內(nèi)容講義文稿complete

ShanghaiInternationalStudiesMUSICALPITCHPROCESSINGANDFOREIGNLANGUAGEINTONATIONIMITATIONSubmittedtotheGraduateSchoolandCollegeofEnglishInPartialFulfillmentofRequirementsforDegreeofMasterofDongDiUndertheSupervisionofProfessorJeroenvandeWeijerDecember2013IamgratefultomanypeopleatSISU.Theyinclude:madams,whocookformeinthestudents’canteen,professors,whogavemelecturesinSongjiang,instructorMissZhang,whogavemesuggestionsaboutlifeandwork,classmates,whobroughtmehappinessandfun,andfriends,whoencouragedmewhenngsportsontheyground.Withoutthem,lifewouldbesocolorfulduringthelasttwoyears.Butaboveall,mygreatestthanksgotomysupervisor,Prof.JeroenvandeWeijer.Itishimwholedmeintotherealmofphoneticstudies.Heisknowledgeable,responsible,andeasygoing.Withouthisinstructionsandpatientrevision,thecompletionofthisthesiswouldbemuchmoredifficult.Iamalsomuchindebtedtomydearfriend,FrankChen,althoughheactuallydeclinedmyoffertomentionhimintheacknowledgements.Henotonlyenthusiasticallysharedhisideasandcollectionofbooksonlinguisticsandstatisticswithme,butalsohelpedmanyotherfriendstosolvetechnicalproblemsintheirtheses.HispureandpersistentloveforlinguisticsisrareamongyoungpeopleLastbutnotleast,Iwouldliketothankthe12participantsinmyexperiments,aswellasmyclassmateQinFeng,whohelpedmetoobtaintheThaistimuli.Theywerewillingtocontributetheirtimeandenergyduringthedayswheneveryonewasbusy.“共享的處理機(jī)制，一些研究者卻提出了支持“獨(dú)立認(rèn)知模塊”的，還有（1來數(shù)據(jù)。第四章中運(yùn)用Goldwave和Praat軟件對(duì)進(jìn)行預(yù)處理，并在此SPSS軟件進(jìn)行數(shù)據(jù)分析。第五章給出結(jié)論并討論不足和改進(jìn)方法。通過被試外語語調(diào)模仿表現(xiàn)和音樂音高處理能力的相關(guān)性本文發(fā)現(xiàn)擁對(duì)各被試各次模仿與音樂音高處理能力的相關(guān)性發(fā)現(xiàn)音高變化檢測能次模仿。由此一項(xiàng)有趣的發(fā)現(xiàn)，即音高變化檢測能力似乎能對(duì)陌生外語語調(diào)Thesimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweenmusicandlanguagehavebeenstudiedanddebatedbyresearchersforaverylongtime.Someresearchersargueforsharedprocessing,someprovideevidenceforseparatecognitivemodules,andothersemphasizeacautiousstandondrawingstrongconnections.However,previousstudieshavegenerallyconfirmedtheexistenceofacross-correlation.Thepresentstudyfocusesonthemusicalabilitytoprocesspitchandthelinguisticabilitytoprocess,andparticularly,imitateintonationpatterns.Towhatextentarethesetwoabilitiesrelated?ChapterOneofthisthesisstartswithanintroductiontothethreeviewpointsmentionedabove,aswellasresearchfindingspertainingtotherelationbetweenlanguageandmusic.Afterthat,ChapterTwogoesonwithareviewofpreviousstudies,andintroducesandcommentsonfouraspectsinparticular(participants,operationaldefinition,testsformusicalabilities,andtestsforlanguage)inpreparationforthedesignofexperimentsneededinthethecurrentstudy.AtthebeginningofChapterThree,thethreeresearchquestionsareoutlined:(i)dobetterpitchprocessingabilitiespredictbetterintonationimitatingabilitiesinanunfamiliarforeignlanguage?,(ii)doparticipantswithbetterpitchprocessingabilitiesimitateintonationbetterbothatthestartofimitationandaftersomerepetitions?,and(iii)doparticipantswithbetterpitchprocessingabilitiesgenerallyshowlargerimprovementsthanotherindividualsaftersomerepetitions?Twoonlinepitchperceptiontests,onepitchproductiontestthatwasforthisstudy,areemployedtocollectthedata.ThesoftwareprogramsGoldwaveandPraat,areusedtodoinitialprocessingofthecollecteddata,andysesarecarriedoutwiththehelpofSPSSinChapterFour.Bymeansofinvestigatingthecorrelationbetweentheintonationimitationperformancesonaforeignlanguageandindividuals’pitchprocessingabilities,wefoundthatparticipantswithbetterpitchprocessingabilitiestendedtohavebetteroverallintonationimitatingperformances,notonlyinafamiliarforeignlanguage(English),butalsoinanunfamiliarone(Thai).Amongthethreedifferentpitchprocessingabilities,theabilitytodetectpitchdirection(offine-grainedpitchcontrastcomprisedoftwodiscretenotes)wasfoundtobesignificantlycorrelatedwithneitherEnglishnorThai.TheabilitytodetecttheexistenceofpitchchangeswasfoundtobesignificantlycorrelatedwithperformancesofintonationonThai.TheabilitytoproducepitchsequencespreciselywasfoundtobesignificantlycorrelatedwithimitationofintonationinEnglish,butonlymarginallycorrelatedwiththatinThai.Aninvestigationintothecorrelationbetweendifferenttrialsofeachlanguageandthepitchprocessingabilitiesshowedthatparticipantswithbetterpitch-changedetectionabilitydidnottendtostandoutintheirfirsttrials,buttheyshowedbetteroverallperformanceslaterintrial4swhenimitatingThai.Participantswithbetterpitchproductionabilitytendedtoimitatebetterthanothersatthefirsttrialsandretainedthisadvantageafterthreetimesofrepetitionswithinashortperiod.Thus,wediscoveredtheinterestingphenomenonthattheabilitytodetectpitchchangesseemedmoreinclinedtofacilitateimitationofintonationinanunfamiliarforeignlanguagelikeThai,whiletheabilitytoproducepitchseemedmoreinclinedtofacilitateimitationofintonationinafamiliarone,suchasEnglish.Nopreviousstudieshavedonesuchcross-languageandcross-trialresearch.Althoughthecurrentstudyisstillaratherpreliminaryone,anditsambitionsmayseemalittlerisky,theexplorationintotheunknownmaynotonlybeinterestingbutalsoencouraging.Ifanyresearchcoulddrawinspirationfromthepresentstudyinthefuture,itseffortswillnothavebeeninvain.:pitchprocessing;intonationimitation;cross-languageexperiment;cross-trialcomparisonChapter LanguageandMusic:HistoryandThreeDifferentLanguageandmusicexistinallhumansocieties.Theyarecriticalinhumanlifeandbothoftheminvolveprocessingofcomplexandmeaningfulsoundsequences(Pa,2008:3).People’sinterestinthecomparisonoflanguageandmusichasalonghistorytoo.Manyhistoricalfigures,includingto,Darwin,Wittgenstein,andBernsteinhavemadetheircontributiontothecontemtionofandspeculationabouttherelationbetweenlanguageandmusicuptothedawnofmoderncognitivescience,whenempiricalresearchusingnewconceptsandtoolsstarttoreceformersuggestionsandogies(Pa,2008:4).Aslanguageandmusicareextremelycomplexsubjects,itisnaturalthatlinguistsandscientistsusingdifferenttoolsorstudyingfromdifferentsmaynotalwayshaveunanimousviewpointsonacertainproblem.Forexample,therearegenerallythreekindsofviewpointsontheprocessingmechanismsoflanguageandmusicamongresearchers(ManlandPfordresher,2013).Somehavearguedforsharedprocessing(Koelsch,2011;Pa,2008;Sammleretal.,2009etc.:seebelow),somehavearguedforseparatecognitivemodules(Peretz&Coltheart,2003;Peretz&Hyde,2003etc.),andsomehaveemphasizedacautiousstandondrawingstrongconnections(Jackendoff&Lerdahl,2006;Jackendoff,2009etc.).Asthetopicofthisthesisisfundamentallyabouttherelationbetweenmusicalpitchprocessingabilitiesandforeignlanguageintonationimitatingability,itisnecessarythatwestartwithanintroductiontothethreeviewpointsmentionedabove,aswellasresearchfindingspertainingtotherelationbetweenlanguageandmusic.Inthefollowingpartsofthischapter,section1.2providesresearchfindingson“musicandearlylanguageacquisition”(section1.2.1),aswellas“l(fā)inkeddeficitsbetweenlanguageandmusic”(section1.2.2),whichsupport“sharedprocessingoflanguageandmusic”(Pa,2008).Section1.3,introducestheoppositeviewpointthatarguesfortheexistenceoftwodistinctprocessingmodulesforspeechandmusic.Italsoreportsthelateststudy(ManlandPfordresher,2013)carriedouttoinvestigatewhetherpitchprocessingisspecificasproposedbyPeretzandColtheart(2003).Section1.4introducesa“thirtyparty”(Jackendoff,2009)tolookattheproblem,emphasizingtheimportanceofacautiousstandondrawingconnectionsbetweenthetwos.Insection1.5,Iwillmakeasummaryofwhathavebeendiscussedinthischapterbeforegoingintoareviewontheexperimentsofpreviousstudies.SharedProcessingofLanguageandMusicandEarlyLanguageNewborninfantshaveanexcellentabilitytodiscriminatephonemesofalllanguages;thisisevidentfromtheirsensitivitytotimbre(Werker&Tees,1984;Brandtetal.,2012).Inaddition,theyarealsosensitivetotherhythmiccharacteristicsoflanguageandabletodistinguishbetweenlanguagesonthebasisofthosecharacteristicsevenwhentheirnativelanguageisnotincludedinthecontrast(Nazzietal.,1998).Infantsevenshowsensitivitytocharacteristicprosody,ormelodyinthefirstfewdaysoflife(Friederici,2006;Chengetal.,2012).Between6to12months,infantsgraduallydevelopaperceptualbiastotheirnativelanguageandtomusic.Atabout9months,infantsunderstandtheirfirstword,whichindicatesthegradualtaking-overofsemanticandsyntacticdevelopment,aswellasthebeginningoftalkingbetween11and13months(Friederici,2006;Brandtetal.,2012).Between18and24months,normallydeveloinfantsexperienceaspurtofvocabularygrowth, paniedbyahighpointofsyntacticlearningbefore3yearsold(Brandtetal.,2012;Kuhl,2010).Itseemsthatinfants,attheverybeginning,havebeenlisteningtolanguagewith“amusicalear”,usingthemusicalaspectsoflanguage(rhythm,timbre,pitchcontour)asa“scaffolding”forthedevelopmentoftheirlanguagecomprehension(Brandtetal.,2012).LinkedDeficitsbetweenLanguageandLinkeddeficitsobservedalsoprovideevidenceofunderlyingconnectionsbetweenthetwos.Someexamplesarelistedasfollows:Aninterestingdiscoveryfromalongitudinalstudyisthatinfantswhodonotshowanincreasingmelodiccomplexityofcryinginthefirstafewmonthswerefoundtobealmostfivetimesmorelikelytoshowpoorlanguageperformancetwoyearslater(Wermkeetal.,2007).Dyslexicchildrenhavenormalinligence,buttheyhavetroublenotonlyindistinguishingoneconsonantfromanother,butalsointheperceptionofinstrumentaltimbre(Overy,2000;Overyetal.,2003).Besides,theyalsohavedifficultyinbothtapouttherhythmofasongandspellingability(Overyetal.,2003).Thefundamentalproblemliesinimpairedprocessingofrapidlysuccessivefrequencychangesinacousticstimuli(oftenreferredtoas“rapidtemporalprocessingdeficit”)(TallalandPiercy,1973).Astemporalprocessingcanbeimprovedbytraining,andmusictrainingrequiresveryaccuratetimingskills(Tallal,1996),itis thatmusicbeusedasavaluableextraremediationfordyslexicchildren(Overyetal.,Forresearchersinterestedinthepitchprocessingmechanismsoflanguagemusic,acquiredamusia,whichusuallyoccursasaresultofbraindamage,andcongenitalamusia,whichisduetoamusicprocessinganomalyatbirth,arephenomenaworthstudying.Thesymptomsofamusiaincludeinabilitytorecognizefamiliarmelodies(withoutlyrics),inabilitytodetectwrongorout-oftunenotes,andmostinterestingly,inabilitytodiscriminatetonesandintonationsofspeechutncesinsomecases.Thosepatientsprovideresearcherswithaspecial“window”toexploretheconnectionsbetweenthetwos.Inresearchonpitchperceptioninacquiredamusia,Pa,Peretzetal.(1998)examinedtwoamusicindividualswithdifferentmusicalperceptiondeficits.Thefirstparticipant,CN(anassociativeamusic),wasabletodiscriminatemusicalrhythmandpitchbutunabletoidentifyculturallyfamiliartunes.Thesecondparticipant,IR(anapperceptiveamusic),wasunabletodiscriminatemusicalrhythmandpitchpatterns.Stimuliconsistedofbothlinguisticandnonlinguisticsequences.Thelinguisticsequencespresentedtotheparticipantsincluded“statement-question”sentencepairsand“focus-shift”sentencepairs.Withineachpair,sentenceswereidenticalinwordsbutreadwithdifferentintonations.Differencesinsyllabletimingandamplitudeofsentencesineachpairwereminimizedbycomputer,leavingthetwosentencesdifferentonlyinpitchtrajectories.Thenonlinguisticsequencesweretonesequencesextractedfromthelinguisticsequences,witheachsyllablerecedbyanoteofthemidwayvalueoftheF0withinthecorrespondingsyllable.Therationalebehindthedesignofthisstudywasthatiftheparticipants’perceptualdeficitswereconfinedtomusic,theyshouldperformwellondiscriminatingthesentencepairsbuthavedifficultywiththetonesequences,orinotherwords,dissociationbetweentheprocessingofspeechintonationandnonlinguistictonesequencesshouldbeobserved.But,ifprocessingofintonationandtonesequencesoverlapsinthebrain,similarperformanceontwotypesoftasksshouldbefound(Pa,2008:228).TheresultoftheexperimentshowedthatCNdidwellonbothlinguisticandnonlinguisticdiscrimination,whereasIRhaddifficultywithboth.AtransverseCTscanalsofoundadditionaldamageintheleftprimaryauditorycortexandrightfrontalcortex.Thesecondlesionhasbeenassociatedwitharetentiondeficitofmelodiccontourinworkingmemory(Zatorreetal.,1994).Congenitalamusia,alsocalledmTD(MusicalTone-Deafness),referstomusicalfailuresthatcannotbeattributedtolowinligence,obvioussensoryorbrainanomalies,orlackofmusicalstimulationfromthesocialenvironment(Peretz&Hyde,2003).Musicallytone-deafindividuals(henceforthmTDIs)areoftenunawarewhenmusictheyhearortheirownsingingisoutoftune.Theymayalsofinditdifficulttorecognizemelodieswithoutlyrics,evenwhenthemelodiesareculturallyfamiliar.AsmTDIsmaybeexcellentinothers(suchastheNobel-prize-winningeconomistMiltonFriedmanandthegreatrevolutionaryCheGuevara),mTDmanifestsahighlyspecificdeficitformusic,withoutapparentnegativeinfluencesonothercognitiveabilities.InordertoexplorethespokenandmusicalmelodiccontourperceptioninmTDI,Ayotteetal.(2002)conductedastudysimilartoPa,Peretzetal.(1998)onmTDIs.However,theexperimentoncongenitalamusicsshowedquiteadifferentresultfromthatinPa,Peretzetal.’s(1998)studyonacquiredamusics,showingdissociationbetweenperformanceonsentencesandnonlinguistictonesequences.Peretz&(2003)’sexnationforthiswasthatpitchcontrastsinthesentencestimuliusedbyPa,Peretzetal.(1998)andAyotteetal.(2002)werecoarserthanthoseinthenonlinguisticstimuli,whoseoverallamountofpitchvariationinasentencewascompressed,hencelargeenoughto ethemTDIs’deficitsinfine-grainedpitchchangedetection.Theirsuggestionnaturallyledtoaquestion:ifthenonlinguistictonesequencesfollowedtheF0exactlyasinsentencestimuli,wouldthemTDIsperformequallywellontwotypesofsequences?Still,theanswerwasno.Pa,Foxton,andGriffiths(2005)addedanewtypeofnonlinguisticogswhosepitchtrajectoryexactlyfollowedtheF0movementwithinthesyllable.However,performanceonthisnewtypeofstimuli(alsocalled“glidingpitch”)turnedouttobeindistinguishablefromtheoldtype(alsocalled“discretepitch”),whileperformanceonthesentencestimuli(focus-shiftsentences)werestillsignificantlybetterthanonthenonlinguisticogs.Pa(2008:236)accountsforthisdissociationwithamelodiccontourdeafnessSowhendiscriminatingfocus-shiftsentences,mTDIscansimplylistenanddecidewhetherwordswithsalientpitchmovementarethesame.However,whenthemelodiccontoursareseparatedfromthephoneticinformation(theirlexicalcontext)asinthediscretepitchandglidingpitchogs,sucha“semanticrecodingstrategy”isnolongerpossible.Thusapitchcontourdeficitemerges:thepitch-directionthresholdofmTDIsisabout20timeshigherthaninordinarypeople(Foxtonetal.,2004).Asamatteroffact,mTDIsdohaveproblemswithpitchdirectionperceptioninbothlinguisticandnonlinguisticsoundsequences(Ayotteetal.,2002;Foxtonetal.,2004),butthedeficitinspeechintonationisusuallycoveredupbya“semanticrecodingstrategy”,aswellasthefactthatmostlinguisticallyrelevantpitchmovementsexceedthepitch-directionthresholdsofmTDIs(XuandXu,2005).Theneuralfoundationofthemelodiccontourdeafnessmayprobablybeanomaliesintherightinferiorfrontalcortex(Hydeetal.,2006).ThesignificanceofthemelodiccontourdeafnesshypothesisbyPa(2008)isthatitrevealsapossiblecommonalityintheprocessingofspokenandmusicalmelodiesfromunderthedisguiseofabehavioraldissociationindailylife,whichmeansthatabehavioraldissociationdoesnotnecessarilyentailaneuraldissociation(Pa,2008:238).TherearemanyresearchfindingsinsupportofSharedProcessingofLanguageandMusic,andSection1.1aboveismerelyabriefsummaryofthemostimportantamongthem.However,itisstilltooearlytodrawafinalconclusiontothediscussion,fortherearealsofindingsthatareinfavoroftheoppositeviewpoint,whichistobeintroducedinSection1.3.TwoDistinctProcessingModulesforSpeechandTherearealsoresearcherswhoholdtheoppositeviewwithrespecttosharedprocessingoflanguageandmusic.Amongthese,PeretzandColtheartarethemostinfluentialones.Butbeforetalkingabouttheirproposalofmodularityofprocessing,itisnecessarytointroduceFordor(1983).Accordingtohim,mentalmodulesusuallyhavethefollowingninecharacteristicproperties:rapidityofoperation,automaticity,-specificity,informationencapsulation,neuralspecificityandinnateness.Althoughnoneofthemisabsoluyindispensable,Fordordoesthink“informationencapsulation”asmoreimportantthanothers.Thischaracteristicmeansthatinformationprocessedwithinacertainmoduleisnotinfluencedbyinformationprocessedinanothermodule.Onethatbasis,PeretzandColtheartholdthat“informationencapsulation”isanequallyimportantcharacteristic,whichmeanstheoperationofamoduleisspecifictosomerestrictedofinputoroutput.So,theychoosetwo,“informationencapsulation”and“-specificity”amongtheninecharacteristicpropertiesproposedbyFodor(1983)asthemostessentialstandardswhenbuildingafunctionalarchitectureforamodularmodelofmusicprocessing.Inthismodel,themusicmodulecontainssmallermodules(processingcomponents)responsibleforparticularaspectsofmusic.Aneurologicalanomalycanresultindamagetoeitheraprocessingcomponentorinformationflowpathwaysamongthem.Supportfortheirproposalincludesreportsofselectiveimpairmentsinmusicalabilitywithlanguageabilityspared.Theyalsoprovidereportsofselectiveimpairmentsinlanguageabilitywithmusicalabilityspared(suchaspureworddeafness),inordertodefendagainstthedisputethattheremayonlybeageneralauditoryrecognitionmoduleratherthanadistinctprocessingmodulespecifictomusic.Pa(2008:270)disagreesonthevalidityofsomeofthesearguments,arguingthatalloftheindividualswithaphasia(withpartialortotallossofabilitytospeakorunderstandspokenlanguage,causedbydamagetothebrain)withoutamusiaareprofessionalmusicianswhoseretainedmusicalabilitymightbetheresultofneurosticity,andthatpureworddeafnessisnottrueaphasiainthestrictsense,forpatients’languageabilitiesinreadingandwritingarenotaffected.ManlandPfordresher(2013)carriedoutfourexperimentsthatweredesignedtoaddressthecontributionsofsequencetype(speech/song)andphoneticinformation(worded/wordless)ontheaccuracyofvocallyimitatedpitch-timetrajectoriesofsentencesandsongs,inordertoinvestigatewhetherpitchprocessinginvocalimitationofspeechand/orsongisspecific,andwhethersuchprocessingisencapsulatedformtheinfluencesofthephoneticinformationasproposedbyPeretzandColtheart(2003).Accordingtotheresults,allfourexperimentssuggestamelodicadvantage(whichsupportstheclaimaboutspecificityofmusicprocessing),butthemelodicadvantageisonlyforoneofthetwopitchaccuracymeasures:meanabsoluteerror.Thereasonforthefailuretoobserveareliableadvantageforrelativepitchintheimitationofmelodictargetsisattributedtothedifferenceinthefunctionalsignificanceofabsoluteversusrelativepitchinspeechandmusic.Inotherwords,absolutepitchissubstantiallyandunconsciouslymoreimportantwhenpeopleimitatemelodiesorsongs(Levitin,1994).Thatiswhypeoplematchpitchwhentheysinginunison,butnotwhenrecitingasentencetogether.ManlandPfordresher(2013)alsohaveanotable patiblewithPeretzandColtheart(2003):thepresenceofphoneticinformationfacilitatesbothspeechandmelodyimitation,whichmeanspitchprocessingwasnotencapsulated(i.e.“segregated”)fromphoneticprocessingandtheprocessingmoduleisnotspecificACautiousStandonDrawingStrongAnotherviewpointdifferentfromthetwomentionedaboveisJackendoff(2009).Hetakesacautiousstandondrawingstrongconnectionsbetweenlanguageandmusic.Althoughheadmitstheconsiderablenumberofsharedcharacteristicsbetweenthetwos,healsocallsforattentiontothefactthatthosesharedcharacteristicsareusually-general,suchastheuseofmemory,recursion,andfiveothercapacitieslistedbyhim,whichcanalsobefoundinothercognitives.Bycomparingtheformalstructuresoflanguageandmusic,hepointsoutthatthetwosdiffersubstantiallyintheiruseofpitch,intheirrhythmicstructure,andintheirconveyanceof“meaning”.SurveyingmuchthesameevidenceasPa(2008),Jackendoffinclinestobeconservativeandconcludestheglassis“halfempty”ratherthan“halffull”.Accordingtohis“…atthemomentwedonothaveaproperlylaidoutaccountofevenoneothercapacityagainstwhichtocomparelanguageandmusic.”(Jackendoff,2009:203)Hence,researchers“…urgecautionindrawingstrongconnectionsbetweenlanguageandmusic,bothinthecontemporaryhumanbrainandintheirevolutionaryroot.”(Jackendoff,2009:203)Hisviewpointseemstobesomewhereinbetweenthetwopolesatfirstglance.itinfactintroducesa“thirtyparty”tolookattheproblemunderintensedebate,forittreatsneitherlanguagenormusicasacertainkindof“subject”.Rather,accordingtothisview,bothlanguageandmusicarebasicallymanifestationsofsomethingthatisrooteddeeperintheofgeneralhumancognitiveabilities.TheTheoreticalBasisoftheCurrentAlthoughsomedetailsabouttheneuralfoundationsandanatomicalconnectionsbetweenlanguageandmusicarestillindispute,evidencefrom“musicandearlylanguageacquisition”,“l(fā)inkeddeficitsbetweenlanguageandmusic”insupportoftheexistenceofacloserelationbetweenthetwoshastakenthemajorpartofcurrentresearchfindings,andtheviewpointthatthereisacloserelationshipbetweenthetwoshasalreadybeenwidelyacceptedbyresearchers(Pei,2011,2012,2013).Thus,itistheoreticallyfeasibleandmeaningfultofurtherexplorethecharacteristicsoftherelationshipbetweenthetwouniqueendowmentsforhumanbeings,aslongaswetakeacautionsstandondrawingafinalconclusion.Chapter2AReviewofPreviousThedevelopmentofforeignlanguagephoneticabilitiesisinfluencedbyavarietyofnon-linguisticfactors.Musicalaptitude(alsoreferredtoas“musicality”,“musicalabilities”bysomeresearchers)isonefactoramongthem.Therehavebeenover30empiricalstudiesonthecorrelationbetweenmusicalaptitudeandforeignlanguagephoneticabilities.Thesestudiesingeneralconfirmedthatthereexistsacross-correlationandpredictabilitybetweenthetwos.Beforegoingintothedesigningoftheexperimentsforthecurrentstudy,areviewofpreviousstudiesisnecessary.Iwouldliketodiscussfouraspectsofpreviousstudiesinparticular:(1)participants,(2)operationaldefinition,(3)testsformusicalabilities,and(4)testsforlanguage.ParticipantsinPreviousPreviousstudieshavebeencarriedoutinmanycountries,andasaresult,participantscomefromawidevarietyofcountries,includingtheUS,Canada,Germany,Japan,andsoon.Foreignlanguagelearnersofdifferentlevels,suchasprimaryschool,middleschoolanduniversitystudentshavebeeninvolved.Suchawiderangeofsourcesofparticipantsprovidesampleempiricaldataforstudyingtherelationshipbetweenmusicalabilityandforeignlanguagephonologicalacquisition.ThetargetlanguagesaremainlyEuropeanlanguages,includingEnglish,French,German,andSpanish.TherehasalsobeenanincreaseinthenumberofstudieswhichfocusedonAsianlanguages.Nakata(2002)studiedtheacquisitionofJapaneseamongsomeEnglishnativespeakers.Inordertoinvestigatewhetherinnontonallanguagesspeakers,thediscriminationoflexicaltonesvariesinfunctionofthemelodicability,Deloguetal.(2006)choseMandarinasthetargetlanguage.Astudyonamusics’ERPstoinappropriatefinaltonesinspeechwascarriedbyJiangetal.(2012).TheproblemwiththechoiceofparticipantsinmanystudieslikeNakata(2002)andSlevc&Miyake(2006)isthatawiderangeofsourcesofparticipantsalsoleadstolargediscrepanciesamongparticipantsintermsofculturalbackground,age,inligenceandsoon,whichwillcertainlyincreasethedifficultyofcontrollingthevariables,andpossiblyinvolvesomeunexpectedconfoundingfactors.TheOperationalDefinitioninPreviousAnasymmetrybetweenperceptiveandproductiveabilitiesisaverycommonphenomenoninlanguageandmusiclearning.Thesameistrueforsegmentalandsuprasegmentalabilities.Forexample,amusiclearnermaybewellabletodiscriminatebetweentwodifferentrhythmicpatterns,butunabletotapeither.Also,alanguagelearnermaybegoodatdiscriminatingsimilarphonemesofaforeignlanguage,buthavedifficultyincatchingthedifferencesbetweenpatternsofintonation.Therefore,asystematicoperationaldefinitionshouldatleastincludefouraspects,namely,“perceptive”,“productive”,“segmental”,and“supersegmental”.Otherwise,itwouldbeimpossibletogiveanoverallpictureofthemusicalabilityandforeignlanguagephoneticabilityofaparticipant,nottomentionanobjectivereflectionoftherelationbetweenthetwo.However,only7studiesinvestigatedthefouraspectsatthesametime(Pei,2011,2012,2013).Therearetworeasonsforsuchalackofsystematicoperationaldefinition.therearefewproductiontestsformusicthatarewidelyrecognizedandcanbeuseddirectly.Designinganewtestonthebasisofastandardizedtestistimeandenergyconsuming,particularlywhentheresearcherhasverylimitedknowledgeaboutmusic.Second,thereisalackoftestingtoolstoforeignlanguageproductiveability.PhoneticabilityhasnotbeengivensufficientemphasisevenininternationallanguagetestlikeIELTS,TOEFL,andBEC.Materialchoice,stimulisynthesis, nelarrangementanddataysisareallextremelycomplexjobs.TestsforMusicalAbilitiesinPreviousAlmostallthestandardizedtestsformusicareperceptiontests,includingevaluationofpitch,tone,rhythm,duration,intensity,timbrediscriminationabilities,toneandrhythmmemory,aswellaschordyzin