Schema Theory
as a

Music Theory Online 21.2 (2015)

Grammatical Constructions

1.1. Premise and Paraphrase.
1.2. A Linguistic Construction Exemplified.
1.3. A Musical Schema Viewed as a Construction.


[1.1.1] “Constructions are defined to be conventional, learned form-function pairings at varying levels of complexity and abstraction” (Goldberg 1995, 2006).


[1.1.2] While syntax (defined by structures) and semantics (defined by a lexicon) were two separate domains in mainstream generative grammar, in construction grammar they are just different points on a continuum. Both are similar types of knowledge learned through usage (Heine 2011, 63). A working definition of a construction in both language and music might thus be “an entity with a conventionalized form, one that is generally paired with a particular meaning or function associated with a common situation in human communication.” In music this could mean a marked chord or progression (Hatten 1994), a conventional articulation like the half cadence, or the many schemata developed for phrases and sequences. Because music is rarely directly denotative, the notion of communicative function must be broad enough to include the evocation of mood, the suggestion of affect, and the whole range of nonverbal meanings treated in semiotics and embodied cognition.

A Linguistic Construction Exemplified

[1.2.1] Ronald Langacker, an early proponent of a construction-grammar perspective, noted that this new approach must accommodate seemingly exceptional items like idioms, even if they cannot be subsumed under general principles:

Substantial importance is given to the actual use of the linguistic system and a speaker’s knowledge of this use; the grammar is held responsible for a speaker’s knowledge of the full range of linguistic conventions, regardless of whether these conventions can be subsumed under more general statements. [The construction model is] a non-reductive approach to linguistic structure that employs fully articulated schematic networks and emphasizes the importance of low-level schemas. (Langacker 1987, 494)

An idiomatic construction now famous among construction grammarians may help to illustrate what Langacker had in mind. The old comedy line “Waiter! What’s this fly doing in my soup?” is an instance of the “What’s X doing Y?” construction (or WXDY? for short), a common pattern studied extensively by Paul Kay and Charles Fillmore (Kay and Fillmore 1999). Note that the contextual meaning of the WXDY? construction is associated with surprise due to the incongruity of a scene, and usually accompanied by speaker disapproval (Kay and Fillmore 1999; Bybee 2010, 28). The speaker is not merely asking what X is doing. Instead, the speaker is challenging the larger picture or the motivation behind the action. That extra meaning, something beyond what could be looked up in a dictionary, is learned as part of the WXDY? construction. Constructions encapsulate rich experiences as rich memories, and construction grammars assume a far greater engagement with memory than did mainstream generative grammars.

[1.2.2] Among native speakers of English, the WXDY? construction is so well remembered and understood that, with all its features and inferences intact, it made a reliably comic appearance in the film Ghostbusters (1984):

Dana Barrett: [reading from the printout] “Zuul was the minion of Gozer.” What’s Gozer?
Dr. Peter Venkman: Gozer was very big in Sumeria.
Dana Barrett: Well, what’s he doing in my ice box? [=WXDY?]
Dr. Peter Venkman: I’m working on that.

[1.2.3] In the paper by James and colleagues cited earlier (James et al. 2014, 1), the authors speculate that “the processing of syntax and meaning may coincide in complex intra-musical contexts.” This is consistent with a view of a construction as the merging of a structure with a meaning. The linguists Johnson and Goldberg (2013) conducted a number of experiments testing construction grammar using Jabberwocky sentences (grammatically correct passages that use nonsense words, as in the Jabberwocky poem in Alice in Wonderland: “Twas brillig, and the slithy toves. . . .”). They found that “phrasal abstract constructions are associated with semantics [e.g., meanings] even when they contain no open-class lexical items [e.g., standard nouns], and that the meaning is accessed quickly and without explicit instruction” (2013, 1451). Although nonsense words were used, listeners were able to infer (subjective) meaning from the constructions. This is further evidence that constructions are learned as form-meaning pairings, and may suggest how musical meaning may still be conveyed in the absence of obvious denotation.

A Musical Schema Viewed as a Construction

[1.3.1] For the touring virtuoso composer-pianists of the late nineteenth century, the arena for human communication was on stage in live performance. The show business of the virtuoso required managing the mood and expectations of the audience, and successful constructions developed by one artist to amaze or guide an audience could be quickly adopted by other artists. The fifteen-year-old Rachmaninoff, for instance, learned a great deal from his apprenticeship with Anton Arensky at the Moscow Conservatory. Arensky was a virtuoso pianist who pioneered the composition of bravura works for two pianists, notably a suite for two pianos titled Silhouettes (op. 23, 1892). Rachmaninoff would go on to publish a series of works for two pianists later in the same decade, so he had a practical interest in learning successful constructions used by Arensky.

[1.3.2] Patrick McCreless (2006) has described a general pattern in many nineteenth- and twentieth-century compositions where near the conclusion there is often a big descent and “crash” before the final denouement. In the last nine measures of Silhouettes (see Example 1), Arensky asks his duo pianists to perform a very particular case of that general pattern. They play a brilliant cascade descending across the whole keyboard before ending with the conventional “Final Fall” (the high-to-low octaves on the final C-major chords; see Gjerdingen 2007a, 168). Harmonically, Arensky’s rapid cascade involves the tones F and A acting as appoggiaturas to G within the persistent sound of a C-major tonic triad. Rhythmically, Arensky sets up a series of repeating five-eighth-note groups at odds with the duple meter.

Arensky Duo

[1.3.3] After the Russian Revolution, Rachmaninoff began his long second career as a traveling virtuoso pianist in the West. On several occasions he toured as a duo with the violinist Fritz Kreisler, and he no doubt had to serve as accompanist for Kreisler’s well-known encore pieces Liebesleid and Liebesfreud (“Love’s Sorrow” and “Love’s Joy”). He eventually wrote virtuoso solo-piano fantasies on both encores. In the final nine measures of the Liebesleid fantasy (1921) he faced a situation very much like that at the end of Arensky’s Silhouettes. Fully in keeping with the maxims of construction grammarians, Rachmaninoff chose Arensky’s cascade and Final Fall as a prêt-à-porter item “off the rack,” something already fitted for a stock situation by his old master (see Example 2 in comparison with Example 1).

Rachmaninoff Liebesleid

[1.3.4] He retained Arensky’s harmonic color, the descending cascade, the virtuosic speed, the rhythmic play (a hemiola beginning in m. 215), and the Final Fall—in short, the whole cluster of features that characterized Arensky’s model construction. And of course the contextual meaning of the passage, the performative message to the audience to “be amazed and get ready to applaud,” is fused with the technical structure of the passage. Nowhere in a dictionary definition of “chromatic neighbor tones” would it say “be amazed and get ready to applaud.”

[1.3.5] Rachmaninoff chose to traverse the gap between his lowest note (m. 217) and the first chord of the Final Fall with an arpeggio (mm. 217–18), whereas Arensky’s pianists simply lifted their arms across the same space. We view this as a minor difference within the range of options for this construction, and less of a real difference from an embodied perspective. The developmental psychologist Michael Tomasello has defined a construction as “a unit of language that comprises multiple linguistic elements used together for a relatively coherent communicative function” (Tomasello 2003, 100). Were we to replace his words “language” and “linguistic” with “music” and “musical,” his definition would reflect our view of musical constructions. Some types of constructions are replicated literally, almost note for note; others have variable “slots” that permit a limited range of alternatives.

[1.3.6] Given the same communicative opportunity, Rachmaninoff often chose this same construction. Ten measures from the end of his Second Piano Concerto (1900–1901), for instance, he launches into nearly the same cascade, with the first bar shown in Example 3 being almost a transcription of the close of Arensky’s Silhouettes (cf. Example 1; the correspondence is even closer in relation to Arensky’s unreduced original).

Rachmaninoff Concerto No. 2

[1.3.7] What looks like an F half-diminished chord in Examples 1, 2, and the first bar of Example 3—what a harmony book would likely describe as a “nonfunctional” or “coloristic” chord—is thoroughly functional in this frequently replicated construction. For Arensky and Rachmaninoff, “function” was determined not by some universal principle or a rule-based theory of tonal syntax but by how a listener interpreted the interplay of sonorities within what we will term this “bringing down the house” construction. As Tomasello writes of language acquisition, “The notions of communicative intention and function are correlative. Someone uses a piece of language with a certain communicative intention, and so we may say that that piece of language has a certain function” (Tomasello 2003, 3). The communicative intent of the “bringing down the house” construction was obvious to experienced concertgoers, and thus its component sonorities accrued functionality from listeners’ abilities to recognize that intent in the context of a bravura finale.

[1.3.8] Listeners experiencing the blindingly fast close of Mily Balakirev’s showpiece Islamey (1869; see Example 4) might hear a few more chromatic neighbor tones than in the similar passages by Rachmaninoff or Arensky, but they would recognize the same communicative intention, the same physicality, the same glistening major sonority, and all the collocated features that make this construction so memorable for a listener and made it so effective for the composer-pianist.

Balakirev Islamey

[1.3.9] In language, the shared knowledge of constructions enables many types of wordplay. A wry musicologist, one knowing the construction “That’s so [DATE]”—with its associated meaning of “that item is passé, as out of date as [name or date of a past era]” (Wee and Tan 2008)—might hear a Bach ricercare and say to a colleague, “That’s so 1690s.” For those who share the requisite frames of reference, construction-based wordplay celebrates knowledge held in common and reinforces cultural bonds. Thus a concert-goer in the 1890s, one who shared an implicit understanding of the “bringing down the house” construction, might have smiled knowingly and approvingly when the young Glazunov (trained from an early age by Rimsky-Korsakov) concluded his Etude (op. 31, no. 1, see Example 5) with that fashionable construction presented upside down. This was playful tinkering (Meyer 1980), not a Russian revolution— Glazunov would go on to become director of the St. Petersburg Conservatory.

Glazunov Etude

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),
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.