3.1. Premise and Paraphrase.
3.2. Networks of Patterns.
3.3. Layers of Inheritance.
[3.1.1] “The constructions of a given language do not form an unstructured set. Relationships between and among constructions are captured via a default inheritance network” (Goldberg 2013, 21).
[3.1.2] Smaller constructions can be contained within larger ones. When this occurs, all or some of the meaning of the smaller construction is inherited. Inheritance can also occur from a common to a less common pattern of similar size. The order of constructions in discourse is flexible but not random. Implications from one pattern can suggest dependencies that constrain possible continuations by other patterns. And the learned statistics of construction successions can similarly affect what follows what. Constructions are not, however, rigid building blocks—they may overlap, be incomplete, and be recognized by some listeners and not by others. Constructions in language and music are not immanent in phonemes and tones but are the products of learning and, in particular, human memory.
Networks of Patterns
[3.2.1] Consider the idiomatic statement “He finally kicked the bucket.” Though the full meaning—“He finally died”—may be opaque to non-native speakers, the idiom does inherit both its form and a partial meaning from the transitive verb to kick, which in turn inherits features of the class of regular transitive verbs, like -ed endings for the past tense (Croft and Cruse 2004, 264). Once learned, that idiom makes the parallel idiom “She finally kicked the habit” relatively easy to understand. Fluency in a language requires that one learn to master a host of these “structured relationships.”
[3.2.2] Anyone opening a manuscript of elementary partimenti from one of the eighteenth-century conservatories of Naples will almost always see three basic cadences among the very first patterns presented. Their names, translated into English, are the Simple Cadence (in Roman numerals, V–I, though the students never saw a Roman numeral in connection with chords), the Compound Cadence (V4–V3–I), and the Double Cadence (V5/3–6/4–5/4–5/3–I). Young apprentices would then learn the Rule of the Octave (how to harmonize an ascending and descending scale in major and minor) and a number of sequences, each named by the intervallic movement of the bass. One such sequence was called “down a fourth, up a second,” today better known as the bass of Pachelbel’s Canon in D, or as part of the old basso ostinato called the Romanesca. With these few schemes in mind, we will examine the network of patterns in the opening measures of a partimento (Gj 244, ca. 1740) by Francesco Durante, one of the greatest teachers during the era of Bach and Handel.
[3.2.3] As shown in Example 6, the Romanesca was typically an eight-count pattern, where the last two counts support a cadence. The cadence “slot” permitted some variation: Pachelbel chose a Simple Cadence, Durante chose the Compound Cadence. Durante then repeats the Romanesca (mm. 3–4) but with scalar diminutions. Scalar passages, marked scala on the example, could inherit the thoroughbass norms of the Rule of the Octave, especially if the tempo were slow enough. In m. 4, Durante “switches gears”: the Romanesca’s cadential slot fails to develop, and the Passo Indietro (“a step to the rear” or V4/2–I6/3; see Gjerdingen 2007a, 167) redirects the key toward G minor and a Simple Cadence. This diversion takes two extra beats, with the result that the ensuing Romanesca begins in the middle of m. 5 (tenor clef). At the level of discourse, this third Romanesca initiates a return of the opening theme, but a fifth higher (G minor).
Layers of Inheritance
[3.3.1] As students worked their way through collections of partimenti with their masters (Sanguinetti 2012), they would see the same constructions used over and over in different instantiations and contexts. Take, for instance, a Romanesca presented by Durante in a more advanced type of partimento (see Example 7). Even without annotations it is not difficult to recognize an expansion of this construction (the quarter notes of Example 6 have, in Example 7, been stretched to half-note spans with scalar and octave-leap diminutions). With each new partimento the young apprentice learned new collocations, new diminutions, and which slots in a construction could be expanded or contracted. Expansion within a schema, however, is limited by our working memory. The Romanesca of Example 7, shorn of all its diminutions, would still be intelligible and recognizable as a series of half notes. A Romanesca where each core tone was separated by perhaps 30 seconds of diminutions would likely not be recognizable as a phrase, or recognizable only as a sequence of modulations by descending thirds. That would be at the level of discourse, and it is at that level that the return of the theme (Example 7, m. 6, tenor clef, here in C major) is clearly recognizable even after considerable intervening material.
[3.3.2] For these advanced partimenti Durante provided “styles” (modi) as guides for right-hand realizations. The style provided for Example 7 is shown in Example 8. It details how the octave leap in the second half of each measure cues a 4–3 suspension and resolution (i.e., the high A5 resolving to G5 in m. 1), a form inherited from the similar bass pattern of the Compound Cadence (cf. Example 6, m. 2).
[3.3.3] Inheritance and analogy can continue to branch out as styles change and different combinations lead to new configurations. Example 9 shows a partimento in C major by Nicola Sala, a student of Durante’s contemporary Leonardo Leo and later an important master himself. Sala has taken over Durante’s styling of the Romanesca schema, inheriting the 4–3 suspension of beats 3 and 4 and then, by analogy, creating 9–8 suspensions on beats 1 and 2 (beginning in m. 2).
[3.3.4] When the Paris Conservatory was founded in 1795, “the Italian School” was adopted as the classical model for instruction and emulation (Choron 1804). That decision profoundly affected the course of compositional training in nineteenth-century France. “Harmony” remained an artisanal praxis and not a theoretical subject (Masci 2013). If we examine the many four-voice harmonic models in the textbook of François Bazin (1857, 192; see Example 10), we will find an unadorned Romanesca bass in C major whose soprano and tenor parts follow the exact course of Sala’s partimento realization (though an octave lower). This is just one of many pieces of evidence confirming that the Paris Conservatory continued to transmit to new generations of French musicians the “classical” artisanal praxis of eighteenth-century Italy. The long subtitle of Choron’s book (1804) plainly sets out its focus on Italian exemplars: “Extracts from the best Authors: Leo, Durante, Fenaroli, Sala, Azopardi, Sabbatini, Padre Martini, and others. A Classical Work serving as an Introduction to the study of Composition, translated from the Italian and arranged in an order most suited to facilitate intelligence and practice.”
[3.3.5] French musicians did, however, adapt and modify this Italian patrimony. The French prodigy Henri Fissot studied with Bazin at the Conservatory, winning a first prize in harmony at age thirteen. Decades later, when he needed a simple descending passage for his Phantasie-Stück (op. 2, no. 8, a “genre piece” dedicated to a German friend, ca. 1878) he recalled one of the constructions he had learned as a child—an old-style Romanesca with parallel descending thirds in the treble and alternating fourths and seconds in the bass (see Example 11). He gave a more modern tint to the “down-a-fourth” bass tones by adding 6/5/3 sonorities (the third beats of mm. 21 and 22), thus subordinating an equally well-known and smaller construction, one where the first tones of rising steps in a bass often took 6/3 or 6/5/3 chords, especially when, as in m. 22, the ascent is by half step (the old “mi-rule” of thoroughbass practice). These changes are small but they collectively put the passage squarely into the sound-world of Fissot’s own time. He was not merely regurgitating an Italian heritage but speaking it creatively as a first language, though with a strong French accent.
Abbot-Smith, Kirsten, and Michael Tomasello. 2006. “Exemplar-learning and Schematization in a Usage-based Account of Syntactic Acquisition.” The Linguistic Review 23/3: 275–290.
Abbot-Smith, Kirsten, Miriam Dittmar, and Michael Tomasello. 2007. “Graded Representations in the Acquisition of English and German Transitive Constructions.” Cognitive Development 23: 48–66.
Alishahi, Afra, and Suzanne Stevenson. 2008. “A Computational Model of Early Argument Structure Acquisition.” Cognitive Science 32: 789–834.
Allanbrook, Wye J. 2002. “Theorizing the Comic Surface.” In Music in the Mirror: Reflections on the History of Music Theory and Literature for the 21st Century, ed. Andreas Giger and Thomas Mathiesen, 195-216. University of Nebraska Press.
Amadeus. 1984. Directed by Milos Forman. The Saul Zaentz Company, 1997, DVD.
Arensky, Anton Stepanovich.  1929. Sbornik zadach (1000) dlja prakticheskogo izucheniia garmonii (A Collection of 1000 Lessons for the Practical Study of Harmony). Repr. Gosudarstvennoe Izdatel’stvo-Muzykal’nyi Sektor.
Babbitt, Milton. 1965. “The Structure and Function of Musical Theory: 1.” College Music Symposium 5: 49–60.
Bamberger, Jeanne. 1995. The Mind behind the Musical Ear: How Children Develop Musical Intelligence. Harvard University Press.
Baldwin, Dare, Annika Andersson, Jenny Saffran, and Meredith Meyer. 2008. “Segmenting Dynamic Human Action via Statistical Structure.” Cognition 106/3: 1382–1407.
Barlow, Michael, and Suzanne Kemmer, eds. 2000. Usage-Based Models of Language. CSLI Publications.
Bazin, François-Emmanuel-Victor. 1857. Cours d’harmonie théorique et pratique. Escudier.
Blasius, Leslie. 1996. Schenker’s Argument and the Claims of Music Theory. Cambridge University Press.
Boas, Hans, ed. 2010. Contrastive Studies in Construction Grammar. John Benjamins.
Boykan, Martin. 2004. Silence and Slow Time: Studies in Musical Narrative. Scarecrow Press.
Brown, Matthew. 2005. Explaining Tonality: Schenkerian Theory and Beyond. University of Rochester Press.
Brugman, Claudia. 1988. The Story of Over: Polysemy, Semantics, and the Structure of the Lexicon. Garland.
Bybee, Joan. 1985. Morphology: A Study into the Relation between Meaning and Form. John Benjamins.
Bybee, Joan. 2006. “From Usage to Grammar: The Mind’s Response to Repetition.” Language 82/4: 711–733.
Bybee, Joan. 2010. Language, Usage, and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bybee, Joan. 2013. “Usage-Based Theory and Exemplar Representations of Constructions.” In Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, eds. Thomas Hoffman and Graeme Trousdale, 49–69. Oxford University Press.
Bybee, Joan, and David Eddington. 2006. “A Usage-Based Approach to the Spanish Verbs of ‘Becoming.’” Language 82/2: 323–355.
Byros, Vasili. 2012a. “Meyer’s Anvil: Revisiting the Schema Concept.” Music Analysis 31/3: 273–346.
Byros, Vasili. 2012b. “Unearthing the Past: Theory and Archeology in Robert Gjerdingen’s Music in the Galant Style.” Music Analysis 31/1: 112–124.
Chanan, Michael. 1994. Musica Practica: The Social Practice of Western Music from Gregorian Chant to Postmodernism. Verso.
Charlton, David. 2012. Opera in the Age of Rousseau: Music, Confrontation, Realism. Cambridge Univ. Press.
Cherubini, Luigi. 1827. Pour le concours // d’harmonie et d’accompagnement // pratique // année 1827 (manuscrit autographe). MS-1693 (3). Bibliothèque nationale de France, département Musique.
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. The MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam. 1966. Cartesian Linguistics: A Chapter in the History of Rationalist Thought. Harper & Row.
Chomsky, Noam. 1993. “A Minimalist Program for Linguistic Theory.” In Kenneth Hale and Samuel Jay Keyser, eds., The View from Building 20. MIT Press, 1–52.
Choron, Alexandre-Etienne. 1804. Principes d’accompagnement des écoles d’Italie. Imbault.
Croft, William. 2001. Radical Construction Grammar: Syntactic Theory in Typological Perspective. Oxford University Press.
Croft, William and D. Alan Cruse. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge University Press.
Culicover, Peter, and Ray Jackendoff. 2005. Simpler Syntax. Oxford University Press.
Curtis, M. E., and J. J. Bharucha. 2009. "Memory and Musical Expectation for Tones in Cultural Context." Music Perception, 26, 365–375.
Dowling, W. Jay, and Dane Harwood. 1986. Music Cognition. Academic Press.
Durand, Émile. 1884. Traité d’accompagnement au piano de la basse chiffrée, du chant donné et de la partition d’orchestre. Leduc.
Erman, Britt, and Beatrice Warren. 2000. “The Idiom Principle and the Open Choice Principle.” Text 20: 29–62.
Evans, Nicholas, and Stephen Levinson. 2009. “The Myth of Language Universals: Language Diversity and its Importance for Cognitive Science.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32/5: 429–448.
Fedorenko, Evelina, Aniruddh Patel, Daniel Casasanto, Jonathan Winawer, and Edward Gibson. 2009. “Structural Integration in Language and Music: Evidence for a Shared System.” Memory & Cognition 37: 1–9.
Fillmore, Charles. 1977. “Topics in Lexical Semantics.” In Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, ed. Roger Cole, 76–138. Indiana University Press.
Forrest Gump. 1994. Directed by Robert Zemeckis. Paramount Pictures, 2001, DVD.
Förster, Emanuel Aloys. ca. 1818. Practische Beyspiele als Fortsetzung zu seiner Anleitung des Generalbasses. Artaria.
Frye, Northrop. 1957. Anatomy of Criticism: Four Essays. Princeton University Press.
Ghostbusters. 1984. Directed by Ivan Reitman. Columbia Pictures, 2006, DVD.
Givón, Talmy. 2001. Syntax: An Introduction. 2 vols. John Benjamins Publishing.
Gjerdingen, Robert. 1984. “A Musical Schema: Structure and Style Change, 1720–1900.” Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania.
Gjerdingen, Robert. 1988. A Classic Turn of Phrase: Music and the Psychology of Convention. University of Pennsylvania Press.
Gjerdingen, Robert. 2007a. Music in the Galant Style: Being an Essay on Various Schemata Characteristic of Eighteenth-Century Music for Courtly Chambers, Chapel, and Theaters, Including Tasteful Passages of Music Drawn from Most Excellent Chapel Masters in the Employ of Noble and Noteworthy Personages, Said Music All Collected for the Reader’s Delectations on the World Wide Web. Oxford University Press.
Gjerdingen, Robert. 2007b. “Partimento, Que Me Veux-Tu?” Journal of Music Theory 51/1: 85–136.
Gjerdingen, Robert. 2011. “Gebrauchs-Formulas.” Music Theory Spectrum 33: 191–199.
Gjerdingen, Robert. 2014. “‘Historically Informed’ Corpus Studies.” Music Perception 31/3: 192–204.
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, Adele. 2002. “Surface Generalizations: An Alternative to Alternations.” Cognitive Linguistics 13/4: 327–356.
Goldberg, Adele. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford University Press.
Goldberg, Adele. 2013. “Constructionist Approaches.” In Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, ed. Thomas Hoffman and Graeme Trousdale, 15–31. Oxford University Press.
Gries, Stefan, and Anatol Stefanowitsch. 2004. “Extending Collostructional Analysis: A Corpus-Based Perspective on ‘Alternations.’” International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9/1: 97–129.
Grossberg, Stephen. 1980. “How Does a Brain Build a Cognitive Code?” Psychological Review 87/1: 1–51.
Haiman, John, ed. 1985. Iconicity in Syntax: Proceedings of a Symposium on Iconicity in Syntax, Stanford, June 24–6, 1983. John Benjamins Publishing.
Haspelmath, Martin. 2008. “Parametric versus Functional Explanations of Syntactic Universals.” In The Limits of Syntactic Variation, ed. Theresa Biberauer. Benjamins, 75–107.
Hatten, Robert. 1994. Musical Meaning in Beethoven: Markedness, Correlation, and Interpretation. Indiana University Press.
Heine, Bernd. 1992. “Grammaticalization Chains.” Studies in Language 16/2: 335–368.
Heine, Lena. 2011. “Non-coordinated-based Ellipsis from a Construction Grammar Perspective: The Case of the Coffee Construction.” Cognitive Linguistics 22 (1): 55–80.
Hoffman, Thomas, and Graeme Trousdale. 2013. “Construction Grammar: Introduction.” In Oxford Handbook of Construction Grammar, ed. Thomas Hoffman and Graeme Trousdale, 1–14. Oxford University Press.
Hopper, Paul. 1987. “Emergent Grammar.” Berkeley Linguistics Society 13: 139–157.
Ibbotson, Paul, Anna Theakston, Elena Lieven, and Michael Tomasello. 2012. “Semantics of the Transitive Construction: Prototype Effects and Developmental Comparisons.” Cognitive Science 36/7: 1268–1288.
Jackendoff, Ray. 2009. “Parallels and Nonparallels between Language and Music.” Music Perception 26/3: 195–204.
Meyer, Leonard. 1989. Style and Music: Theory, History, and Ideology. University of Chicago Press.
Meyer, Leonard. 1991. “A Pride of Prejudices; or, Delight in Diversity.” Music Theory Spectrum 13/2: 241–51.
Narmour, Eugene. 1977. Beyond Schenkerism: The Need for Alternatives in Music Analysis. University of Chicago Press.
Narmour, Eugene. 1984. “Some Major Theoretical Problems Concerning the Concept of Hierarchy in the Analysis of Tonal Music.”Music Perception 1: 129–199.
Narmour, Eugene. 1990. The Analysis and Cognition of Basic Melodic Structures: The Implication-Realization Model. University of Chicago Press.
Narmour, Eugene. 1992. The Analysis and Cognition of Melodic Complexity: The Implication-Realization Model. University of Chicago Press.
Nosofsky, Robert. 1988. “Similarity, Frequency, and Category Representation.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 14: 54–65.
Patel, Aniruddh. 2008. Music, Language, and the Brain. Oxford University Press.
Patel, Aniruddh. 2012. “Language, Music, and The Brain: A Resource-Sharing Framework.” In Language and Music as Cognitive Systems, ed. Patrick Rebuschat, Martin Rohrmeier, John Hawkins, and Ian Cross, 204–223. Oxford University Press.
Pearsall, Edward. 1996. “Multiple Hierarchies: Another Perspective on Prolongation.” Indiana Theory Review 17: 37–66.
Piston, Walter. 1941. Harmony. Norton.
Piston, Walter. 1957. “Thoughts on the chordal concept.” In Essays on Music in Honor of Archibald Thompson Davison, ed. Randall Thompson, 273–278. Harvard University, Department of Music.
Poland, William. 1987. “The Perception of Sound as Music.” Psychomusicology 7/1: 63–70.
Rabinovitch, Gilad. Forthcoming. “‘Schenker the Galant?’ Tacit Knowledge, Contradiction, and Complementation in the Interaction between Gjerdingen’s Theory of Galant Schemata and Schenkerian Analysis.” Ph.D. Thesis. University of Rochester, Eastman School of Music.
Rahn, Jay. 1983. A Theory for All Music: Problems and Solutions in the Analysis of Non-Western Forms. University of Toronto Press.
Ratner, Leonard. 1970. “Ars Combinatoria: Chance and Choice in Eighteenth-Century Music.” In Studies in Eighteenth-Century Music: A Tribute to Karl Geiringer, ed. H. C. Robbins Landon and Roger Chapman, 343–363. Da Capo Press.
Riepel, Joseph. 1752. Anfangsgründe zur musicalischen Setzkunst, vol. 1, De rhythmopoeia, oder Von der Tactordnung. Regensburg and Vienna.
van Riesemann, Oskar. 1934. Rachmaninoff’s Recollections, told to Oskar von Riesemann. The Macmillan Company.