Behind the scenes of theatrical meaning: a social semiotic approach to inter- and intramodal interactions in performance

1 Introduction

Theatrical performance, characterized as an enriched multimodal discourse, integrates an array of semiotic resources within interwoven networks of signs to effectively portray its fictional world to an audience. Within theater, a multitude of signs, distributed spatially on stage and temporally throughout the play course, interact dynamically to bring the story to life on an otherwise empty space. The complexity of resources and channels involved in this process presents a challenging endeavor in accounting for the mechanisms underlying the creation of meaning within such artefacts.

Previous structurally oriented semiotic approaches to theater have proven inadequate in capturing the intricacies of the nuanced process of meaning construction specific to theater. These approaches have largely overlooked the dynamic nature of sign relations and their interpretations (Wolde 1996: 339–340), thus falling short in accounting for the richness and fluidity inherent in meaning-making of theatrical performances. These early undertakings primarily sought to elucidate theatrical meanings through preestablished code-based correlations between on-stage signs and their corresponding significations. However, as Elam notes, the process of meaning-making in theater is far too dynamic and fluid to be adequately explained by merely considering discrete objects and their representational functions (Elam 2002: 29).

Pioneering scholarly efforts aimed at elucidating the semiotic processes in theater (e.g., De Toro 1995; Eco 1977; Fischer-lichte 1992; Kowzan 1968) have acknowledged, to some degree, the multimodal nature of theater semiosis but have fallen short of explicating the mechanism by which its diverse sign systems synergically interact to shape the interpretations of spectators.

This study adopts a Social Semiotic approach to investigate how various semiotic systems work and cooperate in theatrical performances to create meaning. Social semiotics, emerged in the 1980s, mainly expands on Michael Halliday’s Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) (e.g., in Halliday 1978, 2019 [1961]; Halliday and Matthiessen 2014), which argues that semiotic systems are socio-culturally developed and organized resources used to fulfill a range of communicative functions among community members. The approach views meaning as an outcome of a continuous interplay among an array of semiotic resources available in any instance of communication (Halliday and Matthiessen 2014).

Since its emergence, Social Semiotics has integrated insights from various disciplines, including sociology, anthropology, and linguistics, to investigate the multimodal characteristics of communicative situations, spanning from face-to-face conversations to communications in educational settings. The application of Social Semiotics to the analysis of multimodal artifacts has demonstrated its significant value in examining phenomena that involve the use of more than one semiotic mode (see for example, Bateman and Schmidt 2012; Jewitt 2005, 2008; Lemke 2009; O’Halloran 1999, 2011; Wildfeuer and Bateman 2017).

Drawing on the Social Semiotic notion of multimodality and its fundamental idea of mode, this research will investigate how inter- and intramodal relations among diverse semiotic systems impact the meaning-making process in theater. To do so, two theatrical renditions of Robert Bolt’s (1960) play A Man for All Seasons have been selected. One performance was directed by Bahman Farmanara in Tehran, Iran, at Vahdat Hall during November and December 2014, while the other took place at The City Theatre Austin in Texas in 2016 under the direction of Jeff Hinkle.

Analyzing two performances based on the same dramatic text offers a valuable methodological insight, as it allows for a clearer demonstration of how varying interactions among semiotic systems shape meaning. The two performances are considered as two unique semiotic entities as each performance employs different combinations of signs, leading to distinct interpretations. By focusing on textually comparable segments from both performances, researchers can effectively investigate how these unique sign combinations and the inter- and intramodal interactions contribute to the overall meaning. Ultimately, this method allows for a more detailed exploration of the interactions among semiotic resources while emphasizing the important role of cultural influences in determining the meaning-making potential of these resources.

2 Social semiotic view on meaning: mode, affordance, and choice

Social semiotics, primarily grounded in Halliday’s Systemic Functional Linguistics (e.g., Halliday 2019 [1961], 1978; Halliday and Hasan 1989; Halliday and Matthiessen 2014), conceptualizes meaning-making as a process that involves the fundamental act of simultaneously using an array of semiotic resources to create expressive structures that convey the desired meaning within a specific context (see, Hodge and Kress 1988; Kress 2010; Van Leeuwen 2005). Social semiotics posits that language is but a fraction of the broader spectrum of the cultural resources utilized in the construction of meaning (Bezemer and Kress 2015; Kress 1993, 2003, 2010; Van Leeuwen 2005). As such, it acknowledges and assigns comparable significance to other semiotic resources as an integral component of any communicative situation, thereby taking into account modal interactions and offering theoretical and methodological tools to approach the synergistic effects among modes.

A mode is defined within this framework as “a socially shaped and culturally given semiotic resource for making meaning” (Kress 2010: 79). From a Social Semiotic standpoint, each mode has evolved and specializes in materializing specific meanings, leading to variations in meaning functions among modes within a multimodal ensemble (Bezemer and Jewitt 2018). In other words, in a multimodal text, each mode contributes a portion to the overall meaning based on the expressive capacity it has developed over the years.

The expressive potential of a given mode is, then, conceptualized in terms of its affordances, which, in this context, refers to “the potentials and limitations of specific modes for the purposes of making signs in representations” (Kress 2010: 157). Consequently, various modes exhibit distinct levels of representational capacity and proficiency in conveying meanings (Kress and Van Leeuwen 2001). For instance, language is commonly acknowledged for its heightened representational capacity in conveying abstract meanings, such as intricate ideas or arguments. Conversely, images are often recognized for their elevated representational capacity in capturing visual, spatial, emotional, and affective meanings. Sound and music are frequently ascribed a high representational capacity for rhythm, tone, and mood.

The affordance of a mode is predominantly influenced by the materiality of the mode as well as the collective endeavors community members dedicate to employing that mode in their daily communicative practices. Therefore, the capacity of a mode to achieve specific meanings is intricately tied to its recurrent utilization over time to address the communicative needs of a community of users. This repeated utilization gradually shapes the spectrum of meanings attainable through specific modes and the semiotic tasks they can fulfill within a given text.

Given the varying semiotic functions that different modes can fulfill, the concept of design emerges as a crucial factor in multimodal meaning-making processes. Design is defined as “the organization of what is to be articulated” (Kress and Van Leeuwen 2001: 50) and is the purposeful selection and arrangement of available resources into a structured configuration, guided by their potential meanings and their ability to convey the desired meanings.

Choice, thus, is another fundamental concept, which plays a pivotal role in the act of meaning-making within Social Semiotics. In this regard, Social Semiotics, in line with Systemic Functional Linguistics, is regarded as a theory that emphasizes meaning as a product of choice. These choices are made by an active sign-maker from a range of semiotic options that modes offer. Different choices, then, give rise to distinct embodied semiotic structures, which are employed as expressions to convey meanings. Consequently, the act of meaning-making entails navigating the modal resources and selecting options that one perceives as most accurately representing one’s intended message (for a detailed discussion, see Asp 2017; Berry 2017; Halliday 2013).

3 Performance: a multimodal ensemble

The examination of meaning in theater is intrinsically tied to the enduring debates on the dichotomy of Performance/Drama, with diverse arguments posited both in favor of and against the preeminence of meanings associated with each medium (see Alter 1981; Carlson 1990; De Toro 1995; Eco 1977; Fortier 2016; Schechner 1988 for a detailed discussion). Recent scholars (see, for example, Birch 1991; Elam 2002; Pavis 1982) have emphasized the significance of acknowledging a reciprocal relationship of a constraining nature between the two mediums. In this sense, the text constrains the performance by setting the framework for actions, movements, and dialogues, while the performance conditions the text due to its requirement for physical contextualization on stage (Carlson 1990).

From a Social Semiotic perspective, it is equally important to recognize that both drama and performance possess their own sets of socio-culturally developed semiotic resources that necessitate independent examination. Unlike drama, which primarily relies on the semiotic systems of language to convey meaning, stage performances incorporate a wider array of semiotic resources historically evolved within an environment characterized by the interplay of linguistic and nonlinguistic modes inherent to theater (Tan et al. 2016). Hence, a theatrical performance is an autonomous artifact, not only in its inherent performability (e.g., constrained by immediacy and ephemerality as discussed by McAuley 1994) but also in terms of its distinctive semiotic identity. It should be perceived as a multimodal sign complex designed from various semiotic resources such as lighting, sound, language, and others, collectively contributing to a spatio-temporal stream of meanings. The collaborative outcome of such interactions is a complex network of signs that collectively generate a coherent multimodal discourse. Therefore, an effective exploration of such a multifaceted entity demands a comprehensive examination of all active semiotic resources and, in terms of Greimas and Courtés (1979: 342), their “partial contributions” to the overall meaning.

On stage, as Kowzan (1968) argues, signs rarely appear in pure states; rather, they exist within an environment of continuous interactions of various semiotic resources. In such a dynamic context, for instance, “the linguistic sign is most of the time accompanied by the sign of the intonation, of the mime, of the movement and that all the other means of scenic expression – décor, costumes, make-up, sound effects – act simultaneously on the spectator as combinations of signs” (Kowzan 1968: 57). This combinatory effect where different scenic expressions “derive strength and precision from each other” (Kowzan 1968: 57) is further reflected in Fischer-Lichte’s (1992, 2008) conceptualization of theater as a dynamic semiotic system involving verbal and nonverbal communication, physical space, time, and the performer’s body. Such a perception of meaning-making in theater requires, as Carlson (1993) states, a holistic approach that takes into account the delicate interplay between various semiotic resources, including those of text, performance, and the physical environment.

In a seminal work, Pister (1988: 44–49) introduces a comprehensive “matrix of possible relations” that encompasses the diverse interplay of signs in theatrical performances. This matrix categorizes the relations among audio-visual signs on stage into three main types of identity, complementarity, and discrepancy, to which we will return in the coming sections.

While existing scholarly literature acknowledges the complex nature of meaning construction in theater and advocates for the analysis of the interplays among various systems of signs, studies lack in-depth explanations of how these relationships can be systematically modeled and further explored. Recognizing this gap, the current research seeks to address this limitation by demonstrating the efficacy of incorporating a Social Semiotic framework. By incorporating insights from Social Semiotics into the current line of studies in theater semiotics, this study aims to contribute to a better comprehension of the intricate dynamics of meaning-making in theater as a distinct platform of communication.

4 Performance as designed multimodal text

From a Social Semiotic perspective, any given performance can be conceptualized as a multimodal text crafted from an array of semiotic modes available at any unfolding moment. Defined as a multimodal text, performance is thereby perceived as “a sign complex designed with signs in different modes” (Gualberto and Kress 2019: 3). These signs are selectively employed from a pool of semiotic resources and through a selection process influenced by each mode’s meaning-making capacity. This theoretical stance allows for viewing the process of meaning construction in theater as a dynamic endeavor, wherein a “rhetor, designer, or producer orchestrates modes and other nonmaterial semiotic resources to produce texts as prompts, motivated by the interests of the rhetor, in a given moment…” (Gualberto and Kress 2019: 2).

This new perspective can be assimilated with early semiotic theories of theater, which recognized performance as a composition of various semiotic systems actively engaged throughout the unfolding performance. One notable contribution that encapsulates the essence of the earlier studies and holds particular relevance to our study is made by Kowzan (1968), who presents a comprehensive inventory of thirteen sign systems utilized in theatrical performances to make meaning. Kowzan begins with the auditive signs generated by actors, encompassing their spoken words and the paralinguistic effects embedded in their utterances. Additionally, he explores the visual signs emanating from the actors’ physical presence on stage, including mime, gestures, movements, makeup, hairstyles, and costumes. Furthermore, Kowzan discerns visual signs external to the actors, such as accessories, stage decor, and lighting, as well as auditory signs not directly produced by the actors, such as music and sound effects. Addressing the influence of cross-modal interactions on stage, Kowzan argues that “facial mime and gestures of the hand can underline the meaning of words, belie it, or give it a particular shade” (Kowzan 1968: 56).

Fischer-Lichte expands upon Kowzan’s framework and presents a list of fourteen sign systems that contribute to theatrical meanings. These systems are categorized based on oppositions such as “acoustic/visual,” “transient/lasting,” and “actor-related/space-related” (Fischer-Lichte 1992: 15). Acoustic signs include sounds, music, language, and paralinguistic elements, while visual signs encompass mimetic, gestural, and proxemic signs, as well as various stage elements. The final category distinguishes signs related to actors from those related to the theatrical space itself (Fischer-Lichte 1992).

Pfister (1988: 245–249) goes further to categorize the dynamic interplay between the verbal and nonverbal elements of stage into three distinct classes: complementarity, identity, and discrepancy. He argues that in complementarity, as the predominant form of verbal/nonverbal interactions in the theatrical tradition, the meanings communicated through forms of linguistic expression are enhanced and given depth by “a coherent three-dimensional model of reality,” using other audio-visual elements (Pfister 1988: 47).

A notable example of this can be seen in staged performances of the play Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare (see, Shakespeare 2019 [1597]). Specifically, in the renowned Balcony Scene (Act 2, Scene 2), wherein Romeo and Juliet convey their profound affection for each other through poetic and impassioned dialogue, the dialogue between the two young lovers harmonizes with additional sign systems, including lighting, proxemics, movement, gesture, and music, to augment the emotional resonance of their love. The uttered words effectively convey the characters’ intense emotions and desire to be united despite the adversities they encounter, thereby establishing the dialogue as the principal sign system for communicating the characters’ thoughts and sentiments. Nevertheless, the dialogue is complemented by the integration of other sign systems to heighten the romantic ambiance. During staged performances of this scene, the nocturnal setting facilitates nuanced manipulations of lighting resources, a strategic choice that intensifies the emotional tenor of the moment. Furthermore, the orchestrated bodily movements of the characters, their gestures, proxemics, and gazes serve as additional signifiers that convey the depth of their emotional connection and mutual yearning. Moreover, music is strategically employed in these performances to further enhance the overall impact of the scene. Typically, soft and melodious background music is employed to underscore the romantic atmosphere, intensifying the emotional dimensions of the verbal dialogue. Without a multimodal perspective, the signs would not be understood in the same way, potentially leading to more lax and less definitive interpretations. Additionally, this multimodal interplay, integrating a spectrum of sign systems, substantially contributes to a more immersive and resonant theatrical experience that transcends the limitations of verbal language alone.

Another instance exemplifying complementarity can be observed in Tennessee Williams’ A Streetcar Named Desire, where the dialogues, laden with tension and emotional weight, harmonize with the decaying mise-en-scène (see, Williams 1952). In this play, the worn and deteriorating surroundings on stage reflect the dynamics of the spoken interactions. The characters’ expressions of despair, nostalgia, and shattered dreams are presented in conjunction with a diverse array of visual representations, which serve to deepen the audience’s involvement, enabling them to experience the emotional weight of the narrative not solely through words, but also through the visual portrayal of the deteriorating surroundings.

Traditional examples of complementarity can also be found in Elizabethan dumb shows and the German baroque tragedy tradition. In Elizabethan dumb shows, silent prologues or interludes employed visual and gestural elements to convey essential information or set the thematic tone before the verbal aspects unfolded, or augmented the moral significance of the spoken scenes using mimetic additions. Similarly, in German baroque tragedy, allegorical tableaux integrated visual and physical elements with verbal expressions to convey intricate layers of meaning. In Wolfgang von Goethe’s Faustus, for instance, Faust’s internal struggles and moral dilemmas were symbolically represented in allegorical tableaux, wherein various characters embodied moral challenges (see, Goethe 1843).

Conversely, the commedia dell’arte tradition in Italy deviates from the dominance of language. In this form, improvised dialogue serves “only as an adjunct to, and a refinement of, what they could express by physical actions” (Styan 1960: 50), with the narrative primarily communicated through the physical and visual elements.

Identity, as a rather rare case in the theater history, involves the faithful replication of verbal signs through nonverbal systems, as exemplified in the ensuing excerpt from Samuel Beckett’s Happy Days (1961: 39):

WINNIE (pause. She takes up a mirror): I take up this little glass, I shiver it on a stone – (does so) – I throw it away (does so far behind her).

In this particular instance, the meticulous reproduction of verbal content through nonverbal means assumes a dual function. First, it serves as a guiding mechanism, directing the audience’s attention to the enacted actions that mirror the spoken words. Second, and of greater significance, it creates a space for interpretations concerning Winnie’s character. Within the context of the play, Winnie emerges as a character distinguished by a compulsive inclination to express even the most banal thoughts verbally.

This tendency is similarly observable in realist and naturalist theatrical works, wherein the verbal components are closely replicated by nonverbal systems. Such an intricate interplay between verbal and nonverbal elements contributes to the creation of a more authentic illusion, while simultaneously facilitating a nuanced interpretation of characters’ psychological complexities and emotional landscapes.

Finally, discrepancy, as the third category, emerges as a relatively contemporary phenomenon, particularly observed in modern theatrical works. It manifests as a disjunction between spoken dialogues and the performed actions. In such instances, this disjunction prompts diverse psychological and philosophical interpretations, encompassing considerations of characters’ psychological states and motivations, or instances of deception, among other possibilities. In a more radical form, it may entail an irreconcilable incongruity between the verbal and nonverbal elements, which demands greater interpretive efforts to be logically explained. A notable illustration of this radical discrepancy can be observed in Samuel Beckett’s Waiting for Godot (1965: 94):

Estragon: Well? Shall we go?

Vladimir: Pull on your trousers.

[…]

Estragon: Well, shall we go?

Vladimir: Yes, let’s go.

(They do not move)

In the case above, the radical discrepancy, which is recurrent in the whole play, serves multiple purposes. It not only suggests the characters’ indecisiveness and highlights the discordance between their desires and their actual capabilities but also communicates a formal ideological stance that raises fundamental inquiries regarding the feasibility of intentional action. Consequently, the audience is compelled to grapple with these unconventional disparities, encouraging them to explore alternative interpretations capable of reasonably justifying such a significant discordance. This compels the audience to engage in a more profound examination of the various semiotic modes on stage, striving to discern the logic that unifies the verbal and nonverbal elements in a manner that meaningfully elucidates the stark divergence observed between them.

While these classifications may not fully capture the intricate interplay among diverse signs, they offer a nuanced framework for discerning the multitude of signs at work in theater. They facilitate a focused examination of the diverse signs that collectively contribute to the construction of meaning in theatrical contexts. Integrating the perspectives of Social Semiotics and the traditional semiotic view of theater, as expounded earlier, allows us to conceive of performance as an amalgamation of the diverse semiotic systems, converging at any given moment in theater to convey meaning. This integration enables us to comprehend the function of each system in relation to the others, as they dynamically interact and shape the overall semiotic landscape of the performance. By embracing this approach, we not only gain insight into the meanings conveyed by different signs but also elucidate why certain signs acquire distinct meanings in specific situational contexts within the performance.

5 Discussion

For the purpose of analysis, the examined performances were accessed online, and videos were retrieved from online video sharing platforms,^[1] making them easily accessible for analysis. As previously noted, specific segments of the plays were chosen according to various criteria. Scenes were chosen where they were recorded and presented through the perspective of multiple cameras, enabling a more nuanced examination of the unfolding narrative from diverse viewpoints and exploring the diverse signs employed on stage.

Additionally, scenes were chosen based on the narrative similarity existing between the Persian and English versions. Specifically, scenes faithful to the dramatic text were selected, creating an expectation of similarity in the staged performances. This selection facilitated an exploration of how identical narrative elements were staged using distinct semiotic modes. Furthermore, those scenes were selected that featured the use of multiple modes and sign systems to allow for an investigation into the interrelation and synergy among these modes in conveying meaning. Finally, the scenes chosen had the least interpretational inferences from camera work to enable a less biased examination of scene composition and actions. By employing these rigorous criteria, potential biases and confounding factors were mitigated, allowing for a focused analysis of the interactions among semiotic choices derived from diverse modes.

6 Conclusions

In conclusion, by adopting a Social Semiotic approach, this study endeavored to address the gap in existing theater semiotics literature concerning the systematic modeling and exploration of the interrelationships among various semiotic systems in theater. Through a comparative analysis of English and Persian renditions of Robert Bolt’s A Man for All Seasons, it became evident that the integration of Social Semiotics enhances our understanding of theater as a rich multimodal text. The findings not only affirm the pivotal role of inter- and intramodal interactions in theatrical meaning-making but also emphasize the efficacy of Social Semiotics in providing a comprehensive toolkit for more effectively interrogating such interactions. Ultimately, this research underscores the importance of embracing multimodal perspectives to advance our understanding of the complex processes involved in creating meaning within the theatrical realm.