Schema Theory
as a
Construction
Grammar

Music Theory Online 21.2 (2015)

Usage-Based Knowledge

5.1. Premise and Paraphrase.
5.2. Analyses of Corpora.
5.3. A Sample Corpus.
5.4. Native vs Non-Native Musical Speech.

Premise

[5.1.1] “Particular languages are learned by generalizing over utterances that a learner has heard used, while language production and comprehension involve combining or decomposing an utterance into its more basic form-function correspondences (Bybee 1985, 2006, 2010, 2013; Langacker 1988; Barlow and Kemmer 2000; Verhagen 2002; Lieven et. al. 2003; Tomasello 2003; Goldberg 2006; Abbot-Smith, Dittmar, and Tomasello 2007; Alishahi and Stevenson 2008)” (Goldberg 2013, 27).

Paraphrase

[5.1.2] We learn language from experiencing its usage in context. We can remember some utterances verbatim or nearly so, and we can also categorize utterances by their similarities. Recent research has found that a two-year-old child may make more than 60% of its utterances from verbatim recyclings of previous utterances (Lieven et. al. 2003). And adult speech and writing has been found to consist of more than 50% “prefabs” (prefabricated expressions; Erman and Warren 2000), meaning learned constructions and collocations whose ensembles of words occur more frequently than could be predicted by the individual words’ separate probabilities. According to Goldberg (2013, 28), “There is a great deal of evidence demonstrating that we retain an impressive amount of item-specific knowledge including relative frequencies of usage.” An improvising musician’s ability to work within the generic patterns of a chosen style while simultaneously avoiding unintended direct quotations from any of thousands of compositions reflects the ongoing interplay between verbatim and schematic memories.

Analyses of Corpora

[5.2.1] Early computational research into corpora of written and spoken language uncovered thousands of statistically significant relationships between pairings of words (Sinclair 1991). Some of these pairings had previously been recognized as idioms—word combinations with figurative or metaphorical meanings (e.g., see eye to eye, or sea legs). Thousands of others with more ordinary meanings—“prefabs” like pick and choose, or good friends (Bybee 2006)—had largely escaped notice. In the movie Forrest Gump (Forrest Gump 1994), a brief dockside exchange between a double amputee and the eponymous main character demonstrated the embarrassing difference between knowing and not knowing a common collocation:

Lieutenant Daniel Taylor: I’m here to try out my sea legs.
Forrest Gump: But you ain’t got no legs, Lieutenant Dan.

For non-native speakers of a language, learning high-frequency collocations is a practical necessity if they aspire to native fluency, and the enormity of the task in English is demonstrated by the 250,000 collocations listed in the Oxford Collocations Dictionary (2009). Note that this number far exceeds the number of single words in a typical person’s vocabulary, suggesting that the bulk of linguistic knowledge in memory involves words in combination.

[5.2.2] Listeners’ sensitivity to frequency of occurrence extends beyond just having a sense that a particular construction is rare or common. Listeners also learn the correlations of subsidiary features within a particular construction, which have been termed “collostructions” (Gries and Stefanowitsch 2004). Studies of collocations and collostructions are rare in music, perhaps because access to the kind of digital corpora available in language studies (where one can readily examine millions of words of natural speech or narrative prose) is not yet, or only just becoming, a reality. In a hopeful sign, two recent issues of Music Perception (Temperley and VanHandel 2013, VanHandel and Temperley 2014) examine the state of corpus studies in music.

A Sample Corpus

[5.3.1] In dealing with historical repertories, one can replace an (unattainable) unbiased sampling of an entire historical era with an editorial selection by contemporary musicians of intentionally representative works. For the galant style of eighteenth-century music, such an authentically curated selection was made of Italian solfeggi (pedagogical works for voice and basso continuo) by the editors of the Parisian collection titled Solfèges d’Italie (Levesque and Bèche 1772). Later editions of this collection remained influential in the early years of the Paris Conservatory.

[5.3.2] To begin a pilot study of usage-based knowledge in music, let us first examine a small musical utterance from the Neapolitan composer Gaetano Latilla (see Example 12). Many years later Latilla would teach Thomas Attwood before that young Englishman went on to become a prominent student of Mozart. Latilla’s excerpt comes from his La finta cameriera (Latilla 1737), which in Paris during the 1750s would figure prominently in the War of the Buffoons (Charlton 2012).

Latilla phrase

[5.3.3] Latilla was replicating a known construction—a conventionalized phrase-type pioneered by composers like Alessandro Stradella (1639–82) or Giovanni Bononcini (1670–1747), one centered around a Romanesca leading into a Do-Re-Mi (Gjerdingen 2007a, chaps. 2 and 6). The question here is whether, given the complexity of Latilla’s exemplar, seemingly inessential details of his usage might be replicated in the later Neapolitan tradition with a frequency high enough to suggest collostructional biases. We are not talking about direct influence in a chain that goes back to Latilla personally, but of a diffuse distribution of commonplaces among the “speakers” of a particular musical “language.” In today’s internet jargon, we might talk of “memes going viral.”

[5.3.4] The nine excerpts of Example 13 (a–i) represent the clearest exemplars of Latilla’s construction in the order in which they occur in the Solfèges d’Italie. Their numbering in that collection is given in the upper left of each exemplar. Numbers 44 and 46 are unattributed, number 64 is by Leonardo Leo (a paragon of Neapolitan style), the next four (92, 189, 192, 206) are all by J. A. Hasse (Naples trained, though more famous for his operas in Dresden), and the last two are by the Neapolitan maestro Pasquale Cafaro, whose music was heard by the young Mozart (Naples, 1770). It should be mentioned that schema theory is neutral as to whether Latilla and others wrote (1) one construction with two or more component schemata, (2) two constructions collocated as a higher-level prefab, or (3) two or more constructions used in a stereotypical pattern of discourse.

Solfeggio 44

Solfeggio 46

Solfeggio 64

Solfeggio 92

Solfeggio 189

Solfeggio 192

Solfeggio 206

Solfeggio 218

Solfeggio 227

[5.3.5] We believe the ten exemplars of Examples 12 and 13a–i are all based on the same construction, though an attempt to define it through a rigid list of necessary features would likely fail given Wittgenstein’s (1953, §66) caution to view a mental category as a “complicated network of similarities, overlapping and crisscrossing.” Following Givón, we view a construction or schema as either a prototype or a central tendency of a class of exemplars associated through similarity. One of many such similarities would be the surprising frequency with which a melodic ornament (circled in dashed lines in Examples 13a–i) is performed at the third stage of the construction, where the bass sounds scale degree ⑥ and the melody sounds ❶. This seemingly inessential ornament is a feature of Latilla’s exemplar (Example 12), of all the exemplars by Hasse and Cafaro, and of both unattributed exemplars. Its high frequency of occurrence suggests that it is a central feature of this construction and not something to be reduced away. There appears to be a strong collostructional bias for an ornament to appear at that location in this construction.

[5.3.6] While that assertion is true as stated, note that the ornament is lacking in the exemplar by Leo (no. 64), and that Leo’s phrase begins with a different melodic shape, moving from ❶ to ❺ and then up to the octave ❶. This exemplar is clearly related to the others, since it begins with the standard bass and concludes with the Prinner bass (④-③-②-① as defined in MGS), something shared with number 227 by Cafaro (note that Latilla’s own exemplar [Example12] concludes with the Prinner melody [❻-❺-❹-❸]). But perhaps Leo’s configuration is sufficiently different for it to qualify as a subsidiary construction with its own set of collocations. There might be multiple subtypes of a common construction, and some of them may stem from different times and locales, resulting in “dialects” or what what Narmour termed “idiostructures” (Narmour 1977, 181).

[5.3.7] The Solfèges d’Italie appear to have a generally chronological ordering, and only the most modern exemplars (i.e., Cafaro) are presented in full ornamental dress. Yet clusters of “overlapping and crisscrossing similarities” are quite apparent, even in this small sample. All of Hasse’s exemplars (nos. 92, 189, 192, 206), for instance, repeat their cadential halves, creating the ABB form of themes common at midcentury, and Latilla’s exemplar (Example 4) shares with Cafaro’s two exemplars (nos. 218, 227) the terminal “High-❷ Drop” (a term from MGS to describe a melodic close where the second scale degree in an upper octave drops a sixth to conclude with scale degrees ❹ and ❸). By contrast, the last of Hasse’s exemplars (no. 206) shares with both of Cafaro’s the melodic start on scale degree ❺ followed by a scalar descent to ❶ (shown by arrows in Example 13). From this pilot study in musical collocation it appears that the collostructional biases of subsidiary patterns may be influenced by the exact subtype of a construction, at least for a high-frequency and well-known construction with many known variants.

[5.3.8] A musical core sample like that of Example 13 aids in recognizing the enormous sensitivity that eighteenth-century court musicians had to preferred collocations and collostructions—after all, those artists were the “native speakers” of this musical idiom. In the dominant Italian style, the greatest stylist was no doubt Mozart, and a fitting capstone to the prior exemplars may be a brief examination of the opening that he wrote for the Adagio of his "Gran Partita," K. 361 (1781; see Example 14).

Mozart Gran Partita

[5.3.9] Mozart begins the Adagio with a brief, solemn fanfare (m. 1, not shown) and then follows with the Leo subtype of the construction in question (mm. 2–3, not shown, but much like mm. 4–5 shown in Example 14, minus the upper staff). The full construction follows (mm. 4–7 as shown). Had Mozart read the prior discussion of construction subtypes and memorized all the exemplars of Example 13, he could not have been more accurate and knowing in his placement of all the collocated features. The Leo subtype of mm. 2–3 properly received no melodic ornament at the third stage, as would be expected, but the Latilla-Hasse-Cafaro complex of mm. 4–7 did, again following tradition exactly. When the solo oboe enters in m. 4 with scale degree ❺ (upper staff), Mozart provides it the customary stepwise descent to the melodic ornament on ❶. At that point the clarinet enters to begin the ❶–❷–❸ ascent common to most instances of this construction, and in closing, the clarinet executes the High-❷ Drop just as the Hasse-style deceptive cadence prompts a further continuation.

[5.3.10] This description overstates the normality of the phrase because Mozart manages an amazing degree of subordinated complexity. The clarinet’s ascending chromatic appoggiatura Enatural in m. 6 is fairly common among Do-Re-Mi melodies from the 1780s, though it clashes slightly with the Eflats below it. But note how it is followed by ascending chromatic moves in the bass (the figured-bass in brackets marks what more normally would be the 6/5 to 5/3 progressions of the Monte schema [Riepel 1752]) that culminate in the potential train wreck on the downbeat of m. 7, where Cnatural, Bnatural, Bflat, and Aflat sound simultaneously. The moment passes without a breakdown in the syntax, but a galant composer could go no further and still be comprehensible to his audience.

Native vs Non-Native Musical Speech

[5.4.1] In response to Mozart’s presentation of this construction and the ensuing movement, the fictional Salieri of the film Amadeus (Amadeus 1984) says, “This was no composition by a performing monkey! This was a music I'd never heard.” While we obviously agree with the first assertion, the real Salieri would clearly have recognized most of this construction from his own compositions and those of many others. The real Salieri might not, however, have heard this level of mastery in the art of combinations, the eighteenth-century’s prized ars combinatoria (Ratner 1970).

[5.4.2] The difference between Mozart, clearly a gifted native speaker of the Italian galant style, and the fine French composer André Grétry, who admitted his limitations in counterpoint even after five years of study as an adult learner in Rome, can be heard in an aria from Grétry’s Les mariages samnites (1776, rev. 1782; see Example 15).

Gretry Aria

[5.4.3] Grétry’s orchestration is charming and was innovative in its day. Mozart (who knew this opera and wrote a set of keyboard variations, K. 352, on one of its arias) likely recognized in it a useful model for how to expand the size of schematic phrases while simultaneously maintaining rhythmic interest (note how Grétry’s cello plays more than a dozen notes for each of the core bass tones found in Latilla’s construction). But the core melodic tones of Grétry’s exemplar do not match the Italian tradition. Not one of the exemplars in Example 13 matches Grétry’s design. To use a linguistic analogy, Grétry, in spite of his inventiveness and originality, learned the Italian tradition as a second language while a young adult. He did learn parts of the tradition very well (his bass is note-for-note perfect, he inserts a melodic ornament at the third stage, and closes with the High-❷ Drop), but he did not learn all the subtle collostructions and prefabs that would have characterized a native speaker. This is not a judgement based on some absolute standard of musical excellence. It is a judgment supported by detailed knowledge of this Italianate construction as it was replicated in Mozart’s day. It may speak to why Grétry’s ultimate triumphs with comic operas for the French public did not translate into similar success with the Italian public.

[5.4.4] Today, as several scholars begin to explore the computational study of musical corpora, the types of collostructional analyses of individual constructions being pursued in computational linguistics (see Gries and Stefanowitsch 2004) may offer advantages over analyses based on more elementary and global prescriptions of musical syntax (see Gjerdingen 2014 for a further case study).

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. [1897] 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. 1957. Syntactic Structures. s-Gravenhage.
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.
James, C.E. et al. 2014. “Electrophysiological evidence for a specific neural correlate of musical violation expectation in primary-school children” Neuroimage (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.09.047
Johnson, M. A., and Adele Goldberg. 2013. "Evidence for Automatic Accessing of Constructional Meaning: Jabberwocky Sentences Prime Associated Verbs." Language and Cognitive Processes 2013: 1439–1452.
Kay, Paul, and Charles Fillmore. 1999. “Grammatical Constructions and Linguistics Generalizations: The What’s X Doing Y? Construction.” Language 75/1: 1–33.
Keiler, Alan. 1978. “Bernstein’s The Unanswered Question and the Problem of Musical Competence.” Musical Quarterly 64/2: 195–222.
Lakoff, George. 1987. Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Vol. 1. Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald. 1988. “A Usage-Based Model.” In Topics in Cognitive Linguistics, ed. Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn, 127–164. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Larson, Steve. 1998. “Schenkerian Analysis of Modern Jazz: Questions about Method.” Music Theory Spectrum 20/2: 209–241.
Latilla, Gaetano. 1737. Gismondo. Naples. Revised as La finta cameriera, Rome, spring 1738.
Lerdahl, Fred. 2009. “Genesis and Architecture of the GTTM Project.” Music Perception 26/3: 187–194.
Lerdahl, Fred, and Ray Jackendoff. 1983. A Generative Theory of Tonal Music. MIT Press.
Leo, Leonardo. ca. 1740s. Partimento in C major (Gj1766) in Partimenti di Porpora, MS, Milan Conservatory Library.
Levesque, P., and L. Bèche. 1772. Solfèges d’Italie avec la basse chiffrée. Paris.
Levinson, Jerrold. 1997. Music in the Moment. Cornell University Press.
Lieven, Elena, Heike Behrens, Jennifer Speares, and Michael Tomasello. 2003. “Early Syntactic Creativity: A Usage-Based Approach.” Journal of Child Language 30/2: 333–370.
Loui, Psyche, David Wessel, and Carla Hudson Kam. 2010. “Humans Rapidly Learn Grammatical Structure in a New Musical Scale.” Music Perception 27/5: 377–388.
Masci, Michael J. 2013. “Theory as Practica: The Theoretical study of Tonality and the Practical Study of Harmony in French Harmonie Pratique.” Theoria: Historical Aspects of Music Theory 20: 5–38.
Martini, Giovanni Battista. 1774, 1776. Esemplare, o sia Saggio fondamentale pratico di contrappunto sopra il canto fermo. 2 vols. Bologna.
Mattheson, Johann. 1719. Exemplarische Organisten-Probe. . . . Hamburg.
McCreless, Patrick. 2006. “Anatomy of a Gesture: From Davidovsky to Chopin and Back.” In Approaches to Meaning in Music, ed. Byron Almén and Edward Pearsall, 11–40. Indiana University Press.
McIntosh, Colin, Ben Francis, and Richard Poole, eds. 2009. Oxford Collocations Dictionary: For Students of English. 2nd ed. Oxford University Press.
Medin, Douglas, and Marguerite Schaffer. 1978. “Context Theory of Classification Learning.” Psychological Review 85: 207–238.
Meyer, Leonard. 1956. Emotion and Meaning in Music. University of Chicago Press.
Meyer, Leonard. 1980. “Exploiting Limits: Creation, Archetypes and Style Change.” Daedalus 109/2: 177–205.
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.
Powers, Harold. 1980. ”Language Models and Musical Analysis.“ Ethnomusicology 24: 1–60.
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.
Rosch, Eleanor. 1973. “Natural Categories.” Cognitive Psychology 4: 328–350.
Rosch, Eleanor, and Carolyn Mervis. 1975. “Family Resemblances: Studies in the Internal Structure of Categories.” Cognitive Psychology 7: 573–605.
Ross, Brian, and Valerie Makin. 1999. “Prototype versus Exemplar Models.” In The Nature of Cognition, ed. Robert Sternberg, 205–241. MIT Books.
Saffran, Jenny, Richard Aslin, and Elissa Newport. 1996. “Statistical Learning by 8-Month-Old Infants.” Science 274/5294: 1926–1928.
Saffran, Jenny. 2003. “Statistical Language Learning: Mechanisms and Constraints.” Current Directions in Psychological Science 12/4: 110–114.
Sanguinetti, Giorgio. 2012. The Art of Partimento: History, Theory, and Practice. Oxford University Press.
Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1916 (Eng. trans. 1983). Course in General Linguistics. Ed. Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye. Trans. Roy Harris. Open Court.
Schenker, Heinrich. 1935. Neue musikalische Theorien und Phantasien. Bd. 3.: Der freie Satz. Universal-Edition.
Schonberg, Harold. 1991. Lives of the Great Composers. 2d rev. Abacus.
Sinclair, John. 1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford University Press.
Sloboda, John. 1985. The Musical Mind: The Cognitive Psychology of Music. Oxford University Press.
Sparshott, Francis. 1994. “Aesthetics of Music: Limits and Grounds.” In What Is Music? An Introduction to the Philosophy of Music, ed. Philip Alperson, 33–100. Pennsylvania State University Press.
Swain, Joseph. 1995. “The Concept of Musical Syntax.” Musical Quarterly 79 (2): 281–308.
Talmy, Leonard. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics. 2 vols. The MIT Press.
Tan, Sui-Lan, Peter Pfordresher, and Rom Harré. 2010. Psychology of Music: From Sound to Significance. Psychology Press.
Taruskin, Richard. 2011. “Catching Up with Rimsky-Korsakov.” Music Theory Spectrum 33: 169–85.
Taylor, John. 1995. Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Clarendon Press.
Temperley, David, and Leigh VanHandel, eds. 2013. “Corpus Methods.” Special issue, Music Perception 31/1.
Tomasello, Michael. 2003. Constructing a Language: A Usage-Based Theory of Language Acquisition. Harvard University Press.
VanHandel, Leigh, and David Temperley, eds. 2014. “Corpus Methods.” Special issue, Music Perception 31/3.
Verhagen, Arie. 2002. “From Parts to Wholes and Back Again.” Cognitive Linguistics 13: 403–439.
Wee, Lionel, and Ying Ying Tan. 2008. “That’s so Last Year! Constructions in a Socio-Cultural Context.” Journal of Pragmatics 40: 2100–2113.
Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1953. Philosophical Investigations. Blackwell.