This is a programmatic paper. It elaborates on the concept of similarity as a cognitive tool for sense-making in music. Taking as a starting point the definition of similarity as a relational concept, it tries to provide a description in terms of standard and goal that can be applied to the delimitation of elements as well as to the comparison of these elements with each other. As such it focusses on three major topics: (i) the delimitation of elements, (ii) the comparison of these elements to themselves (self-reference) and to each other, and (iii) an operational framework for the delimitation of these elements. The latter is considered from the position of deixis and ecological perception, relying on the “deictic” act of mental pointing to elements that are eligible for deliberate attention as well as on the “ecological” principles of event perception and cognitive economy. It is possible, further, to conceive of pointing as an internal construction of an external operation, and to consider pointing as a predication process which can be applied to focal points as well as to events with at least some extension through time.
BartlettJ. (1984). Cognition of complex events: visual scenes and music. In CrozierW., & ChapmanA. (eds). Cognitive processes in the perception of art (pp. 225–51). Amsterdam - New York - Oxford: North-Holland.
2.
BransfordJ., & McCarrellN. (1977). A sletch of a cognitive approach to comprehension: some thought about understanding what it means to comprehend. In Johnson-LairdP., & WasonP.Thinking. Readings in cognitive science (pp. 377–99). Cambridge - London - New York - Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
3.
BregmanA. (1981). Asking the “what for” question in auditory perception. In KubovyM., & PomerantzJ. (eds). Perceptual organization (pp. 99–118), Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
4.
BregmanA. (1990). Auditory scene analysis: The perceptual organization of soundLondon, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
5.
BrunerJ. (1983). Child's talk. Learning to use language.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
6.
BühlerK. (1934). Sprachtheorie: Die Darstellungsfnktion der Sprache.Jena: Fischer.
7.
BühlerK. (1982). The deictic field of language and deictic words (Transl.). In JarvellaR., & KleinW. (eds). Speech, place, and action. Studies in deixis and related topics (pp. 9–30). Chichester — New York: John Wiley.
8.
CambouropoulosE. (2001). Melodic cue abstraction, similarity, and category formation. Music Perception, 18, 3, 347–70.
9.
CarianiP. (2003). Cybernetic systems and the semiotics of translation. In PetrilliS. (ed). Translation Translation (pp. 349–67). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
10.
ClarkE. (1978). From gesture to word: On the natural history of deixis in language acquisition. In BrunerJ., & GartonA. (eds). Human growth and development (pp. 85–120). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
11.
DeliègeI. (1995). Cue-abstraction and schematization of the musical form. Scientific Contributions to General Psychology, 14, 11–28.
DeliègeI. (2001b). Prototype effects in music listening: An empirical approach to the notion of imprint. Music Perception, 18, 3, 371–407.
14.
DeliègeI. (2007). Similarity relations in listening to music: How do they come into play?Musicæ Scientiæ. Discussion Forum4A, 9–29.
15.
DownieJ. (2003). Music information retrieval. In CroninB., Annual Review of Information Science and Technology37 (pp. 295–340). Medford, NJ: Information Today Books.
16.
EdelmanG. (1989). The remembered present. A biological theory of consciousness.New York: Basic Books.
17.
EhlichK. (1982). Anaphora and Deixis: Same, similar, or different? In JarvellaR. J., & KleinW. (eds). Speech, place and action. Studies in Deixis and related topics (pp. 315–38). Chichester - New York - Brisbane - Toronto - Singapore: John Wiley & Sons.
FillmoreCh. (1972). Ansätze zu einer Theorie der Deixis. In KieferF. (ed), Semantik und generative Grammatik. I (pp. 147–74). Frankfurt/M: Athenäum Verlag.
20.
FillmoreCh. (1982). Towards a descriptive framework for spatial Deixis. In JarvellaR., & KleinW. (eds). Speech, place, and action. Studies in Deixis and related topics (pp. 31–59). Chichester - New York: John Wiley.
21.
GaverW. (1993). What in the world do we hear? An ecological approach to auditory event perception. Ecological Psychology, 5(1), 1–29.
22.
GibsonJ. (1966). The senses considered as perceptual systems.London: Allen & Unwin.
23.
GibsonJ. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception.Boston - Dallas - Geneva - Illinois - Hopewell - New Jersey - Palo Alto - London: Houghton Mifflin Company.
24.
GodøyR. I. (1997). Formalization and epistemology.Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.
25.
HandelS. (1989). Listening. An introduction to the perception of auditory events.Cambridge, MA - London: MIT Press.
26.
JackendoffR. (1987). Consciousness and the computational mind.Cambridge, MA - London: MIT Press.
27.
KitaS. (2003). Pointing. Where language, culture, and cognition meet.Mahwah (N.J.): Erlbaum.
28.
KurodiS.-Y. (1976). Subject. In ShibataniM. (ed). Syntax and semantics, Vol. 5. Japanese Generative Grammar (p. 5). New York - San Francisco - London: Academic Press.
29.
LamontA., & DibbenN. (2001). Motivic structure and the perception of similarity. Music Perception, 18, 3, 245–74.
30.
LangackerR. (1987). Foundations of cognitive grammar, Vol. 1.Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
31.
LerdahlF. (1988). Cognitive constraints on compositional systems. In SlobodaJ. (ed), Generative processes in music (pp. 231–59). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
32.
LeveltW. (1974). Formal grammars in linguistics and psycholinguistics. Vol. II, Applications in Linguistic Theory.The Hague - Paris: Mouton.
33.
LyonsJ. (1982). Deixis and subjectivity: Loquor, ergo sum? In JarvellaR., & KleinW. (eds). Speech, place, and action. Studies in deixis and related topics (pp. 101–24). Chichester - New York: John Wiley.
34.
MarrD. (1982). Vision: a computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information.New York: Freeman.
35.
MedinD., & SchafferM. (1978). Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review, 85, 207–38.
36.
MichaelsC., & CarelloC. (1981). Direct perception.Englewood Cliffs: New Jersey Prentice-Hall.
37.
MillerG. (2000). Evolution of human music through sexual selection. In WallinN. L., MerkerB., and BrownS. (eds). The origins of music (pp. 329–60). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
38.
MüllerM. (2007). Information retrieval for music and motion.Berlin - Heidelberg - New York: Springer.
39.
NosofskyR. (1988). Exemplar-based accounts of relations between classification, recognition, and typicality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 14, 700–08.
40.
PeirceC. (1960). Elements of logic. In HartshorneC., & WeissP. (eds), Collected papers of Ch. S. Peirce. Vol. 2. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
41.
PiagetJ. (1936). La naissance de l'intelligence chez l'enfant.Geneva: Delachaux et Niestlæ.
42.
PiagetJ. (1937). La construction du ræel chez l'enfant.Geneva: Delachaux et Niestlæ.
43.
PomerantzJ. R. (1986). Visual form perception: An overview. In SchwabE., & NusbaumH. (eds). Pattern recognition by humans and machines: Visual perception (Vol. 2, pp. 1–30). Orlando, FL: Academic.
44.
RetiR. (1961). The thematic process in music.London: Faber & Faber.
45.
ReybrouckM. (2001). Biological roots of musical epistemology: Functional cycles, Umwelt, and enactive listening. Semiotica, 134, 1-4, 599–633.
46.
ReybrouckM. (2004). Music cognition, semiotics and the experience of time. Ontosemantical and epistemologic claims. Journal of New Music Research, 33, 4, 411–28.
47.
ReybrouckM. (2005a). A biosemiotic and ecological approach to music cognition: Event perception between auditory listening and cognitive economy. Axiomathes. An International Journal in Ontology and Cognitive Systems, 15, 2, 229–66.
48.
ReybrouckM. (2005b). Body, mind and music: musical semantics between experiential cognition and cognitive economy. Trans, 9 <http://www.sibetrans.com/trans/
49.
ReybrouckM. (2006). Musical creativity between symbolic modelling and perceptual constraints: the role of adaptive behaviour and epistemic autonomy. In DeliègeI., & WigginsG. (eds). Musical creativity: Multidisciplinary research in theory and practice (pp. 42–59). Hove: Psychology Press.
50.
ReybrouckM. (2008). The musical code between nature and nurture. In BarbieriM. (ed). The codes of life: The rules of macroevolution (pp. 395–434). Springer: Dordrecht.
51.
RosenthalD., & OkunoH. (1998). Computational auditory scene analysis.Hillsdale (NJ): Erlbaum.
52.
RuwetN. (1972). Langage, musique, poæsie.Paris: Editions du Seuil.
53.
ShawR., FlascherO., & MaceW. (1996). Dimensions of event perception. In PrinzW., & BridgemanB.Handbook of perception and action. Volume 1: Perception (pp. 345–95). London - San Diego - New York - Boston - Sydney - Tokyo - Toronto: Academic Press, Harcourt Brace.
54.
ShawR., & HazelettW. (1986). Schemas in cognition. In McCabeV., & BalzanoG.Event cognition: An ecological perspective (pp. 45–58). Hillsdale (NJ) - London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
55.
ShawR., & PittengerJ. (1978). Perceiving change. In PickH.L., & SalzmanE. (ed). Modes of perceiving and processing information (pp. 187–204). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.
56.
ShepardR. (1984). Ecological constraints on internal representation: Resonant kinematics of perceiving, imagining, thinking, and dreaming. Psychological Review, Vol. 91 (4), 417–47.
57.
TrehubS. (2003). Musical predispositions in infancy: An update. In PeretzI., & ZatorreR. (eds). The cognitive neuroscience of music (pp. 3–20). Oxford - New York: Oxford University Press.
58.
TverskyA. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327–52.
59.
WangD., & BrownG. (eds) (2006). Computational auditory scene analysis: Principles, algorithms, and applications.Hoboken (NJ): IEEE Press/Wiley-Interscience.
60.
WeissP. (1971). Hierarchically organized systems in theory and practice.New York: Hafner.
61.
WhiteheadA., & RussellB. (1968). Principia mathematica, Vol. I.Cambridge: University Press.
WittmannM. (1999). Time perception and temporal processing levels of the brain. Chronobiology International, 16, 17–32.
64.
WittmannM., & PöppelE. (1999-2000). Temporal mechanisms of the brain as fundamentals of communication — with special reference to music perception and performance. Musicæ Scientiæ, Special Issue, 13–28.
65.
ZivN., & EitanZ. (2007). Themes as prototypes: Similarity judgments and categorization tasks in musical contexts. Musicæ Scientiæ. Discussion Forum4A, 3–6, 99-133.
