Volume 2008, Issue 168

Sidnell's argument turns on sets of relations between the terms ‘semiotic,’ ‘theatre,’ and ‘art.’ He proposes that while theatre and other arts became ever more self-consciously semiotic, semiotic analysis became progressively more remote from the arts from which it took its objects of study, and tautological in its expression. The tentative approaches of semiotics to the arts were vitiated by the science of aesthetics and its focus on supposedly autonomous artworks, which obscured semiotic art as praxis. Three remedial steps are proposed: a review, from a semiotic point of view, of the concept of the autonomous artwork; the abandonment of the concept of the ‘performance text’; and attention to the making of signs rather than their interpretation. The final section is concerned with the recognition of semiotic art in the theatre by such premodern theorists as Robortello, Castelvetro, and Shakespeare, and in the work of such modern practitioners as Evreinov, Meyerhold, and Laban, which takes into account psycho-semiotic and biosemiotic origins of theatrical practice. Finally, Sidnell raises the central question of qualitative judgements of the execution of theatrical signs — their grace, beauty, effectiveness.

The theoretical works of the Prague School's structuralist thought, which became the basis of the contemporary semiotics of drama and performance, were often inspired by concurrent artistic experiments. This contribution features a few theoretical concepts such as aktualizace, semantic gesture, stage figure , and their connection with the contemporary stage practice, especially the work of the Liberated Theatre, which made ‘a specific contribution to the anti-illusionist theatre of the European avant-garde.’

The first part of the article sketches the history of the term ostension from St. Augustine to Osolsobě. Ostension is explained as the fundament of the theatrical art by comparing it with the older theory of transubstantiation and the modern discussion of iconicity. The second part draws a parallel between ostension and Mukařovský's discovery of the ‘thingness’ of every work of art. The aim is to show that within the Prague School, which initiated modern semiotics and communication theory, there was at the same time a resistance against pan-semiotization and total subsumption of the arts under the theory of communication. Yet the School's insights also safe-guard against an uncritical rejection of semiotics and communication theory. The last part retraces certain pathologies of the theatre and focuses on recent Polish and Czech drama, demonstrating how obvious the destructive influence of the new media is on theatre. These pathologies are analyzed by means of the semiotic model with the focus on ostension. The theoretical framework is enhanced by Karl Bühler's distinction between two fields of language and Keir Elam's theory of possible worlds and frames.

This paper uses Michael Kirby's structuralist theatre and its tendency to be nonsemiotic as a point of departure to address various aspects of structuralist performance including its resistance to meaning and participation in a communication process, its metatheatrical dimensions, and its defamiliarization quality. Although in a ‘pure’ structuralist theatre semiotics should become obsolete, the question is whether structuralist theatre is able to fully resist the process of semiosis. Is it possible for nonsemiotic performance to stay out of semiotic space, which constantly adapts and renews its codes to accommodate new and emerging structures? Examining the scope and ability of structuralist performance to encompass both semiotic and nonsemiotic tendencies in theatre, this work tries to demonstrate that the nonsemiotic quality of structuralist performance is indeed grounded in a suppressed semiotic approach.

In the 1980s, theatre semiotics faced an epistemological crisis with respect to its approach to the theatre. This crisis was also confronted by the whole epistemological edifice of formalism towards the end of the 1970s; that is, the end of the formalist paradigm that began with the Russian Formalists and reached its maximum development during the 1960s and 1970s with European and particularly French semiotics and structuralism. This crisis brought structural semiotics to an end but the signs of the crisis were apparent from the very beginning of the structural and semiotic enterprise. In order to understand the end of that type of theatre semiotics, one must understand the epistemological underpinnings of literary and theatre theory from the beginning of the twentieth-century until approximately the end of the 1970s. I explore these underpinnings here and their relation to theatre semiotics and its eventual dead end, which, in fact, came at the very same time that the whole edifice of structuralism collapsed with the advent of the postmodern condition and post-structuralism.

Elam's observation that during the past decade or so the semiotic approach to theatre studies has lost its cultural and academic prominence seems unquestionable, even though it should be qualified with the observation made by Sue-Ellen Case and many other prominent theatre theorists that almost all modern theatre theory is based on the semiotic project. Perhaps nowhere was the attempt to move beyond semiotics more strongly marked than in the various forms of poststructuralism, which, by their very assumption of that name, attempted to develop a discourse both beyond and often in direct opposition to semiotics. In fact, the poststructuralist project did not produce a large body of significant theatrical theory. Much more important have been the various types of cultural studies, including various gender and ethnic studies, which never attempted to similarly distance themselves from semiotics. Among the most prominent of the various approaches to cultural studies that emerged in the late twentieth century was postcolonial studies, an approach to theatre studies that, like the various types of ethnic and gender studies that immediately preceded it, not only draws significantly upon a semiotic background, but is engaged in projects in which semiotic analysis provides perhaps the most useful potential tools. Thus, after the anti-semiotic reaction involved in at least certain aspects of poststructuralism, the reemergence of questions of representation, of historical placement, and of authorial voice in postcolonial studies provides a potentially rich new field for semiotic investigation.

Semioticians writing about the theatre event have been wary of analyzing performance work that is non-Western, or challenges the conventions of Western theatre practice. This article applies Patrice Pavis's model for the analysis of intercultural performance in conjunction with Eugenio Barba's research in theatre anthropology to explore the position of the ethnoscenographer. The four levels of the model allow the spectator to accumulate materials from the knowledge and experience of the performance event to reach a level of readability, or, as Pavis refers to it, legibility. The spectator/critic's process of textualizing a performance event can often neglect or replace those aspects that appeared strange or unfamiliar with that which is knowable. This behavior in conjunction with intercultural performance can lead to notions of otherness and alterity being reaffirmed. What Pavis's model attempts to do, in conjunction with Barba's research on theatre anthropology, is enable the spectator/critic, in the role of an ethnoscenographer, to explore those aspects that are culturally ambiguous or discrepant and seek new and/or different cultural perspectives. The eventual textual montage, while always partial, incorporates that which is known, as well as that which is beyond the Eurocentric gaze.

To date, traditional theatre semiotics has not succeeded in creating an intelligible and effective method of performance analysis. I believe, nonetheless, that a semiotic method that aims at revealing the mechanisms of generating theatre meaning is viable and even obligatory. I contend that the problem stems from the erroneous theoretical assumption that theatre draws upon different component codes and is, therefore, a heterogeneous medium. I suggest, rather, that the theatre medium is homogeneous; that ‘iconicity’ should be redefined in terms of imagistic thinking, in the sense of operating images imprinted on matter, and that this definition accounts for its homogeneity. I show that this definition also leads to the following conclusions: (a) iconicity transforms units ‘borrowed’ from other systems of signification and communication into descriptions of such units, thus bestowing homogeneity upon theatre performance-texts; (b) the notion of ‘iconicity,’ in the above sense, also applies to imprinted images of speech acts that combine verbal and nonverbal elements into indivisible nonverbal units; and consequently, (c) a performance-text is an iconic description of a (usually fictional) world, generated by the homogeneous theatre medium. Although reflecting criticism of traditional approaches, this study reaffirms the charter of theatre semiotics.

This article examines an under-researched feature of the theatrical event, curtain calls, from a semiotic perspective. It argues that curtain calls demand the semiotician's special attention as they mark a threshold phase, the transition from the world of the play into that of the audience. In other words, two modes of semiotization coincide, and particular attention is devoted to how audiences navigate their way through this clash of semiotic modes both by convention and sheer theatrical instinct. Conversely, play-wrights, directors, and actors utilize this threshold phase as a means of validation and for claiming artistic ownership of the performance. Moreover, the curtain call can function as a communicative manifesto of a troupe's self-perception by, for instance, highlighting star-performers or emphasizing the troupe's cohesion as an ensemble. These general observations are complemented by two case studies, the conclusion of Peter Hall's production of Aeschylus' Oresteia (London 1981) and of Peter Handke's Publikumsbeschimpfung (Offending the Audience, Frankfurt 1966).

Focusing on the analysis of functions and aesthetic values of theatrical video projections employed in the role, the trade, and the magnetism of an actor on stage, I examine Denis Marleau's staging of Maurice Maeterlinck's Les Aveugles as a celebration of fantasmagorie technologique : a phenomenon of a video projection (the object) taking the place of an actor (the subject), functioning as the embodiment of a dramatic character in a performance. I theorize the mechanisms of transformation, personification, and dominance that determine what transpires between a video projection, a dramatic character, and a virtual actor on stage. By privileging an object over an actor, I contend that theatre destroys both the semantics of the acting event and the fundamental principles of theatrical communication. By mixing the codes of visual and audio narrative, and by shifting the dominance of theatrical communication and thus changing the paradigm of the spectators' contribution to the creative act of a theatrical happening, Marleau's fantasmagorie technologique creates a new performative genre.

La lecture d'un certain nombre d'ouvrages du philosophe Paul Ricœur a entraîné l'auteur à retenir certaines conclusions du philosophe qui lui ont paru propices à éclairer des objets de débat relatifs à la phénoménologie et à la pensée sémiotique de C. S. Peirce. Elle a relevé chez Ricœur des thématiques et concepts d'une valeur critique pour une épistémologie de la connaissance, en particulier dans le domaine des sciences du langage : en l'occurrence les notions de personne, sujet et intention, qu'elle met en relation avec les notions d'objet dynamique, objet immédiat et intention chez Peirce. Elle conclut que leur conception du signe, en revanche, les sépare l'un de l'autre, en dépit des tentatives répétées de Ricœur de sortir du dualisme de la pensée structuraliste. L'article lui-même s'achève sur une proximité qui lui paraît indéniable entre les deux auteurs, s'agissant de la conduite de la pensée scientifique, orientée vers un devenir des notions fondé sur l'identification exigeante de leurs sens acquis. Cette procédure est celle que préconisait Peirce sous le nom de pragmaticisme.

This paper attempts to arrange a meeting between Ricœur and Saussure through their texts. Ricœur's reading Saussure reflects a particular limitation of his time, i.e., the structuralism to which we are no longer confined. He criticizes Saussure from a semantic point of view by appealing to the notion of discourse. According to Meschonnic, the discovery in 1996 of a manuscript of Saussure regarding the double essence of language reveals a particular interest in this notion, warranting a revisiting of Saussurean thought and thus reopening a debate on the status of meaning. Ricœur regards the question of meaning as a moment of self-understanding, situated outside the semiotic system in the world of signification. Saussure suggests defining the value of a linguistic unit in relation to its surrounding units. Where the former searches outside the linguistic unit, the latter searches around it: both refuse to remain, as it were, inside it. In this paper, I suggest that they were to be at odds with the question of time when raising the question of meaning. Eager to grasp a meaning that changes from one moment to the next, they relied on notions of system or context to regulate semantic diversity.

Résumé La relation suivie entre A. J. Greimas et P. Ricœur a eu trois enjeux : la temporalité, la narrativité, et la relation qu'il convient de poser entre la temporalité et la narrativité. Ricœur adresse deux reproches au structuralisme greimassien : son affirmation du caractère achronique des structures ; en second lieu, la thèse de l'immanence de la signification. Selon Ricœur, la narrativité, qui n'est plus celle de Propp dans la reformulation de Greimas, mais celle de l'intrigue telle qu'elle ressort de la Poétique d'Aristote, pré-suppose une “intelligence pré-narrative” en amont et un univers signifiant d'accueil en aval. Cet encadrement restitue à la narrativité ses limites et sa dépendance. Nous proposons de substituer à cet affrontement non dépourvu de grandeur une complémentarité fondée sur l'alternance du parvenir et du survenir.

Résumé Dans le cadre d'une mise en perspective des rapports entre sémiotique et herméneutique, notre article a pour objectif essentiel de proposer une réflexion de type épistémologique à propos des rapports entre Greimas et Ricœur. Il s'agit donc de comprendre pourquoi cet intérêt de Ricœur pour la sémiotique de Greimas, et surtout pourquoi la sémiotique de Greimas est l'une des plus citées par Ricœur. Pour répondre à ces questions, nous partirons de Dilthey, avec le couple « expliquer » et « comprendre », ensuite nous verrons comment les deux disciplines interrogent leur objet d'étude, le texte, sous l'égide d'une théorie discontinue de l'action. Nous terminerons sur la référence.

Résumé La recherche de Paul Ricoeur dans le champ de l'herméneutique est marquée par une longue fréquentation de la sémiotique greimassienne qu'il a voulu intégrer à la construction de l' « arc herméneutique de l'interprétation ». Cet article cherchera à comprendre la lecture que fait Ricœur de la sémiotique, de ses postulats et de ses modèles constitutionnels. On tentera de relever certains points de malentendu dans cette rencontre, et de voir en quoi la pratique de la sémiotique peut entrer selon son propre chemin dans un projet de lecture et d'interprétation.

Résumé Notre présent article vise à examiner l'influence d'Emile Benveniste (1902–1976) sur Paul Ricœur (1913–2005) au moyen d'une lecture attentive des oeuvres de Paul Ricœur publiées à la charnière des années 1960 et 1970. Alors que Benveniste propose de diviser le champ d'études linguistiques en deux niveaux, celui de sémiotique (étude de signes) et celui de sémantique (étude de phrases), Ricœur, quant à lui, en avançant l'idée que le sens réside même après le discours, tente dès le début des années 1970 à dépasser la linguistique benvenistienne, et cela malgré le fait qu'il acceptait, lorsqu'il élaborait son concept de texte dans les années 1960, la division duale benvenistienne comme une hypothèse de travail. Ainsi, contrairement à Benveniste, ce n'est plus vers le sémantique, approche purement linguistique, mais vers l'univers de texte que Ricœur essaie d'orienter le questionnement sur la compréhension et l'interprétation du sens. En plus de ce désaccord à propos du sens, la subjectivation, ainsi que sa relation avec le langage, constituent elles aussi une sorte de ligne de partage entre ces deux auteurs. Nous voulons, dans le présent article, mettre sous une même perspective ces divers points de divergences et réfléchir sur leurs rapports.

Résumé La théorie ricœurienne de la triple mimèsis est susceptible de recevoir deux lectures différentes et exclusives l'une de l'autre. Soit l'on considère, en vertu du « caractère majeur de l'action d'être dès toujours symboliquement médiatisée », que notre praxis est ontologiquement structurée selon des schémas narratifs — mais cette conception essentialiste de l'action minore le rôle configurant de la mise en intrigue et affaiblit d'autant la thèse de Temps et Récit concernant la « force d'innovation de la composition poétique » ; soit on considère l'action comme inanalysable en amont de la représentation narrative, qui seule est en mesure de définir sa sémantique, sa symbolique et sa temporalité. En privilégiant la seconde interprétation, nous tâchons de démontrer ici que l'oeuvre poétique n'a pas qu'une fonction de re figuration et fait plus que de suggérer au lecteur de « change[r] son agir » : l'action n'est humaine et n'est possible que d'être médiatisée par une voix narrative, toute narration créant sa propre référence mais aucune ne donnant accès à un univers référentiel préexistant qui serait ontologiquement signifiant.

Résumé Paul Ricoeur s'est voulu pleinement philosophe, ce qui suppose de se mettre à l'écoute d'une tradition — l'histoire longue de la philosophie — et de s'obliger à penser au présent. Mais, instruit par les visées hyperboliques du « système » (savoir absolu, Hegel), le sujet philosophant (cogito) est prêt à se replier sur des exigences plus modestes, mais pas au point de se nier absolument. Or c'est là la sollicitation que paraît offrir l'émergence (vers 1960) de la vague structuraliste qui ne connaît que des agencements d'éléments dans un espace fermé, sans sujet recteur, par quoi le philosophe se voit dépossédé de sa vocation à dire le sens. Face à ce défi, le philosophe engage le débat contre l'autarcie des systèmes (sémiotiques) au nom d'une sémiologie compréhensive. S'amorce alors un parcours sinueux entre partenaires affrontés sans concessions. Exemplaire est à cet égard l'écoute mutuelle de P. Ricœur et d'A. G. Greimas, amenés à réassumer sans se renier leurs domaines respectifs d'exercice de la pensée qui ne peut jamais s'exempter d'un déchiffrement de sens toujours recommencé.