Betty Carter was a major innovative force in extending the repertoire of jazz vocables, Bauer notes that in Carters short scat solo in Babes Blues (1958), of the nine consonants which are used as syllable onsets, /b/ and /d/ together initiate more than half of the vocable classes used in the solo (2002b: 312). Other Betty Carter songs attest to this same generalization: in my count of the 197 syllables in her 36-bar scat solo rendition of Youre Driving Me Crazy (1958; transcribed by Bauer 2002a: 252254), the most frequent onset consonant is [d] (in 80 of the 197 syllables) and the next most frequent is [b] (in 36 of the 197 syllables). Thus, although Carter uses 10 different consonants as onsets in My commentary on Betty Carter is deeply indebted to Bauers (2002a,b) insightful and superbly documented interpretation of her life and work.

  • 157

    Scat syllables and markedness theory

    this solo, the two segments [b] and [d] together comprise the majority (58.9) of onset choices. In the following sections, we look at two of her other tunes to broaden the base of comparison further.

    2.3.1. Betty Carter, Thou Swell (1955)

    Recorded the same year (1955) as the early version of Chet Bakers Everything Happens to Me that was considered in 2.2.1, Betty Carters scat rendition of the original 1927 classic Thou Swell draws on the following inventory of eight consonants as simplex onsets (see Appendix 2.3.1).

    (16) Onsets: d (), b (), l (), y (), w (), h (), r (), () Onset clusters: ly (), dl (), sp () No Onset: /

    Constituting a combined total of 75/114 (=65.8), the consonants [d] and [b] are reaffirmed as incontestably at the core of Cartersand everyone elsesstock of scat resources. Although less frequently drawn on, the consonants [l, r, y, w, h] are all familiar as staple scat segments that have been attested in the work of Louis Armstrong and Chet Baker examined in the preceding sections. The innovative element in (16) is Carters once-only exploitation of [] (bar 13, coupled with the unique attestation of [r] in the sequence [iy ra]). The use of [] is rare in Betty Carters scat, although it figured prominently in the influential repertoire of Sarah Vaughan and became a flagship marker of 1950s doo wop motifs like shoo bee doo and sha na na. Despite the collective recognition among jazz artists of certain segments being standard communal property in the scat arsenal, other specific sounds acquired the status of individual trademarks. Carter reportedly admonished a young vocalist in 1978:

    Why are you using scat syllables like shoo-bee-doo-bee? Those belong to Sarah, and they belong to the fifties. (Berliner 1994: 254, 804, cited by Bauer 2002b: 314315) At the heart of improvisional creativity in music, as in language, is the challenge of innovation under the constraints of structural limitations, critically the inventory of segments and restrictions on their combination. Given the very small set of sounds that came to be established as the conventional scat inventory in the works of the early artists, to then have certain consonants among these evolve into sound symbolic associations with a particular singer and/or decade effectively heightens the challenge for new artists to create an individualistic scat voice.

    Onset clusters are generally quite rare in scat. Of the four that occur in this work, only one [sp] conforms to standard well-formedness constraints of English. The other two, [ly] and [dl], draw on segments that are very common in the scat inventory of onsets, but in bundling them into tauto-syllabic onset sequences Carter pushes beyond the canonical bounds of regular English. Just as [] became a Sarah Vaughan scat trademark, the [dl] onset is a strong candidate for a Betty Carter signature: jumping ahead 27 years

    It was from the vocals in the Silhouettes 1957 hit song Get a Job that the 50s revival group, Sha Na Na, took its name.

    What a Little Moonlight Can Do (1982) Whatever Happened to Love? Verve/Polygram 835 6831; see transcription by Bauer (2002a: 310343).

  • 158

    Patricia A. Shaw

    to her 1982 recording of What a Little Moonlight Can Do, this same highly marked onset appears eleven times, most strikingly in a sequence of six syllables in the climactic scat line of bars 189190 (WB line as transcribed by Bauer 2002a: 317; transliteration (2nd line) as in Appendix 1):

    (17) WB: | weh dlow dlow | dl dle dle | dlow dow | ... | w dlow dlow | dl dle dl | dlow dow | ...

    Carters usage of codas in Thou Swell is infrequent, as seen in (18), and the observed patterns are familiar. She draws strictly on the resonants [m, n, l]. Both of the syllabic segments are alveolar, and follow a homorganic onset [d].

    (18) Codas: m (), (), l (), () No Coda: / Coda clusters:

    The syllable shapes which surface most frequently in this piece are not at all surprising either:

    (19) Frequency / Syllable form Frequency / Syllable form (13.2) b (10.5) ba (12.3) duw (8.8) d

    In sum, despite the creative uniqueness of how her scat artistry uses them, Carters arsenal of tools as represented by this acclaimed 1955 performance draws on a markedly standard repertoire.

    2.3.2. Betty Carter, Open the Door (1979)

    Based on his intimate and broad-based musical insights into the full body of Betty Carters relatively small recorded output, Bauer (2002a: xi) contends that the defining features of Carters style remained consistent even as her approach kept changing. From the linguistic perspective of the present study, a comparative analysis of the scat interludes in Carters 1979 version of Open the Door (see Appendix 2.3.2), recorded 24 years later than the 1955 work discussed above, reveals a tightly focussed phonological repertoire. The five onset segments that appear in the 1979 version, documented in (20), are a subset of the eight that were used in Thou Swell (see (16)).

    (20) Onsets: d (), y (), w (), l (), h () Onset clusters: No Onset: /

    Notably absent from the attested onsets in (20) is [b]. However, the ubiquitous scat onset [d] is not only present, but strongly dominant, introducing 19 of the 27 syllables (= 70.4). The other onset segments here, viz. [l, y, w, h], are all scat basics, not just in Carters earlier work, but in that of other scat vocalists.

    Of particular interest in (21) is the total absence of post-vocalic coda consonants.

  • 159

    Scat syllables and markedness theory

    (21) Codas: (), () No Coda: / Coda clusters:

    The only syllables that are not open CV or CVG structures are the 3 cases where there is a syllabic nasal. A comparison of the first three scat lines (cf. bars 9, 14, and 16, respectively, in Appendix 2.3.2) reveals a striking and doubtless strategic parallelism of form and function where these three syllabic nasals occur. Specifically, each is in absolute phrase-initial position of the first three scat lines, with each new cycle entailing some minimal variation from the preceding one: labial [] in the first phrase shifts place of articulation to alveolar [] in the second phrase, which itself is repeated in the third line but differentiated by the introduction of an [h] onset. Abstracting away from rhythm, duration, and pitch, the segmental content of these three lines is reproduced below:

    (22) d dow ... duw duw duw ... h duw duw diy duw ...

    What this short prosodic progression illustrates is that far from scat being comprised of randomly articulated sequences of a delimited set of nonsense syllables, the skill of a brilliant scat artist like Betty Carter entails masterful structuring of content and sequence: here, each nasal syllable introduces an iteration of exclusively [d]-initial syllables, and each line builds substance and momentum by adding one more syllable.

    Finally, in determining which syllable shapes are most prevalent, there are two that clearly emerge as most frequent:

    (23) Frequency/ Syllable form (29.6) du(w) (25.9) dey

    While [du(w)] figures prominently in the repertoire of her other work (cf. (19)) and that of the other singers sampled here, [dey] is less favoured, though not unattested (cf. (5)).

    2.4. Syllable Structure Generalizations

    Having documented specific aspects of syllable content and form in two different works from each of three renowned jazz vocalists, spanning the 63 years between 1926 and 1989, we are now in a position to determine what generalizations, if any, hold across this sample, despite each artists highly individualistic musicianship and distinctly unique approach to the idiom. The initial question posed in 1 was to what extent the delimitation of onsets to [d] and [b], as exemplified by the brief excerpts in (1) and (2), is representative of a broader database of scat. The onset tabulations from each previous section (viz. (3), (6), (10), (13), (16), (20)) are summarized in the table in (24) below. Note in (24) that the frequencies of [d] and [b] are given both as a token count and as a percentage value of the number

  • 160

    Patricia A. Shaw

    of scat syllables in each piece. There are three particularly interesting facts revealed by these results. First, none of the six works studied hereincluding the full texts of each of the classic performances from which (1) and (2) were drawnuses exclusively [d] and/or [b] onsets. In every case, the vocalist has chosen some scat syllables with other onset consonants, however minimal this extended range may be. For example, in cases like Louis Armstrongs 1926 recording of Heebie Jeebies (2.1.1) and Chet Bakers 1989 version of Everything Happens to Me, there is only one occurrence of each of two other onsets.

    (24) Simplex Onsets: comparative usage by different scat vocalists

    d b y h l w r m n t2.1.1. Armstrong 1926 37 = 77.1 5 = 10.4 2.1.2. Armstrong 1929 78 = 47.3 57 = 34.5 2.2.1. Baker 1955 42 = 77.8 = 1.9 3 2.2.2. Baker 1989 45 = 84.9 2.3.1. Carter 1955 40 = 35.1 35 = 30.7 2.3.2. Carter 1979 19 = 70.4 Total syllables: 461 261 = 56.6 98 = 21.3

    At the other end of the spectrum, Louis Armstrongs Hotter Than That employs the greatest diversity: ten different consonants. A further observation is that there are only nine consonants other than [d] and [b] which comprise the full set of onsets that are collectively utilized by these artists. Together, these latter two facts affirm the initial premise of this research: of the full complement of 24 consonants that can potentially function as syllable onsets in English, scat draws on a very limited, and largely recurrent, subset. The third conclusion that emerges from (24) is that there is a consistent asymmetry in the relative frequency of [d] over [b]. In two of the songs (2.2.2, 2.3.2), there is no [b] at all; in a third (2.2.1), there is a single attestation; in the remaining three, though the degree of imbalance differs, the direction of difference is constant. In contrast to the robust generalizations about simplex onsets, the usage patterns with respect to complex onsets, as summarized in (25), do not at all cohere.

    (25) Complex Onsets: comparative usage by different scat vocalistssk zw, mw, bw ly, sp, dl s with CmplxOns

    2.1.1. Armstrong 1926 / 6.252.1.2. Armstrong 1929 , , / 1.82.2.1. Baker 1955 / ---2.2.2. Baker 1989 / ---2.3.1. Carter 1955 , , / 3.52.3.2. Carter 1979 / ---

    / 2.17

  • 161

    Scat syllables and markedness theory

    Clusters appear in only three of the six pieces, with an extremely low frequency count (averaging just over 2). Significantly, there is no overlap at all in the specific clusters used in each of the works, even by the same singer. Moreover, with respect to the identity of segments involved in these clusters, it is patently not the case that these sequences are compositionally built from the simplex onset consonant inventory: [k], [p], [s], and [z] in the clusters of (25) are not part of the repertoire of (24). Most striking is that a majority (5/7) of the attested clusters violate canonical English patterns: although all of the individual segments involved are legitimate potential simplex onsets, none of [zw], [mw], [bw], [ly], or [dl] conform to standard well-formed sequences in English. Across these diverse observations, there is in fact a consistent generalization, namely: complex onsets are highly marked. In terms of frequency they are rare, and in terms of content they are often exceptional. Consider now the properties of codas, summarized in (26). Whereas the excerpts in (1) and (2) in 1 were comprised exclusively of open syllables, this generalization does not hold of any single work considered in its entirety. Nonetheless, open syllables are unequivocably dominant, ranging from 94 to 72 in individual works and with the overall average being 82.65.

    (26) Codas: comparative usage by different scat vocalists

    p t n m l g s with no Coda2.1.1. Armstrong 1926 / 81.252.1.2. Armstrong 1929 / 74.52.2.1. Baker 1955 / 72.22.2.2. Baker 1955 / 86.82.3.1. Carter 1955 / 93.92.3.2. Carter 1979 / 88.9Totals: / 82.0

    Moreover, there were no complex codas. With respect to segmental identity, of the 21 potential English coda consonants, only six different segments appear. Compared with the inventory of scat onsets in (24), it is interesting to note that there is overlap in the resonant repertoire /m, n, l/, but complementarity in the obstruent stops: onset /b, d/ vs. coda/p, t/. Once again, Louis Armstrong is the king of segmental diversity in his Hotter Than That rendition (2.2.1), which draws on seven different codas, whereas the other artists employ a much more restricted range of between two and four. Across the artists, the most favoured segments are [t] and [n/], although Armstrongs clear personal favourite is [p].

    Finally, consider in (27) the generalizations that hold regarding the overall form of scat syllables that are used by these diverse singers. Only syllables which occurred at least three times, and with greater than 7 frequency in each song are included in the

    Thus, the unique instances of onset /t/ and coda /g/, both in Armstrongs Hotter Than That (2.1.2) appear anomalous: the /g/ in terms of both place and voicing, and the /t/ in terms of voicing.

  • 162

    Patricia A. Shaw

    table below. Because the overall syllable count differed considerably across the different selections, the most frequent syllables for each artist are simply ranked, with 1 being the most frequent. Ties are represented by the same number. The scale descends for each artist, but may stop at either 2, 3, or 4 depending on the actual frequency values (as detailed in the corresponding tables in each individual section above). Thus, for example, for each of Chet Baker in 2.2.1 and Betty Carter in 2.3.2, the very high frequency of two particular syllables results in no others exceeding the criterion level.

    (27) Syllables: comparative usage by different scat vocalists (

  • 163

    Scat syllables and markedness theory

    referenced in the English text, and in the second example (3.2), more extensive scat lines alternate with English. These case studies are of interest in two respects: first, for interrogating the extent to which the segmental content and shape of these select scat tokens conform to the generalizations established for the classical scat vocables examined in the preceding vocal jazz tunes; and secondly, for the insights that this phenomenon provides from a historical perspective on the evolving diversification of the cultural impact of scat. Despite bebop itself having shifted out of the popular mainstream at that time, the fact that very young creative songwriters chose to incorporate scat syllables into their lyrics in the 1960s reflects its strong formative influence on their own musical identities and its enduring legacy in the broad-based musical culture of the era.

    3.1. Barry Mann, Who Put the Bomp? (1961)

    The infectiously popular music and words of this 1961 hit were co-written by Barry Mann and Gerry Goffin, with Barry Mann as the original recording artist. Because the lyrics here are not improvised, but rather are composed in conformity with a tightly structured, fixed melodic and rhythmic framework, the methodology of previous sectionsnamely, a frequency count of attested segmental tokens in a stream of spontaneously improvised scatis less revealing than simply the inventory of segments and syllable shapes that are drawn on. That is, what is particularly significant is just which scat vocables are chosen for the lyrics, as this very choice implies that these particular forms already (in 1961) had significant currency in the general public domain as cool and hip.

    Archetypal and high-profile scat syllables here (see Appendix 3.1) include the [u] ~ [] attributed to Sarah Vaughan (2.3.1), the [dp] that surfaces as early as Heebie Jeebies (see (5)), as well as the [bap] that not only persists to this day as the name of the genre, but that had become the basis of Betty Carters moniker: Betty Bebop. The rhythmically alternating syllables [b] (line 2) and [d] (line 8) are clearly canonical scat form, adhering to both the preference for [b]/[d] onsets and No Coda (open syllable).

    Although it was noted in every improvisational jazz sample investigated earlier that open syllables were much more frequent than closed syllables, a superficially inconsistent observation is that the reverse is the case in Who Put the Bomp?. What this illustrates, I would suggest, is the potential over-riding effect of prosodic constraints when scripting lyrics to a fixed melodic line and rhythmic beat. The lyrics for the lines with the scat syllables [bam], [bap], [dp] are basically structured as follows, with the CVC closed syllables out-numbering the open CV syllables four to two. Each of the underlined syllables in (28) is directly synchronized with a rhythmic beat.

    (28) Who put the [CVC] in the [CVC] [CV] [CVC] [CV] [CVC] ?

    Because closed CVC syllables are prosodically heavier, aligning a closed syllable with a rhythmically strong position functions to enhance the prominence of the beat.

    Barry Mann and Gerry Goffin were 22 when their co-written success Who Put the Bomp? was released, and teen idol Johnny Cymbal was 18 when he wrote and recorded Mr. Bass Man.

    This was Lionel Hamptons nickname for her, despite her expressed dislike of it (Bauer 2002a: 45).

  • 164

    Patricia A. Shaw

    Note that the initial who [huw], even though open, is also heavy by virtue of the long/tense diphthong. Further enhancing the strong rhythmic stability of these lines is the fact that the light open scat syllables [b], [], and [d] are never aligned with the beat. While this kind of prosodic alignment of heavy syllables with positions of rhythmic prominence, and the complementary preference for light syllables in weak rhythmic positions, most certainly occurs in improvised scat as well, it would appear to be a significantly less dominant factor, perhaps since rhythm itself is also subject to improvisation.

    Of further interest in the lyrics of this song is that there is a category of forms that are neither standard English lexical items nor syllables that conform to the characteristics of scat. Concatenations of essentially semantically empty compounds that rhyme or alliterate, such as rama lama, or that carry some onomatopoetic value like ding dong, or that live on a hip fringe of the English lexicon like boogity boogity were also drawn from the pop music scene of the 50s, namely the Edsels major doo-wop hit Rama Lama Ding Dong, originally released in 1958 on Dub Records and re-released on Twin Records in 1961, and the Quincy Jones composition Boogity Boogity, recorded on Milt Jacksons 1958 album Plenty, Plenty Soul. Unlike scat, these sequences each pattern basically as a lexicalized unit, without independent freedom of realization of the constituent syllables. The form of all 3 of these expressions is essentially reduplicative, with the nature of any deviance from full identity falling directly within recognized cross-linguistic patterns of reduplication (e.g. Moravcsik 1978, McCarthy and Prince 1986, Hurch 2005). Finally, based on the generalizations established in 2, some of the segmental content in these examples falls markedly outside of that found in core scat, viz. the [] codas in ding dong, and the [g] onset in boogity.

    In sum, Who Put the Bomp? is highly syncretic in its explicit references to many of the rapidly evolving musical influences of the era. The lyrics integrate unmistakably identifiable scat syllables from the classical vocal jazz tradition, with references from the rhythm and blues progression into doo-wop, along with the blues-based modern jazz sophistication of Quincy Jones and Milt Jackson. What this tells us is that although the pure jazz scat genre itself isnt charting in the mainstream at this point in time, it remains a major foundational force in the broader musical scene. Moreover, of all the diverse genres referenced in these lyrics, it is a scat line that is attributed with ultimate success in the conquest of love: When my baby heard bam b b bam b bam b bam bam, every word went right into her heart...

    3.2. Johnny Cymbal, as recorded by Sha Na Na, Mr. Bass Man (1963)

    The second example illustrating the continuing legacy of scat in the pop scene of the early 60s is Johnny Cymbals signature song, Mr. Bass Man. Sha Na Nas re-recording of it in Although the Edsels, like the ill-fated car model they named themselves after, were defunct as a group by the time their version of Rama Lama Ding Dong rose to prominence on the national charts, the song itself attained significantly greater longevity as the title song of Sha Na Nas 1980 album. Note too that in the historical context of the 50s Ding Dong itself carried an established frame of reference from the title and lyrics of Louis Armstrongs early 1930s hit, Im a Ding Dong Daddy From Dumas (on The Best of Louis Armstrong and His Orchestra: 1930-31. Classics B000001NJB).

  • 165

    Scat syllables and markedness theory

    1980 stands both as a tribute to its enduring popularity and as a major contribution to ensuring its continued exposure to subsequent generations. The transcription in Appendix 3.2 is based on the Sha Na Na version, and differentiates the scat lines that are sung by Mr. Bass Man himself (abbreviated BM in Appendix 2) from the fledgling attempts of the

    Wanna-be guy (abbreviated W in Appendix 2) who sings, following line 9, I wanna be a bass man too. Interestingly, this separation reveals some fascinating differences.

    As seen in (29), Mr. Bass Man himself uses exclusively [b] onsets. In contrast, the majority of Wanna-bes onsets are [b], but his inventory also includes a substantial number of [d]s and [y]s, both of which accord with the standard scat onsets documented in (24). Although [] is not included in (24), its absence is directly attributable to the transcriptional principles outlined in Appendix 1, so the two attestations of [] here are not anomalous. The unique occurrence of [s] at the beginning of line 5 is odd, given the generalizations of (24), but may be explicable as perseverance of the final sibilant of the immediately preceding word songs, across the juncture from English lyrics to scat.

    (29) a. Mr. Bass Mans scat lines (including back-up line and joint BM/W lines): Onsets: b () Onset clusters: No Onset: / b. Wanna-bes scat lines: Onsets: b (), d (), y (), (), s () Onset clusters: No Onset: /

    Not only is the greater diversity of segments in the novices attempts of interest, so too is the distribution of these segments. For example, in three lines (lines 5, 6, 17), Wanna-be switches in mid-sequence from [d]-onsets to [b]-onsets (significantly, a switch to the correct target), but never does he switch in the opposite direction. All other lines are either exclusively [d] (lines 13, 14, 25, 26) or exclusively [b] (3, 7, 10, 12, 22, 24, 29).

    There is also a marked discrepancy in coda patterns between Mr. Bass Man and Wanna-be. Mr. Bass Man uses exclusively [m]/[] codas, whereas Wanna-be models [m] most frequently, to be sure, but he also draws on the 3 most favoured scat codas that were documented in (26): [p, t, ]. Nonetheless, note that Wanna-bes very last solo line achieves perfect canonical form as defined by Mr. Bass Man: exclusively [b] onsets and exclusively [m] codas.

    (30) a. Mr. Bass Mans scat lines (including back-up line and joint BM/W lines): Codas: m (), () Coda clusters: No Coda: / b. Wanna-bes scat lines: Codas: m (), t (), p (), () Coda clusters: No Coda: /

    Although Wanna-be uses a broader inventory of both onsets and codas, these segments are significantly constrained in their distribution, in that a consistent pattern of syllable-internal consonant harmony obtains with respect to place of articulation in closed syllables. That is, a labial [b] onset is followed by a labial [m] or [p] coda, regardless of the vowel quality in the nucleus, e.g.: bam, bum, bm, bom, bm, bp. Similarly, an

  • 166

    Patricia A. Shaw

    alveolar [d] onset is closed by [] or [t]. Given that none of the other onsets /y, , s/ occur in closed syllables, this generalization regarding intra-syllabic consonant harmony holds throughout the entire work.

    4. Explanatory Hypotheses

    The analyses of these several examples of scat show that, across the diversity of musical styles and individual expressions, the repertoire of sounds and syllable shapes is remarkably consistent and extremely limited in comparison to the extensive range of segments and combinatorial possibilities that are used in English, let alone available within the articulatory range of the human vocal apparatus. To address the question of what might account for these patterns, three hypotheses are explored: that vocal scat is essentially imitative of instrumental jazz (4.1); that the repertoire of sounds in scat are constrained by phonological markedness theory (4.2); and that scat production is subject to independent constraints on musical form and vocal performance (4.3).

    Although each of these, among other cognitive and performative factors, doubtless contributes to shaping the output of scat, the argumentation to follow suggests that specific tenets of phonological markedness theory interacting with the melodic imperative for a voice line to carry pitch contribute substantially to broadening our understanding of the attested patterns.

    4.1. The Imitative Hypothesis

    A number of theorists within the musical literature have hypothesized that scat vocalization is essentially imitative of jazz instrumental expression. For example, Robinson (2002: 515) attributes the origin of scat to singers imitat[ing] the sounds of jazz instrumentalists. Bauer (2002b: 303) cites Milton Stewart (1987: 65, 68, 74) as showing that the vocables used by such notable exponents of scat as Ella Fitzgerald and Sarah Vaughan often mimic the tonguing, phrasing, and articulation of instrumentalists. Stoloff (2003: 4) notes that Louis Armstrong, like many other instru-vocalists who followed, unconsciously used scat syllables that emanated from his trumpet style. The core question in considering the Imitative Hypothesis is to what extent such comparisons are based on essentially arbitrary associations, as opposed to qualities of instrumental sound production that are directly reproduced in the choice of consonants and vowels in a scat syllable. That is, are there consistent, independently verifiable articulatory correlations between an instrumental rendition and a particular scat vocalization? Or, like the arbitrariness of the sound-meaning correspondences in natural language, is the seemingly imitative association based on fundamentally arbitrary, conventionalized interpretations?

    One type of case is illustrated by the fact that sometimes hand gestures lent an explicit instrumental identity to the vocables. Stoloff (2003: 5) points out that Ella, for example, often used trombone-like hand motions while scatting du-wah type syllables.

    All 3 instances have the same vowel: [dt].

  • 167

    Scat syllables and markedness theory

    The question here then is whether there is anything inherent in the phonetic properties of the syllables du-wah [du wa] that is uniquely representative of the production or perception of trombone sound, or whether the explicitly iconic identification established by Ellas hand gestures substantially contributes to creating a conventionalized significance. Weighing against a one-to-one interpretation of the Imitative Hypothesis is the fact, noted earlier in (27), that [du(w)] is the second most frequent syllable used by Louis Armstrong in Heebie Jeebies, Chet Baker in Everything Happens to Me (1989), and Betty Carter in Thou Swell. In other words, the documentation in 2 establishes that throughout the scat repertoire, [du(w)] is simply an extremely common syllable. What seems most plausible, then, is that a du-wah/trombone sound-meaning connection evolved into a conventionalized relationship, with the explicit interpretive overlay of hand gestures contributing significantly to establishing this as a semi-lexicalized associative correspondence.

    A second type of case exemplifying the frequent interpretation of scat as directly representative of instrumental effects is illustrated by Robinsons (2002: 515) identification of the following line from Louis Armstrongs Hotter Than That (1927, OK 8535) as one

    which illustrates his clear imitation of a trumpet rip:(31) From L. Armstrong Hotter Than That (1927); transcription J.B. Robinson:

    A basic question here is: How much of the interpretation of this phrase being a trumpet rip follows from the initial monosyllabic identity tag rip? First, the research documentation in 2 establishes that rip is not in the common inventory of scat syllables. In fact, it is a unique attestation in the database of 461 scat syllables. Secondly, rip is a recognizable English word, with a particularized semantic interpretation specifically within the jazz lexicon. Thirdly, this word is positioned strategically at the very beginning of the scat sequence that is interpreted by Robinson as a trumpet rip. In terms of perceptual salience, initial position is the locus of greatest prosodic prominence in the phrasal domain. Moreover, note in (31) that rip bears the highest pitch level and its rhythmic value (a quarter note) is twice the value of each individual note in the sequence of eighth notes that follows. Collectively these prosodic cues of position, pitch level, and duration converge to focus the listeners attention on this entry, which is realized not by a familiar scat syllable, but rather by the lexically informative label that this is a rip. Finally, a complementary question stemming from Robinsons characterization of this sequence as a trumpet rip, is whether there is anything in the choice of the particular scat syllablesindependently of the lead signifier ripthat is uniquely associated with a trumpet, as opposed to a sax, bass, or any other instrument. Again the collective evidence in 2 establishes that the specific syllables that follow rip in (31) are all unequivocably canonical scat, used by a diversity of singers across a diversity of melodies, chord progressions, tempos, and rhythms.

    Nonetheless, the fact that it is Louis Armstrong himself, one of the most virtuoso jazz trumpeters of all time, who is scatting in (31) unquestionably establishes an association

  • 168

    Patricia A. Shaw

    between his vocal and instrumental expression. Of course, a particular musicians primary instrumental identity would not preclude scat excursions into imitative or evocative effects of other instrumentation. However, one might ask: given that Chet Baker and Louis Armstrong are both jazz trumpeters and scat vocalists, is there any significant parallelism between them in the choice of scat repertoire? Comparison of their use of onsets in the chart in (24) and of codas in (26) not only provides a distinct profile for each, but also establishes no greater similarity between them than between either one of them and Betty Carter, who was not a trumpet player. In short, the research evidence here argues that the specific choice of scat syllables for each of these performers follows a canon of phonological constraints on scat repertoire that are independent of trumpetor any otherinstrumental realization. Most fundamentally, I would submit, it is the musical individuality of each of these artists and their unique creative mastery of the cognitive systems involved that transcends defined conventions on the essential form of notes and syllables, and systemic constraints on their patterning.

    However, to explore the empirical bases of the Imitative Hypothesis yet further, consider commentary such as that advanced by Stewart (1987: 6566), who interprets Ella Fitzgeralds 1949 performance of Flying Home as follows:

    Fitzgerald alternates the bilabial b and p plosives with the lingua-alveolar d plosives. The b and p sounds are formed similarly to the sounds of jazz wind instruments, which sound by the release of built-up mouth air pressure onto the reed, while the d sound is similar to the tonguing on jazz brass instruments.

    On the basis of a phonological model of natural language sound production, my hypotheses about the articulatory correlations entailed in initiating and modifying air flow on reed and brass wind instruments differ from Stewarts. Specifically, pitch-based sound on a trumpet or any other brass instrument is produced by bilabial constriction: labial is the primary articulator. As well, tonguing effectsmost commonly coronal, but also dorsalfunction significantly to modify the stream of sound in terms of attacks, closures, trills, duration, phrasing, tonal quality, etc. Less frequent, but certainly available within the repertory of articulatory modifications, are uvular and laryngealization effects. Consequently, under an articulatorily-based Imitative Hypothesis, trumpet-denotative scat would liberally draw on a inventory of both labial and coronal consonants, but could also include other articulatory effects. In contrast, in producing the primary sound on a reed instrument, like a sax or clarinet, the players lips and upper teeth hold the mouthpiece: although lip compression can modify pitch, tone, or timbre, labial is not a primary articulator in the way that it is with brass instruments. However, the range of tonguing effects and other articulatory modifications would be similar. The Imitative Hypothesis implication that follows from this comparison would be that sax- or clarinet-imitative scat should have no [p]s or [b]s (contra Stewarts interpretation above), whereas brass-imitative scat could. Essential to testing such articulatory-modeling claims would be a body of data where the intentionality of the scat singer is unambiguous. As none of the references drawn on here provide adequate documentation to explore these hypotheses more definitively, they are left for future research.

  • 169

    Scat syllables and markedness theory

    In summary, despite various approaches to the hypothesis that scat vocalization is essentially imitative of jazz instrumental expression, what has been shown is that there is in fact little empirical evidence to sustain a non-arbitrary relationship in the form of realization across the two modalities. Moreover, compared with the huge range of distinct combinatorial possibilities in jazz instrumentation, whether articulated by mouth, hand, valve, slide, bow, or mallet, the exceedingly small set of segments in the core repertoire of scat presents a striking contrast. What the Imitative Hypothesis fundamentally fails to explain is why the rich diversity of instrumental sound is not more extensively mirrored in scat. The possible articulatory range of the human vocal apparatus far exceeds what is found in human language systems, let alone in scat. Moreover, even the much more limited range of segmental and combinatory possibilities in the English phonological system significantly exceeds what is found in scat. The fundamental question then is what hypotheses might offer a more insightful and constrained explanation for the small and remarkably consistent inventory of segments and syllable shapes that characterize scat. In the next section it is argued that phonological markedness theory constitutes a productive basis of inquiry.

    4.2. Markedness Theory

    From a linguistic perspective, the framework of phonological markedness theory embodies a number of hypotheses against which these empirical generalizations about scat can be evaluated. It is markedness theory that negotiates the interface of fundamental questions regarding linguistic diversity vs. universality, seeking to understand across the manifest differences of human languages just what properties of language may be universally attested, what properties may be correlated with or implicated by another property, and what properties are rare or may in fact never be attested. The basic premise to be evaluated in the context of specific constraints identified in the discussion to follow is that the phonological form and content of scat are relatively unmarked along various diverse, independent measures of markedness.

    4.2.1. Markedness Hypotheses about Syllabic Shape

    Consider first syllabic form. Evidence from several diverse domains of natural languagecross-linguistic studies of canonical syllable structures, phonological epenthesis, cluster simplification processes, language acquisition, prosodic morphology, etc.independently identify CV syllables as the most basic and the single universally attested syllable shape, justifying the characterization of CV as the core syllable. In accord with this empirical generalization, all of the diverse approaches to markedness theory (cf. Jakobsen 1941/1968; Trubetzkoy 1939; Chomsky and Halle 1968; Greenberg 1966; Kaye and Lowenstamm 1984; Prince and Smolensky 1993; McCarthy and Prince 1994; de Lacy 2002 among others) converge on a recognition of open CV syllables as the least marked syllable type. Within the framework of Optimality Theory (Prince and Smolensky 1993, McCarthy and Prince 1995, Kager 1999, etc.), the relative markedness of an output sequence is

  • 170

    Patricia A. Shaw

    determined with respect to its violation of each of a ranked set of universal constraints on phonological structure. Constraints relevant to syllable shape properties are stated in (32), adapted from Kager (1999: 93, 94, 97):

    (32) a. Onset *[V A syllable must have an onset. b. NoCoda *C] A syllable must not have a coda. c. *ComplexOnset *[CC Onsets are simple. d. *ComplexCoda *CC] Codas are simple.

    The optimization of CV results from the fact that this syllable shape violates none of the constraints in (32).

    The emergence of core CV syllables as ubiquitously preferred in scat is therefore entirely in conformity with markedness predictions about syllable shape. Different measures confirm their special status, from the lead observation that the scat excerpts in (1) and (2) contain exclusively core syllables to the accumulated evidence in (27) that the 10 most frequently used syllable shapes are all open CV syllables.

    Although the survey of scat in 2 sustains the generalization that the vast majority of scat syllables adhere to the simplex onset plus no coda pattern, it also reveals that not one of the six pieces analyzed here consists only of such syllables. Deviation from this optimally unmarked canon falls into two categories: 4.2.2. violations of (32c)

    *ComplexOnset, and 4.2.3, violations of (32b) NoCoda. Notably, there are no syllables documented in the present database that violate the *ComplexCoda constraint in (32d): all codas in the tunes sampled here consist of a single consonant.

    4.2.2. Complex Onsets

    A very small set of syllables (an overall total of 2.17 of the sample, as shown in (25)) have two consonants as opposed to one in the onset. Such cases violate the constraint *ComplexOnset in (32c), and fall into two subtypes, dependent on specific segmental content.

    First are the clusters [sk] and [sp]. What differentiates these from the second subtype of *ComplexOnset violations is that [sk] and [sp] are familiar, frequent, well-formed clusters of English. Interestingly, however, they are not common in scat. Only Armstrong (1926: bar 9-10 in 2.1.1) uses [sk], and it occurs only in the alliterative sequence [skiyp skm sk]. Similarly, only Carter uses [sp], and it occurs only once (1955: bar 17 in 2.3.1). Thus, not only are these clusters marked cross-linguistically by virtue of being structurally complex onsets, but they are also foregrounded in terms of perceptual salience within the scat repetoire by virtue of being so infrequent. A final observation is that outside of their occurrence in these clusters, nowhere else in this scat database do any of the individual segments [s], [k], or [p] occur as simplex onsets. As a consequence, these sequences do not conform to the basic generalization that complex margins in natural language phonological systems are characteristically compositional. That is, the well-formedness of an [sk] or an [sp] onset cluster in English builds on the independent

    As stated by Greenberg (1963: 263): If syllables containing sequences of n consonants in a language are to be found..., then sequences of n-1 consonants are also to be found in the corresponding position (prevocalic or postvocalic).

  • 171

    Scat syllables and markedness theory

    availability of each of [s], [k], and [p] as a simplex onset. Thus, on yet another dimension of general properties of phonological systems, these clusters are marked. In short, despite their being entirely within the well-formedness constraints of English, the rare injection of an [sp] or [sk] cluster into a stream of the more limited consonantal playing field of scat syllables will effectively cause them to stand out as highly unusual.

    In contrast, the second subtype of violations of the *ComplexOnset constraint in (32c) consists of clusters that deviate from standard English: [bw], [mw], and [zw] in Armstrong (1929: 2:02, 2:15 in 2.1.2), and [dl] and [ly] in Carter (1955: bar 6, 7, 16 in 2.3.1). Interestingly, although these segmental concatenations are not well-formed English onsets, they differ from the first subtype in that they are basically compositionalwithin the scat repertoire of onset consonants. That is, with the exception of [z], each of the components of these clustersviz. [b], [d], [m], [l], [w], and [y]occurs as a simplex onset in the scat database, as charted in (24). There are two other ways that this second set of clusters differs from the [sk] and [sp] clusters. First, they comprise exclusively voiced segments. The fact that the segments in these clusters agree in voice conforms with Greenbergs (1978: 252) markedness generalization that combinations which are homogeneous in respect to voicing are favoured over those which are heterogeneous. Secondly, drawing on the Sonority Hierarchy in (33a), note that each of these onset sequences conforms to the Sonority Sequencing Principle in (33b), in that there is an increasing sonority cline between the first consonant and the second.

    (33) a. Sonority Hierarchy (< indicates less sonorant than) Obstruent (O) < Nasal (N) < Liquid (L) < Glide (G) < Vowel (V) b. Sonority Sequencing Principle: (Clements 1990: 285) Between any member of a syllable and the syllable peak, only sounds of

    higher sonority rank are permitted. To summarize, although these clusters are not part of the familiar English repertoire, there are three general cross-linguistic markedness measures to which they conform: they are compositional; they are homogeneously voiced; and they obey the Sonority Sequencing Principle.

    What sets this subset of onsets apart from standard English clusters as well as from general cross-linguistic expectations is their relatively marked status with respect to two other constraints on segmental sequencing, both of which fall within the broad purview of the Obligatory Contour Principle (OCP). First, the systematic absence of Liquid-Glide sequences in English reflects a general constraint on minimal sonority distance (34a). In standard English, all Liquid-Glide onset clusters are prohibited:

    *[ly-, *[lw-, *[ry-, *[rw-. In Betty Carters scat, however, [ly- slips past the *[Liquid-Glide constraint. Secondly, militating against various assimilatory forces within the grammar are certain context-sensitive pressures to avoid homorganic place. In standard English, there are no Labial (*LabLab) onset sequences: *[bw-, *[mw-, *[pw-, *[fw-, *[vw-, but in Louis Armstrongs scat [bw- and [mw- occur, these being the two that transition from a voiced [-continuant] attack into the [w]. Similarly, with Betty Carter, it is the voiced [-continuant] [d] that releases into a liquid [l] that violates the prohibition in standard English against the *CorCor sequences, *[dl- and *[tl-.

  • 172

    Patricia A. Shaw

    (34) Obligatory Contour Principle (OCP): a. Minimal Sonority Distance (cf. Vennemann 1988, Clements 1990, Zec 2007): *[Liquid-Glide: *[ly- b. Avoidance of homorganicity in consonant-resonant onset clusters: *LabLab: *[bw-, *[mw- *CorCor: *[dl-

    None of these constraints characterizes the other non-English cluster, [zw], that Armstrong uses. On a cline of relative markedness, *[zw- is not strongly deviant: it is not subject to repair strategies in the pronunciation of proper names like Zwicky; and its voiceless onset counterpart [sw], as in sweet, sway, swan, swoon..., has well-established familiarity in the non-scat lexicon of the romantic lyricists of this same era. Nonetheless, [zw] is outside the boundaries of standard English phonotactics, and will be recognized as such by the listener. The hypothesis developed in 4.3 below is that such violations of the phonological system are not arbitrary: rather, they are strategic manipulations of the dynamic constraints that conventionally delimit linguistic structure, functioning to enhance a range of performative musical effects.

    To summarize thus far, the argumentation in this section illustrates how phonological markedness theory provides an insightful framework for characterizing why certain overwhelmingly common patterns emerge in the scat syllables of different artists. At the same time, the discussion reveals that this theoretical approach also functions to identify what properties of the empirical residue are not amenable to general linguistic explanation. Based just on an examination of syllable onsets, the fact that this residue is extremely narrow in scope and in realization is itself an interesting finding. In the next section, the relative markedness of coda realization is explored.

    4.2.3. Coda Constraints

    Although the vast majority of scat syllables in the repertoire here do not have a coda, 17 do, as tabulated in (26). However, like onsets, their realization is very restricted. Of the 21 possible coda segments in English (see (4)), only six different segments appear: there are multiple occurrences of [p, t, n, m, l] and a single occurrence of [g]. As the transcribed value of this latter segment (2.1.2, [1:56]) varies between [g] and [v]either one of which would be a unique attestationit will not be incorporated into the following discussion. In markedness terms, there are several cross-linguistic generalizations that characterize the identity and distribution of the five other segments.

    Note among the obstruents that there are no fricatives or affricates. There are only the two plain anterior stops [p] and [t] which, in terms of frequency (see (26)), account for 59 (49/83) of all attested codas. Given that these are the voiceless counterparts of [b] and [d], which clearly emerge as the overwhelming segmental favourites in onsets, a major question relates to why the value of [voice] is in complementary distribution between onset and coda? Markedness theory offers a straightforward account of the coda behaviour, in that the preference for obstruents to be voiceless in syllable-final position (alternatively, at the end of a word or before another obstruent) is a widely

  • 173

    Scat syllables and markedness theory

    attested cross-linguistic phenomenon. This contextual neutralization underlies the OT formalization of the positional markedness constraint in (35):

    (35) *Voiced Coda (Kager 1999; cf. Steriade 1999, Gordon 2007, Zec 2007) Obstruents must not be marked for [voice] in coda position.

    This constraint is unviolated in the entire scat corpus documented here, and effectively captures the relevant generalization: if a coda is an obstruent, then it must be voiceless.

    Not all the attested codas are obstruents, however. The residual codas [m], [n], and [l] are all sonorants. On the basis of the cross-linguistic observation that some languages, like Chinese, allow only sonorants in coda position, Pepperkamp (2003) proposes the markedness constraint in (36):

    (36) *Obstruent Coda Codas cannot be obstruents.

    The postulated constraint in (36) makes two predictions. First, a phonological system could have only sonorant codas, as Pepperkamp argues for Chinese. Secondly, a phonological system could not have exclusively obstruent codas: that is, if it has obstruent codas, then it also must have sonorant codas. This second type of system is exactly what is documented for both tunes analyzed for each of Louis Armstrong and Chet Baker (see (26)). Of particular interest, however, is the fact that this is not what has emerged for either of the Betty Carter recordings. As summarized in (26), her inventory of codas is precisely the system characterized by the first prediction: there are only sonorant codas. This is really quite striking confirmation of the role of universal markedness constraints in governing the strictly delimited inventory of scat.

    Moving to a consideration of place of articulation properties of codas, we note that the limitation of the set of attested scat codas {p, t, n, m, l} to Labials and Coronals is also systematically derivable from general tenets of markedness theory. Drawing on various observed asymmetries in inventories, epenthesis, neutralization, etc., the markedness hierarchy in (37) identifies Dorsal place as the most highly marked:

    (37) Place Markedness Hierarchy (de Lacy 2007: 23) *Dorsal *Labial *Coronal

    Hence, the non-attestation of Dorsals and, concomitantly, the preferred status of Coronals and Labials follow from this markedness generalization.

    Finally, it is important to consider not just the distinctive properties of segments in a particular prosodic position, but also aspects of their sequential relation to their neighbours. As a dramatic example of harmonic assimilation, all nine instances of [] in Chet Bakers minimally contrastive articulatory flow are preceded by homorganic [t] and followed by [d]. Thus, a single coronal non-continuant gesture is sustained across the tri-segmental sequence, modulated only by velic movement for the oral-nasal contrast and laryngeal voicing. Even in the context of the much more diverse articulatory repertoire in Louis Armstrongs Hotter Than That, an examination of trans-syllabic properties in it reveals that the place of articulation in the vast majority of the 42 codas is homorganic with the place of articulation of the following onset. Specifically, all eight cases of coda [t]

  • 174

    Patricia A. Shaw

    are followed by a [d] onset. Similarly both [n] codas precede [d]. All three post-vocalic coda [m]s are also homorganic, in one case to [b] and in the other two cases to [w]. All three tokens of syllabic [] follow a comparable pattern, preceding onsets [w], [m], and cluster [mw]. Aside from the unique instance of a [g], the only coda segment that is ever independent of this assimilatory effect is Louis Armstrongs favoured coda in these works, [p]. Still, the majority of [p] codas (13/22 = 59.1) precede homorganic [b]. The residual nineall of which occur before [d]are the only non-homorganic codas in this entire scat set.

    Again, these coda-onset assimilatory patterns constitute further evidence of a remarkably consistent and delimited range of vocal behaviours in scat that are systematically correlated with a broadly motivated positional markedness constraint, the Coda-Condition:

    (38) Coda-Condition (It 1989; Kager 1999) A coda cannot have a place feature different from the following onset.

    Note that (38), which fosters adjacent labial-labial or coronal-coronal articulations, is differentiated from (34b), which militates against labial-labial or coronal-coronal sequences, by virtue of prosodic context. The former applies across a coda-onset sequence whereas the latter obtains between segments within a complex onset.

    What has been argued in this section is that all the defining properties of scat codas in the current sample fall directly within the explanatory framework of the independently movitated theory of phonological markedness. They may be exclusively sono