+0
The sentences:
When we consider how it is that music can express emotion-the question of what makes it possible for music to be sad, anguished, joyous and so forth-a sort of intellectual darkness descends on us. For, in describing a piece of music in such terms, it is not meant that on listening to it we have become sad or anguished or joyous, nor that the composer had such feelings and intended to communicate them by musical means. In grasping what music express we do not characteristically take up any of the other attitudes which are the usual corollaries of having an emotion, but the emotion that music express is nevertheless in some sense felt, rather than merely known of.


Why 'any of the other attitudes' ? Why not simply 'the attitudes' or 'any attitudes'?
1 2
Comments  
Hello Taka

I would interpret this as follows:

1. Music can express emotions, e.g. emotion A.
2. Usually, emotion A has the natural accompaniments X, Y, Z.
3. But when we understand that a piece of music expresses emotion A, we do not mean that that emotion was accompanied by X, Y, Z.
4. Nonetheless, the emotion A is 'felt' by the listener.

However, by saying 'any of the other attitudes', the writer manages to suggest that:

a) X, Y, Z are attitudes;
b) Emotion A, which they accompany, is also an attitude.

I don't believe this was his intention. So I would agree that 'other' is a mistake.

MrP
I would agree that 'other' is a mistake.


OK.

By the way, could you elaborate this? I'm afraid I don't really understand it.
a) X, Y, Z are attitudes;
b) Emotion A, which they accompany, is also an attitude.
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Hello Taka
...any of the other attitudes which are the usual corollaries of having an emotion...


a) X, Y, Z are attitudes (i.e. 'the other attitudes which are the usual corollaries of having an emotion').

b) Emotion A ] i.e. the emotion referred to in 'having an emotion'

which they ] i.e. X, Y, Z, which are the 'usual corollaries'

accompany, is also an attitude ] 'also an attitude' because 'any of the other attitudes' presupposes at least one 'non-other' attitude; and in context, the only possible 'non-other' referent is the 'emotion'.

Sorry about the confusion. It's difficult to clarify a sentence that (to my mind!) contains a circular reference.

MrP
Sorry, MrP, but I'm still a bit confused.

Your use of brackets like this:
b) Emotion A ] i.e. the emotion referred to in 'having an emotion'

which they ] i.e. X, Y, Z, which are the 'usual corollaries'

accompany, is also an attitude ] 'also an attitude


is especially confusing....
Taka, you're absolutely right. It's the most confusing post I've ever read. Let me try again:
...any of the other attitudes which are the usual corollaries of having an emotion...


Call the emotion mentioned here 'A'.

"The writer says that A is usually accompanied by some 'other' attitudes, which we'll call XYZ. These are A's usual corollaries.

Since the writer speaks of 'other' attitudes, he is presupposing at least one more attitude, which is not included in the phrase 'other attitudes'. Let's call this 'one more attitude' W.

In context, however, the only referent for W is emotion A.

So the writer seems to think that emotion A both has accompanying attitudes, i.e. XYZ, and is itself an attitude."


(I have to admit, I don't fully understand what the writer means by 'attitudes', in this context. 'Attributes' might be a more comprehensible term.)

MrP
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Could you please explain why this:
In context, however, the only referent for W is emotion A.


leads to this conclusion:
So the writer seems to think that emotion A both has accompanying attitudes, i.e. XYZ, and is itself an attitude. "


?

And what exactly is 'an emotion which is itself an attitude' ??

1. By saying 'any of the other attitudes', the writer is distinguishing those 'attitudes' from some other 'attitude'.

2. As far as I can see, however, there is nothing in the context which would fit the description 'some other attitude', except the 'emotion' to which the writer refers.

3. The writer has already stated that this 'emotion' is accompanied by 'attitudes' ('other attitudes').

4. If both my statements 2 and 3 are true, therefore, the writer is saying both that the 'emotion' is an 'attitude', and is accompanied by 'attitudes'.

Which leads me to the question you have also put:

'What exactly is an emotion which is itself an attitude?'

To which I would answer, 'nothing within my own experience'.

I would therefore conclude that the writer was merely careless, when he spoke about 'any of the other attitudes', because no analysis can give the phrase meaning, in this context.

MrP
If he/she mentioned somewhere in his/her writing some sort of 'listening attitude' which was independent of having an emotion, then do you think it would make sense?
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Show more