Has this august body ever discussed the idea of cultural linkages -- that music reflects the language, or that a language's "sound" is related to its music?

I heard a suggestion that the characteristic pitch and harmonics of Chinese music, for example, are suited to singing the (tonal) Chinese language.

Earliest music may have arisen to chanted poetry, so language and music would be mutual influences.

I know that in all of the information out there on language development in young children, music is suggested as one of the best ways to stimulate and encourage said maturation. There is particular interest, of course, in using music with children who have learning disabilities like Down Syndrome, but also in using music to teach critical early literacy skills.

That's not really what you're talking about , is it? I've often wondered if the language of cultures brought about the sound of their music, or the other way 'round. I'll start looking.

Bet the two ideas are related.

A large part of speech, and interpretation of what we hear, is hard-wired. The rest requires environmental triggers to develop.

It seems that the interplay is important, and that if, for example, a language develops a certain kind of tonality, then that will carry over into areas like music, that use the same lobes...

All the brain research I've read shows that, at birth, our brains can develop any number of language faculties (facilities?), but it is in HEARING the language spoken around us that we become specialized in the creation of sounds.

People who are born with hearing impairments often have great difficulty learning to read and write - greater than their hearing counterparts. My son, who has some noticable speech problems, had a tougher time learning to read and spell because what he pronounced did not coincide with what the teacher was saying.

Also, parents who are bi-lingual are now (maybe they've always been) being encouraged to speak their native language to their babies, as scientists are seeing that those babies that hear "natural" sounds are most likely to learn better.

I'm still not finding any more info on language and music. Hmmm

Onomatopoaea is different in different languages too. A "meow" is not "meow" in another language, for instance.

Caterwauler, your mentioning your son's problems reminds me of Oliver Sacks' old book, "Seeing Voices," about deaf people's language. Sacks suggests that native signers develop a complex and fully competent language with poetry, puns, and visual imagery at least equal to spoken language, IF allowed to do so.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Asa Lovejoy:
Sacks suggests that native signers develop a complex and fully competent language with poetry, puns, and visual imagery at least equal to spoken language, IF allowed to do so.

---

Yes, I'm sure that is true! I work with a family that is deaf (they are avid library users, each day coming in to check out more videos) and those of us who've got a "working knowledge" of American Sign Language can barely understand them sometimes, as this family has developed a very quick system of shortcuts and slang.

Your other comment, Asa, reminds me that somewhere there is (or used to be) a children's book that had animal sounds from several different languages . . . hmm . .. I'll have to search for that when I'm not half asleep.

One of the more interesting studies (which I cannot find the references for at this point! Dang...) was done several years ago at Iowa State University.

Kindgergarteners were divided into two groups. One learned the alphabet by rote repetition. The other was taught using the ABC Song. There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding memory retention after two, four and six months.

These same children were also exposed to differing levels of music, both listening and participatory. The rote repetition group, while not discouraged from spontaneous singing did not have formal singing in the class or any structured music listening time. The other group was given 30 minutes of structured listening each day, and 30 minutes of reading words set to music each day.

The only statistically significant difference found after 9 months was that the children exposed to music and singing had a measurably greater attention span than the other group.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Arvanitis:



It seems that the interplay is important, and that if, for example, a language develops a certain kind of tonality, then that will carry over into areas like music, that use the same lobes...

---

Again I'm off your original point, but in the Sacks book I mentioned, deaf people were found to use more of/different parts of their brains in conversing in sign. Does music, as Jo suggests, cause and/or allow the use of more of one's mind for communication?

Uh... I don't think I said that. If I did, I didn't mean to. The only significant difference was the ability of the children who had music to concentrate.

I was part of a similar study during my early 20s. I was a competitive chess player. 250 of us who played tournament chess were divided into groups of those who played a musical instrument and those who did not. Those of us who had training and played regularly generally peformed higher on evaluation of our tournament play, in terms of being able to focus, concentrate, "tune out" extraneous noises, etc.

Asa asked "Does music, as Jo suggests, cause and/or allow the use of more of one's mind for communication?"

The research I've seen would suggest that, rather than really using MORE of their brains, they're using different AREAS of the brain. Granted, everything I read about the subject tends to focus on how children learn to read, but if you're interested in this you might find the following books interesting:

_An Alcheymy of Mind_ by Diane Ackerman, 2004.
_A Mind at a Time_ by Mel Levine, 2002. Dr. Levine also has a website about teaching differently for children who have differences in learning.

quote:

---

_An Alcheymy of Mind_ by Diane Ackerman, 2004.
_A Mind at a Time_ by Mel Levine, 2002. Dr. Levine also has a http://www.allkindsofminds.org/ about teaching differently for children who have differences in learning.

---

Thanks, Cw! (I'm too lazy to write "Caterwauler!) I've read other of Ackerman's works and like her style, so I'll check her out! Well, her book, that is!

Now, another question: Do infants have a "tabula rasa," or, rather, are our brains innately "formatted" for language, with what Chomsky calls "deep grammar," or the capacity to give structure to any communication system? Then, I wonder, is music a language, as I've often thought, or is it merely something to which exposure will build aditional neural networks for concentration? And why is it that most people I know need music, or some sort of background noise, in order to concentrate, whereas I can't concentrate when I hear it?

Now, where's Robert? He started this! RA, where'd you go?!?!

Actually, CW is a great nic for me, much quicker than "AmCat" or "Cater" to type, and, in a delightful coincidence, CW are my initials.

Now, about the brain. Yes, as far as language is concerned, infants are a clean slate for learning. That is why children who learn to speak English from birth in America often have no accent, even though their parents have a thick accent.

Also, there are "windows of opportunity" when the brain is developing in a certain area, making it the "prime time" to learn those skills and ideas that will forever dwell in that part of the brain. The most current research shows that our brains don't develop evenly across all parts, or "clusters" of cells during our lives. For instance, the emotional centers of the brain are generally fully developed by the time we are 13 (females) or 15 (males) but the logic centers of the brain don't come to their maturity (in size, not nec. capacity) until the ages of 19 (women) or 25-30 (men). This is an excellent explanation why teenagers are so volatile.

As pertains to this thread, the language centers of the brain are most active in their development when we are very young (generally before age 8). That is why it's much easier to learn multiple languages as children.


Also of note is that reading and writing require activity in 4 different areas of the brain - sight, sound, memory and language. Add in the motor skills required for writing, and it's a miracle any of us are able to coordinate it all!

Stop me now! I could go on about this topic for days!

Don't stop CW! It's great stuff about wiring and re-wiring the brain.

I've found some ideas close to the initial question on music and language. It seems that speakers of tonal languages have a much higher proportion of people with perfect pitch. So at least to that extent we can confirm the interaction.

It seems that speakers of tonal languages have a much higher proportion of people with perfect pitch.

I find that hard to believe. Do you have an pointers to the literature? Non-tonal languages (e.g., English) use tone also, but not to distinguish words from one another phonologically. Also, in tonal languages, the tones are relative to one another, and not fixed in pitch.

Two interesting sites:

http://library.uchc.edu/bhn/cite/nyt/2311tone.html

http://www.perfectpitchpeople.com/language.htm

In the second article, the author notes two seeming relationships. First, speakers of tonal languages tend to have higher prevalence of perfect pitch.

Second, and more interesting, is that (non-tonal) Japanese also seem to have more higher representation of perfect pitch, thanks perhaps to more early music training (think Suzuki).

Even more suggestive -- babies are born with perfect pitch, but lose it absent a tonal language OR musical training...

http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=11434

Thanks, RJA. I'll take a look at them and get back to you.

Fascinating articles about tonal languages and pitch. It would seem to support your idea of language and music being related more closely.

Music is such an engaging medium.

Maybe you need to do a new study!