Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Musicality and Phonetic Language Aptitud
Musicality and Phonetic Language Aptitud
pod 213
07-06-02 09:03:01 -mu- mu
1. Introduction
tivity, repertoire readiness, imitating skills, and the ability to get along
with other musicians were considered very important parts of an indi-
vidual’s musicality (Green 2002). Thus, musicality is a multifacted con-
cept, more than just a skill, partially innate and yet strengthened by a
nurturing environment.
On the other hand, talent can be defined as: i) a characteristic feature,
aptitude, or disposition; ii) the natural endowments of a person; iii) a
special, often creative or artistic aptitude; iv) general intelligence or men-
tal power (ability). Aptitude can be characterized as: i) an inclination or
tendency; ii) a natural ability (talent); iii) a capacity for learning; iv) a
general suitability (aptness). A red thread draws a line throughout these
concepts, conveying the meaning of something that is: i) somehow
strongly connoted as innate (a gift, thus clearly separated from practice);
ii) oriented towards something (a propensity or potential); iii) excep-
tional or extraordinary; and iv) closely related to a skill (ability, capac-
ity). On these bases, we suggest a temporary definition of musical talent
as a (predominantly) innate tendency to understand/appreciate, perform
or create music outstandingly.
In the next sections, we will see how the different authors conceive
musicality. However, we suggest that a helpful distinction could be drawn
between talent (or aptitude) and musicality (or ability), where the former
refers more to the innate component, and the latter to the resulting skill
developed in interaction with the environment (through training, prac-
tice, etc.). This way, when we talk of talent, we are referring to an innate
tendency to perform well in a given domain, the degree of which varies
among different individuals, and which is rather independent of experi-
ence. Conversely, we could refer to an ability as the result of practice or
learning, although it is highly probable that given the same amount of
training, a talented person will outperform a non-talented one.
Is talent normally distributed in the population, or is it rather an “all-
or-none” phenomenon? Although the popular belief mainly considers it
in the second way (on the basis of which some individuals would be
gifted, whilst others would not), the scientific literature reveals that music
aptitude, like most of all human characteristics, is normally distributed in
the population (Jørgensen 2008; Gordon 1989a). This implies that every-
body has a certain degree of potential to achieve in music, with relatively
fewer very high- and low-talented persons, and the majority with an aver-
age aptitude.
The concept of musicality is probably closer to the notion of skill,
rather than to the traditional way psychologists see intelligence, unless we
consider approaches like that of Howard Gardner (1983), who proposed
the existence of several independent intelligences (see chapter by G.
Rota). In section 3, we will review a series of experimental studies demon-
strating a large independence between musicality and intelligence, when
this latter is defined and measured as a general factor. Such evidence
clearly demonstrates that musical aptitude cannot be considered an as-
pect (or a by-product) of intelligence, but rather an independent mental
characteristic.
According to Gordon (1989a), there are two general points of view
over music aptitude. The Gestaltists hold that music aptitude is a unitary
trait of which overall intelligence is a substantial part. Conversely, the
Atomists contend that music aptitude is multidimensional, consisting of
various parts, none of which is significantly related to overall intelligence.
The experimental evidence collected in almost one century of research on
musicality testing converge at showing that there are different identifiable
sub-components within musical talent, and that such sub-components
are rather independent of intelligence, defined as a unitary trait.
dogil_08.pod 216
07-06-02 09:03:01 -mu- mu
1. Rhythmic abilities are peculiar because on the one hand it has been shown
that rhythm is processed relatively independently from pitch (Peretz & Colt-
heart 2003), whereas on the other hand there is evidence of reciprocal interac-
tions between rhythm, melody and tonality (Gordon 1965; Sloboda 1985).
dogil_08.pod 217
07-06-02 09:03:01 -mu- mu
perceiving music and musical sounds); ii) stratum II, broad abilities (i.e.
fluid and crystallized intelligence, general memory and learning, retrieval
ability, cognitive speediness, etc.); iii) stratum III, general intellectual
ability similar to Spearman’s “g” factor (1927).
By analyzing the relevant literature, Carroll identifies 31 factors of
musical talent, which he further divides into four subgroups: i) general
sound discrimination factors, comprising basic abilities to discriminate
tones or patterns of tones with respect to their fundamental attributes of
pitch, timbre, intensity, duration, and rhythm; ii) sound-frequency dis-
crimination factors, similar to those of the previous group, but focused on
discriminations of the frequency attributes of tones (i.e. detecting a
changed note in a melody, detecting the number of notes in a chord, de-
tecting a changed note in a chord, etc.); iii) sound intensity and duration
discrimination factors, focusing on discriminations with respect to inten-
sity (loudness), duration and rhythm (amplitude and temporal attributes
of sounds and sequential patterns of sound), which depend on sensitivity
to temporal and rhythmic aspects of tonal passages; iv) musical sensitiv-
ity and judgment factors, comprising judgments of the “musicality” of
short musical passages (which sounds best?) based on phrasing, loud-
ness, rhythm and harmony, in general independent of factors assessing
simple auditory discriminations. This factor can be further divided into a
tonal imagery subfactor, emphasizing melodic and harmonic aspects of
music, and a musical expression subfactor, stressing those aspects arising
from variations in phrasing, loudness and tempo.
Nearly all measures of musical aptitude depend to a great extent on
tests of very elementary discriminations among tonal materials, with
only little musical contexts. According to Carroll (1993), this could be
due to the desire to minimize the effects of musical training (so that a test
can be used to predict success in such training), but also to a failure to
recognize the possibilities of preparing a test including an appropriate
musical context. Expert musicians and music educators, so Carroll, tend
to discredit simple tests of auditory discriminations (like Seashore’s) as
possible tests of musical aptitude because they contain little or no musi-
cal meaning. However, it is difficult to develop tests with a desirable level
of musical meaning that do not at the same time become tests influenced
by musical training and experience.
dogil_08.pod 219
07-06-02 09:03:01 -mu- mu
Each author tends to have his own view of what exactly musical aptitude
is, and what subcomponents it is made of. As a consequence, each musi-
cality test has been created from a different perspective, often criticizing
the works of predecessors and attempting to combine, complete or im-
prove them. This fact has also generated a series of theoretical proposals
and empirical approaches that do not always coincide.
Several psychometric tests of musical talent and ability have been
created in the last century, some approximate to tests used by musicians,
others analyze music into its most elementary basic constituents. We can-
not survey them all here (for a review, see Shuter-Dyson & Gabriel 1981),
but we will examine the most popular ones, in order to highlight which is-
sues emerge when attempting to measure musical aptitude, and what
such issues tell us about the nature and the characteristics of musical tal-
ent. We will consider three major tests: Seashore’s test, especially for his-
torical reasons; Wing’s test, for its cognitive implications; and Gordon’s
tests, for its flexibility and popularity.
of the physical structure of the inner ear. The author states that the cog-
nitive threshold is no measure at all, but rather an indication of a lack of
control over other conditions. Instead, a correct measurement should
give the physiological threshold (or at least a proximate physiological
threshold), given that the former is scarcely attainable. Anyway, accord-
ing to him we cannot get a measure below the physiological threshold,
and any error is due to the cognitive threshold. He also warns against
what he calls the illusions, that is the influence of conscious or uncon-
scious anticipation (expectation) on the judgmental process (i.e. illusion
of pitch, intensity, timbre, etc.).
According to Seashore, absolute pitch2 is just an illusion cultivated by
many musicians. In fact, one could identify a note sounded in isolation
not by absolute pitch, but by memory of conditions of tuning, by differ-
ence in timbre, or guess. However, the author believes that the sensitive-
ness of the ear to pitch difference (as well as to other elements of sound)
cannot be improved appreciably by practice. Practice can only improve
the cognitive threshold by clearing up difficulties (such as information,
observations, development of interest, isolation of the problems, appli-
cation to the task, etc.) which could hinder an actual measure of discrimi-
nation. Thus, training in discrimination is not like the acquisition of a
skill, because only the meaning of pitch can be refined through training.
Finally, Seashore asserts that the actual psychophysical capacity for
pitch discrimination (and other elements of sound) does not improve
with age and does not vary with sex. In fact, the records of younger
children are just slightly inferior to those of the older, and this could be
accounted for by the presence of conditions for observation which are
overcome as experience grows with age. Furthermore, although scores
of girls are normally superior to those of boys, this could be better ex-
plained by the relative lack of interest in music typically shown by pre-
adolescent boys.
The historical importance and the scientific influence of Seashore’s
test should not be underestimated, because it was a pioneering work and
the first to be fully standardized. Nevertheless, its atomistic approach has
been heavily criticized, and its weakness in predicting musical ability has
been demonstrated, being even scarcely more efficient than general intel-
ligence in predicting musical achievement (for a review see Wing 1970).
2. Absolute pitch (or perfect pitch) is the ability found in a minority of listeners
to name an isolated musical tone presented without an objective reference
tone or, conversely, to produce a tone identified by name only.
dogil_08.pod 222
07-06-02 09:03:01 -mu- mu
Let us briefly follow the major critiques Wing raises against Seashore’s
approach.
essential task of the listener is to judge the more appropriate musical ar-
rangement (e.g. appreciation), the second comprising those in which the
task is merely to perceive a change (e.g. ear acuity). According to Wing,
this factor resembles the finding of similar bipolar factors in other tests
of artistic and intellectual abilities, for example the opposition between
the synthetic activity described as “intuition” (in which we implicitly
comprehend the essential meaning or character of a whole), and the ana-
lytic activity which essentially consists in explicitly analyzing the whole
into its component parts and the relations between them.
The third factor Wing extracted showed saturations with the two sub-
tests of harmony and chord analysis. These are the only ones which es-
sentially depend on listening to notes sounded simultaneously, whereas
the others deal mainly with the melodic or rhythmic contour of the music
played. Thus, according to Wing, this factor distinguishes those persons
who have a better appreciation for harmony than for melody or rhythm.
Finally, Wing reports that rhythm seems to have a comparatively weak
association with the general musical ability, this way anticipating what
more recent research has firmly demonstrated (Peretz & Coltheart 2003).
He claims that of all musical capacities, the ability to recognize rhythm is
probably the most elementary, in fact, it develops early, is the most widely
diffused, and may exist in almost complete independence of any deeper
appreciation of higher developments of musical art.
dents with low music aptitude who receive proper instruction may
achieve more success than students with average music aptitude who re-
ceive improper instruction.
Another important distinction, is that between a developmental stage
and a stabilized stage within music aptitude. According to Gordon, music
aptitude is basically innate, but not inherited. Thus, heredity influences
music aptitude, but it does not entirely determine it. In fact, although in-
nate, it also depends on a rich music environment to come to fruition.
Hence, music aptitude becomes a product of an innate potential plus
some early environmental musical influences, remaining lacking in the
case of an inappropriate environment. In Gordon’s view, music aptitude
is therefore a product of both nature and nurture.
Gordon calls developmental music aptitude stage the period from birth
to approximately age nine, a period in which according to him the en-
vironment would have a pronounced effect on music aptitude. During
those years, a child’s music aptitude level would constantly fluctuate,
and the potential may go up or down, according to the modulation of the
environment. However, the effect of the environment would start to de-
crease shortly after birth and keep on diminishing with age, until about
age nine music aptitude would stabilize and remain in what he calls sta-
bilized music aptitude stage throughout adulthood.
The author claims that it is very important that children receive
the highest quality of both informal music guidance and formal music
instruction during the developmental music aptitude stage, because this
would increase their immediate level of achievement, their overall level
of music aptitude, and their life-time potential for music achievement.
The younger the children, the better they may benefit from a high-quality
music environment. On the contrary, inappropriate or lacking instruc-
tions or no exposure to music whatsoever would drastically reduce a
child’s developmental music aptitude. However, although early environ-
mental influences promote music aptitude, in Gordon’s view one’s music
aptitude cannot reach a higher level than that with which one is born,
and no one would be able to reach a level in music achievement higher
than that at which his aptitude has stabilized.
Gordon considers unlikely the existence of completely separate apti-
tudes for composition, improvisation, instrument and vocal perfor-
mance, rather, he suggests there would be different personality traits and
psychomotor abilities, as well as separate sub-components of music apti-
tude, including preference and non-preference. According to him, apti-
tude would be unique but not unitary, and best represented by the inter-
dogil_08.pod 227
07-06-02 09:03:01 -mu- mu
3.4. Empirical evidence from our study on musicality and phonetic ability
In our current research project we pursued the question whether musical-
ity as a whole, as well as various more detailed musicality measures, cor-
relate with linguistic abilities, especially talent for L2 pronunciation. For
this aim we employed various measures for musicality:
1) Gordon’s AMMA (extensively reviewed in section 2.3.), composed of
two subscales: i) a scale for rhythm discrimination ability; and ii) a
scale for pitch discrimination ability; which results in a total score of
musicality.
2) An additional introspective questionnaire eliciting self reported abil-
ities in the domain of music: i) singing capacity (performance) and the
liking for singing; ii) dancing ability (performance) and the liking for
dancing; and iii) instrument playing (the number of instruments
Results are reported for a cohort of 66 individuals (33 males, age range
20–40 years, males: mean age 26.49 years +/– 5.36; females: mean age
25.31 years +/– 4.47) taking part in the study. Correlation coefficient (r)
was computed after Pearson, 2-tailed, with a level of probability of P <
.05 (*) and P < .01 (**).
Gender differences were not detected, with the exception of the liking
for dancing (t-test for independent samples yielded highly sig. difference,
P = .001**, higher scores for females) and the performance or capacity to
dance (with P = .033*, higher scores for females). However, as we will see
later, dancing was not amongst the musical abilities to predict any of the
language related skills.
First of all, a trivial result emerged. All musicality tests were highly
correlated amongst each other and likewise, all linguistic measures were
highly correlated amongst each other with correlation coefficients rang-
ing from .3 to .9, P < .01**. This underlines the validity of our tests and
measures taken.
Our aim was to see how the linguistic measures for the various L2 abil-
ities (aptitude and performance) interact with the musicality measures.
Results are summarized in Fig.1 (see Figure Nardo & Reiterer 1 in the
Colour figure section).
Table 1. – Correlations between musicality measures and language measures (N = 66)
07-06-02 09:23:56 -mu- mu
dogil_14_neu.pod 23
4. Neuroscientific evidence
4.1. Overview
In the previous sections, we have reviewed empirical contributions which
demonstrate the existence of a relationship between language and music
processing. There is evidence that musical training and expertise in-
fluence language processing and that certain musical abilities (above all
rhythm and pitch discrimination) are associated to a certain degree with
language abilities, especially in the phonetic/phonological domain.
In the last decade, the issue of a common neural substrate of language
and music has become central. The recent advancements in neuroimag-
ing techniques (PET, fMRI, MEG) have allowed scientists to investigate
both the neural structures and the functioning underlying higher-order
cognitive processes in a new way. There is an increasing number of studies
which give empirical support to the hypothesis that language and music
are processed, at least partially, in the same brain structures.
The first studies that investigated the neural substrates of music pro-
cessing on the basis of neuropsychological evidence (Milner 1962; Kimura
1964), pointed at a difference in the hemispheric lateralization, suggest-
ing that language processing was lateralized to the left, whereas music
processing was processed on the right side. However influential, such
findings have been proved wrong by subsequent studies. First, it was
found that the lateralization of music processing was affected by the level
dogil_08.pod 239
07-06-02 09:03:01 -mu- mu
of expertise (Bever & Chiarello 1974), which is able to modify the net-
works on the basis of neural plasticity (for expertise and plasticity in L2,
see also chapter by S Reiterer). Second, it was claimed that music (like
language) is no single entity, but should be decomposed into different
components (or levels of processing) which the literature has shown to be
processed in different brain structures (Besson & Schön 2001). Modern
concepts emphasize the modular5 organization of music cognition, that
different aspects of music are processed in different (although partly
overlapping) neuronal networks of both hemispheres (Altenmüller 2001).
In an influential paper, Patel and Peretz (1997) have focused on the
music-language relation, criticizing the literature reporting cases of amu-
sia6 without aphasia (and vice versa) as evidence of no cognitive overlap
between music and language. In fact, according to them, such an argu-
ment does not take into consideration the subcomponents of music and
language. Moreover, cases of aphasia without amusia are generally found
in exceptional individuals such as conductors and composers. Finally,
aphasia does not include all disorders of language. Patel and Peretz sug-
gest that music–like–language is a confluence of interacting cognitive
processes rather than an indivisible whole, and report various studies in-
vestigating different aspects of musical structure and their relationship to
linguistic structures (Patel & Peretz 1997). Aspects under consideration
include melody (melodic contour7, pitch, and tonality8) rhythm (tempo9,
10. Grouping is the clustering of adjacent elements into lager units (phrases)
while listening to music.
11. Metre is the periodic temporal-accentual scheme, or the number of pulses
between the more or less regularly recurring accents. In music grouping
boundaries are not predictable from the metrical scheme, that is, metre and
grouping are separate though interacting aspects of rhythm (see Lerdahl &
Jackendoff 1983).
dogil_08.pod 241
07-06-02 09:03:01 -mu- mu
adults was similar, on the left, adults showed larger activations in pre-
frontal and temporal areas. Moreover, in both adults and children, musi-
cal training correlated with stronger activations in the frontal operculum
and superior temporal gyrus.
In a further study by our own research group (Reiterer et al. 2005) on
basic pitch and duration discrimination, we found that task difficulty
and not the stimulus characteristics per se, was another modulating fac-
tor affecting hemispheric involvement within the classical auditory pro-
cessing areas. We found more right hemispheric involvement for both,
the pitch and the duration discrimination task, when the task was easier,
i.e. the discrimination between two stimuli could be achieved easily.
Speaking of semantics in the music domain seems strange, given that
music is rather abstract and has little explicit reference to the external
world. However, although still under debate, the question has been posed
whether a musical phrase can convey meaning, and whether this can be
proven.
According to Koelsch (2005), music can transfer meaningful in-
formation and is an important means of communication. Theorists dis-
tinguish between four different aspects of musical meaning: i) emerging
from common patterns or forms (e.g., musical sound patterns that re-
semble sounds or qualities of objects); ii) arising from a particular mood;
iii) inferred by extramusical associations; and iv) stemming from combi-
nations of formal structures that create tension (e.g., an unexpected
chord) and resolution (Meyer 1956). The emergence of this latter kind
requires an integration of both expected and unexpected events into a
meaningful musical context. The processing of such musical integration
seems to be reflected in a late negative component evoked by unexpected
(irregular) chords, which is substantially similar to the N400 component
elicited by the processing of semantic integration during the perception
of language. The N400 amplitude correlates with the amount of semantic
integration required by a word and, similarly, with the amount of har-
monic integration required by a musical event (Koelsch et al. 2000).
In an electrophysiological study with healthy subjects, Koelsch et al.
(2004) examined whether the priming effect caused by presenting se-
mantically related words in sequence (which evoke the N400 component)
could also apply to music. Results showed that a semantic priming effect
was also observed when target words (i.e., semantically unrelated to a
preceding musical excerpt) followed musical excerpts. The N400 compo-
nent did not differ between the language condition and the music condi-
tion with respect to amplitude, latency or scalp distribution, and the ef-
dogil_08.pod 244
07-06-02 09:03:01 -mu- mu
fect was observed for both abstract and concrete words. Moreover, in
both conditions the main sources of these effects were localized bilat-
erally in the posterior part of the medial temporal gyrus (BA 21/37), in
proximity to the superior temporal sulcus, regions implicated in the pro-
cessing of semantic information during language processing (Friederici
et al. 2000; Friederici 2001, 2002; Baumgaertner et al. 2002). Such find-
ings demonstrate that music can activate representations of meaningful
concepts, and that the cognitive operations underlying meaning decoding
can be identical in language and music processing.
On the other hand, Besson and Schön (2003) have carried out an ex-
periment which shows that lyrics and tunes seem to be processed in an in-
dependent way, giving support to a domain-specificity of semantic pro-
cessing. Conceptually similar, research with fMRI by our own groups
(Riecker et al. 2000) investigating overt singing and speaking found that
singing is predominantly lateralized to the right and speaking to the left
hemisphere.
12. Heschl’s gyrus is the primary auditory cortex in the human brain, located
within the Sylvian scissure and corresponding to Brodmann area 41.
dogil_08.pod 245
07-06-02 09:03:01 -mu- mu
5. Conclusions
References
Altenmüller, E. O.
2001 How many music centers are in the brain? Ann NY Acad Sci, 930:
273–80.
Anvari, S. H., Trainor, L. J., Woodside, J. & Levy, B. A.
2002 Relations among musical skills, phonological processing, and early read-
ing ability in preschool children. J Exp Child Psychol, 83(2): 111–30.
Arellano, S. I. & Draper, J. E.
1972 Relations between musical aptitudes and second-language learning.
Hispania, 55: 111–21.
Arleo, A.
2000 Music, song and foreign language teaching. Les Cahiers de l’APLIUT 19:
5–19.
Atterbury, B. W.
1985 Musical differences in learning-disabled and normal-achieving readers
aged seven, eight and nine. Psychology of Music, 13: 114–23.
Ayotte, J., Peretz, I., Rousseau, I., Bard, C. & Bojanowski, M.
2000 Patterns of music agnosia associated with middle cerebral artery in-
farcts. Brain, 123(9): 1926–38.
Ayotte, J., Peretz, I. & Hyde, K.
2002 Congenital amusia: a group study of adults afflicted with a music-spe-
cific disorder. Brain, 125(2): 238–51.
Baily, J.
1985 Music Structure and Human Movement. In Howell, P., Cross, I. & West
R. (Eds). Musical Structure and Cognition. London: Academic Press.
Bamberger, J.
1982 Revisiting children’s drawings of simple rhythms: A function of reflec-
tion-in-action. In Strauss, S. (Ed.) U-shaped behavioral growth. New
York: Academic Press.
Baumgaertner, A., Weiller, C. & Büchel, C.
2002 Event-related fMRI reveals cortical sites involved in contextual sentence
integration. Neuroimage, 16: 736–45.
dogil_08.pod 248
07-06-02 09:03:01 -mu- mu
Ewers, D. W.
1950 Relationship between auditory abilities and reading abilities: A problem
in psychometrics. Journal of Experimental Education, 18: 239–263.
Fish, L.
1984 Relationships among eighth grade German students’ learning styles,
pitch discrimination, sound discrimination, and pronunciation of Ger-
man phonemes. Diss. U. of Minnesota-Minneapolis.
Fodor, J.
1983 The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fonseca Mora, C.
2000 Foreign language acquisition and melody singing. English Language
Teaching Journal, 54: 146–152.
Friederici, A. D., Wang, Y., Herrmann, C. S., Maess, B. & Oertel, U.
2000 Localisation of early syntactic processes in frontal and temporal cortical
areas: An MEG study. Hum Brain Mapp, 11:1–11.
Friederici, A. D.
2001 Syntactic, prosodic, and semantic processes in the brain: Evidence from
event-related neuroimaging. J Psycholinguist Res, 30(3): 237–50.
Friederici, A. D.
2002 Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends Cogn
Sci, 6: 78–84.
Gaab, N., Gaser, C., Zaehle, T., Jancke, L. & Schlaug, G.
2003 Functional anatomy of pitch memory – an fMRI study with sparse tem-
poral sampling. Neuroimage, 19(4): 1417–26.
Gaab, N. & Schlaug, G.
2003 The effect of musicianship on pitch memory in performance matched
groups. Neuroreport, 14(18): 2291–5.
Gabrielsson, E. F.
1982 Performance and training of musical rhythm. Psychology of Music,
10[special issue]: 42–46.
Gardner, H.
1983 Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic
Books.
Gilleece, L. F.
2006 An empirical investigation of the association between musical aptitude
and foreign language aptitude. Doctoral Thesis, University of Dublin,
Trinity College.
Gordon, E. E.
1965 Musical Aptitude Profile manual. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Gordon, E. E.
1979 Primary Measures of Music Audiation. Chicago: GIA.
Gordon, E. E.
1982 Intermediate Measures of Music Audiation. Chicago: GIA.
Gordon, E. E.
1989a Advanced Measures of Music Audiation. Chicago: GIA.
dogil_08.pod 250
07-06-02 09:03:01 -mu- mu
Gordon, E. E.
1989b Audie: A game for understanding and analyzing your child’s musical po-
tential. Chicago: GIA.
Green, L.
2002 How popular musicians learn. Hampshire, England: Ashgate Publish-
ing Limited.
Griffiths, T. D., Rees, A., Witton, C., Cross, P. M., Shakir, R. A., Green, G. G.
1997 Spatial and temporal auditory processing deficits following right hemi-
sphere infarction. A psychophysical study. Brain, 120(5): 785–94.
Harrison, N.
1979 A study to find out if a correlation exists between the study of music and
aural-oral ability in French. M.A.T. of F. Simon Fraser U.
Holmes, J. A.
1954 A substrata analysis of spelling ability for elements of auditory images.
Journal of Experimental Education, 22: 329–349.
Jaffurs, S.
2004 Developing musicality: Formal and informal practices. Action, Criti-
cism, and Theory for Music Education, 3(3).
Jakobson, L. S., Cuddy, L. L., & Kilgour, A. R.
2003 Time tagging: A key to musicians’ superior memory. Music Perception,
20(3): 307–313.
Jørgensen, H.
2008 What is a talent, how is it identified, and how is it developed?. Paper
presented at the conference “Precollege education and talent develop-
ment”, European Association of Conservatoires (AEC, Oslo May 30,
2008).
Jusczyk, P. W.
1999 How infants begin to extract words from speech. Trends Cogn. Sci, 3:
323–28.
Karimer, L.
1984 Can southeast Asian students learn to discriminate between English pho-
nemes more quickly with the aid of music and rhythm?. Language Key to
Learning, 5: 41–48.
Kimura, D.
1964 Left-Right Differences in the Perception of Melodies. Quarterly Journal
of Experimental Psychology, 16: 355–358.
Koelsch, S., Gunter, T. C., Friederici, A. D. & Schroger, E.
2000 Brain indices of music processing: Non-musicians are musical. J Cog
Neurosci, 12: 520–541.
Koelsch, S., Gunter, T. C., Cramon, D.Y., Zysset, S., Lohmann, G., Friederici, A. D.
2002 Bach speaks: A cortical “language-network” serves the processing of
music. Neuroimage, 17(2): 956–66.
Koelsch, S., Grossmann, T., Gunter, T.C., Hahne, A., Schröger, E. & Friederici, A. D.
2003 Children processing music: electric brain responses reveal musical com-
petence and gender differences. J Cogn Neurosci. 15(5): 683–93.
dogil_08.pod 251
07-06-02 09:03:01 -mu- mu
McPherson, G. E.
1993/ Evaluating improvisational ability of high school instrumentalists.Bulle-
1994 tin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 119: 11–20.
Meyer, L. B.
1956 Emotion and Meaning in Music. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Milner, B.
1962 Laterality effects in audition. In Mountcastle, V.B. (Ed.) Interhemis-
pheric relations and cerebral dominance. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hop-
kins Press.
Milovanov, R., Tervaniemi, M., Takio, F., & Hämäläinen, H.
2007 Modification of dichotic listening (DL) performance by musico-lin-
guistic abilities and age. Brain Research, 1156: 168–173.
Milovanov, R., Huotilainen, M., Välimäki, V., Esque, P. A., & Tervaniemi, M.
2008 Musical aptitude and second language pronunciation skills in school-aged
children: Neural and behavioral evidence. Brain Research, 1194: 81–89.
Morgan, C.
2003 Musical aptitude and second-language phonetics learning: implications
for teaching methodology. Doctoral Thesis, Simon Frazer University.
Music Educators National Conference (MENC).
1994 National standards for arts education. Reston, Virginia: Author.
Norton, A., Winner, E., Cronin, K., Overy, K., Lee, D. J. & Schlaug, G.
2005 Are there pre-existing neural, cognitive, or motoric markers for musical
ability? Brain Cogn, 59(2): 124–34.
Palmer, C. & Kelly, M. H.
1992 Linguistic prosody and musical meter in song. Journal of Memory and
Language, 3: 525–542.
Pastuszek-Lipinska, B.
2008 Influence of music education on second language acquisition. Acoustics
08, Paris.
Patel, A. D. & Peretz, I.
1997 Is music autonomous from language? A neuropsychological appraisal. In
Deliège, I. & Sloboda, J. (Eds.). Perception and cognition of music.
East Sussex: Psychology Press.
Patel, A. D, Gibson, E., Ratner, J., Besson, M. & Holcomb, P. J.
1998 Processing syntactic relations in language and music: an event-related
potential study. J Cogn Neurosci, 10(6): 717–33.
Patel, A. D.
2003 Language, music, syntax and the brain. Nature Neuroscience, 6(7):
674–681.
Peretz, I.
1993 Auditory atonalia for melodies. Cognit Neuropsychol, 10: 21–56.
Peretz, I. Kolinsky, R., Tramo, M., Labrecque, R., Hublet, C., Demeurisse, G.,
Belleville, S.
1994 Functional dissociations following bilateral lesions of auditory cortex.
Brain, 117: 1283–1302.
dogil_08.pod 253
07-06-02 09:03:01 -mu- mu
Spychiger, M.
1993 Music makes the school. Die Blaue Eule.
Sternberg, R. J.
1996 Cognitive Psychology. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Stevenson, R.
1999 Is there an association between musical and linguistic aptitude?. An em-
pirical study. Unpublished M.Phil, Trinity College, Dublin.
Stokes, J. D.
2001 Factors in the acquisition of Spanish pronunciation. International Re-
view of Applied Linguistics, 131–132: 63–84.
Sutton, J.
1995 The sound-world of speech and language impaired children. In Gilroy, A.
& Lea, C. (Eds). Art and music: Therapy and research. London and
New York: Routledge.
Swain, J. P.
1997 Musical languages. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.
Swanick, K.
1973 Musical cognition and aesthetic response. Psychology of Music, 1(2):
7–13.
Swanner, D. L.
1985 Relationships between musical creativity and selected factors, including
personality, motivation, musical aptitude, and cognitive intelligence as
measured in third grade children. Unpublished dissertation, Case West-
ern Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio.
Threub, S. & Trainor, L.
1993 Listening strategies in infancy: The roots of music and language devel-
opment. In McAdams, S. & Bigand, E. (eds.). Thinking in sound: The
cognitive psychology of human audition. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Tillmann, B., Janata, P., Bharucha, J. J.
2003 Activation of the inferior frontal cortex in musical priming. Ann NY
Acad Sci, 999: 209–11.
Tomatis, A.
1991 Nous sommes tous nés polyglottes. Paris: Fixot.
Tucker, A.
2000 Relationships among FL aptitude, music aptitude, and L2 proficiency.
In Cornwell, S. & Robinson, P. (Eds.). Individual differences in FLL:
Effects of aptitude, intelligence and motivation. Tokyo: Japanese As-
sociation for Language Teaching.
Vaughan, M. M.
1977 Measuring creativity: Its cultivation and measurement. Bulletin of the
Council for Research in Music Education, 50: 72–77.
Wang, C.
1985 Measures of creativity in sounds and music. Unpublished manuscript,
University of Kentucky School of Music, Lexington.
dogil_08.pod 255
07-06-02 09:03:01 -mu- mu
Webster, P. R.
1983 Measures of creative thinking in music. Unpublished manuscript,
Northwestern University School of Music, Evanston, IL.
Webster, P. R.
1988 New perspectives on music aptitude and achievement. Psychomusicol-
ogy, 7: 177–194.
Wheeler, L. R., & Wheeler, V. D.
1954 A study of the relationship of auditory discrimination to silent reading
abilities. Journal of Educational Research, 48: 103–113.
Wing, H. D.
1941 A factorial study of musical tests. British Journal of Psychology.,
XXXI: 341–355.
Wing, H. D.
1970 Tests of Musical Ability and Appreciation. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.