CHAPTER THIRTEEN

Language Acquisition and Music Acquisition:

Possible Parallels
ALISON M. REYNOLDS
TEMPLE UNIVERSITY, PENNSYLVANIA, USA
SUSI LONG
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA, USA
WENDY H. VALERIO
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA, USA
In this chapter, we use concepts from the field of language and literacy acquisition to
initiate conversation about possible parallels to music and music literacy acquisition.
We suggest such parallels to broaden visions of what it means to acquire music knowl-
edge and skills, and thereby expand possibilities for music teaching and learning. We
present an overview of language acquisition theory, explore parallels between language
acquisition and music acquisition, and provide examples of music acquisition
through music immersion. By using examples from Vygotsky, Cambourne, and others,
we compare the roles of contextualized language interactions and music interactions.
We suggest that adults listen to childrens voices, think of themselves as co-musicers,
and expect young children to begin acquiring music from at least birth. By interact-
ing with children musically, adults can encourage childrens construction of music
thought; and provide truly human ways of knowing, expressing, and interacting. By
doing so, we, as adults, legitimize music as something worth acquiring.
Caregiver: [Turning the page of the picture book] I think I can, I think I can.
Child: [Pointing to the train on the page] Whoo ooo, whoo ooo!
Caregiver: [Joining in] Whoo ooo, whoo oo! Chug a chug a chug a chug
Child: Chug a chug a chug. Rrrrrr [braking sound]. The train stopped!
Caregiver: Stop the train! Rrrrrr. And off it goes up the hill again.
A 3-year-old and an adult interact around a text-picture book, The Little Engine
That Could (Piper, 1976). As they interact with one another and with the text,
they experiment with language and literacy. They do this in the context of a rela-
tionship in which both feel safe enough to draw on what they know as they
move toward what they are coming to know. They bring meaning to the text by
POSSIBLE PARALLELS
A
l
i
s
o
n
M
.
R
e
y
n
o
l
d
s
,
S
u
s
i
L
o
n
g
,
W
e
n
d
y
H
.
V
a
l
e
r
i
o
211
improvising aspects of the storythey point to pictures, make sounds to drama-
tize action, read words, and animate the pictures. They build understandings
from each others contributions and engage one another, going beyond prior
understandings (Lindfors, 1999). Both child and adult are keen observers. The
adult is an astute kidwatcher (Goodman, 1978), learning about the child in the
context of the interaction and using that knowledge to sensitively craft support-
ive feedback. The child draws from prior experiences and blends them with con-
tributions from the text, pictures, and the adult to offer approximations of lan-
guage and literacy. In the safety of the relationship, both take risks that may not
be taken in any other relationship: risks necessary for learning to take place. As a
result, language and literacy teaching and learning potentially occur on many lev-
elsreading as a meaning-making process, letter-sound correspondences, phone-
mic awareness, sentence structure, vocabulary, and story structure.
In this chapter, we use concepts from the field of language and literacy acquisition
to initiate conversation about possible parallels to music and music literacy acquisi-
tion. We suggest such parallels to broaden visions of what it means to acquire music
knowledge and skills and thereby expand possibilities for music teaching and learn-
ing. To accomplish this, the authors present (a) an overview of language acquisition
theory, (b) an exploration of parallels between language acquisition and music acqui-
sition, and (c) examples of music acquisition through music immersion.
The Acquisition of Language: A Theoretical Overview
From the prenatal expectation that children will learn to talk, through the early
years when children approximate language and receive sensitively-crafted feed-
back (Cambourne, 1988), we learn language with the support of others in envi-
ronments conducive to risk-taking. Learners take a chance, give language a try,
use what they know to join interactions and communicate in their worlds. Key
to the acquisition of spoken language is reason to communicate and the opportu-
nity to interact meaningfully with more knowledgeable language users who scaf-
fold the learning process (Bruner, 1983; Vygotsky, 1978). As children interact
with others using language for a variety of functions (Halliday, 1975), they
explore concepts and experiment with language that names those concepts.
Vygotsky (1962) believed that such explorations on a social plane allow learners
to develop understandings that are later relegated to internal thought. More
recent conceptualizers of learning as socially-based see conversational partners
moving fluidly in and out of the roles of novice and expert guiding the participa-
tion and thereby the learning of one another through the interaction (Rogoff,
1990; Wells, 1999). This way, learners share the intentionality and responsibility
for language learning. Engaging others in going beyond current understandings,
children use language to learn language as inquirers within and beyond their
worlds (Halliday, 1975; Lindfors, 1999).
POSSIBLE PARALLELS
212
A
l
i
s
o
n
M
.
R
e
y
n
o
l
d
s
,
S
u
s
i
L
o
n
g
,
W
e
n
d
y
H
.
V
a
l
e
r
i
o
Critical to this process of language learning are contextualized demonstrations pro-
vided by conversational partners. Through the interaction, experienced language
users provide demonstrations as they use language in contexts considered to be pur-
poseful and meaningful by the learner (Cambourne, 1988). The learner responds or
initiates communication by approximating language. The more experienced lan-
guage user accepts the learners contributions as meaning-filled (Brown, 1970;
Cambourne, 1988). As the infant coos and babbles, for example, the parent or care-
giver assigns meaning to those sounds and responds accordingly. In this way, chil-
dren learn the art of conversational turn-taking as well as inflection, meaning,
sounds and words, and the facial expressions and gestures that accompany them
(Brown, 1970). This social interactionist perspective also embraces the notion that
form follows function, or that children learn the parts and structures of language
while using it purposefully within meaning-based whole experiences (Halliday,
1975). For example, parents do not typically say to their toddlers, "Were going to
learn about the past tense today," nor do they drill children in the isolated conjuga-
tion of verbs. Instead, as children risk approximations"I goed to Aunt Tanyas yes-
terday"parents (or others) respond sensitively"So, you went to Aunt Tanyas
yesterday?" In the process, children begin to construct rules that explain how lan-
guage is structured and used. Similarly, younger children often use a word or two to
express more complex ideas. For instance, "up" might mean "pick me up."
Conversational partners, using knowledge of situational context (the whole experi-
ence), assign intent and meaning to such telegraphic speech and respond according-
ly"okay, up you go!"thereby providing feedback that allows children to con-
struct further knowledge about language structure (Brown, 1970).
Recent work in the field of language acquisition looks at variations in language
systems in homes and communities and contrasts them with language typically
valued in schools (Delpit, 2002; Heath, 1983; Ladson-Billings, 1994; Nieto,
1999; Taylor & Dorsey-Gaines, 1988). These studies help to erase an older
deficit perspective that privileges language used in White, middle class, English-
speaking environments over other uses of language: they illuminate the impor-
tance of recognizing and valuing multiple ways of learning, knowing, and
expressing. Implications for educators include the responsibility to broaden the
norm of what is recognized as language to include multiple ways of knowing,
expressing, and interacting. These studies guide us to value what children and
families know as we (a) create opportunities for children to connect further
learning to existing knowledge, and (b) expand the world views of all children by
legitimatizing diverse language and literacy use.
The Acquisition of Music: Possible Parallels to Language Acquisition
As authors we make no claims that music is a language, or that music represents
the same types of thoughts as does language. But humans use music to commu-
POSSIBLE PARALLELS
A
l
i
s
o
n
M
.
R
e
y
n
o
l
d
s
,
S
u
s
i
L
o
n
g
,
W
e
n
d
y
H
.
V
a
l
e
r
i
o
213
nicate (Bernstein, 1976; Papousek, 1996; Woodward, 2005). Although music
may allow humans to evoke or conjure up emotions, the pitches and rhythms
that are the essentials of music do not, and probably will never, represent the
same types of concrete or abstract thoughts represented by language. Music rep-
resents its own type of thought: abstract, untouchable, and essentially human.
Nonetheless, to be a musicer (Elliott, 1995)one who makes musicis the
birthright of each human. Most researchers agree that humans are born with the
potential to music (Clarke, 1989; Gardner, 1993; Gordon, 2003a, 2003b;
McAdams, 1987). With that knowledge, ponder the next set of questions.
Though adults expect that most young children will learn to talk, do they expect that
young children will learn to music? Do adults expect children and themselves to have
reason to communicate using music? Do children approximate musicconstruct
musical understandings and initiate music-based interactions? If so, how do adults rec-
ognize them? What constitutes adults sensitively crafted, music feedback? What is
risk-taking in a music-learning environment? Do adults facilitate risk-taking for chil-
drens music-learning? What motivates young children to music, and what kinds of
opportunities help them learn to music? How do childrens music explorations allow
them to develop music understandings that they can later relegate to internal thought?
Do adults consider children as conversational partners in music who can, like them-
selves, move fluidly in and out of the roles of novice and expert as they guide one
another during their interactions?
We ask those many questions in direct parallel to what is understood about language
acquisition. Although musicians, music philosophers, historians, researchers, and prac-
titioners
1
have considered aspects of music learning in relation to aspects of language
learning, we realize that less is understood about how young children acquire music
than how young children acquire language. We propose that, by approaching music as
a symbol system that may be acquired aurally, orally, visually, and kinesthetically, adults
can listen to childrens voices for ways in which they music. Adults can interact musi-
cally with them to invite, entice, and encourage young children to claim their music
learning potentials as they participate as co-constructers of music knowledge and skills.
In turn, adults may gain knowledge about the nature of music development, and may
formulate strategies and practices to enhance human music acquisition. As they do so,
adults may realize that children come ready to make and participate in music from
birth, if not in utero.
Do we value what children bring to the learning table? In other words, if recent lan-
guage research points out the diversity of legitimate uses of language and literacy in
homes and communities previously not acknowledged or valued in schools, how can
we do the same as we consider the acquisition of musical knowledge? How can
we begin by honoring what children know and build on that knowledge; thereby
broadening the vision of what is considered to be the norm in music?
POSSIBLE PARALLELS
214
A
l
i
s
o
n
M
.
R
e
y
n
o
l
d
s
,
S
u
s
i
L
o
n
g
,
W
e
n
d
y
H
.
V
a
l
e
r
i
o
Emergent Literacy: We Emerge as Literate From Birth
According to an emergent literacy perspective, human beings emerge as literate
from birth (Clay, 1979; Holdaway, 1984; Ferreiro & Teberosky, 1996). The
infant reads the smile on his mothers face, the toddler calls out at the sign for a
favorite restaurant, the preschooler interprets her scribbles as a letter to Auntie,
and the child reads the pictures in The Little Engine That Could (Piper, 1976). In
contrast to a readiness perspective that suggests that children must acquire specif-
ic skills before they can learn to read and write, an emergent literacy perspective
sees children learning skills while they are engaged in the act of using spoken and
written language. Teachers who embrace such a view build from what children
know rather than what they do not know. From an emergent literacy perspective,
educators see themselves not as teachers of reading and writing but as those who
guide readers and writers.
Just as with learning spoken language, we learn literacy as we use it for a variety
of functions, such as learning to gather and share information, to ask why, to reg-
ulate behavior, to interact, to tell about self, to imagine, and to request (Halliday,
1975). In other words, we do not learn to speak, read, and write merely through
imitating language and literacycopying sentences from the board, filling out
worksheets, memorizing vocabulary words. Children construct understandings of
language and literacy as they make approximations in purposeful contexts and
engage with others in ways that invite feedback that moves them forward
(Cambourne, 1988; Lindfors, 1999). They initiate topics of conversation, engage
with others using language, and transact with and think critically about texts
they read or conversations in which they participate.
Cambourne (1988) suggests that specific conditions allow such learning to take
place. We learn to speak, read, and write when we are immersed in a regular
flood of meaningful language and literacy around us; when we receive thousands
of demonstrations of real language and literacy use; when those around us expect
that we will speak, read, and write; when we have plenty of opportunities to
employ/use language and literacy for purposes meaningful to us; when we are
applauded for our approximations and provided sensitive feedback that moves us
forward; and when we are allowed to take responsibility for our own learning. In
other words, children engage as inquirers working to make sense of the world
around them using language and literacy in functional contexts while learning
both (Mills, OKeefe, & Jennings, 2004; Short, Harste, & Burke, 1996).
Would there be general agreement that humans are born musically literate? The
answer to that surely depends upon the extent to which ones definition of music
literacy is anchored solely to the abilities to read and write music notationthe
symbol system that parallels text for a language. A comprehensive definition of
POSSIBLE PARALLELS
A
l
i
s
o
n
M
.
R
e
y
n
o
l
d
s
,
S
u
s
i
L
o
n
g
,
W
e
n
d
y
H
.
V
a
l
e
r
i
o
215
music literacy necessarily would acknowledge a musicers engagement in music inter-
actions beyond those focused solely on reading music notation. To consider nurturing
music literacy as the opportunity to nurture a culture of independent musicers who
are music listeners, music speakers, music readers and music writers would value young
children as music doers and thinkers from birth. Certainly, most very young children
do not have reasons and opportunities to access music notation from birth that paral-
lel those for accessing text or pictures. Instead, their earliest reasons and opportunities
to music parallel the aural, oral, kinesthetic, gestural (physically expressive), and non-
text visual components of learning to interact using language during conversations.
What are signs of emergent music literacy? Essentially, much about young childrens
aural and oral engagement suggests that they music from birth (Blacking, 1976;
Papousek, 1996; Tafuri & Donatella, 2002), if not in utero. Signs that are more
directly parallel to language examples could include the infant who reads the smile
on his mothers face as she sings a lullaby, the toddler who either sings out or calls
out for a favorite music recording, and the child who improvises singing while lis-
tening to a familiar tune. Parents might be fostering young childrens emergent
music literacy as they initiate interactions with them using music. We know that
parents and caregivers initiate music interactions because they enjoy the social activi-
ty with their children (Jorgensen, 1997; North, Hargreaves, &Tarrant, 2002;
Papousek, 1996). Those music interactions might also foster childrens spontaneous
music approximations (Burton, 2002; Papousek, 1996) that may be interpreted
signs of emergent music literacy.
Infants and young children music in a variety of ways: aurally, orally, and kinestheti-
cally. Researchers have documented childrens (a) responses to a variety of music
stimuli (Moog, 1976), (b) one-on-one music interactions (Kelley & Sutton-Smith,
1987; McKeron, 1979; Papousek & Papousek, 1981; Tafuri & Donatella, 2002),
(c) movement as a response to music (Miller, 1986; Metz, 1986; Reynolds, 1995;
Sims, 1985), and (d) spontaneous music approximations without adult interaction
(Burton, 2002; Moorhead & Pond, 1941). Papousek (1996) recommended that
researchers investigate infants musicing "when being exposed to the complexity of
naturalistic social interactions" (p. 99). As music acquisition researchers, we are grap-
pling with ways to understand indications of young childrens music approxima-
tionstheir vocal and kinesthetic explorations, imitations, and improvisations as
evidence of their emergent music literacy.
We suggest that young childrens music approximations (including physical move-
ment) during music interactions provide initial evidence of their music thinking,
independent of language (Azzara, 2002; Hicks, 1993; Reynolds, 1995, 2005, 2006;
Valerio, Seaman, Yap, Santucci, & Tu, 2006; Woodward, 2005). We can turn to
language and literacy acquisition experts to learn what is understood about the
importance of interactions.
POSSIBLE PARALLELS
216
A
l
i
s
o
n
M
.
R
e
y
n
o
l
d
s
,
S
u
s
i
L
o
n
g
,
W
e
n
d
y
H
.
V
a
l
e
r
i
o
Purposeful Interactions
Vygotskys (1978) work illuminates the power of social interaction in the lives of
learners. Lindfors (1999) writes about Vygotskys notion of zones of proximal
development as places where learners grow by engaging others in going beyond
previous understandings. This concept helps us understand the importance of
constructing learning environments where purposeful interaction is foundational.
Vygotskys ideas, as furthered by Rogoff (1990), help us consider how learners
take on the roles of apprentice/novice and expert within ever-changing zones of
proximal development. Wells (1999) suggests that, within zones of proximal
development, there are no designated teachers. We move in and out of the roles
of apprentice and expert, depending on the schema we bring to each turn in the
conversation. Wells also helps us see that zones of proximal development are not
finite, testable entities. They move and change in amoeba-like fashion as conver-
sational partners change, topics change, and moments change. According to
Wells, within zones of proximal development, every member of the interaction is
both learner and teacher.
Is there a music-equivalent to internal thought in language? Gordon (2003b)
proposes that, through a combination of innate music potential, informal guid-
ance, and formal instruction, each human may audiatehear and comprehend
music for which the sound is no longer (or may never have been) physically pre-
sent. To describe a music learners progressive acquisition of music and music lit-
eracy, he coined the terms preparatory audiation (Gordon, 2003a) and audiation
(Gordon, 2003b).
To think music thoughts or ideasto audiatewe interact with musics content
(e.g., tonality, meter, style, form) aurally, orally, and kinesthetically. We suggest
that from at least birth, our first coos and gurgles might be interpreted as our
first music approximations. Through purposeful music interactions we move in
and out of the roles of apprentice and expert within the music zones of proximal
development. To audiate, we learn to coordinate our breathing, movement, and
musicing in rich music environments.
Gordon (2003a) recommends establishing music environments rich with a vari-
ety of tonalities, meters, and expressive movements performed by adults for their
children. We extend that recommendation. We suggest that very young children
vocalize approximations that can be interpreted as invitations for music interac-
tions with co-musicers. By listening to childrens voices, immersing them in a
variety of tonalities, meters, and expressive movements, and purposefully inter-
acting with them to create shared music meaning using music syntax, children
and adults may realize their music birthrights. By honoring their music develop-
ment in informal and playful ways, adults can sensitively guide childrens progres-
POSSIBLE PARALLELS
A
l
i
s
o
n
M
.
R
e
y
n
o
l
d
s
,
S
u
s
i
L
o
n
g
,
W
e
n
d
y
H
.
V
a
l
e
r
i
o
217
sion from exploration to imitation and improvisation as they approximate music
to acquire higher-order music thinking skills.
Music Approximations and Interactions
To examine music acquisition we (Reynolds and Valerio) have been practicing
immersion. Similar to a French immersion class or a German immersion class,
when we enter a music immersion classroom we avoid talking and performing
music with words. Instead, we speak the language we expect to be learned. In
music immersion classes the communication symbol system used for each
immersion session is music. Without trying to teach music concepts, we play
with the dynamic interchange of music ideas through songs, rhythm chants,
tonal patterns, and rhythm patterns, while using silence, imitation and impro-
visation (Reynolds, 2006; Valerio, Seaman, Yap, Santucci, & Tu, 2006). To
emphasize the differences between language and music during music immer-
sion, we use no words while performing songs, rhythm chants, tonal patterns,
and rhythm patterns. Instead, we perform all music using neutral syllables
such as ba, ya, or bum.
2
We often imitate each others music patterns and
improvise music patterns in conversation. We listen to all infant and toddler
vocalizations with the possibility that the children are musicing through bab-
ble (Gordon, 2003a; Holahan, 1987; Moog, 1976). When we hear a childs
vocalization, we either imitate that vocalization, or improvise using tonal pat-
terns or rhythm patterns. When entering a typical childcare situation we per-
form songs, rhythm chants, tonal patterns, and rhythm patterns while moving
around classrooms, playing with the infants, toddlers, and young children. To
a casual observer, it might sound like music time, but it does not look like tra-
ditional circle time-music time.
Valerio and another music teacher provided 15-minute music immersion ses-
sions twice-per-week in two different classrooms. Eight infants/toddlers ages
6-months to 18-months were in one classroom, and 10 toddlers ages 18-
months to 36-months were in another classroom. One day, near the end one
of a music immersion session, a 15-month-old toddler who was sitting on the
floor in the middle of the classroom began vocalizing using neutral syllables.
(The teachers had begun the music immersion classes when the toddler was a
10-month-old infant in the same classroom.) The teachers listened to the
childs voice and used imitation and improvisation to incorporate sounds
made by the child into a three-person, interactive jam session. One teacher
also accompanied her vocalizations with patschen. Spontaneously, the group
of musicers co-constructed a musically meaningful conversation similar to the
way two adults might listen to a childs language babble, interpret that babble,
and give meaning to it in a conversation involving the child. Following is a
transcription of that interaction.
POSSIBLE PARALLELS
218
A
l
i
s
o
n
M
.
R
e
y
n
o
l
d
s
,
S
u
s
i
L
o
n
g
,
W
e
n
d
y
H
.
V
a
l
e
r
i
o
Figure 1. Toddler and two music teachers in music interaction (Valerio, 2000b).
By listening to the child, the teachers interpreted her music babble as being tonal (but
not necessarily in a tonality), and being in duple meter. By listening to the child and
by taking music risks, the teachers and toddler engaged as co-musicers in a purposeful
interaction. The teacher provided meaning-filled aural, oral, and physical demonstra-
tion of music use while musicing. Such music interactions are foundational as
musicers develop the aural and oral music vocabularies necessary for eventually giving
meaning to music reading and writing (Gordon, 2003a, 2003b).
On another day, a music teacher had been singing Down by the Station using
neutral syllables in the toddler classroom. Approximately 15 ft. (5 metres) away
POSSIBLE PARALLELS
A
l
i
s
o
n
M
.
R
e
y
n
o
l
d
s
,
S
u
s
i
L
o
n
g
,
W
e
n
d
y
H
.
V
a
l
e
r
i
o
219
from the teacher, a 21-month-old toddler sat on a pillow, playing with a book.
He turned the pages intently, and seemed to pay no attention to the music
teacher or other children near her. When the music teacher performed a tonal
pattern after singing the song, however, the toddler looked at her, approximated
her tonal pattern, and a tonal pattern interaction ensued. First the toddler began
to approximate the teachers tonal patterns. Then, taking a risk, the teacher began
to approximate the toddlers tonal patterns. The two musicers co-constructed a
music dialogue that began in major tonality, the key of F, and modulated to the
key of G. The co-musicers also began their conversation in duple meter and
modulated to triple meter. Following is a transcription of that music interaction.
Figure 2. Toddler and one music teacher in music interaction (Valerio, 1999).
The entire dialogue was spontaneous, improvised, rich, and musically meaningful
because the two were using music syntax as they realized aural and oral music vocabu-
laries. They knew they had made music in conversation.
POSSIBLE PARALLELS
220
A
l
i
s
o
n
M
.
R
e
y
n
o
l
d
s
,
S
u
s
i
L
o
n
g
,
W
e
n
d
y
H
.
V
a
l
e
r
i
o
In another music immersion class for school-aged children, three girls, ages 5.5, 5.5,
and 9 were sitting in a circle with Valerio and another music teacher. One day, the
teachers decided to see what would happen if the children were asked to improvise a
song. To begin the activity, Valerio said,
Lets make up a group song. Its almost time to go, you guys. Can you
believealready? We havent even played the violins yet! Lets make up our
song and then we will play violin. Here we go [sung as notated]. Ill go, and
then youll go. Just add whatever you want and, when youre finished Annie
3
will start. Be ready to start, Okay? (Valerio, 2000a)
In the notation, notice that the children demonstrate different levels of tonal and
rhythm sophistication. Each child, without ever being formally taught how to, impro-
vised a song, complete with recognizable, consistent tonality, melodic contour, rhythmic
cohesiveness, and phrase structure. None of the teachers or children improvised using
words. By listening to the musicing voices of the children, the teachers learned that the
children were audiating much more about the structure of music than they could have
expected or learned by talking about music. By musicing in a safe environment, the
children and the teachers deepened their music relationship and developed confidence
in their musicianship. Following is a transcription of their music interactions.
Figure 3. Three school-aged children and two music teachers in melodic
improvisation (Valerio, 2000a).
POSSIBLE PARALLELS
A
l
i
s
o
n
M
.
R
e
y
n
o
l
d
s
,
S
u
s
i
L
o
n
g
,
W
e
n
d
y
H
.
V
a
l
e
r
i
o
221
This was the first time the teachers had tried this activity. They were not sure it
would work, and they did not know what the children would do, but they had
spent several weeks cultivating a "safe" music environment. The two younger
girls had been in music immersion classes for the previous four years. The older
girl had joined the music immersion class six weeks previously. The teachers
modeled music risk-taking by improvising. They encouraged the children to take
music risks by asking them "to teach" tonal patterns and rhythm patterns to the
class. If a child taught a pattern to the class, whatever a child sang or chanted was
honored as musicing. The teachers and the other children repeated the pattern
and incorporated it into an improvisation.
In the three music vignettes in this chapter, children approximated music literacy
use because they were comfortable enough and felt validated enough to engage. We
acknowledge thatfor a myriad of reasonsmany adults might view themselves as
less capable musicers than language or literacy users. We ask ourselves, "How this
could be so?" Those who study language acquisition remind us that learning is
grounded in relationships, and when language learners feel that their attempts will
be demeaned or devalued, they stop trying and thereby stop learning. We suggest
that many adults were in settingslikely when they were young childrenwith
adults who accepted limited definitions for what constitutes acceptable musicing.
Shelley (1981) stated, "The influence of the teachers interaction as being the most
crucial to the emergence of the childs innate musicality needs to be investigated" (p.
32). Curricula that support playful, informal learner-centered philosophies through
interactions like those featured in the three music vignettes provide us with a start-
ing point for further research into music interactions.
Summary
What if adults collectively agreed that an infant who listens to an adults lullaby is demon-
strating emergent music literacy? What if we agreed that the cries, coos, and gurgles of
infants are musicing? That is, what if adults assumed that infants want to communicate
using music, attempt to communicate using music, and expect adults to communicate
with themusing music? Specifically, what if we interpreted at least some of the cries, coos,
and gurgles of infants to be initial music approximations rather than language approxima-
tions? Then we could respond to themusing music syntaxnot necessarily with words
offering a type of sensitively crafted music feedback, and engage themin musicing. We
would give music meaning to those sounds, and we could set the stage for music conver-
sations and interactions that, if experienced during the first fewmonths of life in an envi-
ronment safe fromridicule, could shape childrens music learning dispositions, and prepare
themfor participation in more complex music interactions.
With a new mindset that listening and vocal babble and play represent music
approximations rather than language approximations, adults might begin to think of
POSSIBLE PARALLELS
222
A
l
i
s
o
n
M
.
R
e
y
n
o
l
d
s
,
S
u
s
i
L
o
n
g
,
W
e
n
d
y
H
.
V
a
l
e
r
i
o
themselves as co-musicers with children. They would begin to see themselves and
every child as a musicer rather than as musical or unmusical. They would be able to join
music making in moments when a young child spontaneously incorporates singing or
chanting into his play. That is, they would be able to recognize moments when a
young child or several young children spontaneously sing or chantnot because they
occur without the teacher during routine music-making times (like clean up, transi-
tions, or circle time), or other times when childrens initiations of music is recognizable
from music the adults have taught in a traditional manner.
Adults might feel a sense of freedom when they are able to listen to childrens voices
and interpret their sounds as music or language. With practice as conversational music
partners with children, adults could accept what might be childrens invitations to con-
verse in vocal music playwhether or not the childrens music is familiar to them.
Adults who may have never felt comfortable musicing before might risk musicing in
the safety of the relationship with the children. As the children engage adults in impro-
visatory music conversations, they use music in ways that will help them learn music
notation when they first encounter it.
It seems that much about traditional music instructionfrom formalized
childcare to conservatoriesis founded on the premise that a more musically
knowledgeable adult must organize music experiences for the less musically
knowledgeable person. If that is true, much about traditional music instruc-
tion implies a deficit perspective. That is, the experts of traditional music
instruction hold the music truths that they impart to students when they
deem those students to be ready, or talented enough (Kingsbury, 1988) for a
highly valued outcomemusic performance. In the process of fostering a
music education culture based on formal music products (specifically the
imitation of Western European classical music), the music education profes-
sion has limited any former notion of music acquisition to achievement that
comes from training.
If we listen to childrens voices from the earliest days, we can co-construct
music meaning with them. We can view their vocalizations and their move-
ments as emergent music, and support both with contextualized music
demonstrations. We can become childrens conversational music partners and
engage in ways that acknowledge that their contributions are filled with music
meaning. We would agree that they are learning music skills while they are
engaged in the act of approximating music from birth or even earlier. If this
mindset became pervasive, then there would be no need to delay exposure to
music notation. We imagine that teachers would begin to find creative and
meaningful ways to play with music notation from early in childrens lives. By
doing so, perhaps there would be new evidence for the types of parallels
between emergent language literacy and emergent music literacy.
POSSIBLE PARALLELS
A
l
i
s
o
n
M
.
R
e
y
n
o
l
d
s
,
S
u
s
i
L
o
n
g
,
W
e
n
d
y
H
.
V
a
l
e
r
i
o
223
In the opening vignette, caregiver and child enjoy moments together as language
and literacy learners. The caregiver engages the child in meaningful demonstra-
tions based on real language use. He expects that the child will eventually read
the text, andby providing the child with sensitively crafted feedback that pro-
pels the child forward (back into the text)he floods the child with a moment
that is (surely) only one among thousands of such moments. The opportunities
to use language to learn language are bountiful in nearly limitless varieties of
interactions. Because the caregiver allows the child to initiate topics of conversa-
tion, to request play, and to ask questions, the child can take responsibility for
his learning. The cycle continues when the caregiver listens to the childs voice
and furthers language and literacy interaction.
In the music vignettes in this chapter, adults and children interact to promote
music acquisition in ways that we propose parallel language acquisition. In other
ways, the interactions do not parallel language acquisition: (a) the musicers are
not using words with the music to motivate one anothers engagement, (b) the
conditions for music "conversations" allow for two or more musicers to music
simultaneously and still be heard and understood, and (c) childrens emergent
music literacy has not included early interaction with notation in the way that
their emergent language literacy has included text and pictures.
For children to acquire language and literacy, Cambourne (1988) suggests that spe-
cific conditions allow learning to take place. Those conditionsadapted for music
learning and literacycan support adults decisions to listen to childrens voices as
musical voices: we immerse children in a regular flood of meaningful music and
music literacy; provide thousands of demonstrations of musicing in contexts chil-
dren consider meaningful; expect that children emerge as musically literate; allow
learner-centered opportunities for children to employ music and music literacy for
purposes meaningful to them; applaud their music approximations, and provide
sensitively crafted feedback to move their musicing forward. Finally, by choosing at
times to refrain from being the music providerby listening in supportive silence
(Hicks, 1993; Reynolds, 1995, 2006; Valerio et al., 1998; Valerio et al., 2006)
we can allow children to be responsible for their own music learning.
As adults, we have a responsibility to listen to childrens voices, expect them to be
full of music possibilities, and encourage childrens construction of music thought.
By encouraging their music thought, we provide truly human ways of knowing,
expressing, and interacting, and we legitimize music as something worth acquiring.
References
Aiello, R. (1994). Music and language: Parallels and contrasts. In R. Aiello & J. Sloboda (Eds.), Musical perceptions
(pp. 4063). New York: Oxford University Press.
Azzara, C. D. (2002). Improvisation. In R. Colwell & C. Richardson (Eds.), The new handbook of research on music
teaching and learning (pp. 171187). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
POSSIBLE PARALLELS
224
A
l
i
s
o
n
M
.
R
e
y
n
o
l
d
s
,
S
u
s
i
L
o
n
g
,
W
e
n
d
y
H
.
V
a
l
e
r
i
o
Bernstein, L. (1976). The unanswered question: Six talks at Harvard. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Besson, M., & Schn, D. (2003). Comparison between language and music. In I. Peretz & R. Zatorre (Eds.), The
cognitive neuroscience of music (pp. 269293). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Blackburn, L. (1998). Whole music: A whole language approach to teaching music. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Blacking, J. (1976). How musical is man? London: Faber.
Brown, R. (1970). Three processes in the childs acquisition of syntax: The childs grammar from I to III. In R.
Brown (Ed.), Psycholinguistics: Selected papers by Roger Brown. New York: MacMillan.
Bruner, J. (1983). A childs talk: Learning to use language. New York: Horton.
Burton, S. (2002, August). An exploration of preschool childrens spontaneous songs and chants. Visions of Research
in Music Education, 2(Special Edition), 716. Retrieved March 9, 2005,
from http://www.rider.edu/~vrme/articles2/vrme.pdf
Cambourne, B. (1988). The whole story: Natural learning and the acquisition of language. Auckland, NZ: Scholastic.
Chen-Haftek, L. (1997). Music and language development in early childhood: Integrating past and present research
in the two domains. Early Child Development and Care, 130, 8597.
Clarke, E. F. (1989). Issues in language and music. Contemporary Music Review, 4, 922.
Clay, M. (1979). Reading: The patterning of complex behaviour. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Delpit, L. (2002). The skin that we speak: Thoughts on language and culture. New York: The New Press.
DeWitt, L., & Samuel, A. (1990). The role of knowledge-based expectations in music perception: Evidence from
musical restoration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 119(2), 12344.
Elliott, D. J. (1995). Music matters. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ferreiro, E., & Teberosky, A. (1996). Literacy before schooling. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Gardner, H. (1973). The arts and human development. New York: Wiley.
Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
Goodman, Y. (1978). Kidwatching: An alternative to testing. National Elementary Principal, 57, 4145.
Gordon, E. E. (2003a). Learning sequences in music: Skill, content, and patterns. Chicago: GIA.
Gordon, E. E. (2003b). A music learning theory for newborn and young children (Rev. ed.). Chicago: GIA.
Gruhn, W. (2005). Understanding musical understanding. In D. J. Elliott (Ed.), Praxial music education (pp.
98111). New York: Oxford University Press.
Halliday, M. K. (1975). Learning how to mean: Explorations in the development of language. London: Edward Arnold.
Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Holdaway, D. (1984). Foundations of literacy. New South Wales, Australia: Ashton Scholastic.
Holahan, J. M. (1987). Toward a theory of music syntax: Some observations of music babble in young children. In
J. C. Peery, I. W. Peery, &T. W. Draper (Eds.), Music and child development (pp. 96106). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Hicks, W. (1993). An investigation of the initial stages of preparatory audiation (Doctoral dissertation, Temple
University, 1993). Dissertation Abstracts International, 5404A, 1277.
Imberty, M. (1996). Linguistic and musical development in preschool and school-age children. In I. Delige & J.
Sloboda (Eds.), Musical beginnings: Origins and development of musical competence (pp. 191213). Oxford,
England: Oxford University Press.
Jorgensen, E. R. (1997). In search of music education. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Kelley, L., & Sutton-Smith, B. (1987). A study of infant musical productivity. In J. C. Peery, I. W. Peery, & T. W.
Draper (Eds.), Music and child development (pp. 3553). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Kingsbury, H. (1988). Music, talent, and performance: A conservatory cultural system. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African-American children. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.
Langer, S. (1956). Philosophy in a new key (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lerdahl, F., & Jackendoff, R. (1983). A generative theory of tonal music. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Lindfors, J. (1999). Childrens inquiry: Using language to make sense of the world. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Locke, S., & Kellar, L. (1973). Categorical perception in a non-linguistic mode. Cortex, 9, 355369.
McAdams, S. (1987). Music: A science of the mind? Contemporary Music Review, 2, 161.
McKeron, P. E. (1979). The development of first songs in young children. In H. Gardner & D. Wolf (Eds.), Early
symbolization: New directions for child development, Vol. 3 (pp. 1726). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Metz, E. (1986). Movement as a musical response among preschool children (Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State
University, 1986). Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 3691.
Miller, L. (1986). A description of childrens musical behavior: Naturalistic. Journal of Research in Music Education, 87, 117.
Mills, H., OKeefe, T., & Jennings, L. (2004). Listening carefully and looking closely. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Moog, H. (1976). The musical experience of the pre-school child (C. Clarke, Trans.). London: Schott Music.
Moorhead, G. E., & Pond, D. (1941). Music of young children. Santa Barbara, CA: Pillsbury Foundation for the
Advancement of Music Education.
Nieto, S. (1999). The light in their eyes: Creating multicultural learning communities. New York: Teachers College Press.
North, A. C., Hargreaves, D. J., & Tarrant, M. (2002). Social psychology and music education. In R. Colwell & C.
Richardson (Eds.), The new handbook of research on music teaching and learning (pp. 604625). Oxford, England:
Oxford University Press.
POSSIBLE PARALLELS
A
l
i
s
o
n
M
.
R
e
y
n
o
l
d
s
,
S
u
s
i
L
o
n
g
,
W
e
n
d
y
H
.
V
a
l
e
r
i
o
225
Papousek, H. (1996). Intuitive parenting: A hidden source of musical stimulation in infancy. In I. Deliege & J.
Sloboda (Eds.), Musical beginnings: Origins and development of musical competence (pp. 88112). New York:
Oxford University Press.
Papousek, M., & Papousek, H. (1981). Musical elements in the infants vocalizations: Their significance for
communication, cognition and creativity. In L. P. Lipsitt (Ed.), Advances in infancy research, Vol. 1 (pp.
163224). Norwood, NJ: Albex.
Philpott, C. (2001). Is music a language? In C. Philpott & C. Plummeridge (Eds.), Issues in music teaching (pp.
3246). London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Piper, W. (1976). The little engine that could. New York: Platt & Munk.
Reynolds, A. M. (1995). An investigation of the movement responses performed by children 18 months to three years of
age and their caregivers to rhythm chants in duple and triple meters (Doctoral dissertation, Temple University,
1995). Dissertation Abstracts International, 5604A, 1283.
Reynolds, A. M. (2005). Guiding early childhood music development: A moving experience. In M. Runfola & C.
Taggart (Eds.), The development and practical application of Music Learning Theory (pp. 87100). Chicago: GIA.
Reynolds, A. M. (2006, Spring). Vocal interactions during informal early childhood music classes. Bulletin of the
Council for Research in Music Education 168, 116.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Sachs, C. (1943). The rise of music in the ancient world. New York: Norton.
Shelley, S. (1981). Investigating the musical capabilities of young children. Bulletin of the Council for Research in
Music Education, 68, 116.
Short, K., Harste, J., & Burke, C. (1996). Creating classrooms for authors and inquirers. Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Sims, W.L (1985). Young childrens creative movement to music: Categories of movement, rhythmic characteristics,
and reactions to changes. Contributions to Music Education, 12, 42-50.
Sloboda, J. A. (1985). The musical mind. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Sloboda, J. A. (2005). Exploring the musical mind: Cognition, emotion, ability, function. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press.
Suzuki, S. (1969). Nurtured by love: The classic approach to Talent Education (W. Suzuki, Trans.). New York:
Exposition Press.
Tafuri, J., & Donatella, V. (2002). Musical elements in the vocalizations of infants aged 2-8 months. British Journal
of Music Education, 19, 7378.
Taggart, C. C., Bolton, B. M., Reynolds, A. M., Valerio, W. H., & Gordon, E. E. (2000). Jump right in: The music
curriculum Book 1 (Rev. ed.). Chicago: GIA.
Taggart, C. C., Bolton, B. M., Reynolds, A. M., Valerio, W. H., & Gordon, E. E. (2001). Jump right in: The music
curriculum Book 2 (Rev. ed.). Chicago: GIA.
Taggart, C. C., Bolton, B. M., Reynolds, A. M., Valerio, W. H., & Gordon, E. E. (2004). Jump right in: The music
curriculum Book 3 (Rev. ed.). Chicago: GIA.
Taggart, C. C., Bolton, B. M., Reynolds, A. M., Valerio, W. H., & Gordon, E. E. (2006). Jump right in: The music
curriculum Book 4 (Rev. ed.). Chicago: GIA.
Tan, N., Aiello, R., & Bever, T. G. (1985). Harmonic structure as a determinant of melodic organization. Memory
and Cognition, 9, 533539.
Taylor, D., & Dorsey-Gaines, C. (1988). Growing up literate: Learning from inner city families. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Valerio, W. H. (1999). [Toddler and one music teacher in music interaction]. Unpublished raw data.
Valerio, W. H. (2000a). [Three school-aged children and two music teachers in melodic improvisation].
Unpublished raw data.
Valerio, W. H. (2000b). [Toddler and two music teachers in music interaction]. Unpublished raw data.
Valerio, W. H. (2005). A music acquisition research agenda for Music Learning Theory. In C. Taggart & M. Runfola
(Eds.), The development and practical application of Music Learning Theory (pp. 104113), Chicago: GIA.
Valerio, W. H., Reynolds, A. M., Bolton, B. M., Taggart, C. C., & Gordon, E. E. (1998). Music play: Guide for
parents, teachers and caregivers. Chicago: GIA.
Valerio, W. H., Reynolds, A. M., Bolton, B. M., Taggart, C. C., & Gordon, E. E. (2002). Music play. (H. K. Yi,
Trans.). Hanam-city, Korea: IEC Music English.
Valerio, W. H., Reynolds, A. M., Bolton, B. M., Taggart, C. C., & Gordon, E. E. (2004a). Muzikos zaismas
[Music play] (R. Proskute-Grun, Trans). Vilnius, Lithuania: Kronta.
Valerio, W. H., Reynolds, A. M., Bolton, B. M., Taggart, C. C., & Gordon, E. E. (2004b). Yinyue youxi [Music
play] (G. Wang & H. Liu, Trans). Beijing: China Translation and Publishing Corporation.
Valerio, W. H., Seaman, M. A., Yap, C. C., Santucci, P. M., & Tu, M. (2006, Fall). Vocal evidence of toddler music
syntax acquisition: A case study. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 170, 3346.
Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
POSSIBLE PARALLELS
226
A
l
i
s
o
n
M
.
R
e
y
n
o
l
d
s
,
S
u
s
i
L
o
n
g
,
W
e
n
d
y
H
.
V
a
l
e
r
i
o
Wells, G. (1999). Dialogic inquiry: Toward a sociocultural practice and theory of education. Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
Woodward, S. C. (2005). Critical matters in early childhood music education. In D. J. Elliott (Ed.), Praxial music
education: Reflections and dialogues (pp. 249266). New York: Oxford University Press.
1
Including Aiello, 1994; Azzara, 2002; Bernstein, 1976; Besson & Schn, 2003; Blackburn, 1998; Chen-Haftek,
1991; Clarke, 1989; De Witt & Samuel, 1990; Gardner, 1973; Gordon, 2003a, 2003b; Gruhn, 2005; Imberty,
1996; Kelly & Sutton-Smith, 1987; Langer, 1956; Lerdahl & Jackendoff, 1983; Locke & Kellar, 1973; McAdams,
1987; Philpott, 2001; Reynolds, 2006; Sachs, 1943; Sloboda, 1985, 2005; Suzuki, 1969; Taggart, Bolton, Reynolds,
Valerio, & Gordon, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2006; Tan, Aiello, & Bever, 1985; Valerio, 2005; Valerio, Reynolds,
Bolton, & Taggart, Gordon, 1998, 2002, 2004a, 2004b; Valerio, Seaman, Yap, Santucci, & Tu, 2006.
2
All nonsense syllables are notated using the International Phonetic Alphabet.
3
Pseudonym.
POSSIBLE PARALLELS
A
l
i
s
o
n
M
.
R
e
y
n
o
l
d
s
,
S
u
s
i
L
o
n
g
,
W
e
n
d
y
H
.
V
a
l
e
r
i
o
227
CHAPTER FOURTEEN
The Use of Silence in Eliciting Student Responses
in Early Childhood Music Classes
CHRISTINA M. HORNBACH
HOPE COLLEGE, HOLLAND, MICHIGAN, USA
In this chapter, I discuss the importance of silence as a mechanism for eliciting stu-
dent responses in early childhood music classes. First, I include a brief discussion of
early childhood music development (preparatory audiation), early childhood music
classes, developmentally appropriate practice (play), and then focus on the importance
of eliciting student responses and silence (wait time) in the context of teaching. I also
introduce and discuss the concept of the interactive response chain, as it relates to
silence and play. Specific teaching situations illustrate silence, eliciting student
responses, and the interactive response chain with young children.
Introduction
During the first year of a childs life, the neural synapses of the brain are connect-
ing in ways that establish lifelong cognitive processing patterns (Cohen, 2002).
As a result, brain development during early childhood plays an important role in
how human beings cognitively process music throughout life (Gordon, 2003b).
With a stimulating musical environment, young children develop neural net-
works that enhance their potential (musical aptitude) for future musical under-
standing and growth. This clearly points to the need for appropriate music envi-
ronments for children in their first year of life.
Very young children learn music in much the same way that they learn a lan-
guage. In order to learn to speak, children informally listen to language being
spoken in their environments; this language learning even begins in the womb, as
hearing is fully developed by the end of the first trimester. Children babble and
eventually learn to speak after listening to the language in their environment.
With music, children must listen to the sounds and syntax of the musical cul-
ture; eventually, they experiment with producing musical sounds, which is musi-
cal babble (Gordon, 2003b).
Some children may not be exposed to as rich an environment musically as they
are linguistically, as some parents may not feel comfortable singing or moving to
music in a rhythmic way (Taggart, 2003). Because of this and a desire to provide
ELICITING STUDENT RESPONSES
228
C
h
r
i
s
t
i
n
a
M
.
H
o
r
n
b
a
c
h