neuwirth - what is a cadence - theoretical and analytical perspectives

Markus Neuwirth Pieter Bergé (eds)

What Is a CadenCe?

Theoretical and Analytical Perspectives on Cadences in the Classical Repertoire

Reprint from What is a Cadence? - ISBN 978 94 6270 015 4 - © Leuven University Press, 2015

What Is a CadenCe?

theoretICal and analytICal PersPeCtIves on CadenCes In the ClassICal rePertoIre


Markus neuwirth and Pieter Bergé (eds)

Theoretical and Analytical Perspectives on Cadences in the Classical Repertoire

Leuven University Press

What Is a Cadence?


© 2015 by leuven University Press / Presses Universitaires de louvain / Universitaire Pers leuven. Minderbroedersstraat 4, B-3000 leuven (Belgium)

all rights reserved. except in those cases expressly determined by law, no part of this publication may be multiplied, saved in an automated datafile or made public in any way whatsoever without the express prior written consent of the publishers.

IsBn 9789462700154

d / 2015 / 1869 / 19

nUr: 664

Cover and layout: Jurgen leemans

Cover illustration: ‘Cadence #1 (a short span of time), robert owen, 2003’, CC-By-nC-nd Matthew Perkins 2009.


C o n t e n t s 5

Introduction: What is a Cadence? 7

Nine Perspectives

Markus Neuwirth and Pieter Bergé

Harmony and Cadence in Gjerdingen’s “Prinner” 17

William E. Caplin

Beyond ‘Harmony’ 59

The Cadence in the Partitura Tradition

Felix Diergarten

The Half Cadence and Related Analytic Fictions 85

Poundie Burstein

Fuggir la Cadenza, or The Art of Avoiding Cadential Closure 117

Physiognomy and Functions of Deceptive Cadences in the Classical Repertoire

Markus Neuwirth

The Mystery of the Cadential Six-Four 157

Danuta Mirka

Contents


6 C o n t e n t s

The Mozartean Half Cadence 185

Nathan John Martin and Julie Pedneault-Deslauriers

“Hauptruhepuncte des Geistes” 215

Punctuation Schemas and the Late-Eighteenth-Century Sonata

Vasili Byros

The Perception of Cadential Closure 253

David Sears

Towards a Syntax of the Classical Cadence 287

Martin Rohrmeier and Markus Neuwirth

List of Contributors 339

Index 343


T o w a r d s a S y n t a x o f t h e C l a s s i c a l C a d e n c e 2 8 7

toWards a syntaX oF the ClassICal CadenCe*

Martin rohrmeier and Markus neuwirth

“The idea that there is a grammar of music is probably as old as the idea of a grammar itself”1

I. Theoretical foundations

1. The cadence: Essence or family resemblance?

a crucial aspect of our listening experience is the formation of expectations and

predictions.2 no matter what kind of music we are listening to, we have a pre-

disposition towards expecting certain continuations of what we have heard before. In

leonard B. Meyer’s words, a given musical event “implies” another and at the same

time may “realize” the implications set up by earlier events.3 the cadence is often

cited as one of the most prototypical patterns in Western tonal music, creating and

ultimately fulfilling highly specific expectations.4 It has frequently been suggested

that cadential contexts differ systematically from non-cadential ones with respect to

their expectancy profile. Cadences articulate phrase boundaries at which there is a

highly contrastive change in predictability from high to low.

* Financial support for the research presented in this chapter has been generously provided to the first author by the MIt I2 Intelligence Initiative, the MIt department of linguistics and Philosophy, as well as the Zukunftskonzept at tU dresden funded by the Exzellenzinitiative of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. the work by M.r. was conducted under the affiliation of MIt as well as tU dresden. M.n.’s research has been funded by The Research Foundation – Flanders. We would like to thank taiga abe and sophia stuhr for their kind assistance in preparing the figures included in this chapter.

1. steedman, “the Blues and the abstract truth” (1996), 1.2. rohrmeier and Koelsch, “Predictive Information Processing” (2012); rohrmeier, “Musical expectancy:

Bridging Music theory, Cognitive and Computational approaches” (2013).3. Meyer, Explaining Music (1973).4. see Meyer, Emotion and Meaning in Music (1956).


2 8 8 M a r t i n R o h r m e i e r a n d M a r k u s N e u w i r t h

although cadences are often described as a stock pattern, the variety of caden-

tial structures is in fact enormous, exceeding by far the simple characterizations in

terms of “I–Iv–v–I” or “I–ii(6)–v–I” found in numerous modern music-theory text-

books and used in typical experimental settings in music psychology.5 this variability

of cadences clearly defies music-theoretical attempts to provide an unequivocal and

all-encompassing definition. as robert Gjerdingen polemically points out, a chord-

centered definition of the cadence is dubious, as it “highlights only what locatelli has

in common with rimsky-Korsakov.”6 this type of “lowest common denominator”

approach adopted by many theorists may single out v–I as the essence of an authen-

tic cadence,7 although this feature is hardly sufficient to allow a clear-cut distinction

between cadential and non-cadential (prolongational or sequential) progressions.8

In other words, the bare harmonic essence may not be capable of providing the dif-ferentia specifica to other (non-cadential) types of progressions. Because non-cadential

phrases may likewise feature v–I, this element (the alleged “essence”) is too unspe-

cific a requirement for a cadential progression. as shown elsewhere in this volume,

the characterization of half cadences is even less straightforward, especially due to

the variety of possible predominant chords.9

Conversely, the four-stage prototype of the cadence,10 embracing an initial tonic,

predominant, dominant, and final tonic, does not cover all possible instances of the

cadence concept, as not all of these stages must necessarily be present: not only

might the initial tonic be omitted, but the predominant as well.11 even a dominant

in root position, sometimes considered an absolute requirement for “the authentic

cadential progression” to have “sufficient harmonic strength to confirm tonality,”12

may not be strictly necessary, as (pre-classical) cadences featuring an inverted domi-

nant demonstrate.13

this might suggest that one of the crucial problems in defining cadences seems

to be the lack of an “essence”: It appears to be difficult, if not downright impossible,

to identify the necessary and sufficient criteria underlying the definition of a cadence,

5. this is hardly surprising, as cadences have evolved over a remarkably long period of time; thus, the ways in which cadences materialize depend to a large extent on the historical style in which they appear.

6. Gjerdingen, Music in the Galant Style (2007), 140.7. see temperley, The Cognition of Basic Musical Structures (2001), 336ff.8. on these types of harmonic progressions, see Caplin, Classical Form (1998), 23ff.9. specifically on the problems surrounding a robust definition of half cadences, see, for instance, the

contributions by Martin and Pedneault-deslauriers as well as by Burstein in this volume.10. Caplin, “the Classical Cadence” (2004).11. e.g., Mozart, K. 330/i, mm. 5–8. In his discussion of such “incomplete cadential progressions,”

William Caplin hypothesizes that “the initial tonic is left out more often than the pre-dominant is, for eliminating the latter results in the loss of a fundamental harmonic function. excluding both of these harmonies occurs infrequently in the literature” (Caplin, Classical Form [1998], 27).

12. Caplin, Classical Form (1998), 27; see also Caplin, “the Classical Cadence” (2004).13. see Caplin in this volume.



a fact that might indicate that there is no such thing as “the” cadence. rather, one

could argue, the various forms of cadences are related to one another by way of a

Wittgensteinian “family resemblance.”14 nonetheless, considering other disciplines

such as evolutionary biology, linguistics, and economics, the complexity and diver-

sity of real-world phenomena should not prevent us from developing concise analytic

characterizations with the aid of formal methods. In this chapter, we seek to account

for the combinatorial complexity inherent in the classical cadence by taking advan-

tage of the flexibility of a generative grammar approach.

2. Formal modeling and music theory

Music theory seeks to provide a concise description of the principles governing a musi-

cal system or a specific, historically bound style. despite the field’s ambitions with

regard to accuracy and conciseness, at present formal models of music description

are the exception rather than the rule. although the notion of (linguistic) syntax has

been repeatedly invoked in theoretical writings since the eighteenth century,15 only a

few theorists have taken this analogy seriously, among them aldwell and schachter:

one way that music resembles language is that the order of things is crucial in both. “I went to the concert” is an english sentence, whereas “I concert went the to” is not. similarly, I-vII6-I6-II6-v7-I [...] is a coherent progres-sion of chords, whereas I-I6-vII6-II6-I-v7 [...] is not, as you can hear if you play through the two examples. In the study of language the word syntax is used to refer to the arrangement of words to form sentences; word order is a very important component of syntax. In studying music, we can use the term harmonic syntax to refer to the arrangement of chords to form progres-sions; the order of chords within these progressions is at least as important as the order of words in language.16

despite their explicit reference to linguistic syntax, aldwell and schachter do not go

on to employ formal tools and their powerful potential in music-theoretical descrip-

tions, although most of the rules in their textbook would lend themselves to formal

modeling. however, in the 1980s and over the last decade, a number of theorists have

taken advantage of the power of formal grammars for the characterization of music

and computational music analysis.17

14. on the notion of “family resemblance,” see Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations (1953/2001), 65–68.15. Most famously by Koch, Versuch I–III (1782–1793). For modern sources, see albersheim, “die

tonsprache” (1980) and Kostka and Payne, Tonal Harmony (1984).16. aldwell and schachter, Harmony and Voice Leading (2003), 139 (emphasis in original).17. Winograd, “linguistics and the Computer analysis of tonal harmony” (1968); Keiler, “Bernstein’s

‘the Unanswered Question’ and the Problem of Musical Competence” (1978); steedman, “a Generative Grammar for Jazz Chord sequences” (1984) and “the Blues and the abstract truth” (1996); lerdahl and Jackendoff, A Generative Theory of Tonal Music (1983); rohrmeier, “a Generative Grammar approach to diatonic harmonic structure” (2007) and “towards a Generative syntax of



Formal models are particularly well-suited to music-theoretical purposes, as they

(1) contribute to the specificity and conceptual clarity of a given theory, (2) offer pre-

cise evaluation criteria, truth conditions, and empirically testable predictions, and (3)

allow differentiation between regular and irregular (or grammatical and non-gram-

matical) musical utterances as well as between general and style-specific features. In

addition, it should be noted that a generative grammar approach not only describes

the structure implied in the musical pseudo-surface (e.g., chord representation), but

also captures functional and dependency relationships between elements in the deep

structure (weak vs. strong generativity). such a formal characterization additionally

allows us to make predictions with respect to the corresponding cognitive processes

and constraints. More specifically, it makes it possible to model the generalized

competence of a well-informed expert listener/composer/performer with regard to

the tonal language, deliberately sidelining style-specific, piece-specific, composer-

specific, and idiosyncratic aspects.18

another important (and cognitively informed) theoretical approach addressing

the classical cadence embraces the families of schema and prototype theories.19 From

a formal perspective, schema or prototype theories and grammar approaches may be

construed as the opposite ends of a complexity spectrum. their primary difference

involves a tradeoff in terms of compression: If a pattern evinces both regularity and

combinatorial freedom, grammars will be more suitable to describe it; however, if a

musical structure exhibits more standardization and less variability, schema-theoret-

ical (and exemplar-based) approaches will be more appropriate.

however, the boundaries between schemata and generative grammars may be

fuzzy, since the ways in which prototypes can be modified can approximate the ways in

which generative rules specify the modification of strings; conversely, building blocks

and rules may incorporate fixed block sequences.20 although, as noted above, the clas-

sical cadence appears to be relatively formulaic, closer inspection reveals a high degree

of variety, flexibility, and freedom. this flexibility may lend itself in particular to the

use of a generative grammar focusing on small building blocks and rule-based genera-

tive mechanisms, rather than the schemata employed in music theory.

tonal harmony” (2011); Katz and Pesetsky, “the Identity thesis for language and Music” (2010); de haas et al., “Modeling harmonic similarity Using a Generative Grammar of tonal harmony” (2009); de haas, “Music Information retrieval Based on tonal harmony” (2012); and de haas et al. “automatic Functional harmonic analysis” (2013).

18. For an earlier attempt, see lerdahl and Jackendoff, A Generative Theory of Tonal Music (1983), 3; Jackendoff and lerdahl, “the Capacity for Music” (2006).

19. e.g., Gjerdingen, Music in the Galant Style (2007). For a schema-theoretical approach to cadences, see Byros in this volume.

20. see also temperley, The Cognition of Basic Musical Structures (2001), 336ff. If a schema-based description employs rules to recursively adapt, modify, and recombine schemata, this converges to a syntactic approach with building blocks of different sizes. For an attempt to transform schemata into a grammar, see lerdahl, Tonal Pitch Space (2001), 233–248.



3. Formal grammars: A brief introduction

the concept of formal grammars and rewrite systems dates back to Chomsky’s early

approaches in the 1950s.21 a crucial motivation for such systems is the insight that

infinite or very large sets of sequences can be efficiently and concisely characterized

by a small number of rules operating in conjunction with combinatorial principles,

rather than listing each of these sequences individually.

the formalism requires the following definitions: a language is a finite or infinite

set of sequences (or strings) over a predefined repertory of symbols that are commonly

referred to as terminal symbols. In the case of music, one may, for instance, decide to

choose tones, drumbeats, chords, or bass notes for the set of terminal symbols. a

language distinguishes grammatical (regular, licit) sequences from ungrammatical

(irregular, illicit) ones generated by the same terminal symbols. a finite number of

sequences could simply be described by listing all of the sequences, whereas an infi-

nite set of sequences requires an indirect definition to characterize it, a definition that

specifies the generating mechanism.22 a formal grammar (generative grammar) is a

way of characterizing an (infinite) set of sequences by means of construction (genera-tion), defined through its terminal symbols, nonterminal symbols (variables that represent

a deep structure not observable in the surface sequence; for instance, relationships

between grammatical categories), rewrite rules for grammatical production, and one

special nonterminal start symbol defining the beginning of production.23

the production process defines strings by beginning with the start symbol and itera-

tively replacing nonterminals in the current string until the string consists only of termi-

nals. the set of all strings generated by the start symbol using all possible combinations

of rule applications defines the language expressed by the grammar. the set of produc-

tions derived from one nonterminal is called the yield of the nonterminal; in particular,

the language expressed by the grammar corresponds to the yield of the start symbol. the

derivation process results in a parse tree that expresses the derivation steps that produce a

given sequence. If there is more than one nonequivalent parse tree (the order of the sin-

gle derivations does not matter), the sequence is referred to as ambiguous. For instance, a

toy grammar G = (Σ, v, r, s) may be defined with the terminals Σ = {a,b,c,d}, the nonter-

minals v = {U,v,W,X}, the start symbol s = {U}, and the following rules in r:

U → b vv → c W

21. see, e.g., Chomsky, “three Models for the description of language” (1956).22. note also that a finite set of sequences might be more easily or comprehensively described by

characterizing it by its underlying structure rather than listing all instances without taking into account a generalizing structure; in other words, a grammatical description is a means of compression by generation.

23. note that “production” here does not refer to a temporal process or a cognitive model; rather, it characterizes a mathematical (atemporal) construction principle for sequences.



v → a WW → d v W → b WW → d XX → b

our simple grammar G now generates strings by successive rewrite steps, beginning

from the start sequence “U” until any sequence is reached that lacks a nonterminal

symbol. one sample generation process could involve the following steps: U ⇒ b v

⇒ b a W ⇒ b a d v ⇒ b a d c W ⇒ b a d c b W ⇒ b a d c b b W ⇒ b a d c b b b W ⇒

b a d c b b b d v ⇒ b a d c b b b d a W ⇒ b a d c b b b d a d X ⇒ b a d c b b b d a d b.

the final string contains no more nonterminals and therefore the generation stops,

resulting in a terminal string.

this grammar is recursive because the yield of the symbol W (and v) generates

another instance of this symbol, resulting in strings of unbounded lengths. Based on

the way the rules for this toy grammar are defined, it is straightforward to conclude

that (1) each sequence must begin with a single ‘b’, (2) each sequence must end with

‘d b’, and (3) the possible middle sections include repetitions of the sequence ‘c’ or ‘a’

followed by any number of ‘b’s (including no ‘b’) and ‘d’. Furthermore, one can easily

see that no string with a different structure can be produced. note that the definition

of the start symbol is crucial here, since defining ‘v’ or ‘W’ as the start symbol would

result in somewhat different structures.

the process of reconstructing the possible underlying generation paths that

resulted in an observed terminal sequence (and deciding whether a sequence is gram-

matical) is referred to as parsing (structural listening or language perception would

involve a form of parsing). each class of formal grammars (see below) requires a spe-

cific associated parsing process (or automaton) to parse strings. the automata associ-

ated with formal grammars differ in terms of the types of memory representation they

use—a distinction that is cognitively highly relevant for processing and learning.24

Chomsky’s work on formal languages led to what has come to be known as the

Chomsky Hierarchy,25 which differentiates various complexity classes of grammars. In

its most well-known form, it encompasses four different types of formal grammars.

a grammar in which all rules take the abstract forms of either a → b C or a → C b (not

both!) and a → b is referred to as a regular grammar (sometimes also a finite-state gram-mar). Grammars of this complexity (type 3 in the Chomsky hierarchy) correspond to

a sequence model analogous to a flow-diagram. relaxing the restrictions of regular

24. see hauser, Chomsky, and Fitch, “the Faculty of language: What is It, Who has It, and how did It evolve?” (2002); Fitch, hauser, and Chomsky, “the evolution of the language Faculty: Clarifications and Implications” (2005); rohrmeier and rebuschat, “Implicit learning and acquisition of Music” (2012); rohrmeier et al., “Implicit learning and recursion” (2014).

25. Chomsky and schützenberger, “the algebraic theory of Context Free languages” (1963).



grammars, rules of the more general form a → b1 b

2 b

3 … b

n, in which each b

i is either

a terminal or a nonterminal, characterize context-free grammars (type 2 in the Chomsky

hierarchy). such grammars famously have as one of their distinctive features the

power to generate sequences with center-embedding, such as “seq1 – seq2 – continua-

tion of seq1,” or “seq1 – seq2 – seq3 – continuation of seq2 – continuation of seq1”

as the simplest examples. such center-embedding structures cannot be expressed by

regular grammars (or lower complexity subregular grammars). Grammars in which all

rules are of the general form c a → b1 b

2 b

3 … b

n (a nonterminal a rewrites to any

sequence of terminals and nonterminals b1, b

2, b

3 … b

n only when it occurs in the

context of c; the left-hand side is not longer than the right-hand side) are referred to

as context-sensitive grammars (type 1 in the Chomsky hierarchy). they can model center-

embedding recursion, cross-serial dependencies, and other varieties of complex

structure. the set of unrestricted grammars has no restrictions on rewrite rules (type 0).

the four types of grammar are ordered in terms of increasing complexity in such

a way that a higher-order language contains as a subset all languages of lower complexity (e.g.,

due to its less restrictive rules, every context-free grammar includes the expressive

power of regular grammars). the types of formal languages in increasing order of

complexity are: regular languages (type 3), context-free languages (type 2), context-

sensitive languages (type 1), and unrestricted languages (type 0). It is important to

note that there are other types of formal models apart from the traditional Chomsky

hierarchy (e.g., subregular, multiple context-free, and mildly context-sensitive gram-

mars) as well as hidden Markov Models and dynamic Bayesian networks that have

been employed in both linguistics26 and music theory27.

26. see, e.g., Clark, “an Introduction to Multiple Context Free Grammars for linguists” (2014); seki et al., “on Multiple Context-free Grammars” (1991); and Jäger and rogers, “Formal language theory: refining the Chomsky hierarchy” (2012). Furthermore, it is important to note that the Chomsky hierarchy does not represent the only way to characterize formal languages of different complexity.

27. there are ongoing debates over the type of complexity required for the characterization of music. some theorists argue for context-free complexity: see lerdahl and Jackendoff, A Generative Theory of Tonal Music (1983); rohrmeier, “towards a Generative syntax of tonal harmony” (2011); steedman, “a Generative Grammar for Jazz Chord sequences” (1984) and “the Blues and the abstract truth” (1996). other theorists argue for lower complexity: temperley, “Composition, Perception, and schenkerian theory” (2011); tymoczko, “Function theories: a statistical approach” (2003). still other theorists argue for higher mildly context-sensitive complexity: Katz and Pesetsky, “the Identity thesis for Music and language” (submitted draft). note that it is crucial to bear in mind for this debate that, due to the fact that higher-order models by definition include lower complexity models, converging evidence of regular grammar structure in music cannot decide the debate, since the existence of one non-regular (context-free or context-sensitive) feature would obligate a requirement of higher grammatical complexity.



II. Towards a grammatical model of the cadence

1. Dependency relations

Following the music-theoretical consensus, we conceive of a cadence as a stage-

based process. We understand cadential progressions not as a linear or (Markovian)

forward process, in the manner of “B follows a,” “C follows B,”28 but instead pro-

pose to represent the logical structure through implicative dependencies: a prepares (= implies) B, B in turn implies C. this view is consistent with the one outlined in

rohrmeier’s Generative Syntax Model (GsM),29 according to which tonal language can

to a large degree be expressed in terms of a series of nested implication-realization

relationships.30 accordingly, the hypothesized principles that motivate our tree analy-

ses of cadences are twofold:31

(a) two elements can have an implication-realization relationship. For example, the straightforward implications of tonal functions are: dominants imply (or prepare) the tonic, predominants imply the domi-nant, embellishments imply their goal event (and only that event).

(B) two elements can establish a prolongational relationship: two instances with the same tonal function can form a prolonged higher-order region or unit.

Cadential patterns involve a recursive, left-branching, and right-headed structure. the

syntactic organization of cadential phenomena can be represented in tree structures

that depict this type of implicative and prolongational relationships. the depend-

ency structures that govern such syntactic trees may also be expressed in terms of a

dependency graph (see Fig. 1).

28. see, e.g., the approaches by temperley, “Composition, Perception, and schenkerian theory” (2011); tymoczko, “Function theories: a statistical approach” (2003); tymoczko, A Geometry of Music (2011).

29. rohrmeier, “towards a Generative syntax of tonal harmony” (2011).30. the core difference between the present approach and a Markovian approach is that preparations

and embellishments may be nested in multiple (hierarchical) ways, rather than being restricted to a linear order.

31. We assume that cadences are constituents in tonal phrases that may be modelled using the standard set of generative rules of Western tonality. In other words, cadences are nothing special in the sense that there are no special cadential rules. rather, cadences are special constituents in which common tonal rules that hold for any other part of a given piece are applied in a particular configuration to achieve a powerful drive towards closure. While cadences may be conceptualized in terms of different stages (predominant, dominant, final tonic), these stages are neither structural parts of the music itself (they have no ontological status) nor of the grammatical model. these stages are reflected in the trees in terms of subordination relationships. lerdahl proposes a similar view in Tonal Pitch Space (2001).



Figure 1: an example of a syntactic parse tree and the corresponding dependency graph

the dependency graph visualizes all dependency relationships between the harmonies

involved in the cadential process in terms of implication (imp) or prolongation (prl). the

dependency structures as implied by the tree and visualized in the dependency graph

are identical in the sense that one can easily be transformed into the other.32 Moreover,

the syntax tree inherently represents the rewrite rules that were used to generate the

structure; for instance, I → v I (second highest branch) or Iv → v65/Iv Iv in the example

given above. every parent node in any branch of the tree or subtree corresponds to the

left-hand side of a rewrite rule, and every immediate child of that node corresponds to

the right-hand side of the rewrite rule. the syntax (or parse) tree expresses the struc-

ture generated by specific applications of rewrite rules to the nonterminals.

32. It is important to note that there are significant differences between dependency grammars and phrase-structure grammars, for instance, with regard to the notion of constituency (see also Kuhlmann, Dependency Structures and Lexicalized Grammars [2010]). the complex issues concerning the evaluation of the use of constituency in musical structures (cf. rohrmeier, “towards a Generative syntax of tonal Music” [2011]) will be considered in future work.



2. Level of representation

While the syntactic formalism and its complexity are independent of the building

blocks involved, the right choice of the level of representation is crucial for the for-

malism’s expressive power, specificity, and generality. however, in the case of tonal

music, the right choice of building blocks is not self-evident; prima facie, there are

several candidates on which the syntactic model could be built: the bass line, har-

mony on scale degrees, harmony with inversion, functional harmony, outer voices,

and full four-part blocks.

to begin with, a model of the cadence (and of tonal music in general) grounded

in the bass line alone is clearly insufficient. Consider, for instance, the following har-

monization: 3–4–6–©4–5–1 :=: iii–vii°64–iv6–v/vII–iii6–vi6. this example illustrates the

fact that there are possible harmonic realizations of a well-formed bass line that are

clearly irregular in common-practice tonal language. Perhaps more importantly, the

bass line cited above demonstrates that categorizing cadential events based only on

the bass gives rise to representations of harmonically non-interchangeable events (e.g.,

i6, iii, vi64; Iv, Iv6

4/Iv, vii°64, etc.). In other words, although a well-formed bass line is

fundamental, crucial constraints stem from factors other than the bass line.

another approach, one based on the outer voices, is more constrained, since

already two notes of a given harmony are specified. however, choosing outer voices as

the building blocks is only useful when a difference in the top voice makes a categori-

cal difference for the syntactic progression. Generally speaking, two chordal tones are

still too unspecific (or ambiguous) with respect to the harmony they serve to express.

Because the interchangeability of surface elements falling under the same build-

ing-block category is crucial for the choice of building blocks, it is necessary to con-

sider a third approach here, namely modeling the harmonic structure.33 as power-

ful as such a fully generalized approach may be, a model based solely on harmony

may result in irregular bass lines and hence be incapable of distinguishing cadential

from non-cadential progressions.34 In opposition to an account of harmonic building

blocks (as proposed by Keiler), lerdahl and Jackendoff in their Generative Theory of Tonal Music (GttM) argue that such harmonic syntax trees would not be able to (1) assign

structure to non-harmonic tones or (2) account for schenkerian interruption.35 this

33. alan Keiler proposes an elegant generative syntax analysis based on scale degree harmony that expresses generalized musical structure in a manner that is formally more precise and efficient than the one put forth by the “Generative theory of tonal Music” (GttM). see Keiler, “Bernstein’s ‘the Unanswered Question’ and the Problem of Musical Competence” (1978); Keiler, “two views of Musical semiotics” (1981).

34. this discussion is based on the implicit assumption that the core structure has to be modelled within a single system. It may also be viable, however, to model harmonic structure and the bass line separately and relate the sequences by means of constraints or interfaces.

35. lerdahl and Jackendoff, A Generative Theory of Tonal Music (1983), 338 (n. 4).



criticism appears to be misguided: First, a syntactic theory is indeed able to account

for interruption. second, including additional detail is only useful as long as it does

not undermine the expressive power and compression by abstraction that is achieved

by a generative grammar approach. again, the question is whether it is worthwhile

to enrich the representation to account for voice leading, outer voices, or full texture,

despite the fact that this implies eliminating generalization over elements that should

be grouped together because they are related in analogous ways.

on the other hand, if the building blocks were full four-part harmony textures, it

would be possible to distinguish a large number of different cases, but generalization,

compression, and abstraction (all of which are the purpose of describing a structure

by rules) would no longer be possible. For example, two instances of a ii6–v7 progres-

sion should be regarded as identical with respect to syntactic structure, regardless of

whether or not the inner voices are exchanged. this aspect may lend itself to a critique

of the level of representation chosen by the GttM. despite the problems of defining

“the” musical “surface”36 by modeling at the note-level, lerdahl and Jackendoff pay

the price for giving up concrete generative rules37 and end up proposing a generative

theory without any generative rules. thus, their proposal is not, and cannot easily be

amended to be, a theory of competence or of (tonal) syntax.38

although models improve with increasing levels of detail, the generalizations

drawn from these models may grow weaker. this makes it clear that generality is an

important criterion with regard to the choice of building blocks. Functional catego-

ries provide a further tool for generalization, allowing us to subsume v7, v, vii° and ii,

Iv, (vi) under the same categories, and suggesting that categorial constituent heads

be employed rather than encoding the bare dependency structure. to be sure, it is not

immediately clear whether modeling cadences in terms of functional regions (such

as tonic, dominant, and subdominant) is useful; however, if one intends to draw gen-

eralizations from categorization by functions, it is certainly possible to express the

rules we are outlining here in terms of the functional regions used by the GsM.39

36. For various problems of defining and identifying the “musical surface,” see Cambouropoulos, “the Musical surface” (2010).

37. designing a model that generates the entire musical surface is very difficult and is equivalent to creating a generative model of the entire composition (which is unlikely to simultaneously be a good, cognitively adequate model of processing or listening).

38. the GttM is a theory of parsing that excludes core processing aspects of parsers, such as the use of a stack, online backtracking, and revision. rather than being a model of musical syntactic competence, GttM turns out to provide an (incomplete) theory of performative aspects of musical parsing, whereas Keiler proposes a view of modeling tonal syntactic structure at the right level of abstraction.

39. a purely functional approach such as the one advocated by riemann and his followers might prove insufficient here because it enforces the interchangeability of certain chords belonging to the same functional category, a restriction that our approach does not endorse. rather, we would argue that there are certain limitations to the arbitrariness with which seemingly functionally equivalent chords can be used to replace one another. For instance, a ii6 chord has a stronger implication of moving to v than a Iv chord, as the latter chord may also be used as a neighboring sonority and hence as a means



although we are entirely aware of the problem that arises from abstracting from

voice-leading characteristics, we opt to concentrate almost exclusively on functional

harmony in order to considerably reduce the complexity inherent in cadential pat-

terns. For the reasons outlined in this section, we build our model on scale-degree

harmonic representations, including inversions and some common features of voice-

leading patterns.40 however, generally speaking, it is important to bear in mind that

the chosen level of representation can never be perfect.41

3. The structure of the perfect authentic cadence

3.1. The head of the cadence constituent: The initial tonic, the final tonic, and its preparation (and extension)

Constituents feature a head element upon which the other parts of the constituent

depend. the head of a cadence is the final tonic, which at the same time functions

as the head of the entire overarching phrase. Furthermore, the tonic chords involved

in the cadence are all connected in specific ways. the phrase-initiating tonic and

the final tonic constitute the overarching head for the whole phrase, whereas the I(6)

chord initiating the cadence may best be modelled as subordinate to the final tonic.

alternatively, the I(6) can be analyzed as preparatory with regard to the (adjacent)

predominant chord over 4̂. this would imply, however, that the I(6) could not appear

without this chord over 4̂, which is not necessarily the case: In fact, both elements

can appear independently of one another (e.g., I6–v64–v7–I, ii6–v6

4–v7–I).42 Figure 2

illustrates both interpretive possibilities.

of prolonging a tonic harmony. ii6 and Iv are more likely to occur in a cadential context than a root-position ii chord, due to the fact that both share scale degree 4 in the bass.

40. It is important to note that the challenge in this musical modeling endeavor results from the fact that the formalism is fundamentally required to account for both adequate harmonic dependency relationships and a coherent bass line. this formal correspondence is far from trivial, since a coherent bass line involves certain linear aspects that run counter to harmonic hierarchical dependency relationships. Ultimately, this may require a specifically amended type of formalism.

41. as temperley cogently argues, “[a]n immediate problem with this model is that its predictions do not always hold: sometimes predominants move to tonics, for example, as in a plagal cadence. admittedly, such exceptions show that functional harmonic theory is imperfect as a model of tonal harmony; but they do not show that it is useless. a theory whose predictions hold true most of the time can still be of great value; we use such theories all the time in our daily lives. Imperfect though it may be, functional harmonic theory represents a powerful and valid generalization about tonal harmony, better than many conceivable alternatives—for example, a theory that posited that chords are chosen at random without regard for the previous chord, or that predominants move to tonics and dominants move to predominants. on this basis, I would argue, we are justified in positing functional harmony as part of the knowledge that common-practice composers brought to bear in their compositional process” (temperley, “Composition, Perception, and schenkerian theory” [2011], 148).

42. another way of resolving this problem is to derive the I6 chord in both ways when it precedes a 4̂ and to analyze it in terms of a double function. Cf. double functions of pivot elements in the GsM; rohrmeier, “towards a Generative syntax of tonal harmony” (2011).



Figure 2: the tonic frame. the cadence is marked by the box. the overarching frame of the cadence constituent is headed by the tonic (I), which in turn merges with the phrase-initiating tonic to constitute the overarching head of the phrase. the I(6) chord that initiates the cadence could either be modelled as subordinate to the final tonic or to the predominant function.

With regard to the first solution (I(6) subordinate to the final tonic), the following rules

establish the tonic frame (bear in mind that the rules are represented as branches in

the tree diagram):

(1) I → I(6) I(2) I → v I



these rules define both the head of the entire cadential constituent and the tonic

seed.43 In this abstract form, rules (1) and (2) hold for both major and minor modes.

It is important to note that we construct our syntactic model of the cadence largely

independent of mode. Most rules and generalizations apply to both modes, and most

diatonic scale degrees can be employed with the respective mode-specific adaptations.

rule (1) generates the final tonic as well as the initial I(6) chord and, in so doing,

defines the overarching link between the I(6) and the final tonic. note that the cadence-

initiating I(6) chord is optional and not necessary for the formation of a cadence con-

stituent. as for the final tonic, a perfect authentic cadence requires that tonic to appear

in root position, whereas an evaded cadence typically (but not exclusively) uses I6.44

the way in which the final tonic is realized in terms of voice leading and grouping

defines in part the type of cadence (PaC, IaC, or deceptive/evaded cadence). Crucially,

this implies that part of the cadential structure is not definable purely by syntactic tree

structure (using harmonic building blocks).

the penultimate dominant (v(7)) is necessary for the structure to be a cadence.

this is expressed by rule (2). If there were no dominant, a given phrase might be

regular in the sense of being in accordance with the rules of tonal harmony, but it

would not be considered a cadence. For instance, a dominant harmony cannot be

replaced by a diminished (seventh) chord (vii°(7)) on 7̂ without the progression losing

its cadential capacity. In other words, if the root of a v chord is missing, the resulting

harmony cannot express a genuine cadence.45

Within the tonic frame, rule (2) defines the seed for the dominant group and its

further recursive elaborations. It should be clear that, in a cadential context, there are

naturally no options other than the dominant to immediately precede (and be subor-

dinate to) the final tonic.46 In other words, rule (2) alone demands, and is sufficient to

ensure, that the dominant is string-adjacent to I.

3.1.1 the plagal progression as a means of tonic prolongation

opposing a widespread view, we follow the assertion of Caplin and other theorists

that plagal progressions (Iv–I) do not act as genuine cadences in the classical style.

rather, they are better understood as post-cadential codettas, serving to prolong and

consolidate a preceding cadential tonic (e.g., I–Iv–I).47 In other words, by the time the

43. our general analysis (see Fig. 2) is similar to the normative prolongational structure proposed in the GttM; it differs, however, with respect to the intent to avoid right-branching derivations.

44. Methods of modeling cadences that avoid tonic closure are discussed below.45. one exception may be the Prinner cadence (Iv–I6–ii7–vii°6–I or Iv–I6–vii°(7–6)–I), which, however, might

also be described as projecting a prolongational progression in Caplin’s sense. see the discussion in Caplin’s contribution to this volume.

46. Compare the formalization by rohrmeier, “towards a Generative syntax of tonal harmony” (2011).47. see aldwell and schachter, Harmony and Voice Leading (2003), 193; lerdahl and Jackendoff, A Generative

Theory of Tonal Music (1983), 134; Caplin, Classical Form (1998), 43; and Caplin, “Conceptions and



plagal progression enters in a given piece, a sense of closure has already been imparted

to the listener by means of an authentic cadential progression. this view underpins the

approach employed by the GsM, which does not treat the plagal cadence as a strong

constituent at a functional level, but rather as a mere appendix at the surface level.48

however, this interpretation is not meant to preclude the possibility that plagal pro-

gressions functioned as cadences in historical periods prior to the “classical” era (e.g.,

the Amen cadence in a Baroque composition) or in contemporary popular music.49

3.2. Preparing the preparation (of the preparation of the preparation)

having discussed the tonic frame and its corresponding dominant seed, we now con-

sider the remaining elements of the cadence, which essentially function as prepara-

tions of v and as potential recursive preparations of such preparations. We distinguish

between generalizable and non-generalizable preparations, i.e., those generalizing

across different harmonies and those that apply only to specific harmonies.

3.2.1. Preparations of the dominant

Non-generalizable preparations of the dominant include versions of Iv (Iv, Iv6), ii (ii,

ii43, ii6

4, ii6, ii6(5)), vi, v6

4, and n6. each of these preparations may be modelled using a

rule in the following form:

(3) v → v-Prep v

one example would be v → ii6(5) v. there are as many specific v-preparation rules

as there are chords that can prepare a cadential dominant. these rules are largely

identical for major and minor modes (potentially adapted to match the diatonic coun-

terpart, e.g., ii° instead of ii, iv instead of Iv). note that the chords involved in these

rules imply specific bass notes: ii implies 2̂; ii6(5), Iv, and n6 imply 4̂; Iv6, ii4

3, ii64, and vi

imply 6̂. on the surface, v may be realized as either v or v7, or as a combination of the

two. some dominant preparations, in particular the neapolitan chord and the various

augmented sixth chords on ¨6 (see below) hint at the minor mode.

3.2.2. embellishing the dominant

let us now briefly consider the cadential 64 as the primary means of embellishing the

penultimate dominant. after having reached a dominant 64 in the context of a caden-

tial progression, the most frequently used option is to resolve the double-suspension

to a v53 (or v7) chord. however, the composer may alternatively choose to add chords

at the expected point of resolution that are normally used to lead to (or prepare) the

Misconceptions” (2004), 71f.48. see rohrmeier, “towards a Generative syntax of tonal harmony” (2011).49. see also the discussion in de Clercq and temperley, “a Corpus analysis of rock harmony” (2011).



cadential 64, namely either vii°7/v, vii°6/v, or a German augmented sixth chord, as

though stepping backwards in time within the multi-stage process. Consequently,

these chords cannot be understood as mere insertions between a cadential 64 and its

resolution, but may instead be analyzed as a means of embellishing (and thus, in a

way, prolonging) the cadential 64 itself. In other words, they seem to act as a means of

embellishing the embellishment. two examples from Mozart’s oeuvre can be cited in

support of this interpretation.

towards the end of the reprise in the first movement of his d-major Piano sonata,

K. 576 (see Figure 3), Mozart launches a normative cadential progression, starting with

a tonic harmony in m. 148, proceeding to a ii6 (m. 149), and finally arriving at a caden-

tial 64, which is extended for two measures (mm. 151f.). at the moment one expects

the resolution of the 64 suspension, a fully diminished seventh chord suddenly enters,

likewise sustained for two measures. But rather than entirely abandon the attempt to

complete the cadence, the progression reverts to the cadential 64 (m. 154), this time

resolving the suspension properly, ultimately arriving at the final tonic (m. 155).

Figure 3: Mozart, Piano sonata in d major, K. 576/i, mm. 148–155

In Mozart’s F-major Piano sonata, K. 533/i, the exposition is about to close with a

PaC but avoids closure by means of a deceptive harmony (vii°6/v) at the progression’s

ultimate stage (m. 82), the cadential resolution being delayed until m. 89. however,

before the cadential 64 is resolved, it is prolonged by various embellishing chords,

including vii°7/v (m. 84) and an augmented German sixth (m. 86), both of which

subsequently return to the cadential 64, which ultimately gives way to a root-position

v in m. 88. this suggests that chords that are normally employed to prolong a pre-

dominant harmony, connecting it to the cadential dominant, can also be used (even

within the same temporal sequence) to extend in time a particular dominant embel-

lishment, namely the cadential 64.



Figure 4: Mozart, Piano sonata in F major, K. 533/i, mm. 80–89

alternatively, the situation described in the two Mozart sonatas may also be inter-

preted as a form of dominant prolongation. this would help avoid an increase in

complexity resulting from additional rules. In addition, it would explain the fact that

both of the embellishing chords (vii°7/v and the augmented sixth chord) can easily be

followed by a plain dominant sonority. the fact that another cadential 64 is inserted,

thus framing the appearance of these embellishing chords, might simply be regarded

as a coincidental surface event, one that lacks any deeper-level structural significance.

3.2.3. Predominant preparations

there are several non-generalizable preparations for different predominant chords.

(4) Iv → iii Iv(5) ii6 → vi ii6

(6) vi → iii(6) vi

rule (4) expresses the somewhat less frequent case in which Iv is prepared by iii in

the major mode. rules (5) and (6) express diatonic fifth relationships that apply in the

context of both major and minor modes (given diatonic adaptations of the respective

harmonies).

3.2.4. General preparations: applied dominants

several preparations of dominants, predominants, and other chords appearing in a

cadential context result from the general flexibility with regard to preparing chords



with applied implicative chords. analogous to the formalization of dominant prepa-

rations, all the general preparations discussed here follow the same abstract rule pat-

tern (note the similarity to the general rule (3) above):

(7) X → X-Prep X

In this context, v6(5) and vii°(7) may function as chord preparations from a semitone

below (for instance, in a rule such as X → v6(5)/X X). Ger6, Fr6, It6, and v4

2/X6 can func-

tion as preparations from a semitone above, and v/X as a preparation from a fourth

below. In particular, chords on Iv and ii are often approached via their own secondary

dominants (either v6(5)

or vii°(7)).50 Iv6 may be prepared by its applied v42. specifically,

the cadence-initiating tonic (I or I6) may also be embellished from above by an applied

dominant (e.g., v43, v4

2, vii°6). augmented sixth chords on ¨6̂ constitute a common

way to prepare the dominant in minor cadences. It is important to note that it is pos-

sible (although rare) for some of these preparatory embellishments to themselves be

recursively embellished—for instance, a prepared neapolitan, as found in Mozart’s

Piano Concerto in d minor, K. 466 (mm. 347f.; see the discussion below). however,

this list of embellishments is not exhaustive, as further examples may be discovered

(e.g., the harmonically flexible diminished chord and its variants). Further note that

for the sake of simplicity, this list of rules does not imply an explicit ranking of differ-

ent preparations with respect to their order.51

3.2.5. sample analysis

a sample analysis will illustrate the formalism of the cadential structure developed in

the previous sections (see Fig. 5). this example shows that the multiple predominants

are characterized by the fact that they are all dependent on v. For instance, there is no

rule that vii°7/v may follow ii6; rather, both chords are dependent on v. Further, it is

important to note that v65/Iv (or vii°/Iv) is very similar to I6, yet it fulfills a different func-

tion: Instead of serving as an initial tonic, it acts as the subordinate applied dominant

preparation of Iv (compare the discussion above regarding the tonic frame). note that

this tree diagram (like all syntax trees) contains all rules that were applied to generate

or parse the tree structure. From the top, some of the rules involved are I → I I, I → v I,

v → Iv v, Iv → v65/Iv Iv, etc. the tree represents the (atemporal) dependency relation-

ships between the elements and does not have direct implications regarding the order

of rule applications when generating or parsing such a sequence.

50. note that in Caplin’s theory, v65/Iv is considered an initial tonic embellishment, rather than a

predominant embellishment; see Caplin, Classical Form (1998), 29.51. such an encoding could be achieved by using different symbols for v that represent different stages of

preparations (such that preparations on 4̂ would precede preparations on ©4̂).



Figure 5: analysis of an elaborated PaC with the sequence I–v65/Iv–Iv(5–6)–ii6–vii°7/v–v6

4–v7–I

3.3. The order of dominant and predominant embellishments

there is considerable variety in the ways in which dominants and predominants may be

prepared in a cadential environment. It is by no means a simple task to define the spe-

cific constraints governing the temporal order of these elements, as there is a remark-

able combinatorial power inherent in cadences and their underlying syntax. however,

it is possible to state several general constraints. First, predominant and dominant

elements establish their own order in straightforward ways: one or more dominants

may be used to prepare the tonic; none, one, or more diatonic predominant elements

may precede each dominant. Within diatonic predominants, Iv (when present) usually

precedes ii or ii6, whereas the order that chords over 6̂ take is more flexible.

second, within this diatonic frame, chromatic embellishments may enter the

cadential pattern, creating additional implications. For instance, embellishing

chords on ©4̂ (such as v65/v or vii°7/v) may be inserted between 4̂ and 5̂. the same

holds for embellishing chords on (¨)6̂ (either v43/v or vii°6/v) or ¨6̂ in minor mode

(e.g., Ger6). Both of these elements— chords based on ©4̂ and on 6̂—may be present,

the order being interchangeable. once scale degree ̂5 is reached, a cadential v64

may be

introduced to delay the entrance of v(7).

these rules indirectly control the sequential order of the cadential constituents.

the table below summarizes the different components that affect the order of the ele-

ments involved. In this context, it is important to bear in mind, as mentioned above,

that the difficulties arising from the attempt to bring cadential elements into a linear

order stem from the fact that two structures, linearity in the bass line and hierarchical

harmonic dependency, are closely linked, and linear order is sought where the struc-

ture arises from hierarchical organization. note that because the generation process



is recursive, a number of complex chord progressions can be generated as a result of

coordination and recursive expansion (see section 5.1 below).

Table 1: overview of the order of different dominant embellishments and dominant or predominant preparations

Dominant embellishments

v64, v5

4

Order of dominant preparations

diatonic ii6(5), Iv, ii, Iv6, vI, ii4

3, ii64

other v/v, v/v6(5), vii°/v(7), Ger6/v, It6/v, Fr6/v, n6

Order of predominant preparations

diatonic Iv: I, iii, v6(5)/Iv, I6, vii°6/Iv

ii(6): vi, v42/ii, vii°6/ii

vi: iii(6)

other X: v/X, v6(5)/X, vii°(7)/X, Ger6/X, It6/X, Fr6/X, n6/X, v4

2/X6

4. Ways of avoiding (perfect) cadential closure

In the history of music, composers have used numerous devices to play with the

strong patterns of expectancy conveyed by the cadence, manipulating them by means

of delaying, replacing, or omitting the final tonic. naturally, these cases are far more

difficult to systematize than authentic cadential closure, since breaking an estab-

lished formulaic structure is a creative act that is open to all kinds of possibilities.

nonetheless, there are some underlying syntactic structures common to all of these

cases, in particular the usage of operations such as replacement, coordination, and

elision, all elements known from linguistics.

4.1. The imperfect authentic cadence

the so-called “imperfect authentic cadence” (IaC) does not differ from the PaC in

terms of its syntactic parse or its harmonic structure; rather, it differs with respect

to voice leading. an IaC is generated such that the final tonic does not support the

first scale degree in the soprano (as is the case with a PaC), but rather scale degree

3̂, which may represent the genuine goal of a descending linear motion, as is the

case with the Prinner cadence (see the example given in Fig. 6).52 a sense of closure

is imparted to the listener because the final chord is a tonic (a fact also reflected in

the tree); only the voice-leading treatment weakens the sense of closure. For this

reason, a purely harmonic interpretation may prove insufficient for a proper char-

52. see Caplin in this volume.



acterization of the IaC, as it does not include the treatment of the upper voice—the

very criterion that sets the IaC apart from the PaC. although this difference is not

reflected in the tree at the chosen level of representation, it informs the interface

between the syntactic dependency, constituency structure, and voice leading and

thus disambiguates the parsing process.

p mf

Allegro moderato

Figure 6: Cadential closure reached by a Prinner cadence, see haydn, Keyboard sonata in d major, hob. XvI:14/i, mm. 1–4

While in some situations, scale degree 3̂ may indeed be the proper melodic goal, in

other situations perfect cadential closure is purposefully avoided by disappointing the

expected voice-leading motion: rather than completing the melodic line by moving

down to 1̂ (as shown in (a)), this pattern is interrupted, leading back to 3̂ (potentially

with a ©2 preparation, as shown in (b)) and thus creating a deceptive effect.

(a) 5–4–3–2–1(b) 5–4–3–2–[©2]–3

this structure ensures that the phrase context remains open and implies further con-

tinuation. In other words, the imperfect authentic cadence may trigger a subsequent

phrase structure (most typically by using a “one-more-time” strategy53) upon which

the preceding phrase is syntactically dependent. In this case, it is advantageous to

model the syntactic structure of the overarching phrase structure in terms of a recur-

sively embedded phrase that is inserted between the tonic (supporting 1̂) bringing

about perfect cadential closure and the original v (supporting 2̂). the following

example by Mozart illustrates this (see Figure 7).

53. schmalfeldt, “Cadential Processes” (1992).



f p

p

f

f

sf sf


T o w a r d s a S y n t a x o f t h e C l a s s i c a l C a d e n c e 3 0 9I

I

IV

I

I

V

V

7V

vi

vi

ii

6

V

I

I

II

IV

I

I

V

V

7V

ii

6

vi

ii

6

V

V

6 4V

vii

6 4

I

V

ii

6

vi

iii

vi

vii

7/vi

vi

ii

6

V

V

6 4V

vii

6 4

I

V

ii

6

vi

iii

vi

vii

7/vi

vi

ii

6

V

V

6 4V

I

Icontext

2

Figure 7: Mozart, Piano sonata in F major, K. 332/i, mm. 71–93. IaC as a deferral of perfect authentic closure through the recursive embedding of another phrase. this structure is combined with a one-more-time pattern.



4.2. The half cadence

4.2.1. distinctive features of half cadences

half cadences are often described as incomplete forms of authentic cadences, lacking

the final tonic and hence the necessary requirement for an authentic cadence. however,

half cadences also seem to be special in the way they function. several contextual fea-

tures distinguish half cadences from authentic cadences. some of these features help

to weaken the tonic-implications of the dominant, stabilizing the latter in such a way

that the degree of closure conveyed by a given phrase is partial rather than perfect.

one of these features concerns the surface realization of the dominant: Whereas

authentic cadences often use v7 to approach the final tonic, a dissonant v chord

has been regarded as irregular when it functions as the final moment in a half

cadence.54 however, Poundie Burstein argues that half cadences can likewise end

on a v7 sonority, a notion previously rejected by theorists, as this chord had been

considered too unstable a harmony to act as a true (local) goal.55 In addition, half

cadences seem to make occasional use of a dominant sonority in first inversion

(e.g., Mozart, Piano sonata in C major, K. 309/i, mm. 106–108), an option that is

irregular in the context of authentic cadences. Irrespective of these distinctions,

it is important to note that a (phrase-initiating) I immediately following the half-

cadential v is merely a coincidental surface adjacency resulting from the juxtaposi-

tion of two phrases, rather than a structural v–I relation.

another difference between half and authentic cadences is derived from metri-

cal criteria: Whereas the concluding v in a half cadence typically arrives on a strong

beat, in an authentic cadence, v more frequently occurs on a relatively weak beat.

this suffices to make it clear that the generation of half cadences also differs from

the generation of authentic cadences in the ways non-harmonic factors are affected.

this concerns in particular factors that help determine grouping boundaries (such as

pitch proximity, rests, articulation, texture, register, dynamics, and relative length-

ening, factors that have been formalized in the grouping preference rules 2 and 3

in the GttM). the generation of such grouping boundaries, in conjunction with

the cadence type, strongly contributes to the recognition of the half cadence in the

reverse-engineering (i.e., parsing/listening) process, since the mere harmonic struc-

ture generated by the syntactic core can frequently result in ambiguities that may, e.g.,

arise from an unrelated phrase-initiating tonic following a half-cadential dominant.56

54. see Burstein in this volume.55. Ibid.56. lerdahl and Jackendoff note: “If a grouping boundary intervenes between the two chords, the v does

not resolve into the I; instead the v ends a group and is heard as a half cadence, and the I is heard as launching a new phrase. Metrical structure alone cannot account for these discriminations, precisely



Grouping boundaries are an essential factor in disambiguating parses that would

be ambiguous based on the harmonic structure alone, and they make it possible to

determine whether the surface has been generated by the underlying form (phrase

type) of a half cadence or an authentic cadence. In cases in which harmonies other

than the tonic follow a half cadence, such ambiguities are clearly avoided, reinforcing

the half cadence parse.

half cadences and authentic cadences might also differ statistically from each

other with respect to both the functional sonorities used as predominants and the

bassline. Phrygian half cadences often approach their goal by a descending bass mel-

ody, unlike the majority of authentic cadences. Furthermore, in authentic cadences,

it is generally rare to have a 6–5 tenor clausula in the bass before arriving at the final

tonic (e.g., Beethoven, Piano sonata op. 7/ii, mm. 22–24). Consequently, authentic

cadences seldom use an augmented-sixth chord as a predominant (they may rarely

use this chord prior to a v64), whereas this is the defining feature of a Phrygian half

cadence. In half cadences, by contrast, the final dominant is frequently approached

by a 6–5 motion in the bass. For instance, the half-cadential progression over a (¨)6–5

line in the bass (clausula tenorizans) can best be understood as achieving a sense of local

stability with the arrival on v. this v represents a genuine goal harmony, rather than

interrupting an authentic cadential progression.

4.2.2. revisiting the syntax of the half cadence: Where on earth is the missing tonic?

the points outlined above highlight the fact that there are striking differences between

half cadences and authentic cadences in terms of stability, metrical structure, and voice

leading, all features that help disambiguate grouping structure. notably, in all forms

of half cadences, the chord progression lacks a tonic implied by v within the confines

of the phrase. one challenge for a generative approach is to explain how to reconcile

the missing tonic with the core of the cadential tonic frame. the reason why the miss-

ing tonic creates a problem for the generative approach is that the dominant can only

be generated with reference to its implied tonic (or as the goal of a tonicization), oth-

erwise it would be “left hanging” in empty space, violating the dependency principle.

one core test for the investigation of the syntactic structure of the missing tonic

consists of tonic completion: It is possible for almost all types of half cadences to

transform their harmonic sequence into an authentic cadence by adding the missing

tonic and by adjusting nonsyntactic parameters such as the meter, rhythm, melody,

and other features that are affected by the syntactic structure when generating the

surface. the example of Mozart’s Piano sonata in a major, K. 331 (see Figure 9,

below), may serve as a useful illustration of a composed version of such a tonic

because it has no inherent grouping. Both components are needed” (lerdahl and Jackendoff, A Generative Theory of Tonal Music [1983], 29).



completion test. the fact that tonic completion is possible in a large number of cases

motivates solutions that explain half cadences in terms of manipulated authentic

cadential progressions. such solutions are likely to end up being more parsimoni-

ous than transformation-free approaches because they avoid adding inelegant rules

that generate v as the stable, reference-free end of a phrase and might interfere in

problematic ways in non-cadential contexts. the fact that there are some forms of

half cadences (such as Phrygian half cadences or simple half cadences such as v65–

I–v) that cannot easily be completed (or transformed) in such a way could suggest

that there may be additional factors determining the type of half cadence. however,

this does not necessarily diminish the general power of our proposed analysis or the

usefulness of the completion test for a significant number of cases. overall, there

are several options for dealing with the problem of the missing tonic: (a) proposing

a different tree analysis in which v is not subordinated to the final I (but instead, for

instance, to the initial tonic; see Fig. 8a), (b) using an empty (hidden) element of a

I that is present in the analysis but does appear on the musical surface (see Fig. 8b),

(c) modeling v as dependent on the final I of the subsequent phrase context (see Fig.

8c), and (d) assuming that the I upon which v depends was moved away, either to

an earlier or a later position (see Fig. 8d). options (c) and (d) are similar; one of the

main differences is that (d) maintains the parallelism and coordination between the

two analogous phrases, whereas (c) models the second phrase as subordinate to the

first phrase at the final tonic position.

Figure 8a: Departure analysis of v as subordinate to the preceding I (tonic departure). the GttM prefers this analysis. this solution models the v as not having any implica-tions of the phrase-final I.



Figure 8b: Empty element analysis. the tonic I first generates v and is then rendered empty. the epsilon symbol represents the empty element.

Figure 8c: Subordination analysis of the half cadence. the consequent (or one-more-time) phrase is subordinate to the antecedent phrase, and the final tonic of the consequent phrase terminates the tonic implication of the v of the initial half cadence. note that because the initial and final tonic nodes of the consequent phrase are joined at a higher level, both the string-adjacent and the sequence-final tonic relate to the open v of the half cadence. this analysis models the open structure of the underlying (schenkerian) interruption as well as its continuity.



Figure 8d: Movement analysis of the half cadence. this analysis is similar to 6b (empty element) and 6c (subordination). In contrast to the previous analyses, however, both the antecedent and consequent phrases are arranged in a paratactic (not hypotactic) way. the tonic implication regarding the phrase-final tonic is achieved through a rightwards movement operation: Beginning from a perfect cadence in the antecedent phrase, the final tonic I is moved to the right and merged with the tonic seed of the consequent phrase. In this way, the analysis manages to retain the paratactic order of both sequences while still maintaining the implication of the half cadence to the final v.57

It is important to bear in mind that previous syntactic approaches have faced consid-

erable difficulties in making sense of the half cadence, which may perhaps best be

exemplified by lerdahl and Jackendoff’s account (analogous to the option depicted in

Figure 8a): In order to explain the counterintuitive result that the phrase-concluding

v is subordinate to the preceding tonic in their prolongational reduction, the authors

propose to think of “cadences as signs, or conventional formulas, that mark and

articulate the ends of groups from phrase levels to the most global levels of musical

structure.”58 rather than invoking the heavy baggage of a concept that is external to

one’s theory, such as the semiotic notion of a musical sign, the present approach

addresses the issue of cadence with the help of syntactic methods only.

the final analysis, depicted in Figure 8d, involves a structure that expresses

a dependency relationship between the two tonic elements that exceeds what

57. It is important to note that this movement operation cannot be achieved by means of a context-free grammar (i.e., a tree-structured analysis); it requires a more complex mildly context-sensitive grammar that in turn entails remarkably greater complexity in terms of parsing, processing, and learning the grammatical structure.

58. lerdahl and Jackendoff, A Generative Theory of Tonal Music (1983), 134.



a context-free grammar is capable of expressing. While there are historical

precedents,59 the analysis of the half cadence constitutes a promising candidate for

analogies with complex syntactic structure in linguistics.60 the open dominant at

the end of the first phrase may be analyzed such that the final tonic node of the first

phrase is associated with the final tonic of the second (or final) phrase. this can be

understood as the first tonic “moving” to the end of the second phrase or the first

dominant selecting the final tonic of the second phrase. the final tonic of the first

authentic cadence form is not moved to a position before the v but rather to the end

of the following phrase, forming the overarching structural head for both phrases

(for instance, within the antecedent-consequent structure of a period). thus, the

second analysis emphasizes the view that the v of the half cadence may be locally

stable (despite the lack of a directly adjacent tonic and without any immediate need

for resolution), yet in an overarching hierarchical context, it is closely linked to the

higher-order superordinate tonic.

this view is also reflected in the schenkerian concept of interruption: as

Cadwallader and Gagné note, the I immediately following a half cadence may not

necessarily be regarded as providing a moment of tonic closure.61 according to a

schenkerian analysis, periods are viewed as a bipartite structure resulting from an

interrupted (or divided) structural motion from the primary note (3, 5, or 8) to the

first scale degree. since the first attempt at completing the fundamental line fails

because of the interruption on 2̂ (supported by v), this motivates a repetition of the

59. one historical example of an explanation by transformation accounts for the half cadence by means of a v–I inversion thus: x v I → x I v. this analysis makes use of an operation that reverses the sequence v–I from an authentic cadence to I–v. this view is found in Koch’s Handbuch bey dem Studium der Harmonie, in which the half cadence is regarded as the inverted form of the authentic cadence in harmonic as well as metrical terms: “With regard to the underlying harmony, the original form of the half cadence is the reversed form of the Kadenz [authentic cadence], that is, in the half cadence, the tonic triad precedes the dominant triad on a weak beat [...]” (Koch, Handbuch [1811], 378 [our translation]).

today, this explanation is commonly considered incorrect, and the argument can be countered in the following way: half-cadential subtypes such as the converging or the Phrygian half cadences do not feature a tonic preceding the concluding dominant sonority. In these progressions that feature a I at their very beginning, this I is structurally identical to those found at the beginning of authentic cadences. accordingly, there are cases in which there are no positions where the I could move if it were required to move towards the left. hence, the reversal explanation is only partial and requires another significant addition to the formalism to explain other variants of the half cadence (that may ultimately render this form of reversal unnecessary). If one assumed a combination of reversal and empty element (i.e., moving to an empty element position), this solution would be inelegant because the empty element could be directly positioned after the v without requiring any movement at all.

60. at present, it remains an open question whether or not forms of transformations and movements known from linguistics occur in music or are meaningfully necessary in music analysis. For a discussion of cadential v–I locality as another potential phenomenon requiring movement, see Katz and Pesetsky, “the Identity thesis for language and Music” (submitted manuscript).

61. Cadwallader and Gagné, Analysis of Tonal Music (2011), 119f.



whole phrase,62 this time completing the line by moving further to 1̂/I: I–v || I–v–I.

according to the schenkerian interpretation, the half cadential v is a higher-order

event that remains active across the phrase boundary between antecedent and conse-

quent, aiming at the theme-concluding tonic. however, the structural dominant that

resolves the tension is that of the consequent phrase, not the half-cadential v con-

cluding the antecedent.63 In this respect, there is an important structural similarity

between the half cadence and the deceptive (or evaded) cadence, both of which imply

the use a one-more-time technique.

From a syntactic perspective, the analysis of interruption outlined in Fig. 8d may

be regarded as analogous to the linguistic phenomenon of right node raising as seen in

the following example:

Mary likes ___ and John hates tomatoes.

In brief, the two verbs “likes” and “hates” can be analyzed as being coordinated

and jointly selecting the noun “tomatoes.” alternatively, one may wish to employ

the concept of rightward across-the-board movement, analyzing the noun “tomato” as

having been moved to the end of the sentence.64 Which of the pre-existing linguistic

approaches (e.g., rightward across-the-board movement or type-raising, as is typical

in categorial grammar65) the musical analysis adopts need not concern us at this (early)

stage in building a syntactic theory of the cadence. What matters is that the move-

ment analysis outlined above indeed proposes a structure that is capable of reflecting

the unrealized forward implication of the interruption, the sense of local completion,

and the parallelism and paratactic arrangement of the two phrases.

this movement-based solution must be compared to other possible accounts that

do not use movement. First, an empty element solution (lacking the first tonic; see

Fig. 8b) cannot explain the open implication of an interruption and hence the syntac-

tic motivation for the second phrase. It would further predict that phrases in general

could end on a missing empty tonic, which is problematic in cases in which there

must be a final tonic (e.g., phrases that conclude entire sections or pieces). second,

a solution in which v is dependent on the initial tonic (see Fig. 8a), as proposed by

the GttM, faces the same problem as the empty element solution and is inconsistent

with the interpretation of the trees and strong generativity (v as a forward implication

to a final tonic, not as a departure from the initial tonic), as well as the other rules for

v (it would require a specific rule on its own). third, a solution such as that proposed

62. note that the present syntactic formalism does not enforce the parallelism that both phrases are built identically.

63. lerdahl and Jackendoff, A Generative Theory of Tonal Music (1983), 140.64. Across-the-board movement constitutes a problematic example in generative linguistics, since one of the

core tenets requires movement to be only left-directed (i.e., against the direction of speech).65. see steedman, The Syntactic Process (2000).



by Fig. 8c is consistent with the unrealized v-implication and the one-more-time pat-

tern. the only issue is that the two phrases are not paratactic, but instead hypotacti-

cally arranged. It is clearly possible to model interruptions in this way.66

one final problem with considering the half cadence as an instance of movement

is that the dissonant v7 chord very rarely (if at all) occurs in half cadences, whereas

it frequently occurs in perfect cadences (see above). Pure movement of the tonic to a

different position may not account for this phenomenon, and this may mean that only

the late surface realization of the subsequent tonic in fact licenses the appearance of

the seventh in the subsequent generation process. overall, whether the lack of para-

tactic analogous phrase structure truly necessitates the introduction of a new syntac-

tic mechanism that massively increases the formal complexity of the syntactic mecha-

nism (beyond context-free) is unclear and remains questionable. Future research may

shed more light on this point. nonetheless, two syntactic mechanisms manage to

account for interruption, which is impossible under lerdahl and Jackendoff’s system,

even in their analysis of schenkerian interruption. an excerpt from Mozart’s a-major

Piano sonata, K. 331 (see Fig. 9), illustrates the above point, showing that it is pos-

sible to model interruption with the help of a syntactic approach.

p

sf p

Andante grazioso

66. this has been previously proposed by lerdahl and Jackendoff, A Generative Theory of Tonal Music (1983), and rohrmeier, “towards a Generative syntax of tonal harmony” (2011), and employed in Koelsch et al., “Processing of hierarchical syntactic structure in Music” (2013).



I

I

I

tonic context

I

V

ii

6V

V

64 V

I

✏

I

I

tonic context

I

V

ii

6V

V

64 V

I

1

Figure 9: analysis of the theme (mm. 1–8) from Mozart’s Piano sonata in a major, K. 331, using the movement analysis of half cadences

4.3. The deceptive cadence as coordination and recursive embedding

the deceptive cadence constitutes a more radical way of avoiding cadential closure

than the half cadence.67 rather than leaving the v-implication unrealized and estab-

lishing the v chord as the ultimate goal, the deceptive cadence builds up a “normal”

cadential framework, one that raises but ultimately frustrates strong tonic expecta-

tions by introducing a non-tonic chord (or a first-inversion tonic) at the final stage

of the cadential progression. In the classical style, a variety of non-tonic chords have

been employed to break the expected pattern. some of these chords may be viewed as

acting as tonic replacements (such as vi or ¨vI), others less so (e.g., vii°6/v or viio7/vi).

the latter situation can be illustrated by the following two examples:

(a) I–viio6–viio/Iv–Iv–iv–v–It6–v64–v–viio7/vi–vi

(b) I6–Iv–v64–v7–viio7/vi–vi

In both (a) and (b), a strong cadential context sets up a drive towards I that is (tempo-

rarily) suspended by vii°7/vi, which itself leads to vi (thus acting as an embellishment

of the submediant).

While music theorists have primarily devoted attention to the local surprise effect

conveyed by the deceptive cadence, linguistically minded attempts at modeling the

syntactic structure of the deceptive cadence must take the overarching phrase con-

text into account. If we understand the vi chord as a tonic substitute, as has often

been proposed in the literature,68 the tree structure of the cadence would be almost

67. see also neuwirth in this volume.68. aldwell and schachter, Harmony and Voice Leading (2003), 197; Caplin, Classical Form (1998), 25.



the same as for an authentic cadence: the tonic head that governs the entire phrase

would be rewritten as a tonic replacement with the unary rule “I → vi” after the v

chord is derived (maintaining that v does not prepare vi, but rather I). the tree result-

ing from this interpretation would suggest a structure that is completely closed at the

moment of arrival on the tonic replacement.

While this reading may be adequate for some cases (especially in which there is a

sense of redirected closure), in many cases the overarching phrase context is differ-

ent: the deceptive tonic replacement vi does not act as a completion of the preceding

phrase, although it may convey a local sense of rest; instead, it functions as the setup

to a subsequent phrase that promises cadential closure. often this second attempt at

closure is a repetition of the previous phrase, in the manner of a one-more-time pat-

tern. this yields a different interpretation of the syntactic structure: rather than being

a tonic replacement, the non-tonic chord at the end of the deceptive cadence functions

as a preparation of another harmonic sequence that finally leads to the previously sus-

pended tonic. expressed in formal terms, the deceptive cadence effects the recursive

embedding of another, longer phrase into a cadential context. therefore, the deceptive

chord itself represents a far left-branching subordinate dependency of a second final

tonic phrase. this understanding further predicts that other chords (or almost any

chord) may occur in a deceptive cadential context, or more precisely: any chord that

occurs in the left-hand corner of a v constituent may function as a deceptive sonority.

the following examples illustrate this point as well as the empirical occurrence of

the predicted flexibility. the first example is by haydn (see Fig. 10) and exemplifies

several quite complex aspects:

(c) vii°6/v–v7–I7 == v7/Iv–Iv–I6–ii6–v–vii°6/v–v7–I7 == v7/Iv–Iv–I6–ii6–v–I–I6–ii6–I6–ii6–v–I

this example combines the avoidance of cadential closure through deceptive strat-

egies with several nested one-more-time patterns. What is remarkable about this

excerpt is that cadential closure is denied no fewer than three times, with each decep-

tive cadence followed by a further attempt at a complete cadence. the first cadential

progression replaces the expected tonic not by a stable submediant sonority, but by a

much more active secondary dominant function, vii°6/v. the deceptive harmony sets

up an expectation for another attempt at completing the cadence.69 this expectation

is indeed fulfilled: a second cadential goal is approached in mm. 47–48. here, again,

the soprano carries out its expected, typical concluding formula (1̂–2̂–1̂, featuring a

trill on the penultimate 2̂), but once more the bass denies closure by moving from

69. note that here we indeed have a context in which I6 is subordinate to ii6, since otherwise the tree lines would cross if ii6 were linked to its related I (the same holds for the two subsequent one-more-time patterns). the phrase continues with a repetition of the same deceptive patterns before cadential closure is reached via another two (simpler) embedded one-more-time patterns.



3–4–5 to 6, the latter again harmonized as vii°6/v. the preceding unit is now repeated

in its entirety (mm. 48–52 ~ 43–47). however, this time, the roles of the soprano and

bass are exchanged: Whereas the bass provides its expected clausula 5–1, the soprano

violates expectations by moving from 2̂ to 3̂ (rather than repeating its previous 1̂–2̂–1̂

pattern). this cadence may be heard as an imperfect authentic cadence, but because a

perfect authentic cadence is truly expected at this point, and this expectation is disap-

pointed, we can refer to this pattern as a melodically deceptive cadence. the unsatis-

factory character of the IaC is also revealed by the fact that a two-bar unit is attached

to this cadence, closing the exposition as a whole by completing the previously denied

1̂–2̂–1̂ pattern (mm. 54–55).

p mf

f

p



I

I

IV

4 3IV

4 3I

I

V

IV

V7/IV

IV

V

I

V

IV

V7/IV

V7

viio6/V

V7

V7/IV

IV

V

ii6

I6ii6

V

I

V

IV

V7/IV

V7

viio6/V

V7

V7/IV

IV

V

ii6

I6ii6

V

I

II

V

ii6

I6ii6

V

ii6

I6ii6

V

I

Ivii0Ivii0I

2

Figure 10: haydn, Keyboard sonata in G major, hob. XvI:27/i, mm. 38–57. Modeling the deceptive cadence as a pattern of recursive embedding. the deceptive context vii°/ii illustrates the fact that the deceptive cadence forms part of a one-more-time pattern in which the deceptive chord initiates the phrase. the parse tree shows that the second phrase constitutes a copy of the first phrase that is recursively embedded within the v–I concluding the first phrase.



I

I

I

I I

V

43 I

I

V

V

65 V

7

I

I

I

(I) I

V

ii

6V

V

64 V

7

I

V

IV

6V

65

I

I

(I) I

V

ii

6V

V

64 V

7

I

Figure 11: Mozart, Piano sonata in F major, K. 279/ii, mm. 1–6: an example of a deceptive cadence based on a Iv6 chord within the context of a one-more-time pattern

another example by Mozart further illustrates the proposed analysis of the deceptive

cadence (see Fig. 11). In this example, which contains another one-more-time pattern,

it is a Iv6 chord that denies cadential closure—that is, a chord that cannot function

as a tonic replacement.70 In what follows, this chord initiates a second subsequent

embedded cadential preparation. this embedded deferral ensures that a level of ten-

sion is maintained from the previous phrase and increased with the new subsequent

cadential context. this analysis shows that the syntactic tree can express the fact that

the tonic chords in mm. 2 and 4 serve a double function: they close the preceding

constituent and initiate the subsequent constituent (analogous to an elision; see

below). It further represents both the disruption of the expected cadential closure by

Iv6 as well as its overarching embeddedness in the surrounding dependency relation-

70. at times, however, Iv6 is characterized as a variant of vi produced by a 5–6 motion over a sustained bass note (6̂).



ships. this example, like the previous one, illustrates how closely connected methods

of deferring cadential closure are to the general syntactic principle of coordination

and embedding (as discussed in detail in section 5.1. below).

a third example exhibits a context in which a diminished chord fulfills the decep-

tive function (see Fig. 12). this example further shows that in terms of an embedded

tonic deferral, the deceptive cadence is independent of the use of a one-more-time

pattern; it may or may not be found in conjunction with it.

Figure 12: haydn, Keyboard sonata in F major, hob. XvI:21/ii, mm. 13–26: an example of a deceptive cadence based on a diminished chord

a fourth example (see Fig. 13) demonstrates that even a neapolitan chord can follow

v in a deceptive cadential context and may nonetheless give rise to a regular, syntacti-

cally well-formed structure.71 the syntactic analysis shows that v and n6, although

71. note that this situation could also be analyzed as involving a cadence evasion (see below), since the neapolitan sonority does not articulate the goal of the preceding phrase, but rather launches a new one. this relates to the discussion on interpreting the neurocognitive eran patterns of neapolitans after a cadential context (as presented by Koelsch, Brain and Music [2012]). the interpretation of such



string-adjacent on the surface, are in fact not dependent in the deep structure; the two

chords belong to different branches of the tree.

p

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

3 33 3

decresc.

3 33 3

3 3

Figure 13: haydn, Keyboard sonata in e-flat major, hob. XvI:28/i, mm. 82–89. an example of a deceptive cadence based on a neapolitan chord that follows v and initiates a subsequent phrase with a tonic continuation (no one-more-time pattern in this case). note that the sequence is syntactically regular and well-formed despite the neapolitan following v.

any attempt at understanding the v–n6 chord succession as a direct progression

would render the structure ungrammatical, as this succession itself is highly unlikely

(or implausible), especially with the neapolitan occurring on a strong beat. rules

such as ii prepares v, v prepares I, etc., are hierarchical rules (v → ii v) rather than

simple Markovian progressions. therefore, a context-free grammar approach need

not consider rules such as v → v n6 or n6 → v n6, whereas a strictly local or Markovian

approach would be obliged to. In contrast, v(7) → n6 v(7) would be an appropriate rule

that would license the example as grammatical, with reference to a (remote) second

v chord. after all, merely sequential or strictly local rules (such as those used in a

Markov model or a Piston progression table) cannot both adequately describe this

harmonic structure and at the same time characterize irregular v–n6 progressions.

structures should not be based on the distinction between regular and irregular sequences but instead on “completion vs. revision” in musical processing (as suggested by Koelsch, ibid.).



however, not all deceptive cadences are explicable in terms of embedded phrases

ultimately leading to the previously withheld tonic (“delayed realization”). although

it is crucial to understand the syntax of the deceptive cadence from the perspective of

the overarching musical context, this context may not necessarily be the preceding pro-

longed tonic but also the subsequent (novel) musical segment. an example by haydn,

the first movement from his d-major Keyboard sonata, hob. XvI:37/i, illustrates this

case (see Fig. 14). In this example, the deceptive chord (v7/iv in the key of vi) serves a

double function, not only concluding the development section but also initiating the

modulation back to the home key by means of a brief descending-fifths sequence,

with the return to the tonic coinciding with the entrance of the primary theme that

launches the recapitulatory rotation (i.e., an instance of denied realization).

From a syntactic perspective, this example can be modelled by two different analy-

ses: If one prefers the consistency of syntactic embeddings, this example forces an

analysis that treats the entire B-minor section as a subordinate preparation of the

subsequent tonic; that is, (part of) the development section would be syntactically

subordinate to (and preparatory of) the subsequent head tonic of the recapitulation.

however, there is a second interpretive option, one that is analogous to the (lin-

guistic) notion of “elision” as used by lerdahl and Jackendoff.72 as the example

shows, it is not a remote non-tonic harmony that replaces the expected B-minor

tonic, but rather the right tonic root (B) upon which a major seventh (dominant)

rather than a minor tonic chord is built, thus transforming the expected minor tonic

into a secondary dominant. In other words, we hear the expected tonic root at the end

of the cadence, but its function has been transformed.

this interpretation can be reframed using the linguistic concept of elision: Instead

of saying that the tonic is transformed, the example can be analyzed such that the

final tonic and the subsequent dominant-seventh chord that share the same root and

fifth are merged into one sonority. Instead of two chords that link different ends of

branches in the tree (as in the neapolitan example above), the surface adjacency and

similarity of the two chords permits them to be merged into one item that fulfils two

different functions in the tree. this analysis does not require (as the first subordina-

tion analysis does) that the development section as a whole be understood as subordi-

nate to the recapitulation. In addition, it emphasizes the implicative density inherent

in the classical style and links it to the notion of elision.

72. In linguistics, elision refers to the omission of an expected sound in such a way that the resulting sequence is easier to pronounce or to produce. In english, for instance, “vegetable” is pronounced like “vegtable,” and in German “teuerer” becomes “teurer.” lerdahl and Jackendoff (A Generative Theory of Tonal Music [1983], Chapters 3 and 4) discuss elision in the context of two overlapping groups in a grouping structure and beat overlaps in a metrical structure.



Figure 14: deceptive cadence with denied realization rather than delayed realization, from haydn, Keyboard sonata in d major, hob. XvI:37/i, mm. 54–64

4.4. Evaded cadence

another important strategy of avoiding cadential closure must also be mentioned here:

the evaded cadence.73 Unlike a deceptive cadence, in which the deceptive harmony

groups backwards, the evaded cadence is characterized by the fact that the harmony

following the penultimate cadential dominant is cut off from the preceding phrase,

initiating a new formal unit. Whereas the deceptive cadence features a goal harmony

(although a deceptive one) on the level of mere surface relationships of metrical and

phrase structure, the evaded cadence does not. Cadential evasion is typically gener-

ated by means of secondary parameters (most importantly, texture and register). the

harmony most commonly used to launch a new phrase is I6, but other harmonies can

be chosen here as well (e.g., v7/Iv); the decisive criterion for differentiating an evaded

cadence from a deceptive one is not the identity of the chord following the dominant

(since almost any chord can initiate the one-more-time pattern), but the location of

the grouping boundary. a special (and frequently used) variant of the evaded cadence

73. schmalfeldt, “Cadential Processes” (1992).



even allows for the inversion of the penultimate dominant74: at the moment when

the proper resolution of a cadential 64 is expected, the bass starts moving downwards

(5–4), thus giving rise to a v42 sonority moving to I6 (typically initiating a new group).

In this sense, one can conceive of this variant as a possible means of embellishing the

I6 chord. despite the surface differences with respect to the deceptive cadence, it can

be argued that the deep structural relationships underlying the evaded cadence are

fundamentally analogous to those modeling the deceptive cadence. For both types of

cadences, cadential deferral is achieved via a recursive insertion of a chord progres-

sion between v and the final I.

5. The generative power of syntactic formalisms

5.1. Coordination

the formalism outlined above characterizes the different elements of the cadential

progression and their embellishments. however, another aspect must be addressed

here as well, namely the coordination and expansion of cadential elements, as this

will allow us to account for some more extravagant examples that occur in actual

compositional practice. the following list displays some of these examples:

(a) v64–v–v6

4–v–I

(b) I–v64–v7–v6

4–v7–v64–v7–I

(c) I–v7–vi–ii6–v64–v–I

(d) i–iv65–ii6

5–v7–I65–Iv7–vI7–ii°6–v6

4–v7–i

(e) I–Iv–ii–v–v7–v64–viio4

3/ii–ii6–v64–v7–I

(f ) I–ii6–v–viio7/vi–vi–ii6–v64–v7–I

(g) v64–v7–v6

4–v7/v–v–v7–v64–v7–vii°7/vi–vii°7/v–v6

4–v7–i

(h) I6–ii6–ii65–v7–vi–ii6–v6

4–v–I

In each of these cases, either there are multiple v harmonies, or the v harmony is

extended through an insertion that sets up a sequence of implications to another sub-

sequent v. however, in the latter case, the inserted second sequence is not necessarily

implied by the preceding v (e.g., v–viio7/vi in example (f )). this pattern is structurally

similar to, and may indeed be combined with, a deceptive cadence. to account for this

phenomenon, one must find a way to make sense of these multiple instances of v.

there are several ways to achieve this. First, one could regard these differ-

ent instances of v as separate left-branching derivations from I, or as coordinated

instances of an overarching v group. In the case of coordination, a second possible

distinction concerns whether more than two instances are simultaneously derived

74. note that this is the only form of cadence that allows a v42 chord.



from the same parent node (referred to as “n-ary branching”), or whether branch-

ing is restricted to binary branching, forcing a binary hierarchical structure in differ-

ent v nodes.75 Moreover, coordination may be applied at the highest level or below,

depending on whether predominants such as Iv prepare a single instance of v within

the dominant group or the entire group. although there is a practical limit imposed

on the number of coordination instances of v, this limit is not a theoretical one and

should not be incorporated at the level of this rule (since we are able to correctly per-

ceive or generate an even larger number of coordinations). Figure 15 illustrates the

different ways of modeling multiple v harmonies.

Figure 15: different methods of accounting for multiple v nodes

the derivation of the first example in Fig. 15 (left) does not require any additional

rules, since it follows from multiple applications of the I → v I rule. the second case

(middle) requires a rule such as (8), which coordinates multiple instances of v in a

single derivation from their v parent. In contrast, the third option (right) enforces

binary branching, employing a rule such as (9) multiple times to create internal struc-

ture in the different v nodes.

(8) v → v+ (that is: v → v | v v | v v v | …)(9) v → v v

of course, the coordination principle is not restricted to the v chord; there are other

relevant instances that do not concern v. For example, the very end of the first move-

ment of Mozart’s d-minor Piano Concerto, K. 466, features a repeated alternation

between v6/iv and iv (mm. 390–393) that prolongs the subdominant harmony and

75. this point is also discussed in detail in the GttM; see lerdahl and Jackendoff, A Generative Theory of Tonal Music (1983), e.g. 326–328.



thus represents an instance of subdominant coordination. other situations of alter-

nating harmonies cannot be easily explained in terms of coordination and must be

analyzed more carefully. Consider, for example, the following harmonic sequence:

(i) I6–ii65–v6

4–iv6–v64–iv6–v6

4–vii°7/v–v

In this case, we do not want to model the multiple instances of v64 and/or iv6 via coor-

dination, since this would only make sense if, for instance, iv6 were subordinated to

v64 or vice versa. otherwise, the derivation would involve crossing branches, which

cannot be expressed with context-free grammars (instead requiring a context-sen-

sitive grammar). Because both iv6 and v64 are in fact themselves subordinate to v, the

preferable analysis in this case is to regard the entire harmonic sequence (except for

I6) as multiple subordinate derivations from the final v at the end of the sequence.

In contrast, the case exemplified in (j–l) may be better understood in terms of

coordination of several instances of predominant chords. however, as above, it is

equally possible and plausible to analyze this example in terms of derivation (iv being

derived twice from v). It is again a matter of choice on the part of the analyst whether

such cases should be regarded as one extended predominant subtree or as several

individual predominant derivations.

(j) i–v43/iv–iv–v6

5/iv–iv–iio6–v64–v–i

(k) I–v7/vi–Iv–vii°43/ii–ii6–vii°6

5/ii–ii6–vii°65/ii–ii6–v6

5/v–v

(l) I–vii°64/Iv–Iv6–Iv–v6

4–v7–I

In summary, it can be seen that from a structural syntactic perspective, coordination

and methods of avoiding or delaying cadential closure employ very similar structures

of recursive embedding.

5.2. Generalizations regarding the order of implicative elements

a second generalization concerns the order of elements with the same tonal impli-

cation. Multiple instances of the same tonal function (1) each carry their own tonal

implication (multiple implications instead of multiple replications of a single impli-

cative function) and (2) typically appear in increasing order of implicative strength

(see (a) and (b*)). For instance, Iv has a weaker implication of v than ii. therefore,

the coordination of Iv–v and ii–v results in the order Iv ii(6) v rather than ii Iv v.

(a) Iv–ii(6)–v

(b*) ii(6)–Iv–v

v has a weaker implication of I than v7. By analogy, this predicts a predominance of

the order v–v7–I (as opposed to v7–v–I). In general, the dependency structure of these

examples is (Iv (ii–v)) and (v (v7–I)) and not ((Iv–ii) v) and ((v–v7) I), since the latter

parallelization of “ii, Iv” and “v, v7” would not predict the restriction in the order.



5.3. Tonicization, key borrowing, and modulation as forms of recursion

a fundamental strength of the combinatorial complexity of generative grammars

involves recursion as well as the power to express multiply embedded structures.

this recursive combinatorial power is particularly useful for modeling multiple

applied embellishments, coordination, and prolongation, as well as the derivation

of multiple embellishments from other keys and tonicizations.76 the GsM formal-

izes the idea of modulation and tonicization as center-embedding recursion within

a concise framework.

(a) I–It6/ii–v/ii–vii°43/ii–ii6–v6

4–v7–vii°7/vi–vi

(b) i [...] ii6–v64/iv–iv–v6/iv–iv–v6/iv–iv–v6/iv–iv–v6/iv–i6–v7/v–v7–I–v/n6–

n6–vii°7/v–v64 [...] v7–i

(c) I6–vii°65/ii–vI6/ii–vii°4


(d) I6–ii65–ii4

3–v64–v4

2/Iv–Iv6–Iv–v65/Iv–v7/Iv–Iv–ii6–v6

4–v

(e) I6–vii°65/v–v4

3/v–v–Iv6–v7–I

example (a) illustrates the possibility of temporarily borrowing harmonic elements

from keys other than the tonic, especially those keys in which the constituent ele-

ments of a cadential progression act as a new tonic. this allows us to derive one or

even multiple subordinate implicative harmonies. this change in our point of refer-

ence precisely defines an instance of recursion in tonal music. the slash “/” symbol

in standard notation represents a functional switch to a different tonal space and can

be logically applied in a recursive manner, e.g., v/v/ii. however, instead of notating

the sequence given above as It6/ii–v/ii–vii°43/ii–ii6, it is more parsimonious to reflect

the underlying regular structure by choosing ii as the new point of reference or as a

local point of tonicization: (It6–v–vii°43–i6)/ii. otherwise, the rules of tonality would

be represented in a very redundant and unsatisfactory manner (see, for instance, It6/

ii–v/ii, It6/iii–v/iii, etc.).

recursion and coordination challenge the adequacy of local grammars, Markov

models, and schema-based approaches, all of which lack the power to express these

aspects (see also 5.5.). a generative hierarchical approach, by contrast, is capable of

representing the underlying structure in a parsimonious fashion. Figure 16 provides

an example of how such a recursive embedding analysis of key borrowing/toniciza-

tion/modulation is modelled following the formalism of the GsM. note that such

recursive generation generalizes to any part of a phrase (or, here, a cadence), not only

to key relationships between phrases and modulations.

76. the use of recursion to capture tonicization and key embedding has already been suggested by douglas hofstadter in his Gödel, Escher, Bach (1979).



Figure 16: tree analysis of the sequence I–It6/ii–v/ii–vii°43/ii–ii6–v64–v7–I. the tree illustrates

recursive embedding using a local change of key reference based on the modulation mechanism proposed by the GsM.

another example of the power of recursion in the generative mechanism is given above

in example (b) from the end of the first movement of Mozart’s Piano Concerto in d

minor, K. 466 (mm. 338–356). the cadential pattern considered here starts with an ini-

tial tonic (after a preceding cadence) and features a tonic extension by means of a one-

more-time pattern. after recursively extending the area around iv via coordination, the

sequence reaches the major tonic via the secondary and the home-key dominant recur-

sively borrowed from the corresponding major key. It then diverges to the neapolitan,

which is itself prepared by its applied dominant. the “grand cadence” ends with an

extended v64 (preceded by a v preparation with a diminished chord based on ©4̂), inviting

the soloist to deliver a cadenza ending with a trill on 2̂ over v7 and the final tonic.

a final example, the end of the second movement of Mozart’s Piano sonata in F

major, K. 280, demonstrates the generative power of recursion in music and the way it

is modelled in our grammar (see Fig. 17). the dramatic effect conveyed by this ending

results from the various steps employed to extend and delay cadential closure. First,

a simple conventional cadential context is established by the first four chords, using

the standard pattern i6–Iv–v64–v7. the concluding sonority (i) is avoided by means of

a i6 chord, which provides only partial closure. at the same time, i6 serves two further

functions: It embellishes the subsequent Iv and initiates a (subordinate) one-more-

time repetition of the cadence in an attempt to complete the phrase. In other words,

i6 represents an example of elision here.

In the following measures, the cadence-final dominant is delayed until after the

cadential v64 with several subsequent embellishments that each imply the cadential



v: Ger6, vii°43/v, and again Ger6. the first Ger6 is in turn recursively embellished with a

relative diminished chord (preparing vI, iv, and the Ger6). this delay of the cadence-

final v creates a strong momentum towards v, such that v is extended and split over

an entire bar into v and v7. What follows is a brief and harmonically incomplete

tonic (represented by its root only), immediately followed by a v7/iv in first inver-

sion, in a manner that almost provides another case of elision (although here the

two chords are separate). this again recursively triggers a one-more-time pattern,

this time serving to prolong tonal closure for the cadence and the entire movement.

this one-more time pattern is repeated once more (initiated by a stronger subdomi-

nant preparation by means of a diminished chord) before the final closure is finally

achieved. these one-more-time patterns establish a tonic extension via overarching

coordination. the tonic concluding this movement is itself delayed by a dominant

overhang. altogether, all of these recursive embellishments and extensions create a

cadential progression that is longer than 13 chords.

f

p f p f

f

p f p f



Figure 17: Mozart, Piano sonata in F major, K. 280/ii, mm. 51–60. the end of this piece provides an example of an extensively elaborated and embellished cadence using multiple parallel recursive embellishments and several applications of coordination (one-more-time technique).

5.4. The combinatorial power of a recursive grammar

another powerful characteristic of a generative grammar is that it models strong

assumptions about conditional independence and is effective at modeling combina-

torial flexibility. For instance, it formalizes the intuition that the application of one

or more secondary dominants is independent of whether or not there is coordination

and whether or not the cadence is deceptive or perfect authentic. example (a) illus-

trates this point: It combines several preparatory implicative dependents of v (one

with a recursive secondary dominant, viio), coordination of dominants, and a decep-

tive cadence framework in which vi is itself recursively prepared by viio7. note in this

context that predominant chords are themselves combined with dominant prepara-

tions, as seen in examples (a)–(d).

(a) I–viio6–viio/Iv–Iv–iv–v–It6–v64–v–viio7/vi–vi […]

(b) I6–Iv6–v64–Iv–viio6


(c) I6–ii65–v6

4–iv6–v64–iv6–v6

4–viio7/v–viio64–viio6

5/ii–ii6–v7–I

(d) I–v7–v43/v–v7–vii°7/vi–vi–v6

4–Iv–v7–I



Cadences can potentially be enriched and expanded to a very large extent. one example

of this is found in the famous C-major Prelude from J. s. Bach’s Well-Tempered Clavier I, the second half of which can be analyzed as one greatly extended cadence-like pat-

tern.77 the strong combinatorial power of a generative grammatical approach such

as the one proposed here makes it possible to plausibly express complex cases such

as (a)–(d) as well as the examples given in the previous sections; however, if the rules

are stated in a probabilistic form, they would predict that such complex cases will be

rare and will appear much less frequently than simple, (seemingly) prototypical cases.

5.5. Inadequacy of local grammars and forward or Markov models

one may further note that the combination of different elements in a generative gram-

mar is enormously flexible. however, this means that it is difficult to express the syn-

tax of the cadence purely in terms of a forward model (such as a Markov model). as

mentioned repeatedly in this chapter, if one modelled cadential progressions solely

in terms of what can be followed by what (i.e., I–vi, vi–ii6, ii6–v, v–I), each forward

step would have to incorporate all possible forms of recursive insertions (e.g., I–It6/

ii, I–v/ii, Iv–It6/ii, Iv–v/ii, etc.), which would result in a model containing hundreds

of redundant multiple representations of the same structure. Furthermore, recursive

insertions that generate and permit seemingly irregular surface progressions (such as

v–n6 or many of the forms found in deceptive cadences or transitions at boundaries

between separate subtrees) cannot be modelled as regular or irregular by strictly local

grammars that neglect the hierarchical context.

Because a syntactic approach aims at the characterization of structure in the sense

of strong rather than weak generative capacity (capturing the internal logic of rela-

tionships between elements rather than merely their surface sequence), a Markovian

representation would be a possible and computationally powerful model of the musi-

cal surface, but would fail to meet the criterion of a parsimonious and concise repre-

sentation of the internal logic of a given sequence.

Conclusion

as the title of this chapter indicates, we do not claim to provide a comprehensive or

exhaustive theory of the syntax of the classical cadence; rather, our aim is to demon-

strate the manifold advantages of adopting a generative grammar approach (such as

those devised more than half a century ago in the field of linguistics by noam Chomsky

77. see schoenberg’s assertion that “[i]n a general way every piece of music resembles a cadence, of which each phrase will be a more or less elaborate part” (schoenberg, Musical Composition [1967], 16).



and his followers) in music theory. although generative linguistics inspired lerdahl

and Jackendoff to develop an enormously powerful generative theory of tonal music,

we believe that adhering more closely to formal language theory and well-defined

generative rules than the GttM did could be rewarding, allowing us to account for

both the linearity and the hierarchical (and recursive) nature of the classical cadence

and tonal music in general.

as pointed out in the introduction to this chapter, one of the main challenges in

addressing the classical cadence is the almost infinite variety of cadential patterns,

even when we consider the harmonic level in isolation. this variety seems to be dif-

ficult to capture using an exemplar-based or chunk-based approach. rather, the repre-

sentation of the internal logic of the tonal dependency structures inherent in cadences

requires a hierarchical approach, as opposed to a linear or Markovian model. a syntax

approach such as the one proposed in this chapter (1) accounts for the underlying deep

structural dependencies in the main cadence types found in the classical repertoire

and described by music-theoretical approaches, and (2) models sequential structures

based on a small set of rules that generate temporal sequences through their multi-

ple independent combinations. such an approach allows us to generate embellish-

ments, insertions, coordination, and functional relationships independently for each

event in the sequence. In other words, it provides combinatorial power and predicts a

great variety of cadential phenomena (with divergent frequencies of occurrence). We

suggest that the empirical variety of cadences found in the classical repertoire, along

with the very frequent occurrence of a few very common cases, can be successfully

predicted by (potentially probabilistic) generative mechanisms. the family of formal

approaches subsumed under the umbrella of formal and generative syntax provides

precise, explicit, empirically testable, and computationally implementable ways to

characterize hierarchically organized sequential structures in music.

at present, our proposed formalization is limited by the selected level of repre-

sentation (scale-degree harmony and bass line); it does not yet address the interface

between metrical and grouping structure on the one hand and the cadential progres-

sion on the other. the mathematical formalization of such relationships remains to

be addressed in future work. Furthermore, we regard the rules proposed in this chap-

ter as merely a (potentially suitable) starting point for further studies. the develop-

ment of a more refined apparatus of generative rules and their empirical examination

by means of corpus research must await future studies.



Bibliography

albersheim, Gerhard (1980), Die Tonsprache, tutzing: hans schneider.aldwell, edward and Carl schachter (2003), Harmony and Voice Leading, australia, United

states: thomson/schirmer. Cadwallader, allen and david Gagné (2011), Analysis of Tonal Music: A Schenkerian Approach,

new york: oxford University Press.Cambouropoulos, emilios (2010), “the Musical surface: Challenging Basic assumptions,”

Musicae Scientiae, special Issue, 131–147.Caplin, William e. (1998), Classical Form: A Theory of Formal Functions for the Instrumental Music of

Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven, new york: oxford University Press.——— (2004), “the Classical Cadence: Conceptions and Misconceptions,” Journal of the

American Musicological Society 57/1, 51–117.Chomsky, noam (1956), “three Models for the description of language,” IRE Transactions on

Information Theory 2, 113–124.Chomsky, noam and Marcel-Paul schützenberger (1959), “the algebraic theory of Context-

free languages,” Studies in Logic and the Foundations of Mathematics 26, 118–161.Clark, alexander (2014) “an Introduction to Multiple Context Free Grammars,” unpublished

manuscript (http://www.cs.rhul.ac.uk/home/alexc/lot2012/mcfgsforlinguists.pdf).de Clercq, trevor and david temperley (2011), “a Corpus analysis of rock harmony,”

Popular Music 30/1, 47–70.de haas, W. Bas (2012), “Music Information retrieval Based on tonal harmony,” Ph.d

dissertation, University of Utrecht.———, Martin rohrmeier, remco C. veltkamp, and Frans Wiering (2009), “Modeling

harmonic similarity Using a Generative Grammar of tonal harmony,” in: Proceedings of the 10th International Society for Music Information Retrieval Conference (ISMIR 2009), ed. Goto et al., 549–554.

——— et al. (2013), “automatic Functional harmonic analysis,” Computer Music Journal, 37/4, 37–53.

Fitch, W. tecumseh, Marc d. hauser, and noam Chomsky (2005), “the evolution of the language Faculty: Clarifications and Implications,” Cognition 97/2, 179–210.

Gjerdingen, robert o. (2007), Music in the Galant Style, new york: oxford University Press.Granroth-Wilding, Mark (2013), “harmonic analysis of Music Using Combinatory

Categorial Grammar,” Ph.d. dissertation, University of edinburgh.Granroth-Wilding, Mark and Mark steedman (2012), “statistical Parsing for harmonic

analysis of Jazz Chord sequences,” Proceedings of the International Computer Music Conference, 478–485.

hauser, Marc d., noam Chomsky, and W. tecumseh Fitch (2002), “the Faculty of language: What Is It, Who has It, and how did It evolve?,” Science 298, 1569–1579.

hofstadter, douglas (1979), Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, Basic Books: new york.Jackendoff, ray and Fred lerdahl (2006), “the Capacity For Music: What Is It, and What’s

special about It?,” Cognition 100/1, 33–72.Jäger, Gerhard and James rogers (2012), “Formal language theory: refining the Chomsky

hierarchy,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of Biological Sciences 367, 1956–1970.



Katz, Jonah and david Pesetsky (2009), “the Identity thesis for language and Music,” draft published online (http://ling.auf.net/lingbuzz/000959).

Keiler, alan (1978), “Bernstein’s ‘the Unanswered Question’ and the Problem of Musical Competence,” The Musical Quarterly 64/2, 195–222.

——— (1981), “two views of Musical semiotics,” in: The Sign in Music and Literature, ed. Wendy steiner, austin tX: University of texas Press, 138–168.

Koch, heinrich Christoph (1782–1787–1793), Versuch einer Anleitung zur Composition, 3 vols., leipzig: Böhme. reprint, hildesheim: olms, 1969. selections trans. nancy Kovaleff Baker as Introductory Essay on Musical Composition, new haven, Ct: yale University Press, 1983.

——— (1811), Handbuch bey dem Studium der Harmonie, leipzig: hartknoch.Koelsch, stefan et al. (2013), “Processing of hierarchical syntactic structure in Music,”

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110/38, 15443–15448.Koelsch, stefan (2012), Brain and Music, hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.Kostka, stefan and dorothy Payne (1984), Tonal Harmony with an Introduction to 20th-century

Music, new york: Knopf.Kuhlmann, Marco (2010), Dependency Structures and Lexicalized Grammars: An Algebraic Approach,

lecture notes in Computer science, vol. 6270, heidelberg: springer.lerdahl, Fred and ray Jackendoff (1983), A Generative Theory of Tonal Music, Cambridge, Ma:

MIt Press.lerdahl, Fred (2001), Tonal Pitch Space, oxford: oxford University Press.london, Justin (2004), Hearing in Time: Psychological Aspects of Musical Meter, oxford: oxford

University Press.Meyer, leonard B. (1956), Emotion and Meaning in Music, Chicago: Chicago University Press.——— (1973), Explaining Music: Essays and Explorations, Berkeley: University of California Press.neuwirth, Markus (2011), “re-investigating the Primary-theme Zone in haydn’s early

symphonies: Periods, sentences, loops, and their temporal Implications,” in: Zyklus und Prozess. Haydn und die Zeit, ed. Marie-agnes dittrich, Martin eybl, and reinhard Kapp, vienna: Böhlau, 237–274.

rohrmeier, Martin (2007), “a Generative Grammar approach to diatonic harmonic structure,” in: Proceedings of the 4th Sound and Music Computing Conference, ed. Charalampos Spyridis, anastasia Georgaki, Georgios anagnostopoulou, and Christina Kouroupetroglou, athens: national and Kapodistrian University of athens, 97–100.

——— (2011), “towards a Generative syntax of tonal harmony,” Journal of Mathematics and Music 5/1, 35–53.

——— and Patrick rebuschat (2012), “Implicit learning and acquisition of Music,” Topics in Cognitive Science 4/4, 525–553.

——— and stefan Koelsch (2012), “Predictive Information Processing in Music Cognition: a Critical review,” International Journal of Psychophysiology 83/2, 164–175.

——— (2013), “Musical expectancy: Bridging Music theory, Cognitive and Computational approaches,” Zeitschrift der Gesellschaft für Musiktheorie 10/2.

———, Zoltàn dienes, Xiuyan Guo, and Fu Qiufang (2014) “Implicit learning and recursion,” in: Language and Recursion, ed. Francis lowenthal and laurent lefebvre, new york: springer, 67–85.

schmalfeldt, Janet (1992), “Cadential Processes: the evaded Cadence and the ‘one More time’ technique,” Journal of Musicological Research 7/1-2, 1–52.



schoenberg, arnold (1967), Fundamentals of Musical Composition, ed. Gerald strang and leonard stein, london-Boston: Faber & Faber.

seki, hiroyuki, takashi Matsumura, Mamoru Fujii, and tadao Kasami (1991), “on Multiple Context-Free Grammars,” Theoretical Computer Science 88/2, 191–229.

steedman, Mark (1984), “a Generative Grammar for Jazz Chord sequences,” Music Perception 2/1, 52–77.

——— (1996), “the Blues and the abstract truth: Music and Mental Models,” in: Mental Models in Cognitive Science, ed. a. Garnham and J. oakhill, Mahwah, nJ: erlbaum, 305–318.

——— (2000), The Syntactic Process, Cambridge, Ma: MIt Press/Bradford Books.temperley, david (2001), The Cognition of Basic Musical Structures, Cambridge, Ma: the MIt Press.——— (2011), “Composition, Perception, and schenkerian theory,” Music Theory Spectrum

33/2, 146–168.tymoczko, dmitri (2003), “Function theories: a statistical approach,” Musurgia 10/3-4, 35–64.——— (2011), A Geometry of Music: Harmony and Counterpoint in the Extended Common Practice,

oxford: oxford University Press.Winograd, terry (1968), “linguistics and the Computer analysis of tonal harmony,” Journal

of Music Theory 12/1, 2–49.Wittgenstein, ludwig (1953), Philosophical Investigations, ed. G. e. M. anscombe and r.

rhees, trans. G. e. M. anscombe, oxford: Blackwell.


neuwirth - what is a cadence - theoretical and analytical perspectives

Documents

classical cadence

d e n c e

s y n t

s s i c

classical repertoirereprint

leuven belgiumall rights

x o f t h e c

analytical perspectives