If it is accepted that we gain meaning via language, it is as if music creates the same feeling but without the actual language. Levinson also goes on to describe Wittgenstein stating that he understands music in terms of conclusions, agreements, and replies. This shows that music is understand on a level based on language, even if it does not have any actual language as part of it. Or, as Levinson states it, .

             Music is not understood in a vacuum, as a pure structure of sounds fallen from the stars, one which we receive via some pure faculty of musical perception. Music is rather inextricably embedded in our form of life, a form of life that is, as it happens, essentially linguistic. Thus music is necessarily apprehended, at least in part, in terms of the language and linguistic practices that define us and our world. (Levinson 2003, 2.4).

             As this statement describes, music is understood based on our perception, which happens to be linguistically based. At the same time, music is created by people, who also have language and linguistics as their basis for perceiving meaning. This suggests that it is not unexpected that people would produce sounds that would mirror the meaning of language and the thought processes of language. Levinson continues his argument and eventually suggests that there are two kinds of thoughts in music. One is the music "wearing an appearance of thoughtful acts" (Levinson 2003, 2.10). This refers to how listening to music seems to mirror thought in the listener. The second kind of thought is the music "giving evidence of thought processes in their creator" (Levinson 2003, 2.10). In this way, music can be seen as a means of communication where the composer and the listener have a shared language. The composer"s view of some meaning will be represented in the music. In turn, this will be communicated to the listener, who will interpret the same meaning in the music.