Here is a reprint of

Larson, Steve & Johnson, Mark (2002-03). Architectural Metaphors in Music Discourse
and Music Experience. Yearbook of Comparative and General Literature 50,
pages 141-154.
 ARCHITECTURAL METAPHORS IN
MUSIC DISCOURSE AND MUSIC
EXPERIENCE

Steve Larson and Mark Johnson

en Frank Zappa said that "talking about music is like dancing about

W architecture," he was commenting on how language can seem inade-

quate to the task of capturing the charm of music. To describe our
experience and understanding of music, we inevitably tum to metaphor. It is par-
ticularly interesting that Zappa's jest combines the topics of this section of the
Yearbook. The conception of musical structure as architecture is one of the
basic metaphors in our repertoire of musical discourse. While the other article in
this section of the Yearbook asks us to consider the musical qualities of architec-
ture, ours will tum things around to consider the architectural qualities of music.
We will apply what is known as "conceptual metaphor theory" to our experi-
ence and conceptualization of music. The architectural metaphors described below
play an essential role, not only in talking about music but also in creating and
listening to music. Although these metaphors are often imperceptible, they are
also unavoidable. Although they are culturally shaped, they are also physically
grounded in our bodily experience. Although they are not exhaustive of our con-
cepts of musical form, they have a specific internal logic that makes it possible
for us to understand and reason about crucial aspects of musical structure.
Most of us never even notice the fundamental metaphors by which we un-
derstand our musical experience. However, composers and music theorists often
explicitly develop and extend the metaphors that form the foundations of their
thinking. For example, Heinrich Schenker's article on J. S. Bach's "Sarabande,"
from the Suite #1 for Solo Cello in C major, begins by comparing the structure
of that piece to an architectural structure.
142 YEARBOOK OF COMPARATIVE AND GENERAL LITERATURE 50
The eye can follow and encompass the lines of a painting or architectural
structure in all their directions, breadth and relationships; if only the ear
could hear the background of the fundamental structure (Ursatz) and the
continuous musical motion of the foreground as profoundly and as exten-
sively. We would then envisage the twenty-four bars of this Sarabande as
a gigantic structure, whose many broad and striking events, while seeming
to have a private, autonomous existence, all bear a profound and exacting
relationship to the whole.

Example 1, below, gives Schenker's analysis of this Sarabande. Example 2 pro-

vides the score of the whole piece.

Example 1

11) Ii-crF-
~::. ::::~::: ;
.__
I -----------
J~...
V· .....-.. .-~--
•• --... ... •• -- • "'-.;.~.- ~- ~;.
.~
.;..~- .. -~--~---.-.-

C major

..6 ' 1.r. 6$ 5--"7

S i " 5
'i
:l. ·5 ~
A ~
----~-------(N} v-------------(N)

rt)regrol.md graph
~1Jrliilh~"'irafen
.... " .. @ @
1:$ '1 6 5

d)
ARCHITECTURAL METAPHORS IN MUSIC 143

.j ..

- - . (Div.~I----";""'------V

..
'.~~.; '._.~--~._
..... ____ '.Ieo-. .,.. _ • •.•.• .,...• _ ... ¥._ ..... "" ..... _·li6oollll.":,, ~' ........ - ..
.--d".
-~-"..: ':-~
......
.... -.-. ..... .• '.'
.~..... ..,. -.~

';
5 3
·---V-------,.l~ 1

.. _ ..... "'" ___ ... . :. ,.'-:-._ .. _ ....... ~ ... _ ... __ .........:.... ..,...,;._ ....... ,. __ _ w"'.""''-'-.'''~ ... -.:-;.. •. _'i-:"""':o' ,:"

;3-#3
--·iDiv.)-A-..------"---V-------I~ I
 144 YEARBOOK OF COMPARATIVE AND GENERAL LITERATIJRE 50
Example 2

Sarabande. ",., .

.?lt~JJi'~ Jj,rinl?jla; Iii,mt flf'JI I I

~iff,S~ IJ~:t~ Ptm~pf£[email protected]_

·~.·• e·riFW·.~dflff'#P·~.~AI'do*tPf1'V·'
~H,!J]Jr 11~a d#~~ 1~_~191JmJ~a:1
. ''. , . ' . :.:,\", .. '

As we shall see, Schenker conceives of musical works as vast architectural

structures that can be viewed and analyzed as complex, massive buildings. We
will suggest that Schenker makes explicit and highly-nuanced use of one of the
basic conceptual metaphors by which people understand the overall composition
of a piece of music.

THE NATURE OF CONCEPTUAL METAPHOR

Over the past two decades a new understanding of metaphor and meaning has
been developed under the title of "conceptual metaphor theory." First articulated
by George Lakoff and Mark Johnson (1980), the notion of conceptual metaphor
has subsequently been developed extensively in a number of major works, includ-
ing those by Mark Turner, Raymond Gibbs, and Lakoff and Johnson (1999).
According to this theory, the term "metaphor" refers to an experiential and con-
ceptual process by which we use entities, properties, and relations characterizing
one domain of experience (the source) to understand and reason about a second
domain of experience (the target) that is different in kind from the first. Source
domains for metaphorical concepts come from our everyday bodily perception
and movement. We appropriate the structure of those bodily and spatial source
domains to make sense of various target domains. In the MUSIC IS ARCID-
TECTURE metaphor, the source domain is our experience and knowledge of
architectural structures, which provides the basis for conceptualizing musical form
(the target domain) as a specific type of physical structure. Conceptual meta-
phors define some of our most important abstract concepts and playa crucial role
in how we understand our experience. As we will see, the logic of certain
metaphors shapes our understanding of musical structure and constrains the in-
ARCHITECTURAL METAPHORS IN MUSIC 145
ferences we make in reasoning about such structure. Indeed, every robust
conceptualization of musical structure we have is defined via one or more
systematic body-based conceptual metaphors. Without these metaphors we would
have no satisfactory way to make sense of our most basic musical experiences
and concepts.
It should be observed that conceptual metaphor theory directly contradicts
classical theories of metaphor, as well as most of the prevailing, recent views of
metaphor in linguistics, psychology, and philosophy. Traditional theories of lan-
guage treat metaphor as a ''figure of speech" having no serious cognitive import.
Metaphor is relegated to a deviant (non-literal) use of a term to highlight literal
similarities between the source and target. On this view, metaphors are merely
fancy linguistic expressions used for style and charm, but they are regarded as
having no serious conceptual or. theoretical import. According to this classical
view, there could be nothing cognitively in~ispensable about metaphor, beyond its
rhetorical or didactic value. So, to grant that we use metaphorical language to
talk about music would be to say nothing about musical structure itself, nothing
about how we experience and conceptualize music.
It would be neither possible nor useful here to survey the history of metaphor
theory and the attendant views of thought and language. For a detailed account
of traditional theories, see George Lakoff and Mark Turner. For a comparison of
traditional theories with the theory ofconceptual metaphor, see Lakoffand Johnson
(1999).
In stark contrast to the traditional view of metaphor, the theory of conceptual
metaphor recognizes the essential role of metaphors in our abstract
conceptualization and reasoning. The metaphors that we use (mostly uncon-
sciously) are not dispensable; that is, they cannot be replaced by literal concepts.
Rather, they characterize our most fundamental conceptions, and they provide
the primary means. for analyzing and reasoning about our experience. In other
words, conceptual metaphors are constitutive of our understanding of abstract
concepts. If we try to discard a particular metaphor, we will have to replace it
with some other metaphor.
Consequently, if metaphor lies at the heart of our musical understanding, then
in order to theorize about music reflectively, we must examine the underlying
metaphorical concepts we are using. This will involve an analysis of the ways
particular metaphors structure our knowledge of musical experience, and it will
require a deep understanding of how these metaphors constrain our reasoning.
In this essay, we will focus on the internal structure and implications of one
particular metaphor that is used for musical form, namely, the MUSIC IS
ARCIDTECTURE metaphor. We argue that this specific metaphor is

. 'pervasive in our thinking about music

'pervasive in our thinking in music
.'often imperceptible to our conscious awareness

'systematic, with logical entailments

 146 YEARBOOK OF COMPARATIVE AND GENERAL LITERATURE 50
·culturally shaped
·physically grounded
·constitutive of our musical experience
·less well structured than certain other metaphors for music, and yet essen-
tial to those other musical metaphors

ARCHITECTURAL METAPHORS-A SYSTEM OF MAPPINGS

In the mappings described by the theory of conceptual metaphor, elements of the
"source domain" (in this case, architecture) are mapped onto elements of the
"target domain" (in this case, music). The implication, in each case, is that when
we understand some element of the target domain in terms of some element of
the source domain, we import our relevant knowledge of the source domain onto
the target. In other words, we are not merely noting a similarity between two
elements of the domains. Rather, we import whole sets of inferences and entail-
ments from the source domain that then shape our reasoning about the target
domain. We make that creative construction of meaning that Douglas Hofstadter
writes about: we "see as "
Whenever we understand the structure of a musical work as an architectural
entity, we are simply applying, as a source domain, an even more comprehensive
metaphor, whereby we understand functional or logical organization as physical
structure. The ORGANIZATION IS- PHYSICAL STRUCTURE metaphor is
what Joe Grady has named a primary metaphor. We learn primary metaphors
simply and naturally because they are based on recurring correlations between
certain sensory-motor experiences, on the one hand, and subjective experiences
arid judgments that we make, on the other. For example, the IMPORTANT IS
BIG metaphor develops from a child's (and adult's) experience of big things
having significant impact on us. This repeated experiential correlation provides
the basis for the later metaphorical conception of physically big things as being
important, as in "He thinks he's a big man on campus," "Global wanning is a
huge problem we've got to address," and "The peace talks were a colossal
failure." (Notice that it is because Schenker regards the Sarabande he describes
in the quote above as an aesthetically important work that he describes its struc-
ture as "gigantic"--even though the Sarabande is only twenty-four measures
long.) Grady has identified scores of these common primary metaphors and has
shown how we use them to build up and to articulate other systematic metaphors.
The ORGANIZATION IS PHYSICAL STRUCTURE primary metaphor is
,so basic to our understanding that we tend not to recognize its pervasive role in
our thinking, or even to recognize it as a metaphor. It is grounded on our experi-
ence ofcorrelations between physical structures and abstract (logical or functional)
organization. For example, we routinely encounter the functional properties of an
object as connected to its physical structure, such as when the parts and relations
of parts within. an automobile are the basis for its functional properties. Such
experiences, encountered by people thousands of times each day, give rise to our
ARCHITECTURAL METAPHORS IN MUSIC 147

understanding of abstract organization as physical structure. Thus we say, "Show

me how the parts of your theory fit together," and "How "does that premise
support your conclusion?"
The MUSIC IS ARCHITECTURE metaphor is a special case of the
ORGANIZATION IS PHYSICAL STRUCTURE metaphor. We specify the
'physical structure' as an architectural entity, such as a building. By defining the
particular type of physical structure-a building-we make available a number
of quite determinate properties and relations in the source domain that can be
mapped onto the target domain. The MUSIC IS ARCHITECTURE metaphor
includes the following source-to-target mappings:

Mappings in the MUSIC IS"ARCHITECTURE metaphor

SOURCE DOMAIN TARGET DOMAIN
(Architecture) (Music)
Structure or building Piece of music
Process of construction Building to climax, etc.
Span Interval
Vertical spatial dimension Interval size
Vertical spacing Registral spacing
Horizontal spatial dimension Temporal duration
Horizontal spacing Rhythm
Structure vs. ornament Structure vs. ornament
Foundation Underlying structure
Supporting members Stable hannonic or formal elements
Pillars Pillars of harmony
Support Harmonic or contrapuntal "support"
Passage Musical passage
Arch Melodic arch or arch form
Base Bass voice, base of melodic action
Bridge Bridge (passage or section)
Physical forces Musical forces
Balance Processive and formal balance
Symmetry Symmetry in pitches or durations
148 YEARBOOK 'OF COMPARATIVE AND GENERAL LITERATURE 50
Let us examine some of these mappings in more detail, in order to show how
their consistent logic and inherited entailments shape our thinking about music
and our experience of music.
Consider, first, the submapping that concerns the act of building or con-
structing the overall structure. There are two major interpretations of the building
process: (1) we understand the composition of a piece as the act of constructing
an architectural entity, or (2) we might conceptualize the musical processes them-
selves as "building musical intensity" within a piece, or as "building to a climax."
The MUSIC IS ARCHITECTURE metaphor permits us to view a musical
work as a fixed structure open to our view (and analysis). But music is not liter-
ally present all at once; we experience it diachronically, that is, in and through
time. So, when we need to consider the entire musical work synchronically, that
is, all-at-once, the ARCHITECTURE metaphor makes this possible, because the
structure can be regarded as a fixed entity. However, the ARCHITECTURE
metaphor is not the only means we have for treating the work as an object that
we can perceive in one glance. Other specifications of the ORGANIZATION IS
PHYSICAL STRUCTURE metaphor provide alternative ways of conceiving
the overall pattern of the musical piece. For example, we often speak of "shape"
in music, as in "an up-then-down melodic shape." Music does not literally have
physical shape. The source domain for the metaphor of "melodic shape" is that
of physical objects-a category that includes, but is not limited to, architectural
objects. In the quotation above, Schenker refers not just to architecture, but also
to painting. Regardless of whether the musical structure is understood as a spe-
cific architectural object or as an unspecified "physical object," the value of such
metaphors lies in the way they make it possible for us to conceptualize the musi-
cal work as a single complex entity. The important point is that these metaphors
allow us to understand pieces of music as possessing the kinds of relationships
that shape fixed objects.
Another important submapping concerns the source-domain notion of an
architectural span, which applies to music in at least two. different ways. First,
when we map physical space onto pitch space, the high and low of physical
height are mapped onto pitch height, and the vertical spacing of architectural
elements becomes the registral spacing of musical notes. Regis~l spacing is the
way that notes are distributed across the range of possible frequency. In typical
registral spacing, notes in lower registers are further apart and notes in higher
registers are closer together-just as in a typical architectural structure, lower
(typically more massive) elements are further apart and higher elements are closer
together. Scanning the score of the Sarabande mentioned by Schenker reveals
that the intervals between higher notes tend to be smaller than those between
lower notes, and that the higher notes are more fr~quent than the lower. Second,
when we map physical space onto musical time, short and long physical distances
map onto short and long durations, and the horizontal spacing of architectural
elements becomes the rhythm of musical events.
 ARCHITECTURAL METAPHORS IN MUSIC 149

Another central distinction in music draws on the architectural relation of

basic structure to ornament. Whenever we hear a passage of music repeated, we
compare the repetition to our memory of the passage as first heard. Music often
creates interesting effects by presenting varied repetitions. Sometimes passages
are repeated and varied immediately. Sometimes the varied repetition occurs
across intervening music. And sometimes, whole pieces-for example, those in
. "theme and variation" form-are based on varied repetition. It is easiest to hear
one passage as a varied repetition of another when the varied passage sounds
like an ornamented version of the passage as first heard.
This distinction between structure and ornament is also central in Schenker's
theory. Example 1, Schenker's analysis of the Cello Suite movement referred to
above, represents the whole piece in a series of hierarchical levels. The first level
(Example la) is a descending scale (harmonized in a particular way). Each sub-
sequent, increasingly elaborate level may be thought of as generated from the
previous level by a process of adding notes that could be called ornaments (most
of these tones function as what musicians call passing or neighbor notes). Ex-
ample 2, the piece itself, in all its detail, would be the next level in this process. On
all but the first of these levels, the square brackets show the appearance of a
distinctive ornament called a "suspension." In the piece itself, this ornament also
elaborates the very. first measure.
The comparatively basic levels in Schenker's analysis may be regarded as
the "foundation" of the piece-they constitute the underlying structure. Its ele-
ments are the most stable ones (harmonically and formally) in the piece; like the
supporting members of a building, musicians call them the "pillars" of the har-
monic structure. As in an architectural structure, when such pillars are clear and
well-spaced, we experience the work as stable and well-made because of the
way in which it rests solidly on those pillars.
Music theorists take this metaphor a step further. They insist that an analysis,
such as the one in Example 1, must be logically consistent in its choice of these
pillars. Only certain chords-the most stable one?-.can serve as pillars. An analysis
may raise questions amongst theorists if it includes an "unsupported stretch." In
other words, the logic of the source domain of architecture constrains the music
theorist's thinking about musical structure by requiring an analogous stability in
musical pillars. In order to "support" their arguments about the structure of a
piece, Schenkerian analysts will appeal to musical concepts (such as "harmonic
support" or "contrapuntal support").
Those who believe they can do without metaphorical concepts, but who also
experience music deeply, may be tempted to say that, while architecture "rests"
on its pillars, music "moves" between its pillars. But this just substitutes a differ-
ent metaphor-that of musical motion. Music does not literally move. But it does
move metaphorically, according to a complex set of metaphors in which musical
"motion" is conceived as physical motion. (See Johnson and Larson for a detailed
analysis of three basic metaphors of musical motion).
 150 YEARBOOK OF COMPARATIVE AND GENERAL LITERATURE 50
There are other theorists who, without disputing the key role of metaphor in
making sense of musical experience, still regard architectural metaphors as inap-
propriate for conceptualizing music. Jerrold Levinson, for instance; argues that
what we value in music are its immediate connections-"music in the momenf'-
and he is critical of the idea that architectural structures, such as those described
by Schenker, are important to the aesthetic experience of music. Our point here
is not so much to disagree with Levinson's valuing of certain modes of listening
(which necessarily amounts to valuing certain metaphors), but to suggest that
architectural metaphors are nevertheless unavoidable (see also Cox).
In fact, the metaphor of musical motion seems necessarily to draw in other
metaphors-including architectural metaphors. Consider the term "passage." One
can pass through an architectural structure (diachronically). And if we look
(synchronically) at a portion of that structure, we may call it a "passage." Partly
because of our knowledge of the source domain of physical motion, we cannot
conceive of any sort of diachronic motion without conceiving of a synchronic
path for that motion. In other words, the diachronic and synchronic metaphors for
music seem importantly intertwined. Thus, after experiencing a bit of music as
diachronic motion, we also typically refer to that bit of music synchronically as a
"passage. "
Furthermore, a passage, or even a whole piece, may be described metaphori-
cally as an "arch." It is common to speak of a "melodic arch" or to describe the
form of a whole piece as an "arch." (The description of the path of a melody in
terms of the arc of a thrown ball is ano~her common metaphor, and is related, but
belongs to a different system of metaphors.) Marion Guck offers an insightful
discussion of this metaphor through an analysis of Chopin's Prelude in B minor.
She speaks of the mapping of physical space onto musical space, of the arch-
shapes of individual melodic shapes, of the gestural arches of phrases, and the
overall arch of the narrative curve "of this piece. Thus, just as in a building, musi-
cal arches may contain arches within arches. And, just as it did for Schenker,
architecture provides a model of hierarchical structure in music. Our point here is
that we conceptualize and reason about musical structure by means of our expe-
rience and knowledge of physical structures, including architecture; in other words,
the metaphors are actually doing conceptual work for us.
Likewise, when the architectural term "base" becomes the baSis for a musi-
cal term, it brings with it the consistent entailments that derive from its source
domain. If we perceive a certain pitch as a base of melodic action, we are likely
to experience it as "below" the other pitches, we are likely to experience it as
more stable than the other pitches, and we are likely to experience the other
pitches in relation to that base (rather than vice versa). In fact, the lowest vocal
or instrumental part in a texture is also called a "bass." All of these entailments
vis-a.-vis melodic structure may thus draw upon our knowledge about physical
base structures in buildings.
Another submapping involves the architectural notion of a "bridge." In the
target donlain of music, the "bridge" of a popular song is the B section of its
AABA form. More generally, a "bridge passage" is a transitional bit of music that
ARCHITECTURAL METAPHORS IN MUSIC 151
connects two other sections of music and that carries us from one of those sec-
tions to the other. In asking the question "What makes a good bridge?" Larson
makes the MUSIC IS ARCHITECTURE metaphor explicit and notes that good
musical bridges and good architectural bridges share the foIlowing characteris-
tics: they differ from the paths they connect, but are part of a single path; they
direct motion along a more-restricted path with a clear goal; they are (unlike the
places they connect) not a place to stop; they connect more stable areas; they
cross some contrasting terrain or obstacle; they tend to be balanced and sym-
metrical, yet open-ended, structures; they are more comfortable to travel on if
they are structurally sound; and they are more desirable to travel on if they take
you where you want to go.
Another important entailment of the architectural metaphors we have dis-
cussed so far derives from the fact that physical structures are influenced by
physical forces. An architectural structure must be built to withstand the forces
of gravity, wind, and so on. And, as Rudolf Arnheim (1977) has pointed out,
architecture must not only stand up to physical forces, but it is also more success-
ful as art if its appearance communicates a relationship with those forces, as this
reinforces our perception of the use and function of the building.
The entailed forces appear as musical analogues to gravity, magnetism, and
inertia. Recent research on these "musical forces" makes this set of metaphori-
cal entailments explicit. RudolfAmheim (1986), Candace Brower, Robert Hurwitz
and Steve Larson, Steve Larson, Fred LerdahI (1996 and 2001), William Pelto,
a.nd Leigh VanHandel and Steve Larson have used the idea of musical forces to
illuminate issues of theory, analysis, cognition, and pedagogy.
In measure 4 of the Sarabande mentioned above, G passes through F to E. In
so doing it gives in to ail three forces. Musical gravity (the tendency of notes to
descend) pulls the F to E. Musical magnetism (the tendency to move to the clos-
est stable pitch) pulls the F to E. And musical inertia (the tendency for a pattern
of motion to continue in the same direction) also pulls the F to E. Because all
three forces suggest that the C-B-Bb-A of measures 1-2 will lead to a G on the
downbeat of measure 3, we hear the G as implied there (thus the G appears in
parentheses in Example Id, measure 3). In other situations, the musical forces
may disagree with one another. The ascending sequence in measures 20-23
gives in to inertia but goes against gravity~ The sense of effort in overcoming
gravity contributes to our experience of the expressive meaning of this passage.
It is in the context of such forces-which Arnheinl refers to as dynamic
perceptual tendencies-that aesthetic issues concerning symmetry and balance
arise. To discu,ss or experience symmetry or balance in architecture or music we
must necessarily draw on our embodied knowledge of interacting forces.
That knowledge is, of course, shaped by culture. Different cultures produce
different types of architecture. And different types of architecture may lead to
different types of architectural metaphors.
This system of mappings given above for the MUSIC IS ARCHITECTURE
metaphor is· thus centrally important to music discourse and music experience.
As we have seen, it is a complex of inter-related mappings that shape the way
 1

152 YEARBOOK OF COMPARATIVE AND GENERAL LITERAWRE 50

we conceptualize and reason about musical fonn. Nevertheless, we saw that the
system of mappings is only partial. There are some entities in the source domain
that are not carried over into the target domain. Many architectural tenns have
no clear musical analogues. To refer to a musical "window," "door," "tower," or
"castle" would require novel extensions within that target· domain. There is no
obvious musical analogy for the architectural "split-level," "mansion," or "con-
struction worker."
Nevertheless, whether we are conscious of them or not, architectural meta-
phors play and important role in music discourse and in music experience, both in
our ordinary understanding and equally in sophisticated musical theory. Talking
about music may be like dancing about architecture, in more ways that Zappa
intended. Talking about music-and even dancing to it-is richer because of
architectural metaphors.
University of Oregon
 ARCHITECTURAL METAPHORS IN MUSIC 153
WORKS CITED

Arnheim, Rudolf. The Dynamics of Architectural Form: Based on the 1975 Mary Duke Biddle
Lectures at the Cooper Union. Berkeley: U of California P, 1977.
- . "Perceptual Dynamics in Musical Expression." In New Essays on the Psychology of Art.
Berkeley; Los Angeles; London: U of California P, 1986.
Brower, Candace. "Pathway, Blockage, and Containment in Density 21.5." Theory and Practice
(1997-98): 22-23, 35-54.
- . "A Cognitive Theory of Musical Meaning. Journal of Music Theory 44/2 (2000): 323-79.
Cox, Arnie. "Imagined Meaning in Immediate and Reflective Musical Experience." Music Percep-
tion 16/4 (1999): 467-73.
Gibbs, Raymond. The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding.
Cambridge; New York: Cambridge UP, 1994.
Grady, Joseph. "Foundations of Meaning: Primary Metaphors and Primary Scenes." Diss. U of
California, ~erkeley. 1997.
Guck, Marion. "Two Types of Metamorphic Transfer." In Music and Meaning. Ed. J. Robinson.
Ithaca: Cornell Up, 1997.
Hofstadter, Douglas R. Metamagical Themas: Questingfor the Essence ofMind and Pattern. New
York: Basic Books, 1985.
Hurwitz, Robert I., and Steve Larson. "Step Collections in Aural Theory." Applying a Theory of
Expressive Meaning in the Written- and Aural-Theory Classrooms. National Meeting of the
College Music Society. Savannah. 1994.
Johnson, Mark, and Steve Larson. "'Something in the Way She Moves'-M~taphors of Musical
Motion." Metaphor and Symbol 1812 (2003): 63-84.
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1980.
Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. New York:
Basic Books, 1999.
Lakoff, George, and Mark Turner. More Than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor.
Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1989.
Larson, Steve. "Computer Models of Melodic Implication and Key Determination in Tonal
Music." The Society for Music Perception and Cognition. Philadelphia. 1993.
"Modeling Melodic Expectation: Using Three 'Musical Forces' to Predict Melodic Continu-
ations." Proceedings of the Fifteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science SOCiety.
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1993.
- . "'On Rudolf Amheim's Contributions to Music Theory." Journal ofAesthetic Education 27/4
(1993): 97-104.
- . "Another Look at. Schenker's Counterpoint." Indiana Theory Review 15/1 (1994): 35-52.
- . "Musical Forces, Step Collections, Tonal Pitch Space, and Melodic Expectation." Proceed-
ings ofthe Third International Conference on Music Perception and Cognition. Liege, 1994.
- . "Expert Expectations: Professional Theorists' Continuations Compared with a Computer
,Model of Musical Forces." Current Research in Music Cognition and Aural Training [post-
er]. National Meeting of the Society for Music Theory. Baton Rouge. 1996.
- . "The Problem of Prolongation in Tonal Music: Terminology, Perception, and Expressive
Meaning." Journal ofMusic Theory 4111 (1997): ,101-36.
- . "Musical Forces and Melodic Patterns." Theory and Practice 22-23 (1997-98): 55-71.
- . "Musical Imagery and Melodic Expectation." Conference on Musical Imagery. Oslo, Norway.
1999.
- . "Swing and Motive in Three Performances by Oscar Peterson." [In "Analysis Forum" on Cole
Porter's "Night and Day."] Journal of Music Theory 43/2 (1999): 283-313.
- . "Musical Forces, Melodic Expectation, and Jazz Melody." Music Perception 19/3 (2002):
351-85.
- . "Musical Forces and Melodic Expectation: Comparing Computer Models and Experimental
Results." Music Perception. (forthcoming)
154 YEARBOOK OF COMPARATIVE AND GENERAL LITERATURE 50
- . "What Makes a Good Bridge?" Tijdschrift voor MusiektheorielDutch Journal ofMusic Theory.
8/1 (2003): 115.
Lerdahl, Fred. "Calculating Tonal Tension." Music Perception 13/3 (1996): 319-63.
- . Tonal Pitch Space. New York; Oxford: Oxford Up, 2001.
Levinson, Jerrold. Music in the Moment. Ithaca, NY: Cornell UP, 1997.
Pelto, William. "An Alternative to Rule Memorization for Written Theory." Applying a Theory
of Expressive Meaning in the Written- and Aural-Theory Classrooms. National Meeting of
the College Music Society. Savannah. J 994.
Schenker, Heinrich. "The Sarabande of J. S. Bach's Suite No.3 for Unaccompanied Violoncello,
[BWV 1009]." Trans. Hedi Siegel. The Music Forum. Ed. WilIiam 1. Mitchell and Felix Salzer.
Vol. 2. New York; London: Columbia Up, 1970.
Turner, Mark. Reading Minds: The Study of English in the Age of Cognitive Science. Princeton:
Princeton Up, 1991. .
Van Handel, Leigh, and Steve Larson. "MeaSuring Musical Forces." Art Meets Science. Special
Joint Session of the Society for Music Theory and the Society for Music Perception and
Cognition. Musical Intersections. 2000.