THE UNIVERSITY OF HULL Working memory for music, pitch labels and solfège: A cross-cultural study of university students’ aural and cognitive skills being a Thesis submitted for the degree of PhD in the University of Hull by Artemis Apostolaki June 2012 Contents Acknowledgements viii Introduction 1 Chapter 1: Solfège in context 5 1.0. Introduction 6 1.1. Historical perspectives 6 1.1.1. A historical geography of solfège 7 1.1.1.1. Solfège in Continental Europe 7 1.1.1.2. Solfège in England 9 1.1.1.3. Solfège in America 10 1.1.2. Theoretical debate 12 1.1.2.1. Solfège vs. aesthetics and meaning 13 1.1.2.2. Solfège as an educational challenge 14 1.2. Solfège as perception 17 1.2.1. Empirical observations 18 1.2.2. Linguistic and musical traits of solfège 20 1.2.3. Linguistic relevance of solfège 21 1.2.3. Musical relevance of solfège 23 1.2.5. Solfège in the brain 24 1.2.6. Solfège as singing 27 1.2.7. Directions from absolute pitch research 28 1.2.8. Summary 30 1.3. Solfège, memory and memorisation 32 1.3.1. Memory theories and approaches 34 1.3.2. The Working Memory Model 38 1.3.3. Music memorisation 43 Chapter 2: Methodology 47 2.0. Introduction 48 2.0.1. Aims and objectives 49 2.1. Solfège lessons 52 2.1.1. Solfège lessons in the pilot study 52 i Contents 2.1.1.1. Teacher 52 2.1.1.2. Resources 53 2.1.1.3. Lessons 55 2.1.1.4. Learning outcomes and exam 58 2.1.1.5. Questionnaires and feedback 59 2.1.2. Solfège lessons in the main study 60 2.1.2.1. Resources 61 2.1.2.2. Lessons 62 2.1.2.3. Learning outcomes and exam 64 2.1.2.5. Questionnaires and feedback 66 2.1.3. General remarks regarding solfège lessons 71 2.2. The pilot study 73 2.2.0. Aims and hypotheses 73 2.2.1. Method 74 2.2.1.1. Design 74 2.2.1.2. Participants 74 2.2.1.3. Materials 75 2.2.1.4. Procedure 76 2.2.1.5. Transcription and scoring 79 2.2.2. Results 80 2.2.3. Discussion 88 2.2.3.1. Review of Participants 88 2.2.3.2. Review of Materials 88 2.2.3.3. Review of Procedures 91 2.2.3.4. Review of Solfège training 93 2.2.4. Conclusions from the pilot 94 2.3. Scoring the memorised performances 95 2.3.1. Preliminary marking 95 2.3.2. Validation 96 2.3.3. Final scoring system 98 2.3.3.1. Pitch accuracy 99 2.3.3.2. Rhythm accuracy 99 ii Contents 2.3.3.3. Structural accuracy 100 2.3.3.4. Fluency 100 Chapter 3: Experiment 1 The effect of music instruction on music memorisation: A cross-cultural study 102 3.0. Aims and hypotheses 103 3.1. Method 104 3.1.1. Design 104 3.1.2. Participants 105 3.1.3. Materials 105 3.1.4. Procedure 106 3.1.5. Transcription and scoring 109 3.2. Preliminary analysis 110 3.2.1. Comparability of the pieces 110 3.2.1.1. Tonal stimuli 111 3.2.1.2. Atonal stimuli 115 3.2.1.3. Comparability of the pieces: Summary 118 3.2.2. Comparability of different student groups 119 3.2.2.1. Comparison groups 120 3.2.2.2. Problems in the comparison 120 3.2.2.3. Comparison hypotheses 123 3.2.2.4. Comparison results: Tonal pieces 124 3.2.2.5. Comparison results: Atonal pieces 128 3.2.2.6. Comparability of student groups: Summary 131 3.3. Main analysis 132 3.4. Discussion 149 Chapter 4: Experiment 2 The effect of music instruction on music memorisation: A longitudinal study 162 4.0. Aims and hypotheses 163 4.1. Method 164 4.1.1. Design 164 iii Contents 4.1.2. Participants 165 4.1.3. Materials 166 4.1.4. Procedure 166 4.1.5. Transcription and scoring 167 4.2. Preliminary analysis: Piece comparability 168 4.3. Main analysis 171 4.3.1. Repeated measures analysis 172 4.3.2. ∆∆ scores 173 4.3.3. Analysis of ∆∆ scores 176 4.3.4. ∆∆ scores: Frequencies 179 4.4. Discussion 186 4.4.1 Research question no.1 186 4.4.2. Research question no.2 188 4.4.3. Research question no.3 189 4.4.4. Research question no.4 191 4.5. Summary 191 Chapter 5: Experiment 3 193 The effect of pitch labels on music and verbal memory: A comparative study 5.0. Introduction 194 5.1. Experiment A 199 5.1.1. Method 201 5.1.1.1.Design 201 5.1.1.2. Participants 201 5.1.1.3. Materials and Procedure: Memorisation task stimuli 202 5.1.1.4. Materials and Procedure: Pitch comparison task stimuli 204 5.1.1.5.General procedure 205 5.1.2. Results 207 5.1.3. Summary 218 5.2. Experiment B 220 5.2.1. Experiment B1: Musical interference in a phonemic memorisation task 221 iv Contents 5.2.1.1. Method: Design 222 5.2.1.2. Method: Participants 222 5.2.1.3. Materials and Procedure: Memorisation task stimuli 223 5.2.1.4. Materials and Procedure: Pitch comparison task stimuli 224 5.2.1.5. General procedure 225 5.2.1.6. Results 227 5.2.1.7. Summary 232 5.2.2. Experiment B2: Musical interference in a morphemic memorisation task 234 5.2.2.1. Method: Design 235 5.2.2.2. Method: Participants 235 5.2.2.3. Materials and Procedure: Memorisation task stimuli 236 5.2.2.4. Materials and Procedure: Pitch comparison task stimuli 237 5.2.2.5. General procedure 237 5.2.2.6. Results 239 5.2.2.7. Summary 246 5.2.3. Experiment B3: Musical interference in a lexemic memorisation task 248 5.2.3.1. Method: Design 248 5.2.3.2. Method: Participants 249 5.2.3.3. Materials and Procedure: Memorisation task stimuli 249 5.2.3.4. Materials and Procedure: Pitch comparison task stimuli 250 5.2.3.5. General procedure 250 5.2.3.6. Results 252 5.2.3.7. Summary 256 5.2.4. Experiment B: Discussion 258 5.3. Experiment C 261 5.3.1. Experiment C1: Phonemic interference in a music memorisation task 262 5.3.1.1. Method: Design 263 5.3.1.2. Method: Participants 263 5.3.1.3. Materials and Procedure: Memorisation task stimuli 264 v Contents 5.3.1.4. Materials and Procedure: Letter task stimuli 264 5.3.1.5. General procedure 265 5.3.1.6. Results 267 5.3.1.7. Summary 272 5.3.2. Experiment C2: Morphemic interference in a music memorisation task 274 5.3.2.1. Method: Design 274 5.3.2.2. Method: Participants 274 5.3.2.3. Materials and Procedure: Memorisation task stimuli 275 5.3.2.4. Materials and Procedure: Syllable task stimuli 275 5.3.2.5. General procedure 276 5.3.2.6. Results 278 5.3.2.7. Summary 282 5.3.3. Experiment C3: Lexical/phonemic interference in a music memorisation task 284 5.3.3.1. Method: Design 284 5.3.3.2. Method: Participants 284 5.3.3.3. Materials and Procedure: Memorisation task stimuli 285 5.3.3.4. Materials and Procedure: Word task stimuli 286 5.3.3.5. General procedure 286 5.3.3.6. Results 288 5.3.3.7. Summary 292 5.3.4. Experiment C: Discussion 294 5.4. Experiment 3: General discussion and conclusions 297 5.4.0. Synopsis of Experiment 3 297 5.4.1. Comparison of performance in Experiments A and C 299 5.4.2. Comparison of performance in Experiments A and B 305 5.4.3. Summary 310 6.0. General discussion and conclusions 312 6.1. General remarks and conclusion 313 6.1.1. Aim 1 314 6.1.2. Aim 2 316 vi Contents 6.1.3. Aim 3 316 6.1.4.Aim 4 317 6.1.5.Aim 5 318 6.2. Limitations 319 6.3. Research implications and directions for further study 322 References 324 Appendix 1: Solfège lessons 342 Appendix 2: Memorisation stimuli 388 Appendix 3: Task questionnaires 393 Appendix 4: Transcriptions and scoring 403 Appendix 5: ∆ scores regression results 410 vii Acknowledgements I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Elaine King, for her excellent guidance and unwavering support and patience from the very first day I started considering doing this PhD; also my advisor, Dr. Alastair Borthwick, for providing invaluable support in all levels practical and philosophical. Testing participants in five different countries was made possible by the Gerry Farrell traveling scholarship awarded by SEMPRE; the Drama and Music Department (Music) in the University of Hull also offered tremendous support by providing me with teaching and the opportunity to use a wide range of equipment, as well as by incorporating solfège lessons in the departmental curriculum. Thanks are also due to the Psychology Department, Dr. Helen St Clair- Thompson and Mr. Darren Bird for the use of E-Prime software, as well as to Ryan Southgate for his programming of the E-Prime software. I will always be grateful to all 93 participants who found the time to complete the experiments and showed interest in my research; special thanks go to the 13 participants in the pilot experiment as well as everyone who contributed by offering valuable comments and feedback on the E-Prime experiments.