1772461

8/13/2019 1772461

1/7

Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics

Semiotics and Theater: By Way of IntroductionAuthor(s): Ruth AmossyReviewed work(s):Source: Poetics Today, Vol. 2, No. 3, Drama, Theater, Performance: A Semiotic Perspective(Spring, 1981), pp. 5-10Published by: Duke University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1772461.

Accessed: 14/03/2013 06:57

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Duke University Pressand Porter Institute for Poetics and Semioticsare collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access to Poetics Today.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 06:57:50 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=dukehttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1772461?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1772461?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=duke

8/13/2019 1772461

2/7

SEMIOTICS AND THEATERBy Wayof Introduction

The idea for this special issue arose in the effervescenttmosphere f theRound Table on Semioticsand Theater, organized by Anne Ubersfeld nFebruary 977.' Followingup on the nitial mpetus ivenbya fewpioneeringworks,2 he lively Round Table discussionsdemonstrated he interest f asemioticsof theaterfrom a general semiotic perspective, s well as itsextraordinaryomplexity.Today, in spite of the impressive evelopmentsachievedduring he ast fewyears,3 semiotics f theater s still challenge othe investigator.t owes this specificstatus to the peculiar natureof thepluricodified,multileveledheatricalystem. ontemporaryesearch iewsthetheaternot as a literary iscourse mong manyothers,but as a global systemintegratingnitsownways series fsemiotic ubsystems. he interrelationftheseheterogeneous omponents s mostdifficult o accountfor.Moreover,how is one to analyze a complexinterdependence hen the veryelementsbuildingup thispuzzlingrelationshipre notyetsatisfactorilyescribed?Ananalysis of the theatricalmediumpresupposesa knowledgeof visual andcorporalcommunication, theory f nonlinguisticigns,a semiology f theobjects - none of which s fully vailable in the present tate of research.Grapplingwith ll thesedifficulties,n inquiryntothetheatricalpoly)systemisnoeasytask. Atthe ametime, t snodoubt a fascinatingne. Located atthejunctionof several emiotic ields, tcannotbutarouse a general nterest.The collection foriginal ssayspresented ereranges rom ummariesfthesituationn a givendomain to presentationfnewtheses.At thesametime, toffers guideto thosereaderswho, though nterestedn theperformingrtsand/or in semiotics,have not dealt specificallywith semioticsof theater.Keeping hese woperspecivesnmind, willbrieflyutline hecrucial ssues tstakeand thespecific tandpointsdopted n thevariousarticles.In order o be an adequate objectof semioticnquiry, heater ad firsto beconceived of as a specificmode of communication.Mounin's exclusionoftheater rom hedomain of semiology n thebasis ofa restrictedefinitionfcommunicationMounin,1970) provoked general utcry. emioticians fthe'The RoundTable on Semiotics ndTheater, aris,February 977,wasorganized ythe Institutd'EtudesTh'idtrales ftheUniversite e Paris II-SorbonneNouvelle ndtheCNRS. Itwas one ofthefirstndmostprominentmanifestationsftherevival fsemiotics ftheater.The papershavebeenpublished ithernfull ength rbrieflyummarizedna special ssue ofDegres 1978,No. 13).2Helbo, 1975;Pavis, 1976;Ubersfeld, 977. For a review fUbersfeld ee Issacharoffnthis ssue.3SeeSubstance18-19 1977); Versus21 (1978); Elam (1980, [seeAlter's eview nthis ssue]);Pavis(1980, including n extensivebibliography See Hays's review n this issue]); Organon 1980);Ubersfeldforthcoming);nd Bourgy& Durand,ed. (forthcoming).

? Poetics Today,Vol. 2:3 (1981),5-10.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

8/13/2019 1772461

3/7

6 RUTHAMOSSYtheater eltcompelledto dismisshis pointof viewexplicitly,husraising hecentral uestionof thenature f thetheatrical ommunication. ndre Helbo'sessay, The Semiology fTheateror: Communicationwamped, provides nanalysis of the question. AttackingMounin's basic assumptions,Helbodescribes ommunications a dynamic rocess nsidewhich he theatrical cttakes place. CounteringMounin's notion of reciprocity a symmetricalexchange n which ender nd receiver se the same code), other emioticiansalso attemptto place the concept of theatrical ommunication n firmerfooting. n his The Analysisof TheatricalPerformance,WilfriedPassowemphasizes he mportancefthe contratth6a.tralbasedon theconventionfmake-believe. He thus mproves ormermodelsof theatricalnteraction ydistinguishingetween:

a. fictitiouscenic nteractionwithinhemake-believeorld)b. interactionf the udiencewith hemake-believeorldc. real nteractionnthe taged. interactionfthe udiencewith he ctorsas opposed o the haracters)e. interactionithinhe udienceShoshanaAvigal and ShlomithRimmon-Kenan lso turn heir ttention othe multiplicityf communicationalevels nvolvedntheprocess fconveyingmessages n thetheater. heseperspectivesnvite urthernvestigationntothemultileveledommunicationf thetheater,he pecificityf which iesprecisely

in a complexscheme nvolving ariousaddressers nd addressees playwright,director, ctor,character, pectator).Two extremepositions in the analysis of theatrical ommunication reillustrated yCesare Segre's Narratologynd Theater on theone hand,andFrankCoppieters's Performancend Perception n theother.Focusingonthe text,Segre describes t as a specifickindof narrativeas distinct romnontheatrical iction)based on its own reordering f the communicationscheme.4 hemodelexemplifiedntheplaythus liminatesnymediation ftheI narrator nd veilsthe I -sender- you -receiverelation.Necessarily, hishas certainrepercussions or therealization f the narrative tructures. hisperspectivehrowsight n theproblematiconcept fnarrativityn thetheaterby ncludingt n thegeneral ield fnarratologyas interpretedytheRussianFormalistsand Lotman). While Segre's approach is mainly textual (andstructural), oppieters doptsan audience-orientedointof view.As histitleindicates,he is interestedntheways n which pectators xperience concreteperformance. e describes perception longempiricalinesratherhanon thebasisof a given heoreticalmodeloftheatricalommunication. he choiceofanonconventional pectacle (the People Show ) allows him to explore theaudience'sreactions n the evelsof personal xperiencend ofunderstandingprocesses.Theater has to be examinednot only as communication, ut also as asignifyingractice pratique ignifiante ). orethan n thedramatic exttself,'See also Segre,1980.


8/13/2019 1772461

4/7

INTRODUCTION 7meaningproduction akesplace in the interrelationsf the differentcodesused intheperformancevoices, ights, estures, bjects,etc.). It is imperative,therefore, o achieve a preliminary escription f the discrete ubsystemsconstituting he theatrical poly)system nd to examine their modes ofintegration.n thisframework,hepresentssueprovides contributiono asemiology ftheatrical esture, s well s toa theoryfobjectsandspace nthetheater. pecial emphasis s given o the statusof the actor'sbodyon stage -the corporal element n praesentia,and its peculiarrelationto the verbalcomponentss central o thespecificityf thetheatricalmedium.Patrice Pavis's Problemsof a Semiologyof TheatricalGesture givesanextensive ccountof contemporaryttemptso describe dequately languageof thebody. Reviewing sychology, inesics, nd semiotics, s well as themainrecentworksdevotedto the subject Pavis concludesthatthe enterprise fbreakingdown the gesture anguage into minimal units ( gest'emes ) ndcombining hem ntoglobal units s an illusory ne. A closer examination fMeyerhold's iomechanic xercises onfirmshatgestures ave to be describedon the level of a global plan or program ; husthe notion of a code ofgesturality ncludingts specific yntax nd rhetoric an be posited.At thispoint,Pavis raises hedelicate uestion fthe ext-gesturenterrelations. fewpropositions re made, mainlywitha view toward overcoming he sterileoppositionbetween emiology f the text nd semiology f theperformance.AlongsidePavis's central larification, theressaysstresstheimportance fcorporalitynthetheatricalmedium.Passow discusses he mpact fthe ctor'sphysicalpresenceon the stage. But it is mainly n WladimirKrysinsky'sSemioticModalities ftheBody nModernTheater hat hebody sviewed stheessential lement f thetheatrical erformance. rawingon contemporarypractice Artaud,Grotowski),Krysinskyeevaluates he statusof thebodyasinstinctualenergypossessing a disruptivepower, and therefore ble todeconstructmimeticrepresentation s well as a given ideology of the(psychological) ubject.Theatrical istoryspresented rom hepoint fviewofa word-body elation, nd divided ntothreemainphases: from sychologicaltheater, hrough hetextsof theevolution, o autonomoustheater.My ownarticle, Toward a Rhetoricof the Stage: The Scenic Realization of VerbalCliches, emphasizes n its own frameworkhe radical heterogeneityf thecorporal element, nd its capacityto deconstructhe verbaldiscourse n itsideological mplications.The study of a systemof objects is indispensableto any properunderstandingf thetheatricalmedium.This is thesubject electedby AvigalandRimmon-Kenann What do Brook'sBricksmean? Defining heobjectasa lexeme, hisessayanalyzes tsmobilityn theatrical iscourse n all of itslevels.The pecificityfthetheatricalbject spresenteds itscapacitynotonlyto combine na variety ftheatricalsentences, utalso toundergonumeroustransformationsn shape (morphological evel) and in function syntacticallevel). Moreover, heobjectcanparticipateimultaneouslyndifferentemanticfields, nd in variousrhetorical igures. hismobilitys suggestivelyxempli-


8/13/2019 1772461

5/7

8 RUTHAMOSSYfied nthe laboratory fPeterBrook'sperformance, bu auxBouffes,whichoffers reflectionn theatricalityn itsmainaspects.The particular tatusofbothobject and bodyas participatingn a rhetoric f thestage s thesubjectmatter fa furthernquirynmyownpaper.The visualization fverbalfrozenfigures n unconventionalmises en scene provides a tool for preliminaryinvestigationnto hepossibilitiesnd theproblems fa nonverbal hetoricn tsspecific heatrical imension.The examinationof the corporal element in relation to the text issupplementedytwostudies ftheatricalpace intheessaysofAnne UbersfeldandMichael Issacharoff. pace in thetheaters a multivalentotion, ince t sto be defined n several orrelated evels. Firstof all, it is divided ntoscenic,visible pace,anddramatic, onvisiblepace.This distinctionsclearly rawn nPatricePavis'sdictionary1980),wherehesuggests, nder heentry space thefollowing lassification:Invisible pace:

dramaticpace representednthe ext nd constructedy he pectator)metaphoricalpaces, uch s: textualpace spatialityfpoeticwriting)interiorpace projections,antasms,tc.)as opposed to visible:

scenic pace the tage)scenographicpace stage ndhouse)play pace createdythemovementsfthe ctors nstage)

Issacharoff rovideshis owncategorizationn Space and Reference, nd il-lustrates he use of his distinction etweenmimetic nd diegetic discursivelyreferredo) space bya series f interestingxamples Ionesco, Beckett, artre,Genet,etc.). He takes nto accounta history f aesthetic onceptions f stagespace,as well s the pecificityfcontemporaryormsuchas radio drama.Hismain theoreticalssue, however, s the controversialubject of referencendrama in its relationto space. (Further nvestigationsnto the question ofreferencen drama will be found n Issacharoff& Whiteside, orthcoming.)Anne Ubersfeld'sThe Space ofPhedre oncentratesn dramatic pacewithspecialviewto itsproblematic taging.Questioning heverynotionof repre-sentation, Racine'stext, hroughtsuniquemanipulation f space and body,calls forunconventionalmises n scene likeHemon'sor Vitaz'sattempts). herelationship etween ramatic nd scenic pace reveals tscomplexity.Textand stage: theseare themaincomponents f the theatrical elation,and in theirpeculiarmodes of interrelationies thespecificityf theater, rtheatricalityJeanAltersuggests heterm theatrality ). he old hierarchieshavingbeen sweptaway, the dramatic exthas to be redefinedn the totalsystem f which t constitutesonly)one (important) art.Serpieri's ndAlter'sarticles resent uitedivergentiewson this opic. In Toward a Segmentationof the DramaticText, Serpieri ssumes that a specific tage realization simprintedn the text tself.This calls for a semioticsof the dramatictext


8/13/2019 1772461

6/7

INTRODUCTION 9focusing n the text'spotential or tagingi.e., the performativenscriptionachievedby theplaywright). rawingon Austin's peech-act heory, erpieridefines hesemiological nit as a unitof performativeiscourse imultaneouswith ts indexical xis, and suggests hattheutterance e segmentedt everychangeof performativeeicticorientation. he demonstrationf thisthesis,involving number f dramatic exts, akestheactual practice f acting ndstaging these plays into account. Jean Alter, in his From Text toPerformance, tarts ot with semiotics fthedramatic ext, ut nsteadwitha semiotics ftheatrality thestudy fthenecessarynteraction fverbal ndstaging igns whereby helatterpartly ransformheformer. Theatrality sthus ocated in a processof recreation hrough ransformation,nd it is thepotentialityf various textsto undergotransformationalrocesses assuringboththepermanencend the renewal f thetheater) hathas to be elucidated.Alterproceeds o a formalizationntended oaccount for heoperations akingplacewhen textbecomes a performance.n such a framework,hecentralityofthedramatic ext sdisplaced,givingwayto a specific onception fmise nscene,as well as to a redefinitionf thetext-performanceelationship.All theseneworientations re setagainst background fprevious emiotictheories,which reeither eferredo,orsummarizednddiscussed.Theoriginsofsemiotics ftheater ave beengiven pecial ttentionnJiri eltruskV'saperon the PragueSchoolTheory fTheater. Taking nto accountrecent eviewson thePragueSchool'scontribution,eltruskyoints ut the chievementsndshortcomingsf a circleofwhichhe had been an activemember.As a group,thisdiverse nd sometimes ontradictoryeries f essayson thecrucial issue of theatrical ign(s) and system(s),meaningproductionandcommunicationspiresto reinvigoratehediscussion. emiotics f theater s afast-expandingieldoccupying privileged ositionon the generalmap ofsemiotics. t is of interest o anyonedealingwithcomplexsignsystems ndparticularlyo thoseworking n the nterrelationf thetextual nd thevisual(comics,films, ublicity, tc.). Simultaneously,tsfocuson performancenitsrelationship o the dramatictext cannot but attractthe attentionof thepractitionersplaywright, irector,ctors,etc.). Last, but not east,playgoerswillfindfood forthoughtn theattempts o account forthespecificityf thetheatricalmedium t a timewhentheater s strivingo redefinetsuniquenessand itspowers.

RUTH AMOSSYREFERENCES

BOURGY, . ANDR. DURAND,ds., Forthcoming.a relation hidtraleLille: Pressesde l'universitede Lille).ELAM,KEIR, 1920. TheSemiotics f Theatre nd Drama (London: Methuen).HELBO,ANDRE, ed., 1975.Semiologiede la ReprisentationBrussels:Complexe).ISSACHAROFF, MICHAEL & ANNA WHITESIDE, eds., Forthcoming. n ReferringnLiterature.MOUNIN, GEORGES, 1970. Introductioni a simiologie Paris: Minuit).


8/13/2019 1772461

7/7

10 RUTH AMOSSYOrganon80, 1980. Semiologie t Theatre, (Universit6e Lyon II, CERTC).PAVIS,PATRICE,1976. roblkmesde semiologie thedtraleMontreal: Presses de l'universit6 eQuebec).1980Dictionnaire u ThedtreParis: ed. Sociales).SEGRE, ESARE, 980. A Contributiono theSemiotics fTheater, Poetics Today, 1:3, Spring.Sub-stance18-19,1977. Theater nFrance:Ten Years of Research, Josette eral,ed.UBERSFELD, NNE,1977. Lire le thedtreParis: d. Sociales).Forthcoming: 'Objet thddtralCNDP).VERSUs. 978, 21, Teatro e semiotica.

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 06:57:50 AMAll bj JSTOR T d C di i

1772461

Documents