The Japanese Society for Aesthetics

Aesthetics No.19 (2015): 78-87

Musical Works as ‘Indicated Type’:
Jerrold Levinson on the Ontology of MusicTANABE Kentaro

Ritsumeikan Univesity, Kyoto

In analytic aesthetics relating to the ontology of music, one of the interesting issues is towhich ontological category a musical work belongs. Some theorists argue that musical works
are fusions of performances [1], whereas others argue that musical works are compositional
activity itself [2]. Each theory pays attention to the character attributed to musical works‐forexample, being audible or being changeable as time goes by‐and tries to offer an ontologicalcategory which can conform to such musical characters.
In this paper, I examine the theory of Jerrold Levinson (b. 1948). He looks at two
characteristics of musical works‐repeatability (i.e. musical works can have many occurrences
via performance, playing and so on) and audibility (i.e. musical works can be heard). Levinson
agrees with the basics of pure type theory, which argues that musical works are types; this idea
explains repeatability by arguing that type can have instances and audibility by arguing that we
can hear a musical work as a type through hearing an instance of it. However, in addition tothese two kinds of chatacter, Levinson gives creatability and fine individuation of musicalworks some weight. He thinks that musical works can be created by composers andindividuated in part by the musico-historical contexts at the time of their composition.
However, this idea, taken at face value, is not entirely consonant with pure type theory. Type istraditionally an abstract entity; thus, it is causally inert, and it exists eternally [3]‐that is, itcannot be created. Thus, instead of pure type theory, Levinson presents indicated type theory,
which can wholly capture the various characters of musical works.
This paper aims to examine indicated type theory in terms of both the ontologicallegitimacy and creatability of indicated type. In section 1, after explaining pure type theory,
with which Levinson essentially agrees, I survey Levinson’s objection to type theory. In section
2, I present the musical works offered by Levinson as indicated type. In section 3, I examine
two critiques of indicated type theory offered by Julian Dodd and Stefano Predelli. Here, I wish
to point out that Levinson restricts his range of musical works to ‘the fully notated “classical”
composition of Western culture, for example, Beethoven’s Quintet for piano and winds in E-flat,
op. 16’ (Levinson [1980] pp. 64-65) [4].
Finally, although in this paper I treat only Levinson’s application of indicated type tomusical works, Levinson further argues that indicated type applies not only to musical works
but to artefacts [5]. Therefore, this paper can contribute not only to the ontology of music but
also to that one of artefacts.

Musical Works as ‘Indicated Type’79

1. Levinson’s objection to sound structure theory
In this section, I survey Levinson’s argument that musical works cannot entirely be
identified with sound structures.
Levinson agrees with the basics of the claim that musical works are identified with entitiesof structural types. Why does he think of this claim as basically correct? First, when we regard
musical works as entities of structural types, we can explain the repeatability of musical works
by asserting that ‘[i]nstances of this type are to be found in the individual performances of thework’ (Levinson [1980] p. 64). Second, we can explain the audibility of musical works in that‘[t]he type can be heard through its instances’ (Levinson [1980] p. 64) [6]. Given that musicalworks are entities of structural types, what kind of structural types are musical works?
Levinson identifies the theory that musical works are identified with sound structures as‘sound structure theory’ and regards this theory as prima facie ‘the most natural and common
proposal’ (Levinson [1980] p. 64). Sound structure is described by Levinson in the following
way:Sound structures are types of a pure sort which exist at all times (Levinson [1980] p. 65)
Purely sound structures are in effect mathematical objects‐they are sequences of sets ofsonic elements. (Sonic elements are such as pitches, timbres, durations.) (Levinson [1980]
p. 66)
Sound structure includes not only pitches and rhythms, but also timbres, dynamics,
accents‐that is, all purely audible properties of sounds [7]. (Levinson [1980] p. 64, fn. 3)
However, Levinson thinks that sound structure theory is deeply unsatisfactory. In theremainder of this section, I survey his objection [8].
1-1. Objection on the basis of creatability
Levinson’s first objection to sound structure theory is that it cannot satisfy the creatabilityof musical works.
Levinson argues that sound structures exist at all times because ‘they[…]can always have
had instances’ (Levinson [1980] p. 65). According to sound structure theory, Beethoven’s
Quintet op. 16 is identified with a particular sound structure. However, according to theconception of sound structure mentioned above, Beethoven’s Quintet op. 16 as a soundstructure must have existed at all times, that is, even before Beethoven’s compositional
activities, so Beethoven cannot have created his Quintet op. 16.
However, Levinson argues that we insist that composers create their compositions. Why?
He offers two reasons. First, he appeals to our intuition, that is, our intuition that artists,
including composers, bring into being what did not exist before. He thinks that such an
intuition ‘is one of the most firmly entrenched of our belief concerning art’ (Levinson [1980] p.
66) [9]. Second, ‘some of the status, significance, and value we attach to musical composition
derives from our belief in’ (Levinson [1980] p. 67) composers creating what did not exist before.
If sound structure cannot be created, but musical works are indeed created by composers,

80

TANABE Kentaro

it would follow that we cannot identify musical works with sound structure. This is Levinson’s
first objection.
1-2. Objection on the basis of fine individuation
Levinson’s second objection is that musical works must be individuated more finely thansound structures, and properties of musical works depend on musico-historical contexts incomposition. I shall explain.
First, in our ordinary talk and thought about musical works, we do individuate more finely
than we do with regard to sound structures. Levinson argues that in the ontology of music,
theorists must respect our ordinary talk and thought about musical works [10]. He refers to ourordinary talk and thought about the aesthetic and artistic properties of musical works. ‘[W]orks
of music must be specific enough to bear the aesthetic and artistic attributes we importantly
ascribe to them’ (Levinson [1990a] p. 241). Here is an example to clarify his claim. We canunderstand the following critical discourse and examine it: ‘The Dresden Chorale in
Mendelssohn’s Fifth Symphony signifies an old state governed by Catholicism; on the other
hand, Lutheran hymns speaks of Reformation’ [11]. According to Levinson, Mendelssohn’s
fifth symphony necessarily predates the Dresden Chorale and Lutheran hymns.
Second, Levinson argues that the aesthetic and artistic properties [12] of musical works
depend on the musico-historical context of their composition. Using dependence on themusico-historical context, he formulates his argument against sound structure theory in thefollowing way (Levinson [1980] p. 68):
1. If a musical work is identified with sound structure, and two distinct composers determine
the same sound structure in different musico-historical contexts, they necessarily compose
the same musical works.
2. However, two musical works composed by distinct composers in different musicohistorical contexts inevitably differ in their aesthetic and artistic properties. Thus,
according to Leibnitz’s Law, two musical works must be distinct.
3. Therefore, a musical work cannot be identified with sound structure.
Levinson argues that musical works possess determined aesthetic and artistic properties.
But what are aesthetic and artistic properties? What character do they have? Musical works‘truly have those attributes which they appear to have when correctly perceived or regarded’(Levinson [1980] p. 69, fn. 15). What does ‘correctly perceiving or regarding’ means? He
explains that correct hearing refers to using the musico-historical context as background. Why?
In his ‘Aesthetic Contextualism’ (2007), Levinson argues in the following way. Artworks,
including musical works, are ‘an artifact of a particular sort, an object or structure that is the
product of human invention at a particular time and place, by a particular individual orindividuals’ (Levinson [2007] p. 4). He goes on to argue that this fact affects ‘how one properly
experiences, understands, and evaluates works of art’(Levinson [2007] p. 4). That is, ‘artworks are

essentially historically embedded objects, ones that have neither art status, nor determinate identity,
nor clear aesthetic properties, nor definite aesthetic meanings, outside or apart from the generative

Musical Works as ‘Indicated Type’81

contexts in which they arise and in which they are proferred’ (Levinson [2007] p. 4).
Assuming the conception of musical works, Levinson offers some thought experiments inorder to argue that the musico-historical contexts of compositions in part determine theaesthetic and artistic properties that the musical works possess [13]. I look at two examples‐
first, an example of aesthetic property. Suppose the composer Toenberg is entirely like Arnold
Schoenberg except for a lack of counterpart in Verklärte Nacht. Schoenberg composed Pierrot
Lunaire in 1912. If Toenberg composes a piece which has the same sound structure with
Pierrot Lunaire in the same musico-historical context as Schoenberg, does it have the same
aesthetic properties as Pierrot Lunaire? Levinson answers no. Levinson argues that perceiving
an individual musical work correctly requires perceiving it against the background of theremainder of the composer’s oeuvre. On the assumption that musical works truly have those
attributes which they appear to have when correctly perceived, as mentioned above, a piece
Toenberg composes does not possess aesthetic properties which are resonance with Verklärte
Nacht. Second, I take an example of artistic property. Levinson argues that if Beethoven hadcomposed a piece with the same structure as Brahms’s Piano Sonata op. 2, that piece could nothave the property of ‘being strongly Liszt-influenced’ and that it might have the property of‘being visionary’, which Brahms’s piece does not have.
Thus, even if two musical works share the same sound structure, the musico-historicalcontext of the composition inevitably makes a difference in the aesthetic and artistic propertiesof each of the works. Hence, by Leibnitz’s law, two musical works cannot be the same [14] andbe identified with sound structure.

2. Musical Works as indicated typeIn the previous section, I surveyed Levinson’s objection to pure sound structure theory. In
this section, I cite Levinson’s formulation on what a musical work is. He answers that questionin the following way:
I propose that we recognize a musical work to be a more complicated entity, namely this:(MW) S/PM structure-as-indicated-by-X-at-t
where X is a particular person‐the composer‐and t is the time of composition. For theparadigmatic pieces we are concerned with, the composer typically indicates (fixes,
determines, selects) an S/PM structure by creating a score. The piece he thereby composesis the S/PM structure-as-indicated by him on that occasion [15]. (Levinson [1980] p. 79)
How, then, do musical works as indicated type satisfy creatability and fine individuation?
Levinson argues that, differing from sound structure per se, musical works as indicated typecan be created by a composer, because[w]hen a composer θ composes a piece of music, he indicates an S/PM structure ψ, but he82

TANABE Kentaro

does not bring φ into being. However, through the act of indicating ψ, he does bring into
being something that did not previously exist‐namely, ψ-as-indicated-by-θ-at-t1. Before
the compositional act at t1, no relation obtains between θ and ψ. Composition establishes
the relation of indication between θ and ψ. As a result of the compositional act, I suggest,
the world contains a new entity, ψ-as-indicated-by-θ-at-t1. (Levinson [1980] p. 79)
Then, he emphasises the difference between indicated type and sound structure withaccidental property:
indicated structures are entities distinct from the pure structures per se from which they
are derived. Thus, in particular, ψ*θ*t1 is not just the structure, with the accidental
property of having been indicated by θ at t1,‐ψ*θ*t1 and φ are strictly non-identical,
though of course related. (Levinson [1980] pp. 79-80; ψ signifies sound/performancemeans structure, ψ*θ*t1 signifies ψ-as-indicated-by-θ-at-t1)
Levinson explains fine individuation in the following way:
Indicated structures also serve to satisfy [fine individuation]. If musical works areindicated structures of the sort we have suggested, then two such works, ψ*θ*t1 and α*φ'*t2
are identical iff (i) ψ = a, (ii) θ = α, and (iii) t1 = t2. But if musical works are necessarily
distinct if composed either by different people or at different times, then it certainly
follows that works composed in different musico-historical contexts will be distinct, since
any difference of musico-historical context from one work to another can be traced to adifference of composer or time or both. (Levinson [1980] p. 80)
In section 1, I explained Levinson’s objection to pure sound structure theory and his
motivation to identify musical work with indicated type. In section 2, I have mainly quoted
Levinson’s thought on musical works as indicated type and why this conception of musicalworks is compatible with creatability and fine individuation. In the next section, I propose two
objections to indicated type theory and examine whether Levinson can dismiss them.

3. Examination of objection to indicated type theory
My first objection to indicated type theory concerns whether the ontological character ofindicated type is legitimate and the other is whether indicating sound structure can bring a newentity‐that is, a musical works‐into existence. I argue that Levinson can reply to the former
objection, but Levinson’s response to the latter is insufficient.
The first objection to Levinson’s approach is that indicated type, in fact, does notdemonstrate the characters that Levinson thinks it does. He posits indicated type in order toexplain not only the repeatability and audibility of musical works, but also their creatability
and fine individuation. However, Julian Dodd thinks Levinson’s strategy fails [15]. Doddargues that, as Levinson admits, indicated type has a particular individual and particular timeMusical Works as ‘Indicated Type’83

as constituents and they ‘figure [in indicated type] ineliminably’ (Levinson [1980] p. 82).
Furthermore, Dodd continues, according to Jaegwon Kim’s notion of event, an entity which has
particular time as a constituents is not a type but an event. Hence indicated type cannot satisfy
the repeatability and audibility which musical works seem to have.
I think Levinson can reply to this objection. He asks why we should apply ‘ready-madeontology […] which just happens to be lying around’ (Levinson [1996] p. 145) to indicated type.
Levinson thinks that ‘it seems preferable to identify artworks in a “metaphysically obscure”
manner, if such it be, than to apply metaphysically more lucid‐though really only morefamiliar‐categories to them in Procrustean fashion’ (Levinson [1996] p. 145). In relation tothis thought, even if indicated type includes a particular time ‘ineliminably’, Levinson can replythat it is simply ‘what Wollheim called generic entities, that is, things that can have instances
and that can be exemplified in a concrete manner’ (Levinson [2012] p. 56).
We can think of the dispute between Levinson and Dodd as such that ‘the conflict between
the need to provide an ontology of works of art that is adequate to ordinary beliefs andpractices regarding the arts, and the need to choose from the ready-made categories of familiar
ontologies’ [16]. Dodd assumes ‘Levinson’s indicated types look like queer, cross-categorial
entities: ontologically suspect things that have been gerrymandered into existence for the
express purpose of sweeping away an ontological difficulty’ [17]. Dodd’s criticism concerns the
ontological legitimacy of indicated type. For Dodd, even if indicated type can satisfy therequirement imposed by our belief and practice of art‐that is, our belief and practice thatmusical works are creatable and finely individuated relative to their origin‐we should not
admit indicated type itself; therefore, we cannot identify musical works with indicated type. On
the other hand, Levinson argues regarding musical ontology that we should identify musicalworks with some entities which conform to our belief and practice, and if we cannot find suchan entity within ready-made ontology, we need a novel entity to be identified with musicalwork. In this regard, they seem to dispute where the priority lies in musical ontology.
The second objection concerns how to create musical works‐that is, new abstract
entities‐by indicating sound structures.
Levinson describes the process by which musical works as indicated structural type arebrought into existence: the composition establishes the relation of indication between acomposer θ and sound structure ψ. As a result of composition, the world comes to include newentities‐that is, ‘ψ-as-indicated-by-θ-at-t1.’. Predelli, however, points out that in general no
new entities are brought into existence by someone’s entering into a relationship R with object
o at a time t [18]. He argues that ‘it does not appear to be the case, if you show me the tallest
building on campus, you thereby bring into existence a new object, that is, the building–as–shown–by-you.’ [19]. I agree with his objection. If a new entity is brought into existence as aresult of composition in Levinson’s sense, the relation of indication between the composer andthe sound structure must be a special kind of relation and must differ from one that obtainbetween someone and the tallest building.
What, then, is the feature mentioned above? Levinson accepts Anderson’s proposal
concerning the notion of ‘indication’ [20] in his ‘What a Musical Work Is, Again’.

84

TANABE Kentaro[M]y vagueness on the relation of “indication” is usefully redeemed by this discussion of
making normative[.…]Making-normative certainly at least helps explain what indicating
consists in, and differentiates it from other activities of an intentional nature directed on
abstruct structures. (Levinson [1990a] pp. 260-261)
Anderson distinguishes normative type from descriptive type [21]. Norm type can have
improperly formed instances. For example, even if an instance of type ‘lion’ lacks one leg, it is
an improperly formed instance of type ‘lion’. By contrast, because type ‘square’ cannot have an
improperly formed instance, it cannot be a norm type. How should we characterize norm type?
Suppose norm type ‘Tn’ exists. Tn is defined in terms of properties (P1,…,P), which arenormative within T [22]. In contrast, descriptive type ‘Td’ also has the same properties, which
are not normative within Td.
According to Anderson, the composer’s indication of a sound structure means that he or
she changes a sound structure as descriptive type into a musical work as normative typethrough making the sound structure normative. To make the sound structure normative is‘laying some feature [of sound structure] down as required in order for a properly formed
performance (what I call an instance) to have occurred’ (Levinson [1990a] p. 260). For example,
we can think of a sound structure which has the property ‘a G above middle C’. This property,
in nature, is non-normative. As Anderson says, ‘[w]hen the wind whistles through the canyon
rocks it either sounds a G above middle-C or it does not’ [23]. A case in which this property ischanged into being normative is one in which this property is located in the context of musicalworks [24]. It makes sense for us to point out that a G sharp above middle C sounds incorrect
only if a G above middle C is specified in the musical score.
However, Predelli argues that if we understand the notion of indication along this line, a
new entity cannot be brought into existence by indication [25]. When a composer selects a
certain sound structure and claims that it comes to have normative character, although thecomposer invites us to consider it in a certain manner and though such an invitation has notexisted before, the sound structure itself still exists eternally. Even if we adopt a certain attitude
toward an eternal (or atemporal) entity, we cannot thereby create a new entity.
Levinson explains in detail the notion of ‘indication’ in his latest article, ‘Indication,
Abstraction, and Individuation’ (2012). In this article, he introduces a distinction between
simple indication and artistic indication. Simple indication is like showing the tallest building
on campus, as mentioned above. This sort of indication has the following features. In the caseof showing the tallest building, we aims at drawing someone’s attention to that building, andsuch simple indication is ‘purely transitory’ (Levinson [2012] p. 52). In addition, we do notintend to establish something in simple indication. In the case of artistic indication, though,the composer wants to notice us a certain sound structure in addition to simple indication.
However, the composer also selects a particular sound structure among ‘the tonal domain as afield of possible sounds’ (Levinson [2012] p. 53). He or she thereby enters a relation of‘appropriation’ into that sound structure. For example, the ‘Tristan chord’ is ‘Wagner’s
compositional appropriation of this already-available chord’ (Levinson [1990a] p. 220). In
particular, in composing ‘musical works for performance’, not improvisation, the composer

Musical Works as ‘Indicated Type’85‘ordain[s] a rule to be followed by performers wishing to instantiate or perform a given work’(Levinson [2012] p. 54). As Levinson says, artistic indication ‘normally involes a deliberatechoice, an act of appropriation, an attitude of approval, and the establishment of a rule ornorm’ (Levinson [2012] p. 54).
However, although Levinson succeeds in clarifying the notion of ‘indication’, I think his
response is insufficient. All that is required is for him to explain the concrete mechanism of
how indicated type as abstract type is brought into existence through ‘choice’, ‘appropriation’,‘approval’, and ‘establishment of a rule or norm’.

4. Conclusion
In this paper, I survey indicated type theory and examine whether Levinson can reply to
two objections. I conclude, first, that Levinson can defend his claim against the objection thatindicated type cannot possess the ontological characters offered by Dodd. I thus conclude that
Levinson’s reply to the objection that indicating structure cannot create indicated type isinsufficient.
Although Levinson must describe in detail how to create indicated type, his notion ofindicated type applies to a large range of things. In particular, it helps us to investigate theontological matter of things that are both abstract and being brought into existence [26]. This
explanation still faces some difficult issues. For example, in systematizing such a theory, we
may respect our intuition that there is a difference between ordinary artefacts like models ofcars, an artifact of a particular sort like musical works, literary works, and paintings. However I
have omitted this last problem in this paper.
Notes
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]

Caplan and Matheson [2004].
Davies [2004].
The former is from Rohrbaugh[2005] and the latter from Dodd [2007].
Someone may complain about this restriction. For example, Sherri Irvin argues that even if
Levinson can explain such restricted musical works, he cannot very well explain a case like John
Cage’s Imaginary Landscape No. 4, in which the composer specifies not the sound structure but
the performer’s activities. I think the ontology of music (not ‘classical’ music) must reply to suchclaims. But I shall focus on Levinson’s argument in this paper.
[5] Levinson [1980] p. 81.
[6] Two caveats. First, ‘although the distinction between type and token is, including term itself,
derived from C.S. Peirce, current general distinction isn’t necessarily authentic to his intention’(Iida 2002, p. 35, fn. 5). Second, the explanation of type in this paper presupposes that type is akind of universal. That is, type can have instances and, therefore, be repeatable. Linda Wetzel saysthat most philosophers admit that type is a kind of universal, but Quine and Eddy Zemach
disagree with such a conception of type.
[7] Levinson uses the expression ‘the individual component sound type that they [sound structures]comprise’ (Levinson [1980] p. 65). He offers, for example, the ‘F-sharp minor triad’ and the ‘threenote French-dotted rhythmic figure’ as examples of sound type.

86

[8]

[9]

[10]
[11]
[12]

[13]

[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]

[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]

TANABE Kentaro

In Levinson [1980], he presents the objection that ‘[m]usical works must be such that specificmeans of performance or sound production are integral to them’ (Levinson [1980] p. 78). However,this paper aims to examine two issues: the ontological legitimacy of indicated type and whether
indicating sound structure create indicated structure, so I look at an intimately related objection.
Anderson [1985] and Levinson [2012] also take the same strategy so that performance means are
not taken into consideration.
Fukuda Says, ‘needless to say, musical works as well as other artworks are brought into existenceby creators. The composer’s activity brings into existence what has not existed before’ (Fukuda[1988] p. 41). However, not all philosophers share the intuition that the composition bringsomething into existence. See Caplan and Matheson [2004] p. 114.
David Davies calls this methodological constraint ‘pragmatic constraint’ (Davies [2004] p. 18).
Negishi [2003] p. 172.
Levinson explains aesthetic and artistic property explicitly in Levinson [1990b]. According to him,
aesthetic property is ‘higher-order, typically gestaltlike perceivable propert[y]’ (Levinson [1990b]
p. 182) and depends on artistic context of the time of creation‐properties like gracefulness,coherence, sadness are aesthetic properties. On the other hand, artistic properties ‘do not
merely depend on the artwork’s relation to other artworks and surrounding artistic background[…] but are inherently a matter of that relationality’ (Levinson [1990b] pp. 182-183)‐properties
like originality, distinctiveness of vision, and skillfulness are artistic properties. In the case ofpainting, Levinson says ‘[t]he aesthetic properties of, say, a painting are those tied up with how,on a more than merely sensory level, it looks‐with the impression it affords, the effects it
produces, on properly backgrounded perceiver. The artistic properties of a painting are those that,while strictly relevant to its appreciation and evaluation as art, embody relations to surrounding
cultural context as a whole (including, conceivably, relations to the creative history of that verywork), and are thus not, strictly speaking, perceivable in the painting itself (Levinson [1990b] p.
183).
Many objections raise to the following thought experiments (see, for example, Dodd [2007] ch.9).
They are generally regarded as the dispute between ‘Aesthetic Formalism’ and ‘Aesthetic
Contextualism’.
Levinson uses the assumption here that aesthetic and artistic properties are ‘relevant‐incommon with all other attributes‐to individuating’ (Levinson [1980] p. 84, fn. 29) musical works.
Dodd [2000] pp. 439-440.
Thomasson [2004] p. 88.
Dodd [2008] p. 1122.
Predelli [2001].
Predelli [2001] p. 289.
Anderson [1985].
Anderson uses the expression ‘norm kind’ derived from Wolterstorff [1980]. However, as
Levinson uses ‘norm kind’ and ‘norm type’ interchangeably, I use ‘norm type’ in this paper.
‘The property P is normative within the norm-kind K = df K is a norm-kind, and it is impossiblethat there be something which is a properly-formed example of K and lacks P’’ (Wolterstorff[1980] p. 57).
Anderson [1985] p. 46.
Another example is tuning instruments.
Predelli [2001] p. 290ff.
See Thomasson [1999].

Musical Works as ‘Indicated Type’87

References
Anderson, J. C. (1985). Musical kinds. The British Journal of Aesthetics, 25(1), 43-49.
Caplan, B., & Matheson, C. (2004). Can a musical work be created?. The British Journal of Aesthetics,
44(2), 113-134.
Davies, D. (2004). Art as Performance. Blackwell Pub.
Dodd, J. (2000). Musical works as eternal types. British Journal of Aesthetics,40(4), 424-440.
―――. (2007). Works of music: An essay in ontology. Oxford University Press.
―――. (2008). Musical works: ontology and meta-ontology. Philosophy Compass, 3(6), 1113-1134.
Fukuda, T. (1988). Ongaku sakuhin no douitsusei no mondaiken. Tokai Daigaku Kiyou. Kyouyou
Gakubu, 19, 39-48.
Iida, T. (2002). Gengo tetsugaku taizen Ⅳ. Keiso Shobo.
Irvin, S. (2012). Installation art and performance: a shared ontology. Art and Abstract Objects. (ed.)
Uidhir, C.M., Oxford University Press, 242-262.
Levinson, J. (1980). What a musical work is. The Journal of Philosophy, 77. Repr. Music, Art andMetaphysics, Cornell University Press, 1990, 63-88.
―――. (1990a). What a musical work is, again. Music, Art and Metaphysics, 215-263.
―――. (1990b). Artworks and the future. Music, Art, and Metaphysics, 179-214.
―――. (1996). Art as action. The Pleasure of Aesthetics, Cornell University Press, 1996, 138-149.
―――. (2007). Aesthetic contextualism. Postgraduate Journal of Aesthetics, 4(3), 1-12.
―――. (2012). Indication, abstraction and individuation. Art and Abstract Objects. (ed.) Christy Mag
Uidhir , Oxford University Press, 49-61.
Negishi, K. (2003). Ongaku kaishakugaku. Ongakugaku wo manabu hito no tameni. (eds.) Negishi, K.
and Miura, S., Sekaishisosha, 163-175.
Predelli, S. (2001). Musical ontology and the argument from creation. The British Journal of Aesthetics,
41(3), 279-292.
Rohrbaugh, G. (2005). Ontology of art. The Routledge Companion to Aesthetics 2nd ed. (eds.) Gaut, B.
and Lopes, D., Routledge, 241-254.
Thomasson, A. L. (1999). Fiction and Metaphysics. Cambridge University Press.
―――. (2004). The ontology of art. The Blackwell Guide to Aesthetics. (ed.) Peter Kivy, Blackwell, 78-92.
Wetzel, L. (2006). Types and tokens. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (ed.) Zalta, E.,<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/types-tokens/>.
Wolterstorff, N. (1980). Works and Worlds of Art. Oxford University Press.

*This is the English version of my paper in Bigaku 64, no. 1 (2013): 71-82, published by the JapaneseSociety for Aesthetics.