ED 050 621

DOCUMENT RESUME

24 FL 002 197

AUTHOR Arellano, Sonya I.; Draper, Jean E.TITLE Relationship Between Musical Aptitudes and

Second-Language Learning. Final Report.INSTITUTION Office of Education (DREW) , Washington, D.C. Bureau

of Research.BUREAU NO BR-8-D-057PUB DATE hay 70GRANT OEG-4-8-080057-0047-057NOTE 58p.

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

EDRS Price MF-$0.85 HC-$3.29Acoustics, Aptitude Tests, Articulation (Speech) ,Basic Skills, *Educational Experiments, LanguageFluency, Language Patterns, Language Rhythm,Language Skills, *Linguistic Performance, ListeningComprehension, *Music Theory, Pronunciation, *SecondLanguage Learning, *Spanish, Speech Skills, VerbalAbility

ABSTRACTThis study explores the relationships between a

child's discriminatory abilities in the areas of pitch, intensity,rhythm, timbre, and tonal memory and his capacity to comprehend andspeak the Spanish language. The Spanish accent is analyzed on thebasis of intonation, stress, sinalepha, and phone production. Thesefactors were tested both in isolated words and on contextual materialintended to approximate the conditions of free speech. Comprehensionwas evaluated by means of an objective, multiple-choice listeningtest. The results of the investigation indicate a strong relationshipbetween discriminatory musical abilities in pitch, intensity, rhythm,timbre, and tonal memory and in achievement of a Spanish accent. Themethods, findings and Analysis, and discussions and conclusions ofthe experiment are described in this report. Frequent use is made ofstatistical data in numerous tables. A bibliography and sample testmaterials are provided. (Author/RL)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. EDUCATION& WELFARE

OFFICE OF EDUCATIONTHIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRODUCEDEXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE PERSON ORORGANIZATION ORIGINATING IT. POINTS OFVIEW OR OPINIONS STATED DO NOT NECESFinal Report SARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF EDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY(\I OE Project No. 8-D-057

OE Grant No. 4-8-080057-0047-057CD

iDIX\

UJ Relationship Between Musical Aptitudesand

Second-Language Learning

Sonya I. Arellanoand

Jean E. Draper

Florida State UniversityTallahassee, Florida

March 1970

The Research reported herein was performed persuant to agrant of the Office of Education, U.S. Department ofHealth, Education, and Welfare. Contractors undertakingsuch projects under Government sponsorship are encouragedto express freely their professional judgment in the con-duct of the project, Points of view or opinions stated donot, therefore, necessarily represent official Office ofEducation position or policy.

U. 5.. DEPARTMENT OFHEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

Office of EducationBureau of Research

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

SUMMARY 3

INTRODUCTION 6

METHODS 13

FINDINGS AND, ANALYSIS 16

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 27

RECOMMENDATIONS 31

REFERENCES 33

BIBLIOGRAPHY 34

APPENDICES 45

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. -Maximum Attainable Scores, Mean Scores andStandard Deviations for Seashore and SpanishVariables 18

Table --Means. and Standard Deviations for IwQ.,Seashore and Spanish Variables for Boys andGirls . . 0 OOOOOOO 19

Table 3.--Correlation Matrix for I.Q., Seashore andSpanish Variables 20

Table 4,--Correlations Between Composite SpanishScores and I.Q., Seashore Spanish Com-

prehension Variables . . . .22

Table 5.--Correlation Matrix for avhomz and SpanishVariables Partialled with Respect to I.Q. . 24

Table 6.--Result on Zero-Order Correlations 4ignifi-cant at the .01 Level of Partiallinc withRespect to I.Q. 25

Table 7.--Coefficients for Canonical RelationshipBetween Standardized Seashore and SpanishVariables . . . ....... 26

Table 8.--Means and Standard Deviations for SeashoreVariables for High, Medium and Low SpanishGroups 28

Table 9. -- Correlations Between COmposite TotalSpanish Scores and Seashore Variables forHigh, Medium and Low Spanish Groups . . . . 29

2

SUMMARY

The present investigation explores the relationshipsbetween a child's discriminatory abilities in the areas ofpitch, intensity, rhythm, timbre, and tonal memory; and hiscapacity to comprehend spoken Spanish and to acquire native-like accent in the language. Spanish accent is analyzed onthe bases of intonation, stress, sinalepha, and phone pro-duction. These five factors were tested both in isolatedwords and in contextual material intended to approximate theconditions of free speech. Comprehension was evaluated bymeans of an objective (multiple choice) listening test. Sexand I.Q. factors were considered for all subjects, bringingto 16 the original total of variables involved. The dif-ference between the mean scores for boys and girls was notsignificant and was thus ignored in subsequent analyses.

The decision to work with elementary school-agedchildren rather than with adolescents or adults gave rise toproblems not encountered with older subjects, but it wasfelt that the potential value of information obtained fromyounger subjects justified the difficulties involved, sinceboth practical experience and experimental evidence indicatethat the ability to acquire native-like accent in a sec.,ndlanguage decreases significantly with increasing chronologi-cal age. The average age of the subjects was approximatelyten years (fifth grade) .

The principal investigation described in this reportwas preceded by a pilot study, designed to establish samplesizes and testing procedures and to instruct the linguisticsraters who would judge the oral performance of subjects in-Volved in the final study. Data obtained in the pilot in-dicated that 75 subjects would constitute an adequate sam-pling. In fulfillment of an a priori condition establishedfor the investigation, no data were retained for any subject

_having significant previous exposure to Spanish. In a fur-ther attempt to exclude interference from extraneous factors,subjects were exposed to spoken Spanish only, and in orderto minimize any variation in performance that might resultflout differences in accent, presentation of materials, andteacher: effectiveness, all subjects were taught by the sameinstructor.

The Seashore Measures of pitch, intensity, rhythm,timbre, and tonal memory were administered to all subjects.After a six-week period of audio-lingual instruction inSpanish (thirty minutes per child per school day, for a

3

total of fifteen hours per subject), language production andcomprehension were tested for all subjects.

The results of this study indicate a rather strongrelationship between discriminatory musical abilities inpitch, intensity, rhythm, timbre, and tonal memory, andachievement of Spanish accent. With one exception, all ofthe correlations between musical abilities and Spanish ac-cent achievement are positive and many of them are statis-tically significant. Because all of the musical abilitymeasures except pitch are highly significantly correlatedwith I.Q., the partial correlations with respect to I.Q. be-tween musical ability and Spanish accent achievement are ofmore interest than the zero-order correlations.

Considering these partial correlations, timbre andphones both in context and in isolation are strongly related(.01 level), as are pitch and stress in isolation. Thereare a number of other statistically significant though lessstrong relationships (.05 level): pitch with sinalepha andphones in isolation; intensity with intonation in isolation;rhythm with stress and sinalepha in isolation; timbre withintonation in context; and stress in context and tonal mem-ory with phones in isolation.

The correlations between I.Q. and Spanish accentachievement measured in context are larger, in general, thanthese correlations when Spanish accent achievement is meas-ured in isolation; thus the effect of partialling withrespect to I.Q. is greater, in general, for correlations in-volving Spanish accent when measured in context than whenmeasured in isolation. This is consistent with the greaterimportance of memory in the contextual material.

Spanish comprehension score is not strongly relatedto I.Q., musical abilities or Spanish accent measured inisolation, but is strongly rvlated to Spanish accent meas-ured in context. This seems to indicate that there is anability to comprehend and speak Spanish in context that islargely independent of I.Q. This is confirmed by the factthat the Spanish accent measures in context are highly in-tercorrelated in all six cases, even after partialling withrespect to I.Q., as are the Spanish accent measures in iso-lation; correlations between the same aspect of Spanish ac-cent measured in context and in isolation are much lower,and none is significant at even the .05 level after par-tialling with respect to I.Q.

The overall relationship between the musical abili-ties variables and the Spanish accent achievement variables

4

is highly significant as indicated by canonical analysis.The variables contributing most strongly to this relation-ship are the musical abilities variables pitch and timbreand the Spanish accent achievE:ent variables intonation andsinalepha in context and stress and phones in isolation.This overall relationship is consistent with the zero-orderand partial correlations and provides an interesting com-posite analysis of these relationships. The musicalabilities variables did not provide a significant discrimi-nant function for predicting three groups partitioned on thebasis of total Spanish accent achievement score. This cor-responds to the fact that total Spanish accent achievementscore is in fact continuous and that the measures of it inthis study range widely within each of the groups. Theconsistent variation of the means for the musical abilitiesvariables with respect to Spanish achievement group is ap-parently a reflection of a basically continuous relation-ship, as are the relatively constant correlations betweenthe musical abilities scores and total Spanish achievementscores compared, across Spanish achievement groups.

Further research is needed to establish the gen-erality of these results with respect to other languages.While it is obviously not possible to extrapolate the re-sults of experimentation with a single language to languagesin general, the rather close relationship found to existbetween certain musical acuities and Spanish learning inyoung subjects suggests the possibility that music andsecond-language learning may, during early childhood andover a protracted time period, be mutually r(,...inforcing.With regard to older students--adolescents and young adultsof college age--it would seem that the study of music andlanguages might well be regarded as complementary fields ofendeavor. It has been the authors' observation thatg'.iidance counselors working with these age groups oftenstress to the person manifesting interest in both areas (a

not uncommon situation) the need for choosing between them,when in fact the two might very profitably be ptrisued con-jointly.

5

INTRODUCTION

The question of a possible relationship between cer-tain abilities regarded as fundamental to good musicianshipand the acquisition of accent in a second language (i.e.,any language not native to the learner) is one often debatedamong teachers and other professionals in the languagefield, but about which until recently there existed littleconcrete experimental information; and none of the reportedstudies dealing with the matter has concerned itself withyoungsters of elementary school age. Yet it is preciselyduring these early years that psychological and physiologi-cal characteristics are most favorable to the acquisition ofnative-like accent in a second language,1 and those factorsrelated to accent are the ones most likely to correlatepositively and significantly with musical aptitudes.

It was the aim of the investigation discussed inthis paper to attempt to discover whether there does in factexist any such relationship between a child's discriminatoryabilities in the areas of pitch, intensity, rhythm, timbre,and tonal memory, and his capacity to achieve in the area ofSpanish accent and to comprehend spoken Spanish. (Thechoice of Spanish as the language, of instruction was arbi-trary. Additional research involving other languages willbe required to corroborafe any accurate generalization.There is, for, example, evidence in the Dorcus, Mount andJones study2 that pitch discrimnation, a factor found byprevious studies to be a significant factor in the

1That children "learn" a second language betterand/or faster than adolescents and adults is questionable.John B. Carroll, in his article "Wanted: A Research Basisfor Educational Policy on Foreign Language Teaching" states,"If anything children may be slower. The important way inwhich children seem to have an advantage over adults or evenadolescents is the ease with which they can learn a native-like wonunciation of the foreign language--without the ex-tensive pronunciation drills and phonetic explanations whicholder people seem to need in order to achieve acceptablepronunciation." (Harvard Educational Review, XXX, p. 132.)

2R. M. Dorcus, G. E. Mount, and M. H. Jones, "Con-

struction and Validation of Foreign Language Aptitude Tests,"U.S. Dept. Army, AGO-PRB, Personnel Research Board Report,No. 993 (June6 1952).

6

acquisition of French accent, may not be equally meaningfulfor Russian, Hungarian, Serbo-Croatian, Arabic, Japanese,and Mandarin Chinese.)

It should be stressed that the area under investiga-tion in the present study is limited to accent; misunder-standings regarding the nature of secondlanguage learning(and by extension, second-language teaching) have sometimesbeen perpetuated through failure to distinguish clearlyamong the various skills involved in successful languageproduction. Thus, one occasionally meets with Urie assertionthat language learning is apparently unrelated to generalintelligence. Clearly, such a statement is a distortion;for while there has in the past been little evidence to sup-port the contention that intelligence is related in any sig-nificant way to achievement of good accent, there is a largebody of responsible research which indicates that overallachievement in learning a second language (which ultimatelymust involve the ability to deal in abstractions) isstrongly related to verbal intelligence and, to a lesserextent, to reasoning. To make any useful statement aboutlanguage learning, then, one must separate the sensory as-pect of the activity from the intellectual and the motor.It is with the sensory that this investigation is primarilyconcerned, realizing that the sensory is but one part of thevery complex question of second-language learning ability.

Among those investigations which have dealt with oneor more of the questions involved in the present study, thefollowing are especially pertinent. Some of the earliestwork reported in the area is that of Dexter who, in two suc-cessive investigations, attempted to examine the relation-ship between pitch discrimination and accent. The first ofthese, an account of which appears in .the April, 1934, issueof the Journal of A.p21.ied12215.ox., attempted a broad cor-relation between pitch discrimination and tonal memory asassessed by the Seashore Measures of Musical Talent3 andaccent achieved in French, German, and Spanish. However,the relatively small number of subjects available in thelast two resulted in the study's limiting itself primarilyto a consideration of French,

3Developed and published by Carl E. Seashore in 1919and revised in 1939, the Measures are a standard instrumentin the field of music psychology.

7

Two of the Seashore Measures of Musical Talent,those for Pitch Discrimination and for Tonal Memory,were given to an unselected group of 118 upper classstudents at Agnes Scott College, all but two of whomhad had French in college. (Practi.cally all hadalso had two years of French in high school.) About25 had had German also and about 20 had had Spanish.Ratings as to pronunciation and accent of each in-dividual tested were obtained from members of theFrench, German, and Spanish departments. These rat-ings were in five gradations; 1 being high, 3average, and 5 low, with 2 and 4 intermediary steps.There were 95 students for whom French accent rat-ings were secured, rated by three-members of thedepartment, but only 20-25 in Spanish and German,so the study has concerned itself mainly withFrench.4

The results of the Tonal Memory.5 test are not discussedsince it was concluded that this factor made "no apparentcontribution toward accent." Also included in this studywere investigations of the relationship between intelligenceand accent ratings, between pitch discrimination and numberof years of study, between intelligence and pitch discrimi-nation, and between certain personality traits and accentachieved. The investigators reported a "slight relation"between pitch and number Of years of study, a "slight rela-tion between accent and pitch discrimination," and an "ap-preciably higher median in pitch discrimination for thegroup rated above the average in accent in French andSpanish than for those rated average or lower," and that...people with low ability in pitch discrimination are not

rated high in accent, nor do they take more than two years

4Emily S. DeN.ter and Katherine T, Omwake, "The Rela-tion Between Pitch Discrimination and Accent in Modern Lan-guages," Journal of Applied Psychology, XVIII (1934), p. 267.

5There are six divisions in the Seashore: Pitch,__Intensity, Rhythm, Timbre, Tonal Memory, and Time. TonalMemory measures the accuracy with which a subject recallsmusical phrases of three, four,, or five successive tones.

6Dexter and Omwake, p. 267.

8

of college French."7 This last finding parallels those instudies undertaken in the field of music education whichrave shown that those who test poorly in the area of pitchdiscrimination rarely pursue music study beyond the beginnerstage.8

The second of Dexter's studies, reported in a subse-quent issue of the Journal of AmliadElychology, restricteditself to a consideration of the relation between pitch dis-crimination, intelligence, and accent in French, but subjectswere 514 girls drawn from two different high schools. Ac-cording to the investigator, "The findings of this study aregratifyingly similar to those of the earlier investigation.High school students to an even greatt extent than collegestudents tend to be rated high, average or low in French ac-cent according as their ability tc discriminate pitch variesfrom high to low."9 Among the conclusions drawn from thisinvestigation are the following:

a. There is a good correlation between pitch dis-crimination and accent rating...

b. Comparatively low intellectual abi'ity for highschool work accompanied by good pitch discrimi-nation seems to result in reasonably successfulwork in French; whereas correspondingly low in-telligence accompanied by low ability to dis-c7iminate pitch leads to failure in French.1°

....1,7Dexter and Omwake, p. 271.

8Wibh regard to the overall picture, Kwalwo.sser hassaid, "The generalization may be made, by and large, thatthe trained ar the talented and the untrained are the un-alMtalented." (EmiarizathellallicalMind [New York, 1955] ,p. 40.) This situation he attributes to a process of se-lection which results in the poorly-equipped student's volun-tary abandonment of music study because of his frustrationand embarrassment at his poor achievement.

9 Emily S. Dexter, "Pitch Discrimination and FrenchAccent on the High School Level," Journal of aulied Psy-chology, XVII (1934), p. 717.

10Dexter, 720.

Perhaps the most intriguing aspect of this second study isthe finding that correlation of pitch with accent increasesas age of subject decreases.

The conclusions of these two studies are interest-ing, but certain limitations in their design are apparent.The most serious of these involves the somewhat impreciseratings for accent. Statistically, a fivedegree rating forsuch subjective judgments is of doubtful validity; it is un-likely that more than three levels of excellence could bedistinguished with any accuracy. No data were gathered formales, since subjects for both experiments were drawn fromgirls' schools.

In 1962, Pimsleur, Stockwell, and Comrey reportedtwo studies of factors involved in learning French.1p1 Theirinvestigation involved twenty-three tests administered to208 students in college French, and twenty-two tests admin-istered to 202 additional students one year later. Amongthose elements considered in Study II but not in Study I wasauditory discrimination. The criteria applied to Study IIwere three: (a) the Cooperative French Test, Advanced FormsQ and R--a standardized test of achievementin.reading, gram-mar, and vocabulary; (b) a lab grade consisting of an esti-mate of speaking ability given by a laboratory instructor onthe basis of the subjects' performance throughout the sem-ester and a final oral test; and (c) a Pictorial Comprehen-sion Test, which was an objectively scored test of listeningcomprehension. Two of the nineteen variables comprisingStudy II are factors of musical talent as measured by allstandard instruments: pitch discrimination and timbre dis-crimination. The first of these was measured by two tests,one involving pure tones (Seashore Pitch Measure) and oneinvolving natural language (Chinese Pitch Test). Both pitchtests were found to correlate significantly with criteria aand c, but not with b--a finding at variance with theearlier work of Dexter. Timbre discrimination was alsomeasured by two tests, one involving non-language tones(Seashore Timbre Measure) and the other involving naturallanguage (Phonetic Perception Test). These two variableswere found to correlate significantly with criterion c, butnot a, or b. 4It is interesting to note,. however, thatneither Seashore subtest provided information sufficiently

11Paul Pimsleur, Robert P. Stockwell, and Andrew L.Comrey, "Foreign Language Learning Ability," Journal of Edu-cational Psycholoa, LIII, No 1, pp. 15-26.

10

useful to warrant its inclusion among those factors found tocontribute .01 or more to the prediction of criteria a or b(grammar-reading and speaking, respectively), although theChinese Pitch Test was retained for the prediction of cri-terion a. The Seashore Timbre Measure was, however, re-tained for prognosis of criterion c (listening comprehen-sion), as was the Chinese Pitch Test; the Seashore PitchMeasure was again discarded as non-significant. Among theconclusions reached by Pimsleur, Stockwell, and Comrey istheir judgment "that oral and aural achievement are lesssubject to satisfactory prediction at .the present time[than achievement in a traditional or grammar and readingcourse], probably due to the lack of adequate criteriontests for achievement in these skills

Some of the most recent, as well as the most compre-hensive work in this area is that reported by Leutenegger,Mueller, and Wershow13 in 1965. The investigators made useof all six Seashore subtests (Pitch, .Timbre, Rhythm, Time,Tonal Memory, and IELaDelLx) and subjects were drawn frombeginning French and Spanish classes at the University ofFlorida. The orientation of classwork was audio-lingual;the researchers posited that auditory skills would assumesignificantly greater importance in such an instructionalsituation than in one where more traditional "grammar-trans-lation" methods obtained. The six Seashore Measures wereadministered once at the beginninc, of .the semester's work,and again upon completion of the instructional period.Among the six specific aims of the study were the following:(1) "to ascertain whether any of the Seashore scores, plusvarious intelligence and aptitude factors...can enable theprediction of ease or difficulty of mastering French orSpanish"; (2) "to ascertain whether scores on the Seashoreauditory measures improve significantly after completing asemester's study of French or Spanish"; and (3) "to in-vestigate Seashore and other possible factors in French andSpanish course drop-outs."14 With regard to question 2, itwas found that pre- and post-instructional Seashore scores

12pimsleur, Stockwell, and Comrey, pe 26.

13Ralph R. Leutenegger, Theodore H. Mueller, andIrving R. Wershow, "Auditory Factors dm, Foruign LanguageAcquisition," Modern Language Journal, XLIX (1965), pp,22-30.

14Leutenegger,Mueller, and Wershow, p. 23.

11

presented no significant variation. Among the Seashorescores of those students who did not complete the semester'scoursework (question' 3), only that of the Rhythm sub-testwas found to be significantly lower than scores achieved bycourse completers. Question' 1 is the one most directly re-lated to the present study, and here the investigators foundthat of the six Seashore sub-te.sts, only Tonal Memoryemerged as "...significant in predicting foreign languageacquisition." (Of the fifteen variables considered in all,only one other--Total Reading Scores--was also significantas a predictive factor.) Of interest here, however, is themeans by which "foreicn language competency" was established.

The French language achievement scores consisted ofan average of the number of errors on the dailylaboratory tests. These tests followed taped drillperiods on given aspects of structure. The studentheard several sentences to each of which he had torespond, on machine-scoring blanks, whether or notthe structure previously drilled was used in thatsentence. For example, the student had to react tosuch questions as: (a) "Was the final consonantpresent which indicated the plural of the verb?,"(b) "Was the pronoun used or omitted?," and (c) "Wasthe noun in the masculine or feminine gender?--baseyour judgment on the prefix [sic] used."15

The testing technique thus described is both in-genious and objective, but the intellectualized and indirectnature of such an instrument might conceivably serve to ob-scure the very relationships between musical acuities andlanguage achievement which are being investigated.

The present study differs from the preceding inseveral respects. The language employed is Spanish, whereprevious investigations have concerned themselves primarilywith French; and subjects' average: age was approximately tenyears. This age group was singled out as most appropriatesince the investigators wished to test the youngest subjectspossible, and experience indicated that below the age often, mass testing in a language laboratory was probably notfeasible..

15Leutanegger, Mueller, and Wershow, p. 24.

12

,.1Z

METHODS

The pilot study preceding .the principal investiga-tion was conducted with 28 students the fifth and sixthgrades at Florida State University-Demonstration School, andwas designed to establish sample,sizes and tasting pro-cedures,.as well as to instruct the linguistics raters whowould judge the oral performance of subjects involved in thefinal study. The procedure followed in the pilot was funda-mentally the same as the.t described below for the finalstudy, with the important.exception ,that data obtained inthe pilot were cross - sectional, while those from the laterstudy were longitudinal* There was some subject overlap inthe pilot, but the group taking the Seashore and the grouptaking the language test were essentially made up of dif-ferent children, Comprehension was tested in the final in-vestigation, but was omitted from the pilot since projectedtesting for this skill was completely objective and seemedunlikely to pose any material difficulties.

From the data obtained in the pilot, it was de-termined that 75 subjects would constitute an adequatesampling for the final study. All participants in the in-vestigation were recruited from the fifth grade publicschool population of Leon County, Florida, and in fulfill-ment of an a priori condition established for the study, nodata were included for any subject with significant previousexposure to Spanish. Of those 80 subjects who successfullycompleted all project work, only one--a, girl born in Cuba,who had lived there for the first four years of her life andspoken Spanish before English--was eliminated from con-sideration. 16 The 79 subjects for whom data were retainedin the final study comprised 39 females and 40 males, I.Q.'sranging from 71 to 137 with a mean of 103..617;and in afurther attempt to exclude interference from extraneousfactors, it was-arranged that all subjects be instructed in

16It is interesting to note, however, that thischild's overall performance on the Spanish testing instru-ment did not differ significantly from that of her peers (asjudged by I.Q. and Seashore scores).

17All I,Q. scores were obtained by means of theCalifornia Short Form Test of Mental. Maturity, Level II,1963 S-Form, (Del Monte Research Par?.:, Monterey, California:California Test Bureau). This instrument was administered

13

Spanish by the same teacher, this in order to minimize anyvariation in performance that might result from differencesin accent, presentation of materials, and teaching effective-ness.

At the beginning of the final study, five18 of thesix Seashore Measures--Pitch, Intensity, 'Rhythm, Timbre, andTonal Memory- -were administered to all participating sub-jects. A six-reek period of audio-lingual instruction(thirty minutes per child per school day, for a total offifteen hours per subject) in Spanish followed; at no timewas there any exposure to written. Spanish. Tn keeping withthe age and relatively limited attention span of the sub-jocts, a teaching approach built around games, songs,rhymes, and the folktale of "The Three Bears" was pursued inall classwork. The level of interest evidenced by subjectsthroughout the language instructional period was gratifyinglyhigh, and for this reason, it seems unlikely that motiva-tional factors contributed to any significant variation in sub-jects' final performance.19

The entirely oral-aural Spanish language test under-gone by all subjects at the termination of the instructionalperiod was administered in the language laboratory facili-ties of Florida State University. Both active speech pro-duction and the passive skill of comprehension were measured.The test for comprehension was based upon a multiple-choicesituation. Subjects heard a series of ten questions withthree answer choices for each (see Appendix A). After hear-ing through each question and the three answers offered,

routinely to all fifth grade pupils in the public schools ofLeon County during "a period which coincided with the lan-guage instruction phase of the present study.

18Time was omitted for two reasons. Of all the

Measures: it is generally considered to be the least useful;in addition: it seemed unlikely to be related directly toany of the areas of accent considered in the present work.

19There is at present no FLES program in any schoolin Leon County. This fact seemed to heighten student-sub-jects' enthusiasm for the Spanish instruction associatedwith the study, since the youngsters involved felt that theyformed a sort of "elite," singled out for a special privi-lege not available to several thousand of their peers inother schools of the area.

14

!IA

subjects 'wrote on a pre-numbered answer sheet the letter(a, b, or c) identifying their choice. All questions andanswer choices were based upon material that had beendrilled extensively in class. Typical of the items com-prising the comprehension measure is the Lollowing:

1. L)e que color es el vestido?

a. Hay dos.

b. Son cuatro.

c. El vestido es azul.

Testing of active language production was more ex-tensive than that for comprehension and was divided into twosub-sections, I and II. Both sub-sections were designees toelicit specific information concerning phone production,intonation, stress, and sinalepha but while sub-section Imeasured these four factors within a context approximatingnormal conversations, sub-section II assessed the same fourvariables in the relative isolation of single words or briefphrases (see Appendices B and C). The two sub-sectionsfurther differed in that for sub-section I, subjects wererequired to answer a series of questions and commands withpreviously memorized responses (prompted by pictorial cuecards--see Appendix D--distributed to subjects before test-ing began), while sub-section II relied solely upon mimicryof the material presented aurally with no visual cues. Thefollowing item illustrates the contextual responses requiredby sub-section I, as well as the way in which particularspeech components were designated for rating.

Aural Cue: dQue es esto?

Visual Cue: picture of house in forest

Subject Response:

13EstaIps la casa de los tres osos.. .

1 2 - -811

Rater Key: 1. [e] ; 2.V(sinalepha); 3. IN;

15

4. [k] (unaspirated); 5. lal; 6. 103; 7. [5] ;

8, [tr]- initial cluster + le]; 9. to] ; 10. highest

pitch level of utterance; 11. sentence-terminal

falling pitch on osos.

The next examples are typical of "isolation" items compris-ing sub-section II. The material used in this portion ofthe test was, in contrast to that of sub-section I, un-familiar to the subjects; having heard each item through,subjects were instructed to repeat what they had heard asaccurately as they were able.

1 2 3 1

Intonation: No hay nadie? /1231 /

Stress: esta `tt)est6 u

Sinalepha: Estcpqui.1

dQud es esto?2

Phones: Luna 1. [u]

1

tina 2. ft] (unaspirated and dental)2

The tape recorded responses of the subjects securedin this language test were duplicated and.submitted to threeindependent linguistic raters, each of whom judged the 155specified language features on a right-wrong scale.

FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS

For each of the 40 boys and 39 girls in the studyscores were obtained for the following 15 variables: I.Q.measured by the California Short Form Test of Mental Matur-ia, Level II; pitch, intensity, rhythm, tinbre and tonalmemory measured by the Seashore Measures .of Musical Talentadministered by the investigators; Spanish comprehension

16

16

measured by an oral-aural multiple choice test administeredby the investigators; intonation, stress, sinalepha andphones in context and intonation, stress, sinalepha andphone production in isolation. measured by an oral-auralSpanish test administered by the investigators.

The comprehension test score was determined by thetotal number correct of 10 possible on an objectivemultiple-choice test. The scores for intonation, stress,sinalepha and phones in context and in isolation were de-termined by the total number correct on the relevant partsof the oral-aural test as judged by the raters; when thethree raters were not unanimous in their judgment, the ma-jority opinion determined whether an item was correct orincorrect. The total possible scores and the means andstandard deviations of the scores attained are given forthe. Seashore and Spanish tests in Table 1. Also included inTable 1 are composite scores for the four language variablesin context, for the four language variables in isolation andfor the composite of these eight language scores. Note therelatively high mean and low standard deviation for the com-posite scores in context compared with the composite scoresin isolation.

The means and standard deviations for the 15 basicvariables are given for boys and girls in Table 2. The dif-ferences between the mean scores for boys and girls was notsignificant for any of these variables and the sex variableis thus ignored in all subsequent analyses.

Zero-order correlations. The zero-order intercor-relation matrix was computed for the five Seashore variablesand the nine Spanish variables and is given in Table 3.Note that the only negative correlation in this matrix isfor pitch and sinalepha, and that correlation is close tozero. For ease of interpretation, Table 3 is partitioned asshown on page ..21._

Several of the Seashore variables are significantlycorrelated with each other; in particular, timbre isstrongly correlated with intensity and rhythm (.01 level)and ton,A1 memory is strongly correlated with pitch, inten-sity, and rhythm (.01 level) .

There are a number of significant correlations be-tween Seashore variables and Spanish variables. In par-ticular, considering the Spanish scores in context, the cor-relations significant at the .01 level are intensity withphones, timbre with phones and timbre with intonation. Con-sidering the Spanish scores of items In isolation, the cor-relations significant at the .01 level are pitch with stress,

17

17

TABLE 1.--Maximum Attainable Scores, Mean Scores andStandard Deviations for Seashore and SpanishVariables

Maximum Standard

Variable "Attainable Mean Deviation

Seashore30.43 7.80pitch

intensity 35.87 8.34rhythm 21.99 3.73timbre 33.10 6.07tonal memory 14,94 7.08

Spanish in Contextintonation 15 9.29 3.43stress 5 3.78 1.14sinalepha 10 4.99 2.11phones 50 21.67 9.38

Spanish in Isolationintonation 15 12.10 2.31stress 20 18.41 1.58sinalepha 20 12.65 3.06phones 20 11.48 2.57

Composite in Context 80 39.73 14.73

Composite in Isolation 75 54.63 7.65

Composite Total 155 94.37 18.86

18

TABLE 2.--Means and Standard Deviations for I.Q., Seashoreand Spanish Variables for Boys and Girls

Variable Boys. Girls

I.Q. 98047 (21062) 106.21 (17.36)

Seashore28095 (8062) 31095 (6062)pitch

intensity 36025 (8082) 35051 (7092)

rhythm 22.37 (3023) 21095 (4.19)

timbre 31037 (5.85) 34087 (5.85)

tonal memory 14.55 (7045) 15033 (6074)

Spanish Comprehension 6025 (1088) 6.87 (6056)

Spanish in Contextintonation 8.45 (3016) 10,15 (3.51)

stress 3060 (1006) 3.97 (1.20)

sinalepha 4.47 (1081) 5.51 (2,28)

phones 19.37 (7043) 24003 (10062)

Spanish in Isolationintonation 12027 (2.29) 11.92 (2036)

stress 18050 (1040) 18.31 (1.76)

sinalepha 12.70 (3.14) 12059 (3.02)

phones 11032 (2042) 11.64 (2073)

19

TABLE 3.-- Correlation Matrix for I.Q., Seashore and Spanish Variables

I.Q.

Seashore

Compre-

hension

Spanish in Context

Spanish in Isolation

Pitch

Intensity

Tonal

Rhythm

Timbre

Memory

Intonation Stress

Sinalepha

Phones

Intonation Stress

Sinalepha

Phones

I.Q.

1.0000

.1925

.3243**

.33982*

.402122

.40012*

.1888

.3204 **

.2482*

.2451*

.4326**

.2702*

.1690

.3599**

.2340*

Pitch

1.0000

.26172

.1843

.2184

.5260**

.2027

.1921

.1736

-.0114

.1401

.1078

.3621**

.3011**

.32912*

Intensity

1.0000

.2025

.3099**

.3547**

.2466*

.2859*

.2400*

.2862*

.3128**

.33952*

.2669*

.2918*

.2038

Rhythm

1.0000

.30662*

.2927*

.2392*

.23480

.2615*

.27602

.29852

.2734*

.311522

.356122

.1746

Timbre

1.0000

.37352*

.0999

.3541**

.2329*

-24442

.434922

.2695*

.32622*

.3142

.3926**

Tonal memory

1.0000

.1078

.2112

.1414

.1331

.2948*

.2315*

.2051

.2693*

.2997*

Catvrehension

1.0000

.3948**

.3060**

.374722

.463922

.28132

.1030

.2484*

.1055

Intonation

1.0000

.728322

.701022

.7828**

.2146

.24292

.1614

.0422

Stress

1.0000

.60152*

.597422

.1883

.1912

.1321

.1060

Sinalepha

1.0000

.744122

.2015*

.2168

.27512

.1672

Phones

1.0000

.32942*

.2692*

.3750**

.2840*

Intonation

1.0000

.486422

.53712*

.419422

Stress

1.0000

.49582*

.479022

Sinalepha

1.0000

.626922

Phones

1.0000

pitch with sinalepha, pitch with phmes, intensity with in-tonation, rhythm stress, rhythm with sinalepha, timbrewith stress, timbre with sinelepha and timbre with phones.

Seashorewith

Seashore

I Q

cn

00 P'

1

Seashorewith

Spanish inContext

Seashorewith

Spanish inIsolation

Comprehension

Spanish inContext with

Spanish inContext

Spanish :;_n

Context withSpanish inIsolation

Spanish inIsolation with

Spanish inIsolation

All six of the intercorrelations between Spanishvariables in context are significant at the .01 level, asare all six of the corresponding intercorrelations betweenSpanish variables in isolation. However, the only correla-tions between Spanish variables in context and Spanishvariables in isolation significant at the .01 level arephones in context with intonation in isolation and phonesin Context with sinalepha in isolation. At the .01 level,comprehension is correlated with each of the flour Spanishvariables in context and.with'none of the four Spanishvariables in isolation.

1.Q., Spanish comprehension and Seashore variableswere also correlated with the composite Spanish variable incontext, the composite Spanish variable in_isolatiou and thetotal composite Spanish variable; these correlations aregiven in Table 4. The only correlations not significant atthe .01 level are pitch with context composite, pitch withtotal composite and tonal 1:lemory 'with context composite.The intercorrelations for the three composite Spanishscores are also given in Table 4. Note particularly the

21

21'

TABLE 4.--Correlations between Composite Spanish Scores and

I.Q., Seashore and Spanish Comprehension Variables

I.Q.pitchintensityrhythmtimbretonal memorySpanish com-

prehensionprehensionComposite in

contextComposite in

isolationComposite

total

Composite Composite Composite

in Context in Isolation Total

.453** .405** .339**

.251* .146 .338k*

.393** .325** .343**

.379**

.486**

.305**

.413**

.348**

.405**

.339** ,267* .321**

.465** .241*

.925** .684**

,357**

22

221,

very high correlation between context composite and totalcomposite scores.

Partial Correlations. A matrix of intercorrelationcwas computed for the Seashore and Spanish variables par-tialled with respect to I.Q,; this matrix is given in Table5. It is partitioned in the same way as Table 3, except forthe omission of the first row, I.Q.

In general, the correlations of the Seashore vari-ables with each other are lowered considerably by taking ac-count of I.Q.; the exception to this is the partial corre-lation between pitch and tonal memory which is not muchlower than the corresponding zero-order correlation.

The correlations between Seashore variables andSpanish variables also generally are lowered by partiallingwith respect to I.Q. Considering the Spanish scores in con-text, the only partial correlation significant at the .01level is timbre with phones,. ,Considering the Spanish scoresin isolation, the partial correlations significant at the.01 level are pitch with stress and timbre with phones. Asummary of the effects of partialling with respect to I.Q.is given in Table 6. Correlations listed there are highlystatistically significant (.01 level) before partialling;their significance after partialling is indicated by oneasterisk (.05 level) or two asterisks (.01 level).

All six of the partial intercorrelations betweenSpanish variables in context are significant at the .01level, as are all six of the corresponding intercorrelationsbetween Spanish variables in isolation. In general, thesepartial correlations are not much lower than the correspond-ing zero-order correlations. None of the correlations be-tween Spanish variables in context and Spanish variables inisolation is statistically significant. At the .01 level,comprehension is partially correlated with each of the fourSpanish variables in context except stress and with none ofthe four Spanish variables in isolation.

Canonical Analysis. A canonical analysis (seeTable 7) was performed for the five Seashore variables(pitch, intensity, rhythm, timbre and tonal memory) and thenine Spanish variables (comprehension; intonation, stress,sinalepha and phones in context; and intonation, stress,sinalepha and phones in isolation). The maximum canonicalcorrelation is .663e which is considerably higher than thezero-order intercorrelations and is statistically signifi-cant at well beyond the .01 level (Chi square is 188.82 with45 degrees of freedom)...

23

28

TABLE 5.

Correlation Matrix

Respect to I.Q,

for Seashore and Spanish Variables

Partielled with

Seashore

Comprehension

Spanish in Context

Spanish in Isolation

Pitch

Intensity

Rhythm

Timbre

Tonal

Memory

Intonation

Stress

Sinalepha

Phones

Intonation

Stress

Sinalepha

Phones

Pitch

1.0000

.2147

.1288

.1570

.4992**

.1726

.1407

.1323

-.0615

.0642

.0590

.3408

.2532.

.2977*

Intensity

1.0000

.1037

.2071

.2595*

.1995

.2030

.1741

.2254

.2023

.2765*

.2275

.1984

.1390

Rhythm

1.0000

.1974

.1818

.1896

.1413

.1944

.2122

.1787

.2005

.2740*

.2664*

.1040

Timbre

1.0000

.2534*

.0267

.2596.

.1501

.1643

.3161*.

.1825

.2795*

.1984

.3353..

Tonal memory

1.0000

.0358

.0956

.0474

.0394

.1473

.1399

.1523

.1465

.2312*

Comprehension

1.0000

.3594**

.2724*

.3449**

.4317*.

.2436*

.0735

.1970

.0642

Intonation

1.0000

.7071"

.6770..

.7542**

.1403

.2022

.0521

-.0356

Stress

1.0000

.5756**

.5611.*

.1300

.1564

.0473

.0508

Sinalepha

1.0000

.7300**

.2306*

.1836

.2066

.1112

Phones

1.0000

.2449*

.2207

.2607.

.2086

Intonation

1.0000

.4645.*

.4897**

.3805**

Stress

1.0000

.4730**

.4586.*

Sinalepha

1.0000

.5983**

Phones

1.0000

TABLE 6.--Result on Zero-Order Correlations Significant atthe .01 Level of Partialling with Respect to I.Q.

Spanish-Music Correlations

In Contextintonation with timbre*phones with loudness

with timbre**

In Isolationstress with pitch**

with rhythm*with timbre*

sinalepha with pitch*with rhythm*with timbre

phones with pitch*with timbre**with tonal memory*

25

TABLE 7.--CoefficientsStandardized

Variable

SeashorePpitch

intensityrhythmtimbretonal memory

Spanish Comprehension

Spanish in Contextintonationstresssinalephaphones

Spanish in Isolationintonationstresssinalephaphones

for Canonical Relationship betweenSeashore and Spanish Variables

Coefficient in Canonical Relation-ship

26

.596

.205

.276

.500

-.128

.163

.492

.127-.394.105

-(,104

.388

.281

.335

Discriminant Analysis. On the basis of the dis-tribution of composite total Spanish score, the 79 studentswere categorized into high (n.= 16), medium (n = 47) andlow (n = 16) Spanish accent achievement groups. The com-posite Spanish scores for the high group range from 110 to135 with a mean of 120.50; the Spanish scores for the mediumgroup .range from 80 to 107 with a mean of 94.51; the scoresfor the low group range from 50 to 78 with .a mean of 67.81.The average I.Q. scores for the students in the three groupsare, respectively, 111.50 with a range of 77 to 137; 103.34with a range of 76 to 136 and 90.00 with a range of 71 to119.

The means and standard deviations of the Seashorescores are given for the three Spanish accent achievementgroups in Table 8. Without exception, the mean scores onthe Seashore variables decrease as the Spanish group goesfrom high medium to low, although none of the differ-ences between successive groups is statistically signifi-cant. Correlations between Seashore variables and totalcomposite language score are given for the three Spanishgroups in Table 9. Note that the only negative correlationin this table is h3tween rhythm and total Spanish score forthe high Spanish achievement group. In general, consideringthe relatively small sample sizes, the differences among thecorrelations for the three groups are not large.

A discriminant analysis was performed; the discrimi-nant function, based on the Seashore variables, did not pro-vide statistically significant predictions of Spanishachievement group.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study indicate .a rather strongrelationship between discriminatory musical abilities inpitch, intensity, rhythm, timbre, and tonal memory andachievement of Spanish accent. With one exception, all 40of the correlations between musical abilities and Spanishaccent achievement are positive and many of them are sta-tistically significant. Because all of the musical abilitymeasures except pitch are highly significantly correlatedwith I.Q., the partial correlations with respect to I.Q. be-tween musical ability and Spanish accent .achievement are ofmore interest than the zero-order correlations.

Considering these partial correlations, timbre andphones both in context and in isolation are strongly related

27

cg7

TABLE 8.--Means and Standard Deviations for SeashoreVariables for High, Medium and Low SpanishGroups

Variable

pitchintensityrhythmtimbretonalmemory

High Medium Low

32.63 (8.29) 30.64 (7.56) 27.63 (7.63)

39.13 (7.17) 36.47 (7.64) 30.94 (9.66)

23.94 (2.84) 22.02 (3.49) 19.94 (4.31)

37.56 (6.22) 32.66 (4.90) 29.94 (6.85)

18.69 (8.72) 14.51 (6.43) 12 44 (5.93)

28

TABLE 9.--Correlations Between Composite Total SpanishScores and Seashore Variables for High, Mediumand Low Spanish Groups

Variable

pitchintensityrhythmtimbretonalmemory

High Medium Low Total

..162 .140 .183 .251

.340 .139 .485 .393-.200 .281 .165 .379.393 .234 .408 .486

.246 .188 .192 .339

29

(.01 level), as are pitch and stress in isolation. Thereare a number of other statistically significant though lessstrong relationships (.05 level): pitch with sinalepha andphones in isolation; intensity with intonation in isolation;rhythm with stress and sinalepha in -isolation; timbre withintonation in context; and stress in .context and tonal mem-ory with phones in isolation.

It should be noted that the correlations betweenI.Q. and Spanish accent achievement measured in context arelarger, in general, than these correlations when Spanish ac-cent achievement is measured in isolation; thus the effectof partialling with respect to I.Q. is greater, in general,for correlations involving Spanish accent in context thanin isolation. This is consistent with the greater importanceof memory in the context material.

Spanish comprehension score is not strongly relatedto I.Q., musical abilities or Spanish accent measured in .

isolation, but is strongly related to Spanish accent measuredin context. This seems to indicate that there is an abilityto comprehend and speak Spanish (in context) that is largelyindependent of I.Q. This is confirmed by the fact that theSpanish accent measures in context are highly intercorre-lated in all six cases, even after partialling with respectto I.Q., as are the Spanish accent measures in isolation;correlations between the same aspect of Spanish accent mea-sured in context and in isolatiOn are much lower, and noneis significant at even the .05 level after partialling withrespect to I.Q.

The Seashore musical abilities measures are sup-posedly constructed to be relatively independent of eachother and the data confirm that this is the case, with thepossible exception of tonal memory which is strongly re-lated to pitch (.01 level) and less strongly related (.05level) to intensity and t5.6.bre even after partialling withrespect to I.Q.

The overall relationship between the musical abili-ties variables and the Spanish accent achievement variablesis highly significant as indicated by the canonical analysis.The variables contributailg most strongly to this relation-ship are the musical abilities variables pitch and timbreand the Spanish accent achievement variables intonation andsinalepha in context and stress and phones in isolation.This overall relationship is consistent with the zero-orderand partial correlations and provides an, interesting com-posite analysis of these relationships. The musical abili-ties variables did not provide a significant discriminant

30

4-0

function for predicting three groups partitioned on thebasis of total Spanish accent achievement score. This cor-responds to the fact that total Spanish accent achievementscore is in fact continuous and that the meaoires of it inthis study range widely within each of the groups. The con-sistent variation of the means for the musical abilitiesvariables with respect to Spanish achievement group is ap-parently a reflection of a basically. continuous relationshipas are the relatively constant correlations between themusical abilities scores and total Spanish achievementscores compared across Spanish achievement groups.

Thus, in summary, the results of this study indicatethat musical ability and Spanish accent achievement arestrongly related, even when their common relationship withI.Q. is taken into consideration. Further analysis of theresults indicates that this is a continuous type of rela-tionship; there is no indication that musical ability canpredict Spanish accent achievement more accurately at oneend of the continuum than at the other. Further researchis necessary to determine the generality of these resultswith respect to other languages.

RECOMMENDATIONS

While it is obviously not possible to extrapolatethe results of experimentation with a single language tolanguages in general, the rather close relationsLip found toexist between certain musical acuities and Spanish learningin young subjects suggests the possibility that music andsecond-language learning may, during early childhood andover a protracted time period,.be mutually reinforcing. Thefact that the sex variable proved uninteresting in thepresent study, while researchers working wit4,,older subjectshave found seemingly sex-linked differences, implies thatsuch differences may be the product of cultural conditioningand/or biased sampling rather than innate inequalities.

With regard to older studentsadolescents and youngadults of college age--it would seem that the study of musicand languages might well be regarded as complementary fieldsof endeavor. It has been the authors' observation thatguidance counselors working with these age groups oftenstress to the person manifesting interest in both areas (a

20See, for example, Leutenegger, Mueller, andWershow, op. cit., pp. 23 ff.

31

31

not uncommon situation) the need for ,:noosing between them,when in fact the two might very profitably be pursuedconjointly.

32

REFERENCES

1. Carroll, John Be "Wanted: A Research Basis forEducational Policy on Foreign Language Teaching," HarvardEducational Review, XXX, 1960, 128-140.

2. Dexter, E. S. "The Relation Between Pitch Dis-crimination and Accent in Modern Languages," Journal ofApplied Psychologz, XVIII, 1934, 267-271.

3. . "Pitch Discrimination and French Ac-cent on the High School Level," Jga.121S2L10212.21-2122122x, XVIII, 1934, 717-720,

4. Dorcus, R. M0; Mount, G. E.; and Jones, M. He"Construction and Validation of Foreign Language AptitudeTests," U. S. Dept. Army, AGO-PRB, Personnel Research Board13222/1, No. 993, June, 1952,

5. Kwalwasser, Jacob. EE212rina the Musical Mind, NewYork: Coleman-Ross, 1955,

6. Leutenegger, Ralph R.; Mueller, Theodore H.; andWershow, Irving R. "Auditory Factors in Foreign LanguageAcquisition," Modern Lanclu2,222aurnaL, XLIX, 1965, 22-30.

7. Pimsleur, Paul; Stockwell, Robert P.; and Comrey,Andrew L. "Foreign Language Learning Ability," Journal ofEducational Psycholoa, LIII, 1962, 15-26.

33

e+011,

4'00'

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Alarcos-Llorach, Emilio. Fonologla espaisiola,Madrid: Editorial Gredos, 1950.

ir111:=Chr,"Nlej;and Bancroft, T. A.

Theory

3. Anderson, T. W. An Introduction toStatistical Analysis, New York: John Wiley

1952.

Multivariateand Sons, 1953.

4. Anderssoi, Theodore. The Teaching of Foreign Lan-anupjinhe Elementary Schools, Boston: D. C. Heath andCo., 1953.

5. Antrim, D. K. "Do Musical Talents Have Higher In-telligence?" Etude, LXIII, 1945, 127-128.

6. Asher, James J. "Vision and Audition in LanguageLearning," Perceptual and Motor Skills, XIX, 1964, 255-300.

7. Ashman, Richard. "The Inheritance of Simple MusicalMemory," Journal of Heredity, XLIII, 1952, 51-52.

8. Beach, F. A. "Report of the Committee on Tests andMeasurements in Music," 1932, Proceedings of Music Teachers'National Association, 1933, 231-238.

9. . "Report of the Committee on Tests andMeasurements in Music," 1933, Proceedin.v of Music Teachers'National Association, 1934, 251-256.

10. Bienstock, S. F. "A Predictive Study of MusicalAchievement," JournalafGenetillytiology, LXI, 1942, 135-145.

11. . "A Review of Present Studies on MusicalAptitudes," Journal of Educational Psychology, XXXIII, 1942,427-441,

12. Bogen, D. "The Significance of Tonal Memory andSense of Pitch in Musical Talent," Psychological Bulletin,XXX, 1933, 599.

34

34

13. Bolinger, Dwight. "Around the Edge of Language:Intonation ,3 Harvard Educational Review, XXXIV, 1964, 282-296.

14.terns of

chol:Seashore

Bowen, J. Donald. "A Comparison of Intonation Pat-English and Spanish," Hispania, XXXIX, 26.

Brown, A. W. "The Reliability and Validity of theTests of Musical Talent," Journal of Applied Psy-XII, 1928, 468-476.

16. Carroll, John B., and Sapon, Stanley M. ModernAptitude (Grades 9-Adult), New York: Psy-

chological Corporation, 1959.

17. "The Prediction of Success in Inten-sive Language Training," Trainin Research and Education(R0 Glaser, Editor), Pittsburgh: University of PittsburghPress, 1962, 87-136.

18.Language,126.

"Linguistics and the Psychology ofReview of Educational Research, XXXIV, 1954, 119-

19.

guages," Readings inSchool (Levenson andchusetts: Blaisdell

"Research on Teaching Foreign Lan-ForejarentaryKendrick, Editors), Waltham, Massa-Publishing Company, 1967,

20, Cochran, W. G. sampaimaq1aLla2E, New York:John Wiley and Sons, 1963,

21. Cochran, W. C., and Cox, G. M. Experimental Designs,New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1957.

22. Cooley, W. W., and Lohnes, P. G. Multivariate Pro-cedures for the Behavior,.1 Sciences, New York: John Wileyand Sons, 1962.

23. Cox, F. N.in Learning ForeignchoLazze VII, 1955.1956, No. 6759).

"The Prediction of Success and FailureLanguages," Australian Journal of Psy-(Abstract: Psychological Abstracts,

35

24. Crewdson, J. "Speech in an Imperfectly LearntForeign Language," British Journal of Psychology, XXXII,1941, 82-89.

25. Delattre, P. "Testing Students' Progress in theLanguage Lab," Language Teaching Today (F. Oinas, Editor),Bloomington:. Indiana Research Center in Anthropology,Folklore and Linguistics, Publ. 14, 1960, 77-99.

26. Delattre, Pierre; Olsen, Carroll; and Poenack,Elmer. "A Comparative Study of Declarative Intonation inAmerican English and Spanish," Hispania, XLV, 233-241.

27. Deming, W. E. Some Theory of Sampling, New York:John Wiley and Sons, 1950.

28. Drake, R. H. "'lour New Tests of Musical Talent,"Journal of Applied Psycholca, XVII, 136-147.

29. . "The Validity and Reliability ofTests of Musical Talent,' Journal of Applied Psychology,XVII, 1933, 447-458.

30. . "What is Musical Talent?" Journal ofMusicolou, I (2) , 1939, 9-13.

31. . "The Relation of Musical Talent toIntelligence and Success in School," Journal of Musicology,II (1), 1940, 38- -44.

32. . Drake Test of Musical Talent Form .A

& B, Fredericksburg, Virginia: Drake, 1942.

33. . Drake Musical A titude Tests, Chicago:.Science Research Associates, 1954.

34. Farnsworthv P. R. "The Spearman-Brown ProphesyFormula and the Seashore Tests," Journal of Educationalist-212212EL XIXi 1928, 556-588.

35. . "Auditory Acuity and Musical Abilityin the First Four Grades," Journal , VI, 1938,95-98.

:36

:N36

36. . "Data on the Tilson-Gretsch Test forMusical Aptitude,"

37. Fletcher,Speech and Music,"279.

Journal of Musicology, IV, 1945, 99-102.

H. "Some Physical Characteristics ofReview of Modern Phylia, 1931, 258-

38. Frachar, G. C., and Howard, V. H. "CorrelationBetween Intelligence and Musical Talent among UniversityStudents," p...yscholoicEi1...., XXXIX (28), 1928, 157-161.

39. Freund, J. E. Mathematical,Statisticse EnglewoodCliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1962.

40. Gardner, R. C., and Lambert, W. E. "MotivationalVariables in SecondLanguage Acquisition," Canadian Journalof Psychology, XIII, 1959, 266-272.

41. . "Language Aptitude, Intelligence andSecond-Language Achievement," Journal. of

LVI, 1965, 191-192.

42. Gill Gaya, Samuel. LntosdeEleilpiittical,Madrid: Editorial Gredos, 1961.

43. Gordon, Edwin. "A.Study toDetermine the Effectsof Training and Practice on Drake Musical Aptitude Scores,"Journal of Research in Music Education, IX, 1961, 63-74.

44. "The Music Aptitude Profile: A Newand Unique Musical Aptituue Test Battery," Council for Re-search in Music Education, No. 5, 1965, 12-16,

45. Guilford, J. P. EllacAra22taLLati!I12ttaily.-cho]LanclEdon New York: McGraw-Hill, 1950.

46. . psychometric Methods, New York:McGraw -Hill, 1954.

47. Harding, Francis D, "Tests. as Selectors of Lan-guage- Students," .lioclerraerasl.....XLII.,.. 1958, 120-

122.

.37

48. Hockett, Charles F. "Learning Pronunciations,"Modern Language Journal, XXXIV, 262.

49. Hael, Fo.G. Introduction to. Mathematical Sta-tistics New York:- ._John Wiley and Sons, 1952.

50. Hoge, Henry W. "Testing in the Language Laboratory:An Experiment in Spanish Pronunciation," Hispania, XLII, 151.

51. Hogg, R. V., and Craig, A. T. Introduction toMathematical Statistics, New York :. The Macmillan Company,1965.

52. Kaulfers Walter [U.] "Prognosis and Its Alterna-tives in Relation to the Guidance of Students," GermanQuarterly, XII, 1939, 31-34.

53. Kaulfers, Walter U. "Foreign Languages," -Revieww oEducational Research, XXV, 1955, 154-165.

54. Kempthorne, 0. The Desi n and AnaLlzs1221Experi-ments, New York: John Wiley and Sons, lrF)2.

55. Lad°, Robert. "A CDmparison of the Sound Systemsof English and Spanish," Hispania, XXXIX, 26.

56. . "Phonemics and Pronunciation Tests,"Modern Language. Journal, XXXV, 533.

57. . Linguistics Across Cultures, AnnArbor: The University of Michigan Press, 1957.

58. LETEEUELL211JLS2EEIEPctionand Use of Foreign Language Tests, New-York: McGraw Hill,1961.

59. Lambert, Wallace E.; Gardner, R. C.; Burik, H. C.;and Tunstall, K. "Attitudinal and Cognitive Aspects of In-tensive Study of a Second Language," Journal of AbnormalSocial Psychology, LXVI, 1963, 359-368.

60. Lanier, L. H. "Note on Reliability Predictions forthe Seashore Music Tests," JotaaaL2LELEELLar22222L-chology, XX, 1929, 691-692.

38

61. Larson, D. L. "An Experimental Critique of theSeashore Consonance Test," Psychological Monographs,XXXVIII, No. 176, 1928.

62. Larson, Ruth Crdwdson. Studies on Seashore'sMeasures of Musical Talent, University of Iowa Studies,Series on Aims and Progress of Research, Iowa City: Uni-versity of Iowa, March 1, 19300

63, Lewis, D. "The Timbre Test in the Revised Sea-shore Measures," Psychological xxxvii, 1940, 508.

64. Lindquist, E. F. (Editor). Educational Measure-ment,. Washingtone D. C.: American Council on Education,1951,

65. Lowery, H. "Musical Memory," British Journal ofPsychology, XIX, 1929, 397-404.

66. . "Fundamental Considerations in theStudy of Musical Ability," Journal of Educational Psy-chology, XX, 1929, 584-587.

67. . "On the Integrative Theory of MusicalTalent," Journal of MUlay, II (1).,..1940, 1-14.

68. Lundess, D. J.; Ptacek, P. H.; Starry C. D4 andHenrikson, E. H. "The Effects of Foreign Language Programson Foreign Soundingness," sEspahlionoaahs, XXIV, 1957,74-76.

69. Lundin, Robert W. "The Development and Validationof a Set of Musical Ability Tests," American Psychologist,II, 1947, 350.

70, Mainwaring, J. "Experiments on the Analysis ofCognitive Processes Involved in Musical Ability and inMusical Education," British Journal of Educational Psicholo, I, 1931, 180-203.

71. . "Tests of Musical Ability," BritishEsams2ault.2,22tiar221p.o, I, 1931, 313-321.

39

72. Mainwaring, james. "The Assessment of MusicalAbility," British 'Journal of Educational Psychology, XVII,1947, 83 -96,

73. Hood, A. M., and Graybill, F. A. Introduction tothe Theory of Statistics, New York:. McGraw-Hill, 1963.

74. Moos, Jean Corrodi. "The Yardstick Applied toMusical Talent," The Musical Quarterly, April, 1930.

75. "Some Recent Developments in MusicTesting," Musical Quarterly., XIX, 1933, 318-330.

76. Mursell, J. L. "Measuring Musical Ability andAchievement: A Study of the Correlations of Seashore MusicTest Scores and Other Variables," Journal of Educational Re-search, XXV, 1932, 116-126.

77. . "Psychology of Music," PsychologicalBulletin, XXIX, 1932, 218-241.

78. Navarro, Tomgs. Manual de pronunciaci6n espahola,Madrid: Centro de Estudio7Nricos, 1932.

79. . Manual de entonaciols, Madrid:Centro de Estudios HistSricos, ?.

80. Payne, C. S. "The Mispronunciation of Words,"Journal of Genetic Psychology, XXXVIII, 1938, 427-444.

81. Pepinsky, Abe. "The Nature of Rhythmic Response,"Proceedin s of Music Teachers' National Association, 1946,321-329.

82. Petzold, Robert C.Perception of Musical SoundsGrades," Journal of Research(Spring) 21-43.

"The Development of Auditoryby Children in the First Sixin Music. Education, 1963,

83. Pimsleur, Paul. "Experimental Design in the Lan-guage Field," Modern LanguageLbrum, XLII, 1957, 157-163.

84. Pimsleur, Piaui], and Bonkowski, R. J. "Transferof Verbal Material Across Sense Modalities," Journal of Edu-cational Psychology, LII, 1961, 104-107.

40

85. Pulgram, Ernst (Editor). Applied Linguistics inLanguage Teastilagj Monograph Series on Language and Lin-guistics, No. 6, Washington, D. C.: Georgetown UniversityPress, 1954.

86. Rainbow, Edward L. A Pilot StuatoawatigateConstructs of Musical. Aptitude, Ph. D. Thesis, Iowa City:State University of Iowa, 1963. (Abstract: Dissertation.Abstracts, 1963).

87. 'A Pilot Study to Investigate theConstructs of Musical Aptitude," Journal of Research inMusic Education, XIII, 1965, 3-14.

88. Rankin, Richard J. "Auditory Discrimination andAnxiety," Psychological Reports, XI, 1962, -391 -394.

89. Richmond, S. B. StatisUcal Analysis, New York:Ronald, 1964.

90. Riker, B. L. "The Ability tc Judge Pitch,"Journal of Experimental Psychology, XXXVI, .1946, 331-346.

91. Ross, Varna. "Relationship Between Intelligence,Scholastic' Achievement and Musical Talent," Journal ofJuvenile Research,. XX (2), April, 1963.

92. Roy, S. N. Some Aspects of Multivaniate Analysis,New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1957.

93. Sacks, Norman. "A Study in Spanish PronunciationErrors," Hispania, XLIV, 239-300.

94. Saetveit, Lewis, and Seashore, Carl E. Revision ofthe Seashore Measures of Musical Talent, .University of IowaStudies. Series on Aims and Progress of Research, Iowa City:University of Iowa, October, 1940.

95. Sapon, S. H., and Carroll, J. B. "DiscriminativePerception of Speech. Sounds as a Function of Native Lan-guage," General Linguistics, III, 1959,.62 -72.

96. Sapone.Stanley. "An Application of PsychologicalTheory to Pronunciation Problems in SecondLanguage Learn-ing," Modern Language journal, XXXVI, 111-114.

41

97, . "A Work Sample Test for Foreign Lan-guage Prognosis,' Journal of Psychology, 3955, XXXIX, 97-104.

98. Sawyer, Jesse O. "Foreign Language Instruction,"Review of Educational Research, XXXIV, 1964, 203-210.

99. Schnen, M. "The Basis of Music-Mindedness,"Musical Quarterly., XXI, 1935, 348-355,

100. Seashores Carl Emil. The Psychology cf MusicalTalents New York: Silver Burdett and Company, 1919.

101. "The Musical Mind," Atlantic Monthly,CXLI, 1928, 358-367.

102. . "Measures of Musical Talent: A Replyto Dr. C. P. Heinlein," psychological Review, XXXII, 1930,178-183.

103. TIReasah...2s.12therLittisic.and Speech, University of Iowa Studies, Series on Aims andProgress of Research, Iowa City: University of Iowa, Sep-tember 1, 1933.

104. . "Psychology of Music. XXI. Revisionof the Seashore Measures of Musical Talent," Music Educa-tors' Journal, XXVI, 1939, 31-33.

105. . "Psychology of Music. XXII. TheSense of Timbre," Music Educators' Journals XXVI (2), 1939,27.

106. ; Lewis, D.; and Saetveit, J. G. Sea-shore Measures of Musical Talents, Form. A, New York: Psy-chological Testing Corporation, 1953.

107. Sicilian, E. A. "All Experiment in Listening Com-prehension," Modern Latausge Journal, XLII1,-1959, 226-227,

108 Stanton, Hazel. "Psychological Tests of MusicalTalent at the Eastman School of Music," University ofRochester Bull.etin, 1925.

42

4 :2

109. Stanton, H. M. "Predicting Musical Progress,"Psychological Bulletin, XXXI, 1934, 532-533.

110. . Measurement of Musica Talent: TheEastMan Experimentr University of Iowa Studies in the Psy-chology of Music, No. 2, 1935.

111. and Koerth, W. Musical Capacity.Measures of Children Repeated After Training,- University ofIowa Studies, Series on Aims and Progress of Research, No.42 (New Series No. 259), 1933.

112. Stern, R. M. "Modern Linguistics and the Teachingof Foreign Languages," Review of Educational _Research, VII,1964, 37-54.

113. Thorndike, R. L., and Hagen, E. Measurement andEvaluation in Psychology and Education,-New-York: John.

Wiley and Sons, 1955.

114. Tilson, L. M. "A Study of the Prognostic Value ofthe Tilson-Gretsch Test for Musical Aptitude," Teachers'Co11t2e JournAl, XII, 1941, 110-112.

115. Treisman, Anna M. "The Effects of Redundancy andFamiliarity on Translating and Repeating Back a Foreign-,11(1 a Native Language," British Journal of pa2hclogi, LVI,1965, 369-379.

116. Walker, H. H., and Lev, J. Statistical Inference,New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1953.

117. Wing, Herbert. is Musical Aptitude Innate?" Re-view of Psychology of Music, I, 1968, 1-7.

43

APPENDICES

Page

A. LISTENING COMPREHENSION TEST 45

B. ORAL SPANISH ACHIEVEMENT TEST DIRECTIONS . . 47

C. ORAL SPANISH ACHIEVEMENT TEST: RATER WORKSHEETS 49

D. VISUAL CUE CARD FOR SPANISH PRODUCTION TEST . 58

44

APPENDIX A

Listening Comprehension Test and Tape Recorded Instructions

Taped InstructionsYou are now going to hear a group of ten questions.

After each question, you will hear three possible answersidentified by the letters a, b, and c. Only one of the an-swers is correct. After you have listened to the questionand all three possible answers, write only the letter of thecorrect answer beside the number of that question. For ex-ample, if you thought "answer b" was the correct answer toquestion number 8, then, you would write the letter b besidethe number 8 on your paper. First, we axe going to let youhear 2 sample questions. Do not write down your answers tothese. questions, but simply listen very.carefully and decidefor yourself which is the correct answer for each question.These two examples are to show you what the other ten ques-tions are like. Here is example number 0.

aQue dia es hoy?a. Tengo hambre.b. La corbata es azul.c. Hoy es marten.

The right answer to this question was "letter c." Now youW.11 hear example 00. Again, listen, but do not write any-thing. .

dDe qu6 color es el oso grande?a. Es cafd.b. ER verde.c. Veo cinco.

"Answer a" was the right one for this question.Now we are ready to begin. Remember, write only

the letter of the correct answer beside the number of eachquestion.

Listening Test.

Number 1. De qu6 color es el vestido?a. Hay dos.b. Son cuatro.c. El vestido es azul.

Number 2. aCudntos afios tienes?a. No, no es Mo.b. Tengo dies afios.c. Es azul.

45

45

Number 3.

Number 4.

Number 5.

Number 6.

Number 7.

Number 8.

Number 9.

j,Te gusta el chocolate?a. Son muchos.b. Ddmelo.c. Si, me gusta.

4

dC6mo se llama el nifio?a. El nifio se llama Miguel.b. Lleva zapatos negros.c. El nifio quiere manzanas.

jCudntos dedos ves?a. No tiene nada.b. Es amarillo.c. Veo siete.

dQud dfa es mafiana?a. Mariana es midrcoles.b. Es una nifia buena.c. Es morada.

dQud tiempo hace?a. No me gustan las mias.b. No veo ninguno...c. Estd nublado y hace frlo.

8C6mo ester la temperatura hoy?a. Hay ocho,b. Hace frio.c. No estg.

,aD6nde ester le casa de los osos?a. Estg en el bosque.b. Es negra.c. Ayer fue lunes.

Number 10. d Es bonita la flor?a. Me gusta la manzana.b. El oso no ester.c. Si, es bonita.

46

46

APPENDIX B

Spanish Achievement Test Directions*

Spanish Achievement Test, Part One. You are now going tohear eleven sentences in Spanish, one after the Other. Allof them except for sentence number ten are questions. Innumber ten, you will be told to ask me a question. Alongwith each sentence, there is a picture on your card thatwill help you answer. The number on the picture matches thenumber of the question. Listen carefully to each sentence,look at the picture that matches it, and then answer as youhave been taught to answer in Spanish, speaking clearly intoyour microphone. Do not exaggerate your answer in any way,but speak naturally, as you do in class. Now, before webegin, let's practice with two examples. Here 4 examplenumber zero. Listen, then record your answer. "4 Como tollamas?" (pause) Fine. Now here is example number zro-zero. Listen and record your answer to this one "IdCu5ntosafios tienes?" (pause) Good. Now we are going to begin.Listen carefully and answer after you have heard each ques-tion through.

*The children were tested on two successive days in

groups of 40 and 39 respectively. All 79 could have beenaccommodated in the laboratory in a single session, but thegroup was split in order that more control might be exer-cised over subjects during the testing procedure. These di-rections were heard by each child through the headset at hisbooth. Each booth had been set up in advance of the chil-dren's arrival in the language laboratory (tapes threaded,volume adjusted, visual cue cards distributed, etc.) and twolaboratory assistants monitored the children during theactual testing period to see that they addressed the micro-phone properly and did not tamper with the equipment.Similar directions accompanied the listening comprehensiontest, which was administered immediately following the testfor production. In the comprehension test, the childrenheard each question, read once, followed by three answerchoices, also read once. Answer choices (A, B, or C) werenot recorded, but written on prenumbered sheets distributedto each child at his booth.

47

)47

* * *

This is all of Part One. Now we are going to begin PartTwo, which is divided into four sections: A, B, C, and D.The directions for each of these four sections are simple.Listen very carefully to each item, and then repeat as ac-curately as you can what you have just heard. Now we aregoing to begin Section A. There axe fifteen short sentencesin this section. Listen carefully to each one, then repeatit.

* * *

This is the end of Section A. Now we are ready to beginSection B. You will 'ear twenty different words, one afterthe other. Listen carefully to each one, then pronounce itas accurately as you can.

* * *

This is the end of Section B. Now we will begin Section C.You will hear twelve short sentences. Again, listen verycarefully to each one and then repeat it as accurately asyou can.

* * *

This is the end of Section C. We are now ready to beginSection D, the last section of Part Two. You will hearseventeen words, one after the other. Listen to each word,than repeat it as accurately as you can.

* * *

This is the end of the Spanish Pronunciation Test. Turn offyour main power switch now and listen for further instruc-tions from your teacher.

48

APPENDIX C

ORAL SPANISH ACHIEVEMENT TEST: RATER WORKSHEETS

Part I: Production Subj. No.

A. Aural Cue #1: jQu6 es esto?

Visual Cue: Picture of house in forest.10

Response: Est s la casa de los trey osos.1 2 3-4-5-6

Rater key: 1. [e] ; 2. Li (sinalepha); 3. [OU];

4. [k] (unaspirated); 5. [0..]; 6. [[]; 7. [s]

8. ftr] - initial cluster + [e]; 9. [o]; 10. high-

est pitch level of utterance; 11. sentence -

terminal falling pitch on osos.

B. Aural Cue #2: 136nde ester la casa?

Visual Cue: Same as in A.18

Response: Estg n,e1 bosque.12 14 -15 -1713 L6 19.9

Rater key: 12. /V (stress); 13. Q (sinalepha);

14. k.) (sinalepha); 15. [b] (unaspirated); 16. [o];

17. [e]; 18. highest pitch level of sentence;

19. sentence-terminal falling pitch on bosque.

C. Aural Cue #3: 'Hay muchos grboles en el bosque?

Visual Cue: Same as in A & B.

49

49

27

Response: Si, tlay. muchos Arboles.20 -21 --22 -23

24 25 '428

Rater key: 20. [ay] ; 210 [u] ; 22. Is] ; 23. [Qr3-

initial cluster; 24, PV (stress); 25. [0]; 26. [e];

27. highest pitch level of utterance; 28. sentence -

terminal falling pitch on arboles.

D. Aural Cue #4: ID.5nde est6 la flor?

Visual Cue: Picture of flower.

Response: Aqu st6 la flor.29 31 -32

30 133

Rater key: 290 /'/ (stress); 30.%.' (sinalepha);

310 Da..]; 32. [r] final; 33, falling intonation as

shown.

E. Aural Cue #5: Quin es este animal?

Visual Cue: Picture of Father Bear,

42Response: 1;k11,,pso zande.

34 6-38-39-41.35 37 40 N43

Rater key: 34. [e]; 35.v (sinalepha); 36. [1]

(high, convex position); 370 LY (sinalepha); 38. [0];

39. fgrj - initial cluster; 40. (42j; 41. Lei; 42.

highest pitch level of sentence, dropping markedly

50

50,

on el; 43. falling intonation on 2Eande, absence of

English /3 1/.

F. Aural Cue #6: Aqui ester el oso pequefio. aTe gusta?

Visual Cue: Picture of Baby Bear with ball.

Response: Si, me 2usta.

`A46

Rater key: 44. (e]; 45, 14]; 46. falling final in-

tonation, absence of English /3 1/ on gusta.

G. Aural Cue #7: dVa a jugar?

Visual Cue: Same as in F.

Response: 17,Nvk,a jugar.47---49--50-N

48 51 'A52

Rater key: 47. 06]; 48. kJ (sinalepha); 49. [H];

50. [Mr] (final); 51. /'/ on final syllable; 52.

falling Spanish intonation (/2 1 1/), absence of

English /2 3 1/.

H. Aural Cue #8: aQue tiene el oso pequefio?

Visual Cue: Picture of Baby Bear with ball.

Response: Tie_ne na Eplota.5754 6-58-'59

55 -5-7 60 X6261

Rater key: 53. [ie]; 54. (e]; 55. (sinalepha);

51

51

56. NJ; 57. [a] ; 58. [p] (unaspiratc,d); 59. [1]

(high convex position); 60. [o]; 61. (t) (dental,

unaspirated); 62. falling declarative intonation, as

marked.

I. Aural Cue #9: Dile "adi6s" al osito.

Visual Cue: Same as in #8.

Response: Vcii6s osito.en 65 67

64

Rater key: 63. two syllables only, as opposed to

anglicization into three; 64. [A]; 65. /7 (stress);

66. jo); 67. drop in intonation after adi6s, pitch

held level on osito.

J. Aural Cue #10: Aqui estg el oso medianoe eDe que

color es el vestido?

Visual Cue: Mother Bear wearing blue dress.

Response: El vestido s azul.

73 *7468 69 775. 7

Rater key: 68. [1] (high, convex tongue position);

69. [b] ; 70. [0] ; 71.v (sinalepha); 72 [u] ; 73.

[1] (high, convex tongue); 74. falling intonation on

azulp absence of English /3 1/.

52

K. Aural Cue #11: Pregdntame si hace frio.

Visual Cue: Stick figure of trembling man.

80

Response: 5742, 6hace frio?75 77 78 7976

Rater key: 75. le]; 76. bib 77. [o]; 78. [e];

79. (fr] - initial cluster; 80. inflection as marked,

with drop after second syllable of senora and rising

sentence terminal, but not to highest (/4/) level of

English (relative to rest of sentence).

End of Part I of Production

Part II: Production

A. Intonation12 1

1. Estg1 2 3 1

2. 8No hay nadieN,2 2 2

3. blo hay muchos ?+2 31 1 1

4. Buenos dias,l, sailor21 1 1 1

5. S1,+ sefiora.4,

1 2 2 316. No quieres

1 2 17. Adi6s0+

2 2 2 2 1 18. No soy de M6xico.4,

2 2 29. Vei acs .÷

1 2 2 31

10. e*Td quieres mgs?4,

53

6a

1 1

Mortizo+ 4231.11/ #./111141

/(1)2(1)1+/-#/111(1) +//1231+/

/121(1)V

/2221V

/(1)222.4-/

/12314./

2 2 2 3

11. Cuantos afios tienes tOt /22231/

2 2 1

12; No 10 veo..1, /(2)2214,/

2 1

13. D6nde estgs?+ /(2)12)21V2 1

14. dCua1 es?,1, /(2) (2) 2141

2 2 1 2 2

15. Es Este, d,verdad?t /(2)22141 #/(1)222t/

B. Stress

1. esta

2. ester

3. 11ego

4. 11eg6

5. constituci6n

6. te16fono

7. autom6vi1

8. agreo

9. telegrama

10. senor

11. serf

12. cera

13. cant6

14. canto

15. andarfi

16. escribir

54

54

QV

-U VI

1.11 -

U

U V

V

U

U (.1

V

17. instituni6n

18. carnaval

19. si no .

20. sino

C. Sinalepha

1. Estkpqui.1

.

2. dQue,es esto?2

3. Elhombre notdanda.3 4

4. a Vawavliacerlo?5 6

5. Ncuhombre, no,sestg.7 8

6. EstiuntjAmo bueno.

9 10

7. Es mil60abuelo.

11

8. Es mkohija.12

9. Eset.Animal es,p1,pso.13 14 15

10. iCtiales,son?

16

11. Ahcestkpluoavi6r.17 18 19

12. Tiene dos, alas.20

55

5

D. Phone Production

1.

2.

3.

andar 1.

2.

4.

[ax]

fe];

fie]

(final)

3. [or] (final)

1

senor2 3

quiere4

4. luna 5. [uJ

5

5. bueno 6. [ue]

6

6. con Paco 7. [m]

7

7. cada 8. [O]; 9. fa]8

9

8. 2ipa 10. [p] (unaspirated); 11. [i]

10

11

9. sisal12

12. [a1] (high, convex tongueshape on [1])

10. aliado 13. [ly]

13

11. cata14

14. [t] (unaspirated anddental)

12. rosa 15. [s]

15

13. tina16

16. [t] (unaspirated anddental)

14. kilo 17. [k] (unaspirated)17

56

56

15. bat/ [uey]

18

16. pudo 19. [u]

19

17. capital 20. 1&L] (high, convex tongue

20 on fl])

End of Part II of Production

57

5 7

58