The Semiotics Of Theatre And Drama - Masaryk University

3y ago
21 Views
2 Downloads
1.62 MB
173 Pages
Last View : 1m ago
Last Download : 3m ago
Upload by : Mika Lloyd
Transcription

New AccentsGeneral Editor: TERENCE HAWKESTHE SEMIOTICS OF THEATRE ANDDRAMA

IN THE SAME SERIESThe Empire Writes Back: Theory and practice in post-colonial literatures Bill Ashcroft,Gareth Griffiths, and Helen TiffinLiterature, Politics and Theory: Papers from the Essex Conference 1976–84 ed. FrancisBarker, Peter Hulme, Margaret Iversen, and Diana LoxleyTranslation Studies Susan BassnettRewriting English: Cultural politics of gender and class Janet Batsleer, Tony Davies,Rebecca O’Rourke, and Chris WeedonCritical Practice Catherine BelseyFormalism and Marxism Tony BennettDialogue and Difference: English for the nineties ed. Peter Brooker and Peter HummTelling Stories: A theoretical analysis of narrative fiction Steven Cohan and LindaM.ShiresAlternative Shakespeares ed. John DrakakisThe Semiotics of Theatre and Drama Keir ElamReading Television John Fiske and John HartleyLiterature and Propaganda A.P.FoulkesLinguistics and the Novel Roger FowlerReturn of the Reader: Reader-response criticism Elizabeth FreundMaking a Difference: Feminist literary criticism ed. Gayle Greene and Coppélia KahnSuperstructuralism: The philosophy of structuralism and post-structuralism RichardHarland

Structuralism and Semiotics Terence HawkesSubculture: The meaning of style Dick HebdigeDialogism: Bakhtin and his world Michael HolquistPopular Fictions: Essays in literature and history ed. Peter Humm, Paul Stigant, andPeter WiddowsonThe Politics of Postmodernism Linda HutcheonFantasy: the literature of subversion Rosemary JacksonSexual/Textual Politics: Feminist literary theory Toril MoiDeconstruction: Theory and practice Christopher NorrisOrality and Literacy Walter J.OngThe Unusable Past: Theory and the study of American literature Russell J.ReisingNarrative Fiction: Contemporary poetics Shlomith RimmonKenanAdult Comics: An introduction Roger SabinCriticism in Society Imre SalusinszkyMetafiction Patricia WaughPsychoanalytic Criticism: Theory in practice Elizabeth WrightKEIR ELAM

THE SEMIOTICS OF THEATREAND DRAMALondon and New York

First published in 1980 by Methuen & Co. LtdReprinted twice Reprinted 1987Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis GroupThis edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005.“ To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collection ofthousands of eBooks please go to http://www.ebookstore.tandf.co.uk/.” 1980 Keir ElamAll rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilized in any form orby any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, includingphotocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, withoutpermission in writing from the publishers.British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Elam, Keir The semiotics of theatre and drama.—(New accents). 1. Drama 2. Semiotics and literature I. Title II. sries 808.2′01 PN1631 79–42666ISBN 0-203-99330-6 Master e-book ISBNISBN 0-415-03984-3 (Print Edition)

CONTENTSGeneral Editor’s PrefaceAcknowledgementsviiiix1 PRELIMINARIES: SEMIOTICS AND POETICS12 FOUNDATIONS: SIGNS IN THE THEATRE43 THEATRICAL COMMUNICATION: CODES, SYSTEMS AND THEPERFORMANCE TEXT4 DRAMATIC LOGIC5 DRAMATIC DISCOURSE6 CONCLUDING COMMENTS: THEATRE, DRAMA, SEMIOTICS206083129Suggestions for further reading131Bibliography138Index148

GENERAL EDITOR’S PREFACEHow can we recognise or deal with the new? Any equipment we bring to the task willhave been designed to engage with the old: it will look for and identify extensions anddevelopments of what we already know. To some degree the unprecedented will alwaysbe unthinkable.The New Accents series has made its own wary negotiation around that paradox,turning it, over the years, into the central concern of a continuing project. We are obliged,of course, to be bold. Change is our proclaimed business, innovation our announcedquarry, the accents of the future the language in which we deal. So we have sought, andstill seek, to confront and respond to those developments in literary studies that seemcrucial aspects of the tidal waves of transformation that continue to sweep across ourculture. Areas such as structuralism, post-structuralism, feminism, marxism, semiotics,subculture, deconstruction, dialogism, post-modernism, and the new attention to thenature and modes of language, politics and way of life that these bring, have already beenthe primary concern of a large number of our volumes. Their ‘nuts and bolts’ expositionof the issues at stake in new ways of writing texts and new ways of reading them hasproved an effective stratagem against perplexity.But the question of what ‘texts’ are or may be has also become more and morecomplex. It is not just the impact of electronic modes of communication, such ascomputer networks and data banks, that has forced us to revise our sense of the sort ofmaterial to which the process called ‘reading’ may apply. Satellite television andsupersonic travel have eroded the traditional capacities of time and space to confirmprejudice, reinforce ignorance, and conceal significant difference. Ways of life andcultural practices of which we had barely heard can now be set compellingly beside-caneven confront—our own. The effect is to make us ponder the culture we have inherited;to see it, perhaps for the first time, as an intricate, continuing construction. And thatmeans that we can also begin to see, and to question, those arrangements offoregrounding and backgrounding, of stressing and repressing, of placing at the centreand of restricting to the periphery, that give our own way of life its distinctive character.Small wonder if, nowadays, we frequently find ourselves at the boundaries of theprecedented and at the limit of the thinkable: peering into an abyss out of which therebegin to lurch awkwardly-formed monsters with unaccountable—yet unavoidable—demands on our attention. These may involve unnerving styles of narrative, unsettlingnotions of ‘history’, unphilosophical ideas about ‘philosophy’, even un-childish views of‘comics’, to say nothing of a host of barely respectable activities for which we have noreassuring names.

In this situation, straightforward elucidation, careful un-picking, informativebibliographies, can offer positive help, and each New Accents volume will continue toinclude these. But if the project of closely scrutinising the new remains nonetheless adisconcerting one, there are still overwhelming reasons for giving it all the considerationwe can muster. The unthinkable, after all, is that which covertly shapes our thoughts.TERENCE HAWKES

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSTHIS book has been read in typescript by a number of riends and colleagues, to whom Iwish to express my sincere gratitude. Marcello Pagnini, Alessandro Serpieri, Paola GullìPugliatti and Patrice Pavis all offered me illuminating criticism and stimulatingsuggestions, which I have taken into account in putting the book into its final form. Ishould particularly like to thank Terence Hawkes, the general editor, for his warmencouragement and shrewd advice at every stage of the writing of this work.Various sections of Chapter 5 reflect my experience, from 1977 to 1978, as a memberof a research group, directed by Alessandro Serpieri and sponsored by the RizzoliFoundation of Milan. I happily acknowledge my debt to my colleagues in the group.My thanks go out, above all, to my wife Silvana, whose tireless support, wise counseland good humour helped me through the sometimes difficult gestation of this book.KEIR ELAM 1979The author and publishers would like to thank the following individuals andcompanies for granting permission to reproduce material in the present volume:Indiana University Press for the diagram on p. 36, from Umberto Eco ATheory of Semiotics (1976); Professor Ray L.Birdwhistell for thediagrams on pp. 45 and 74 from his book Kinesics and Context: Essays onBody-Motion Communication, Penguin (1971); McGraw-Hill BookCompany for the table on p. 81 from J.L.Davitz The Communication ofEmotional Meaning (1964); and Librairie Ernest Flammarion for thereproduction of Souriau’s dramatic ‘calculus’ of roles in Macbeth on pp.127–30, from Etienne Souriau Les 200,000 situations dramatiques (1950).

1PRELIMINARIES: SEMIOTICS ANDPOETICSThe semiotic enterpriseOF all recent developments in what used to be confidently called the humanities, noevent has registered a more radical and widespread impact than the growth of semiotics.There scarcely remains a discipline which has not been opened during the past fifteenyears to approaches adopted or adapted from linguistics and the general theory of signs.Semiotics can best be defined as a science dedicated to the study of the production ofmeaning in society. As such it is equally concerned with processes of signification andwith those of communication, i.e. the means whereby meanings are both generated andexchanged. Its objects are thus at once the different sign-systems and codes at work insociety and the actual messages and texts produced thereby. The breadth of the enterpriseis such that it cannot be considered simply as a ‘discipline’, while it is too multifacetedand heterogeneous to be reduced to a ‘method’. It is—ideally, at least—amultidisciplinary science whose precise methodological characteristics will necessarilyvary from field to field but which is united by a common global concern, the betterunderstanding of our own meaning-bearing behaviour.Proposed as a comprehensive science of signs almost contemporarily by two greatmodern thinkers at the beginning of this century, the Swiss linguist Ferdinand deSaussure and the American philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce, semiotics has since had avery uneven career. This has been marked in particular by two periods of intense andwide-based activity: the thirties and forties (with the work of the Czech formalists) andthe past two decades (especially in France, Italy, Germany, the Soviet Union and theUnited States). The fortunes of the semiotic enterprise in recent years have beenespecially high in the field of literary studies, above all with regard to poetry and thenarrative, (see Hawkes 1977a). Theatre and drama, meanwhile, have receivedconsiderably less attention, despite the peculiar richness of theatrical communication as apotential area of semiotic investigation. The main purpose of this book is to examine suchwork as has been produced and to suggest possible directions for future research in sovital a cultural territory.

The semiotics of theatre and drama2How many semiotics?‘Theatre’ and ‘drama’: this familiar but invariably troublesome distinction requires aword of explanation in this context, since it has important consequences with regard tothe objects and issues at stake. ‘Theatre’ is taken to refer here to the complex ofphenomena associated with the performer-audience transaction: that is, with theproduction and communication of meaning in the performance itself and with the systemsunderlying it. By ‘drama’, on the other hand, is meant that mode of fiction designed forstage representation and constructed according to particular (‘dramatic’) conventions.The epithet ‘theatrical’, then, is limited to what takes place between and amongperformers and spectators, while the epithet ‘dramatic’ indicates the network of factorsrelating to the represented fiction. This is not, of course, an absolute differentiationbetween two mutually alien bodies, since the performance, at least traditionally, isdevoted to the representation of the dramatic fiction. It demarcates, rather, different levelsof a unified cultural phenomenon for purposes of analysis.A related distinction arises concerning the actual object of the semiotician’s labours inthis area; that is to say, the kinds of text which he is to take as his analytic corpus. Unlikethe literary semiotician or the analyst of myth or the plastic arts, the researcher in theatreand drama is faced with two quite dissimilar—although intimately correlated—types oftextual material: that produced in the theatre and that composed for the theatre. These twopotential focuses of semiotic attention will be indicated as the theatrical or performancetext and the written or dramatic text respectively.It is a matter of some controversy as to whether these two kinds of textual structurebelong to the same field of investigation: certain writers (Bettetini and de Marinis 1978;Ruffini 1978; de Marinis 1978) virtually rule out the dramatic text altogether as alegitimate concern of theatrical semiotics proper. The question that arises, then, iswhether a semiotics of theatre and drama is conceivable as a bi- or multilateral butnevertheless integrated enterprise, or whether instead there are necessarily two (or more)quite separate disciplines in play. To put the question differently: is it possible to refoundin semiotic terms a full-bodied poetics of the Aristotelian kind, concerned with all thecommunicational, representational, logical, fictional, linguistic and structural principlesof theatre and drama? This is one of the central motivating questions behind this book.The materialGiven the unsettled and still largely undefined nature of the territory in view here, theexamination that follows is inevitably extremely eclectic, taking into account sourcesranging from classical formalism and information theory to recent linguistic,philosophical, logical and sociological research. The result is undoubtedly uneven, butthis is perhaps symptomatic of the present state of semiotics at large. By the same token,the differ-ences in terminology and methodological concerns from chapter to chapterreflect some of the changes that have registered in the semiotics of theatre and drama inthe course of its development.

Preliminaries3As for the illustrative examples chosen, especially dramatic, the chief criterion hasbeen that of familiarity, a fact which accounts for the perhaps disproportionate number ofreferences to Shakespeare. Exemplifications of modes of discourse (Chapter 5) are takenlargely from English language texts in order to avoid the problems presented bytranslation.

2FOUNDATIONS: SIGNS IN THETHEATREPrague structuralism and the theatrical signThe Prague SchoolTHE year 1931 is an important date in the history of heatre studies. Until that timedramatic poetics—the descriptive science of the drama and theatrical performance—hadmade little substantial progress since its Aristotelian origins. The drama had become (andlargely remains) an annexe of the property of literary critics, while the stage spectacle,considered too ephemeral a phenomenon for systematic study, had been effectivelystaked off as the happy hunting ground of reviewers, reminiscing actors, historians andprescriptive theorists. That year, however, saw the publication of two studies inCzechoslovakia which radically changed the prospects for the scientific analysis oftheatre and drama: Otakar Zich’s Aesthetics of the Art of Drama and Jan Mukařovský’s‘An Attempted Structural Analysis of the Phenomenon of the Actor’.The two pioneering works laid the foundations for what is probably the richest corpusof theatrical and dramatic theory produced in modern times, namely the body of booksand articles produced in the 1930s and 1940s by the Prague School structuralists. Zich’sAesthetics is not explicitly structuralist but exercised a considerable influence on latersemioticians, particularly in its emphasis on the necessary interrelationship in the theatrebetween heterogeneous but interdependent systems (see Deák 1976; Matejka and Titunik1976; Slawinska 1978). Zich does not allow special prominence to any one of thecomponents involved: he refuses, particularly, to grant automatic dominance to thewritten text, which takes its place in the system of systems making up the total dramaticrepresentation. Mukařovský’s ‘structural analysis’, meanwhile, represents the first steptowards a semiotics of the performance proper, classifying the repertory of gestural signsand their functions in Charlie Chaplin’s mimes.During the two decades that followed these opening moves, theatrical semioticsattained a breadth and a rigour that remain unequalled. In the context of the PragueSchool’s investigations into every kind of artistic and semiotic activity—from ordinarylanguage to poetry, art, cinema and folk culture—attention was paid to all forms oftheatre, including the ancient, the avant-garde and the Oriental, in a collective attempt to

Foundations5establish the principles of theatrical signification. It is inevitably with these frontieropening explorations that any overview of this field must begin.The signPrague structuralism developed under the twin influences of Russian formalist poeticsand Saussurian structural linguistics. From Saussure it inherited not only the project foranalysing all of man’s signifying and communicative behaviour within the framework ofa general semiotics but also, and more specifically, a working definition of the sign as atwo-faced entity linking a material vehicle or signifier with a mental concept or signified.It is not surprising, given this patrimony, that much of the Prague semioticians’ earlywork with regard to the theatre was concerned with the very problem of identifying anddescribing theatrical signs and sign-functions.Mukařovsky’s initial application of the Saussurian definition of the sign consisted inidentifying the work of art as such (e.g. the theatrical performance in its entirety) as thesemiotic unit, whose signifier or sign vehicle1 is the work itself as ‘thing’, or ensemble ofmaterial elements, and whose signified is the ‘aesthetic object’ residing in the collectiveconsciousness of the public (1934, p. 5). The performance text becomes, in this view, amacro-sign, its meaning constituted by its total effect. This approach has the advantagesof emphasizing the subordination of all contributory elements to a unified textual wholeand of giving due weight to the audience as the ultimate maker of its own meanings. It isclear, on the other hand, that this macrosign has to be broken down into smaller unitsbefore anything resembling analysis can begin: thus the strategy adopted later byMukařovský’s colleagues is to view the performance not as a single sign but as a networkof semiotic units belonging to different cooperative systems.SemiotizationIt was above all the folklorist Petr Bogatyrev, formerly a member of the Russianformalist circle, who undertook to chart the elementary principles of theatrical semiosis.In his very influential essay on folk theatre (1938b), he advances the thesis that the stageradically transforms all objects and bodies defined within it, bestowing upon them anoverriding signifying power which they lack—or which at least is less evident—in theirnormal social function: ‘on the stage things that play the part of theatrical signs acquirespecial features, qualities and attributes that they do not have in real life’ (pp. 35–6). Thiswas to become virtually a manifesto for the Prague circle; the necessary primacy of thesignifying function of all performance elements is affirmed repeatedly, most succinctlyby Jiři Veltruský: ‘All that is on the stage is a sign’ (1940, p. 84).1In what follows, I shall in general use the term sign-vehicle rather than signifier, as it seems moreappropriate to the nature of the material involved. But there is no essential difference of meaningbetween the two terms.This first principle of the Prague School theatrical theory can best be termed that ofthe semiotization of the object. The very fact of their appearance on stage suppresses thepractical function of phenomena in favour of a symbolic or signifying role, allowing them

The semiotics of theatre and drama6to participate in dramatic representation: ‘while in real life the utilitarian function of anobject is usually more important than its signification, on a theatrical set the significationis all important’ (Bruš

the literary semiotician or the analyst of myth or the plastic arts, the researcher in theatre and drama is faced with two quite dissimilar—although intimately correlated—types of textual material: that produced in the theatre and that composed for the theatre.

Related Documents:

Silat is a combative art of self-defense and survival rooted from Matay archipelago. It was traced at thé early of Langkasuka Kingdom (2nd century CE) till thé reign of Melaka (Malaysia) Sultanate era (13th century). Silat has now evolved to become part of social culture and tradition with thé appearance of a fine physical and spiritual .

May 02, 2018 · D. Program Evaluation ͟The organization has provided a description of the framework for how each program will be evaluated. The framework should include all the elements below: ͟The evaluation methods are cost-effective for the organization ͟Quantitative and qualitative data is being collected (at Basics tier, data collection must have begun)

̶The leading indicator of employee engagement is based on the quality of the relationship between employee and supervisor Empower your managers! ̶Help them understand the impact on the organization ̶Share important changes, plan options, tasks, and deadlines ̶Provide key messages and talking points ̶Prepare them to answer employee questions

Dr. Sunita Bharatwal** Dr. Pawan Garga*** Abstract Customer satisfaction is derived from thè functionalities and values, a product or Service can provide. The current study aims to segregate thè dimensions of ordine Service quality and gather insights on its impact on web shopping. The trends of purchases have

On an exceptional basis, Member States may request UNESCO to provide thé candidates with access to thé platform so they can complète thé form by themselves. Thèse requests must be addressed to esd rize unesco. or by 15 A ril 2021 UNESCO will provide thé nomineewith accessto thé platform via their émail address.

Chính Văn.- Còn đức Thế tôn thì tuệ giác cực kỳ trong sạch 8: hiện hành bất nhị 9, đạt đến vô tướng 10, đứng vào chỗ đứng của các đức Thế tôn 11, thể hiện tính bình đẳng của các Ngài, đến chỗ không còn chướng ngại 12, giáo pháp không thể khuynh đảo, tâm thức không bị cản trở, cái được

Signs: an introduction to semiotics 2nd ed. (Toronto studies in semiotics and communication) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-8020-3634-1 (bound) ISBN 0-8020-8472-9 (pbk.) 1. Semiotics. 2. Signs and symbols. I. Title. II. Series. P99.S382001 302.2 C200 1-901772-3

Semiotics of Architecture and Architecture of Semiotics . heterogeneity) is the objective material basis of information (cf. Ursul 1971). The heterogeneities (4) are the totality of differences in some characteristics (types of equity). The heterogeneities form different systems, this phenomenon being the most