Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics

Semiotics and Theater: By Way of Introduction

Author(s): Ruth Amossy
Source: Poetics Today, Vol. 2, No. 3, Drama, Theater, Performance: A Semiotic Perspective (
Spring, 1981), pp. 5-10
Published by: Duke University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1772461
Accessed: 11-12-2015 17:24 UTC

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 support@jstor.org.

Duke University Press and Porter Institute for Poetics and Semiotics are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to Poetics Today.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 139.86.7.217 on Fri, 11 Dec 2015 17:24:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 SEMIOTICS AND THEATER

By Way of Introduction

The idea for this special issue arose in the effervescentatmosphereof the
"Round Table on Semioticsand Theater,"organized by Anne Ubersfeldin
February1977.' Followingup on the initialimpetusgivenby a fewpioneering
works,2the lively"Round Table" discussionsdemonstratedthe interestof a
semiotics of theater from a general semiotic perspective,as well as its
extraordinarycomplexity.Today, in spite of the impressivedevelopments
achievedduringthe last fewyears,3a semioticsof theateris stilla challengeto
the investigator.It owes this specific status to the peculiar nature of the
pluricodified,multileveledtheatricalsystem.Contemporaryresearchviewsthe
theaternot as a literarydiscourseamong manyothers,but as a global system
integrating in its own waysa seriesof semioticsubsystems.The interrelationof
these heterogeneouscomponentsis most difficultto account for. Moreover,
how is one to analyze a complex interdependencewhen the very elements
buildingup thispuzzlingrelationshipare not yetsatisfactorily described?An
analysis of the theatricalmedium a
presupposes knowledgeof visual and
a of
corporal communication, theory nonlinguisticsigns,a semiologyof the
objects - none of which is fullyavailable in the presentstate of research.
Grapplingwithall thesedifficulties, an inquiryintothetheatrical(poly)system
is no easytask. At thesame time,itis no doubta fascinating
one. Located at the
junctionof severalsemioticfields,it cannot but arouse a generalinterest.
The collectionof originalessayspresentedhererangesfromsummariesof the
situationin a givendomain to presentationof new theses.At thesame time,it
offersa guide to those readerswho, thoughinterestedin the performing arts
and/or in semiotics,have not dealt specificallywith semioticsof theater.
Keepingthesetwo perspecivesin mind,I willbrieflyoutlinethecrucialissuesat
stake and the specificstandpointsadopted in the variousarticles.
In orderto be an adequate object of semioticinquiry,theaterhad firstto be
conceived of as a specificmode of communication.Mounin's exclusion of
theaterfromthedomain of semiologyon thebasis of a restricted definitionof
communication(Mounin, 1970) provokeda generaloutcry.Semioticiansof the

'The "Round Table on Semioticsand Theater,"Paris, February1977,was organizedbythe"Institut

d'Etudes Th'idtrales"of theUniversitede Paris III-SorbonneNouvelleand theCNRS. It was one of
the firstand mostprominentmanifestations of therevivalof semioticsof theater.(The papershave
been publishedeitherin fulllengthor brieflysummarizedin a specialissueof Degres(1978, No. 13).
2Helbo, 1975; Pavis, 1976; Ubersfeld,1977. For a reviewof Ubersfeldsee Issacharoffin thisissue.
3See Substance18-19(1977); Versus21 (1978); Elam (1980, [see Alter'sreviewin thisissue]); Pavis
(1980, includingan extensivebibliography[See Hays's reviewin this issue]); Organon (1980);
Ubersfeld(forthcoming); and Bourgy& Durand, ed. (forthcoming).

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

This content downloaded from 139.86.7.217 on Fri, 11 Dec 2015 17:24:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
6 RUTH AMOSSY

theaterfeltcompelledto dismisshis point of view explicitly,thus raisingthe

centralquestionof thenatureof thetheatricalcommunication.AndreHelbo's
essay, "The Semiologyof Theateror: CommunicationSwamped,"providesan
analysis of the question. Attacking Mounin's basic assumptions, Helbo
describescommunicationas a dynamicprocessinsidewhichthe"theatricalact"
takes place. CounteringMounin's notion of "reciprocity"(a symmetrical
exchangein whichsenderand receiveruse the same code), othersemioticians
also attemptto place the concept of theatricalcommunicationon firmer
footing.In his "The Analysis of TheatricalPerformance,"WilfriedPassow
emphasizestheimportanceof the"contrat based on theconventionof
"make-believe."He thus improvesformer th6a.tral"
models of theatricalinteractionby
distinguishingbetween:
scenicinteraction
a. fictitious themake-believe
(within world)
of theaudiencewiththemake-believe
b. interaction world
on thestage
c. realinteraction
of theaudiencewiththeactors(as opposedto thecharacters)
d. interaction
within
e. interaction theaudience
Shoshana Avigal and ShlomithRimmon-Kenanalso turntheirattentionto
the"multiplicity of communicationallevelsinvolvedin theprocessof conveying
messages in thetheater."These perspectives invitefurther intothe
investigation
multileveled communication of whichliesprecisely
of thetheater,thespecificity
in a complexschemeinvolvingvarious addressersand addressees(playwright,
director,actor, character,spectator).
Two extremepositions in the analysis of theatricalcommunicationare
illustratedby Cesare Segre's"Narratologyand Theater"on the one hand, and
Frank Coppieters's"Performanceand Perception"on the other. Focusing on
the text, Segre describesit as a specifickind of narrative(as distinctfrom
nontheatricalfiction) based on its own reorderingof the communication
scheme.4The modelexemplified in theplaythuseliminatesanymediationof the
"I" narratorand veils the "I"-sender-"you"-receiver relation.Necessarily,this
has certainrepercussionsfor the realizationof the narrativestructures.This
perspectivethrowslighton theproblematicconceptof narrativity in thetheater
by includingit in thegeneralfieldof narratology(as interpreted by theRussian
Formalists and Lotman). While Segre's approach is mainly textual (and
structural),Coppietersadopts an audience-oriented point of view. As his title
indicates,he is interestedin theways in which spectatorsexperiencea concrete
performance.He describes"perception"along empiricallinesratherthanon the
basis of a giventheoreticalmodel of theatricalcommunication.The choice of a
nonconventionalspectacle (the "People Show") allows him to explore the
audience'sreactionson the levelsof personalexperienceand of understanding
processes.
Theater has to be examined not only as communication,but also as a
signifying practice("pratiquesignifiante").More thanin thedramatictextitself,

'See also Segre, 1980.

This content downloaded from 139.86.7.217 on Fri, 11 Dec 2015 17:24:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 INTRODUCTION 7

meaningproductiontakes place in the interrelations of the different "codes"

used in theperformance (voices,lights,gestures,objects,etc.). It is imperative,
therefore,to achieve a preliminarydescriptionof the discretesubsystems
constitutingthe theatrical (poly)systemand to examine their modes of
integration.In this framework,the presentissue providesa contributionto a
semiologyof theatricalgesture,as wellas to a theoryof objectsand space in the
theater.Special emphasisis givento the statusof the actor'sbody on stage -
the corporal element in praesentia, and its peculiar relation to the verbal
componentsis centralto the specificity of the theatricalmedium.
Patrice Pavis's "Problems of a Semiologyof TheatricalGesture"gives an
extensiveaccountof contemporary attemptsto describeadequatelya language
of thebody. Reviewingpsychology,kinesics,and semiotics,as wellas themain
recentworks devoted to the subject Pavis concludes that the enterpriseof
breaking down the gesture language into minimal units ("gest'emes")and
combiningtheminto global unitsis an illusoryone. A closer examinationof
Meyerhold'sbiomechanicexercisesconfirmsthatgestureshave to be described
on the level of a global "plan" or "program";thus the notion of a code of
"gesturality" includingits specificsyntaxand rhetoriccan be posited. At this
point,Pavis raisesthedelicatequestionof thetext-gesture interrelations. A few
propositionsare made, mainly with a view toward overcomingthe sterile
oppositionbetweensemiologyof the textand semiologyof the performance.
Alongside Pavis's centralclarification,otheressays stressthe importanceof
corporalityin thetheatricalmedium.Passow discussestheimpactof theactor's
physical presence on the stage. But it is mainly in Wladimir Krysinsky's
"SemioticModalitiesof theBody in ModernTheater"thatthebodyis viewedas
the essentialelementof the theatricalperformance.Drawingon contemporary
practice(Artaud, Grotowski),Krysinskyreevaluatesthe statusof the body as
instinctualenergy possessing a disruptivepower, and thereforeable to
deconstructmimetic representationas well as a given ideology of the
(psychological)subject.Theatricalhistoryis presentedfromthepointof viewof
a word-bodyrelation,and dividedinto threemain phases: frompsychological
theater,throughthe textsof the evolution,to autonomous theater.My own
article,"Toward a Rhetoricof the Stage: The Scenic Realization of Verbal
Cliches," emphasizesin its own frameworkthe radical heterogeneity of the
corporal element,and its capacityto deconstructthe verbal discoursein its
ideologicalimplications.
The study of a "system of objects" is indispensable to any proper
understanding of thetheatricalmedium.This is the subjectselectedby Avigal
and Rimmon-Kenanin "What do Brook's Bricksmean?" Definingtheobject as
a "lexeme,"thisessay analyzesits mobilityin theatricaldiscourseon all of its
levels.Thespecificity of thetheatricalobject is presentedas itscapacitynotonly
to combinein a varietyof theatrical"sentences,"but also to undergonumerous
transformations in shape (morphologicallevel) and in function(syntactical
level). Moreover,theobject can participatesimultaneously in different semantic
fields,and in various rhetoricalfigures.This mobilityis suggestively exempli-

This content downloaded from 139.86.7.217 on Fri, 11 Dec 2015 17:24:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8 RUTH AMOSSY

fiedin the"laboratory"of PeterBrook'sperformance,Ubu aux Bouffes,which

offersa reflectionon theatricality in its main aspects. The particularstatusof
both object and body as participatingin a rhetoricof the stage is the subject
matterof a further inquiryin myown paper. The visualizationof verbalfrozen
figuresin unconventionalmises en scene provides a tool for preliminary
investigationintothepossibilitiesand theproblemsof a nonverbalrhetoricin its
specifictheatricaldimension.
The examination of the corporal element in relation to the text is
supplementedbytwo studiesof theatricalspace in theessaysof Anne Ubersfeld
and Michael Issacharoff.Space in thetheateris a multivalent notion,sinceit is
on
to be defined several correlated levels. Firstof all, it is divided into scenic,
visiblespace, and dramatic,nonvisible space. This distinction is clearlydrawnin
Patrice Pavis's dictionary(1980), where he suggests,under the entry"space" the
following classification:
Invisiblespace:
dramatic in thetextand constructed
space(represented bythespectator)
of poeticwriting)
spaces,suchas: textualspace(spatiality
metaphorical
interior fantasms,
space(projections, etc.)
as opposed to visible:
scenicspace(thestage)
scenographicspace(stageand house)
playspace(createdbythemovements of theactorson stage)
Issacharoffprovideshis own categorizationin "Space and Reference,"and il-
lustratesthe use of his distinctionbetweenmimeticand diegetic(discursively
referredto) space by a seriesof interesting examples(Ionesco, Beckett,Sartre,
Genet,etc.). He takes into account a historyof aestheticconceptionsof stage
space, as wellas thespecificity of contemporary formssuchas radio drama. His
main theoreticalissue, however, is the controversial subject of referencein
drama in its relation to space. (Furtherinvestigationsinto the question of
reference in drama will be found in Issacharoff& Whiteside,forthcoming.)
Anne Ubersfeld's"The Space of Phedre"concentrates on dramaticspace witha
special view to its problematicstaging.Questioning verynotionof "repre-
the
sentation," Racine's text,throughits unique manipulationof space and body,
calls forunconventionalmisesen scene(like Hemon's or Vitaz's attempts).The
relationshipbetweendramaticand scenicspace revealsits complexity.
Text and stage: theseare the main componentsof the "theatricalrelation,"
and in theirpeculiar modes of interrelation lies the specificityof theater,or
theatricality (Jean Alter suggests the term "theatrality").The old hierarchies
having been swept away, the dramatic text has to be redefinedin the total
systemof whichit constitutes(only)one (important)part. Serpieri'sand Alter's
articlespresentquite divergentviewson thistopic. In "Toward a Segmentation
of the Dramatic Text," Serpieriassumes that a specificstage realizationis
imprintedin the text itself.This calls for a semioticsof the dramatictext

This content downloaded from 139.86.7.217 on Fri, 11 Dec 2015 17:24:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 INTRODUCTION 9

focusingon the text'spotentialforstaging(i.e., the "performative inscription"

achieved by the playwright).Drawing on Austin'sspeech-acttheory,Serpieri
definesthe semiologicalunitas a unitof performative discoursesimultaneous
withits indexicalaxis, and suggeststhat the utterancebe segmentedat every
change of performative deicticorientation.The demonstrationof this thesis,
involving a number of dramatic texts,takes the actual practiceof actingand
staging these plays into account. Jean Alter, in his "From Text to
Performance,"startsnotwitha semioticsof thedramatictext,butinsteadwith
a semioticsof theatrality - thestudyof thenecessaryinteraction of verbaland
stagingsignswherebythe latterpartlytransformthe former."Theatrality"is
thus located in a process of recreationthroughtransformation, and it is the
potentialityof various textsto undergotransformational processes(assuring
both thepermanenceand the renewalof the theater)thathas to be elucidated.
Alterproceedsto a formalization intendedto accountfortheoperationstaking
place whena textbecomesa performance.In such a framework, thecentrality
of thedramatictextis displaced,givingway to a specificconceptionof miseen
scene, as well as to a redefinitionof the text-performance relationship.
All thesenew orientationsare set againsta backgroundof previoussemiotic
theories,whichare eitherreferred to, or summarizedand discussed.The origins
of semioticsof theaterhave beengivenspecialattentionin JiriVeltruskV's paper
on the"Prague School Theoryof Theater."Takingintoaccountrecentreviews
on thePrague School's contribution, Veltrusky pointsout theachievements and
shortcomings of a circleof whichhe had been an activemember.
As a group,thisdiverseand sometimescontradictory seriesof essayson the
crucial issue of theatricalsign(s) and system(s),meaning production and
communicationaspiresto reinvigorate the discussion.Semioticsof theateris a
fast-expandingfield occupyinga privilegedposition on the general map of
semiotics.It is of interestto anyone dealing withcomplex sign systemsand
particularlyto thoseworkingon the interrelation of the textualand the visual
(comics,films,publicity,etc.). Simultaneously, its focuson performance in its
relationshipto the dramatic text cannot but attract the attentionof the
practitioners(playwright, director,actors,etc.). Last, but not least, playgoers
will findfood forthoughtin the attemptsto account forthe specificity of the
theatricalmediumat a timewhentheateris strivingto redefineits uniqueness
and its powers.
RUTH AMOSSY

REFERENCES

BOURGY, V. ANDR. DURAND,eds., Forthcoming.La relationthidtrale(Lille: Pressesde l'universite

de Lille).
ELAM, KEIR, 1920. The Semioticsof Theatreand Drama (London: Methuen).
HELBO,ANDRE, ed., 1975. Semiologiede la Reprisentation(Brussels:Complexe).
ISSACHAROFF, MICHAEL & ANNA WHITESIDE, eds., Forthcoming.On Referring in Literature.
MOUNIN, GEORGES, 1970. Introduction ii la simiologie (Paris: Minuit).

This content downloaded from 139.86.7.217 on Fri, 11 Dec 2015 17:24:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
10 RUTH AMOSSY

Organon80, 1980. Semiologieet Theatre," (Universit6de Lyon II, CERTC).

PAVIS,PATRICE,1976.Problkmesde semiologie thedtrale(Montreal: Presses de l'universit6de
Quebec).
1980 Dictionnairedu Thedtre(Paris: ed. Sociales).
SEGRE,CESARE,1980. "A Contributionto the Semioticsof Theater,"Poetics Today, 1:3, Spring.
Sub-stance18-19,1977. "Theaterin France: Ten Years of Research,"JosetteFeral, ed.
UBERSFELD, ANNE,1977. Lire le thedtre(Paris: d. Sociales).
Forthcoming:L'Objet thddtral(CNDP).
VERSUs.1978, 21, "Teatro e semiotica."

This content downloaded from 139.86.7.217 on Fri, 11 Dec 2015 17:24:56 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions