DOI: 10.24308/iass-2014-135

Free-lance Theatre Director, Choreographer & Performer, Sofia, Bulgaria

ivaylo.alexandroff@gmail.com

Abstract

Through the manifestation of the concept of a sign we discuss the question of how the meaning and significance takes place in a theatre environment, as we analyze the process of signification/communication in a theatrical stage reality. This semiotic perspective helps us to develop the idea of a theatre performance as a theatrical text created by actor and space, and accepted by the audience. This text includes at its core two aspects of significa­tion – linguistic/non-linguistic and performative (physical action), which actually stimulates the diversity of signification on stage. We explore the premise that as a text, as a semiotic construct of signs and sign formations, a theatrical performance is defined by a set of codes that are generally supra-theatrical cultural codes, and which are based on secondary sign systems of the performance – literature, music, art, mythology, religion, even the theatre itself as art. We indicate that the performative codes (sign systems) normally function simultaneously in a performance (paradigmatically) or linearly (syntagmatically), and thus they actively produce meaning [signification]. The signs that the viewer gets from variative sign systems on the stage are accepted under the principle of simultaneous contact, which themselves are in syntagmatic relation among themselves when producing signification. Quoting De Marinis 1993 [1982], and in the process of reasoning, also De Toro 1995, we classified the performative text as a macrotext or text-of-the-text produced by variative series of partial performative texts that in the context of the overall performance constitute unique expressive result, a compila­tory product of speech, music, costumes, gestures, dance, body sculpturing, etc. Thus, we conclude that the elements of the general performative text interact and they are united in one sense that constructs the theatrical text as performative expression. Theatre semiotics as a general principle, and in particular the ideas of the Prague structuralists, helped us look at theatre performance from the perspective of an interaction between actors and space in their overall verbal/nonverbal communication. In view of our reasoning up to this point we finally confirm the position that the actor and stage space are fundamental components not only of the theatrical text but of the theatrical performativity as a whole.

Theatre semiotics (from Bogatyrev, Veltrusky, Mukarzovsky, Zich to State and Elam, from Pavis and Quinn to Fischer-Lichte, from De Marinis, Ruffini and De Toro to Alter, Ubersfeld and Aston/Savona) has long served a radical effort to generate the idea of the performance as a theatrical text, which strongly appears to be an innovative step forward in the debate on models of stage signification. It could be assumed that any expression from stage to audience overlaps with a theatrical sign equivalent, which is the direct result of a multivalence of sign systems on stage precisely as a complex sign semiosis: from visual to verbal, from the iconic to the symbolic, from the natural to the conventional (Veltruský 1976[1], De Marinis 1980, 1982[2], Pavis 1982[3], Alter 1990[4], Fischer-Lichte 1992[5], De Toro 1995[6], Quinn 1995[7], Ubersfeld 1999[8], Elam 2002[9]). The signification (Veltruský 1976)[10] defines the dramatic figure as an aesthetic object (stage figure) on the stage (see: Mukařovský 1978)[11] and, in this context, especially Prague structuralists regarded the performance as a complex expressive platform. Otakar Zich in Aesthetics of the Art of Drama [1931, 1986][12] and Jan Mukařovský in An Attempt at a Structural Analysis of a Dramatic Figure [1978][13] based some of their reasoning precisely on the semiotic nature of theatrical representation and communication. As Elam said in his study The Semiotics of Theatre and Drama (2002): “In 1930s the Prague School theatre theories radically changed the prospects for the scientific analysis of theatre and drama” and „laid the foundations for what is probably the richest corpus of theatrical and dramatic theory produced in modern times.”[14]

Building upon the quests of Prague structuralists, we could move forward and ascertain that the sign feature of a theatre performance has exhibited a certain dialectical nature, representing a thing, being a phenomenon embodying simultaneously a binary reality – a physical and an ideological one, i.e. representing signs of the signs, which is a fundamental element of the performative text.[15] The whole stage signification, very much like the one in everyday life, is reduced to verbal and non-verbal, formally unfolded in time and space.[16] In an overt verbal communication on stage it is necessary to know how to encode and decode this stage language and how, most importantly, these complexes of aesthetic sign systems are formed in the performance. The entire performance, as a text, and as a semiotic construct of signs and sign formations, is defined precisely by a set of codes that are generally supra-theatrical cultural codes, on which the secondary sign systems of the show are based: literature, music, art, mythology, religion, even the theatre itself as a form of art. The performative codes (sign systems) in the show usually operate according to a simultaneous principle (paradigmatically) or linearly (syntagmatically), and thus they actively produce denotation [signification][17]. The signs that the viewer gets from the varying sign systems on stage are perceived according to the principle of simultaneous contact, and they themselves are in a syntagmatic relation between themselves, producing signification. Quoting De Marinis, we could categorize the performative text as a macrotext or a text-of-the-text[18] produced by varying series of partial performative texts, that in the context of the overall performance constitute the unique expressive result, a compilatory product of speech, music, costumes, gestures, dance, body movements and more. De Toro, too, based on the thesis of De Marinis, found that these texts (the elements of the general performative text) are constituted and presented in a generalized sense:

/…/ а) the special or performance context that consist of the conditions of production and reception of the PT [performance text – emphasis mine] /…/ b) the general or cultural context that is made up of the ensemble of cultural text, whether they be from the theatre (mime, scenografical, dramaturgical, etc.), or from outside theatre (from literature, pictographic, rhetorical, philosophical, etc.) and these belong to the synchrony of the PT. That is, they are socio-cultural surroundings of the PT. In fact, these texts are intertexts. Also, both the theatre texts and extra-theatre texts form the general cultural text (GCT). The articulation of these two contexts is fundamental in understanding every PT, for in the first case (performance text), the elements for understanding the PT are provided in situ, and in the second case (cultural text), the referents of this text are inserted into the GCT. Any analysis of performance should necessarily consider both contexts if it is to be competent (De Marinis 1980). It is only in the PT that both contexts are found, for in the DT (dramatic text – emphasis mine) the performance context is absent as performance, as enunciative situation and as production of this situaton. (author's emphasis)[19]

In theatrical conditions, the creation of a comprehensive body of the theatrical text requires generation of a sense applicable to the general body of the show and consisting of the individual elements of this text. Again this is linked to the competence of the viewer, but here the process is also subject to the viewer’s belonging to a cultural community. For a conservative audience, representative of European cultural type, a performance of Theatre Noh, built as text in the eastern cultural traditions, is incomprehensible, to say the least. In order to transform the show into a conceptual text, it is necessary the coding system of the cultural environment to be adequate to that of the viewers, i.e. to be built on the grounds of a conceptually common language. The problem of language as a verbal tool is especially painful in a theatrical reality and especially so, of course, in situations when the verbal strongly dominates the visual expression. But in any case, a unity of the language construct in the depiction and perception of a performance is necessary in the process of decoding a theatrical metalanguage, as Pavis puts it:

The status of the language used in the description of the performance is highly problematic; we might define it as metalanguage, but this metalanguage either employs a linguistic discourse or on the contrary is articulated by means of an independent system of units. There, too, only a semiotics (in a sense used by Greimas) would be capable of visually representing the theatre object described, of giving a symbolic notation to it, i.e., a notation which “uses in the conventional graphics (geometrical figures, letters, abbreviations, initials, etc.) a set of symbols” and “is used in the visual representation of constitutive units of a metalanguage” (Greimas 1979:257) No metalanguage of this type has ever existed for theatre: this can easily be explained by the diversity of meaning systems in performance and the impossibility of homogenizing them into one sole notation. Thus we have to return to a semiology which attempts at best to combine iconic notation and symbolic notation, to assume the presupposition of its critical discourse and to match its theory to the particular performance. Consequently, one should not detach the metalanguage from the analyzed object, but should seek its traces or suggestions within the performance itself.[20]

Perceiving the overall performativity of the show, viewers respond to auditory and visual objects that refer the meaning of what is shown into their minds and in the process of perceiving these objects they are separated into simultaneous and consecutive ones. Here we can get back to Jakobson, assuming that „a complex visual sign involves a series of silmultaneous constituents, while a complex auditory sign, as a rule, of serial successive constituets”[21]. Jacobson starts from the assumption that the auditory environment (sign) within speech (in our case, stage speech) is, generally speaking, polyphonic and is constructed and perceived as a complex set of „phonemes, simultaneos bundles of distinctive features”[22] that is characterized by its spatial and temporal signifiers[23]. Presentation of the speech is „conceptualized by the speaker which implies no time sequence; the message as a whole may be simultaneously presenting the mind of the speaker, […] the performance itself, [which includes] two faces – production and audition” and “the stage of comprehension, where the sequence appears to be changed into a concurrence”[24]. Here we can conclude that this simultaneousness of the perception confers to stage speech both temporal and spatial nature, which could be extended also to gestures and spatial forms in the context of their communicative and aesthetic theatrical features. Of course, the theory of Jakobson does not consider specifically the theatre performance, but rather – literary works, nevertheless it is a perfect example of how we can regulate speech (actor's speech) as part of a theatrical text. Here we can define the theatrical text as „composed in the language of theatre”[25], and this language being „characterized in particular by the fact that it cannot be reduced to one smallest homogeneous unit, but is instead comprised of heterogeneous sign system” that “cannot all be divided up into their smallest elements of signification”[26] and in this context, let’s emphasize again that the performance as a text is composed of different signs and sign systems having pronounced spatial and temporal environments that form and maintain specific theatrical language. This text is interpreted through two main components of the show: the actor and the stage area (which in more detail will be discussed in the next two chapters), and they are the only ones that could represent the other sign systems, too. One such interpretation is in many ways not only verbal (linguistic), but also non-verbal (actor’s physicality and gestures, architecture of space, sound and light environment), i.e. this universality of the performative text allows for each viewer, irrespective of his/her linguistic expertise, to “read” it to a great extent basing on precisely the interaction or the tension, if we have to refer to Ubersfeld, between the dramaturgical and performative text:

The shaping of space by physical movements and by phone (author's emphasis) can be determined or informed by a reading of textual structure, but those physical movements can also have a history, a precedence against which textual structures (syntactic, for example) might be applied (or not). Physical, gestural activity (mime or other) can construct, finally. A space that develops in a parallel or indeed even opposite direction to that which might arise from the imaginary of the text. [27]

The actual representation of meaning in the theatrical space is the result of understanding (on the part of the viewer) of this performative text as being read by the actor's interpretation into the space of the stage (via gestures/visually) and it is in theatre performance itself, that „establishing the ‘I am here in the space’ is achieved both by verbal and gestural deixis. In speaking the dialogue, the actor is also using the body to point to her/his relations to the on-stage dramatic world, her/his action within it.”[28] The text of the show could be seen as a complex product, that is: one constructed of multiple sign carriers: written text, pictures, images, material objects, sounds, the actors themselves and the stage space. Again, each of these components turns out to be a kind of intermediary between two or more signs from one or multiple sign systems where the communication between them creates the main language of the show as a text. The very heterogeneous nature of theatrical signs allows for the creation of such a multimedia environment in which signs from one sign system, correspond and are re-transmitted to another sign system, and this could be done via one or more sign intermediaries. In a tangible stage sign system, such as the stage architecture, for example, purely linguistic signs could emerge and they could be transmitted through sounds or corporeality (other sign systems) forming the text of the show in its uniqueness (the wood or the stone of the stage can move, dance, talk, make sounds, sing). In such a case, the primary meaning of the theatrical text is generated by the mediation of the individual components of different sign systems, turning it into a general intermediary between the significance meant by the creator/s and the meaning as perceived by the viewer. Each sign component can be manifested as an essential and generative medium in different semantic constructs of the theatrical text as long as it serves, to a sufficient level, to the performance’s general significance, and the latter, of course, depends on the personal choice, forming and combination of signs and sign systems because „there is a sense in which signs, or certain kinds of signs, or signs in a certain stage of their life cycle, achieve their vitality – and in turn the vitality of theatre – not simply by signifying the world by being of it.”[29]. When for example a creator of a performance chooses to embody the collapse of an entire world through Beethoven's Fifth Symphony and the destruction of the stage architecture in the literal sense, the transfer of the information volume needed for the artist-audience communication is the result of a private choice in the forming and combining signs and sign systems, i.e. the performance as a text is the result of a personal choice. It could be noted that this personal choice of meaning (signifier) corresponds to what is decoded by the viewers, but again it is linked to their intellectual capacity (which was the subject of discussion in the previous chapter). The predominantly personal approach to signifying and decoding a performative text is typical for most modern performances.[30] The meaning of a performative text decoded on the basis of an internal field of signification (personal choice) is always dependent on its elements, each of which is determined by the other elements of the system of that text in a completely non-formal dependence on all preliminary circumstances forming and generating the general meaning. And here again we must emphasize that the construction of a performative text engages multiple heterogeneous signs (codes) and a huge range of different sign systems, which is pointed out by De Toro:

The theatre performance is textualized in that a series of common codes function on-stage and thus are disseminated in various performances as text (author's emphasis). The particular nature of the PT (performance text – emphasis mine) resides in the fact that, when compared to other dimensions of theatre, there is a heterogenety of codes, a complexity over and above the dual absence of the performance object: “a first time as ‘scientific’ object … and a second time as material, ‘pre-scientific’ object.”[31]

In the course of the regulation of the coding system of a performative text and starting from its particular nature, he adequately defines it as a multiplicity of codes (pluricoded):

The heterogeneity of codes does not simply mean a plurality of codes or the simultaneous presence of diverse codes of sub codes.  A clarification is needed here on what is meant by code, for there are various ways of defining the term code – at least five, according to Eliseo Veron: a) code as synonym of la langue, that is, as an ensemble of rules necessary for producing the message or speech (generally, the following equivalences are made: code-la langue, message-speech, at least from a linguistic perspective); b) in the area of theory of information, code designates the ensemble of transformation that make it possible to pass from one system of signs (for example, morse) to another (la langue); c) as a synonym of ‘ensemble’ of ‘contraintes’ that defines the nature of the signifier of a given system; d) In the area of semiotics, it is a repertoire of units (signs) common to the users and that is used for communication; e) finally, code can refer to a social practice, that is, the ensemble of institutional norms that make up the way social system functions. (Eco 1976, 1979:49-50) Code as used here has three meanings: it is a social code, the ensemble of rules or the repertoire of signs. At the basis of these different ideas, however, there is a common fundamental element: a code is invariable a group of rules that regulate a message, whether this be linguistic or of some other nature (gesticular, musical, etc.). Whereas verbal text is monocoded, the performance text is pluricoded, not only because it includes various types of codes, but also because it has substances of expression (visual, gesticular, auditive). The theatre performance, however, is characterized as being pluricoded. (author's emphasis)[32]

The perception of the show as a theatrical text or a performative text is undoubtedly related to the presence of a specific theatrical code that acts as a regulator relating to the production and presentation of meaning and significance in the stage-audience vector. Such a code may be the actor’s physicality, a stage gesture, sets and costumes, vocal or musical score. In the tradition of Noh Theatre, Kabuki, Kathakali, and the Beijing Opera gestures and bodily expressiveness of the actor form up the main concept of this theatrical code. In the tradition of the Brecht's theatre, the so-called songs (vocal motifs that are complementary and regulate the general context of the stage action) can be seen as a fundamental conceptual code in the perception of meaning. In the tradition of ancient drama and liturgical or semi-liturgical drama of the Middle Ages, the appearance of the deity as Deus ex machina (“God from the Machine”)[33] as well as the acting out of familiar mythological or biblical motifs becomes not only a visual but also a specific linguistic code. Such examples could be enumerated in abundance, but more important is to note that each specific theatrical code, regardless of the signs and their combination is influenced to an exceptional degree by its attitude to supra-theatrical cultural codes, on which the dominant cultural system is based. Such a principle of interaction and dependence affects every theatre environment, whether it refers to a psychological and realistic or to a non-realistic and avant-garde performance, while in essence it could be “the vehicle that generates the aesthetic object as a dynamic image in the minds of the perceiving audience.”[34] A similar view is based on the idea that both the actor and the spectator are in the single dimension of a common primary cultural system that dominates the overall theatrical text. A scenographic decision within the necessary style or costumes with their characteristics can refer to a certain milieu, age, social class, event (and, respectively, the type of theatrical convention). The situation is similar to the language or dramatic text that would transmit the meaning only if the given stage relation successfully refers to the respective cultural system (code), because “in the theatre, a focusing of codes is the norm; there is usualy hierarchy of signs systems that triggers the elimination or temporary domination of a given system.”[35] Different primary cultural systems in the mimesis of the show – language, voice expression, facial expression, gesture, type of movement, makeup, costumes, interior design and overall production design are structural elements defining the aesthetics of each supra-textual cultural code within the performative text and are an integral part of the creating and referencing of the meaning and significance, as: “in semiotic terms, the signs of that system can be defined as all fictional vision of a world, that is, all vision of world communicated in fiction/.../the association between signifier and signified is provided by the special code (hiper or extra-code – emphasis mine) of the system of world vision.”[36] Hence, the corresponding viewers’ competence allows for shifting the significance and the meaning from the stage to the audience hall, based on the general ability to transfer the relevant significance, as constructed from the elements of the respective performative text where “the impact of the  cultural performances depends, of course, on the expectations of individual spectators” and “the exact mechanism by which referentiality, theatrical performance, and cultural performance interact in a given performance depends on many factors: condition of the production, intention of producers, composition of performers, disposition of audiences, evolution of culture, and social pressures.”[37] Similar viewing angle to the dominant cultural system is in the very foundation of any theatrical convention, including the contemporary ones. We should note that in the context of the show, as a performative text, the above supra-theatrical cultural codes can correlate to any secondary cultural system as literature, art, music, film, myth, religion, and many more. And if in this context we again go back to De Marinis, we can emphasize that the performative code „is that convention which, in the performance, makes it possible to link determined contents to determined elements of one or more expressive system (author's emphasis)”[38] while, apart from the theatre performance, we can find a similar code also in different artistic practices of everyday life. But what makes the theatre performance truly unique is the use of this theatre code as part of the general cultural text (De Toro 1995)[39] within the theatrical text, in strictly specific ways, as well as the pure substitution and perceptibility of codes, whether linguistic, proxemic, visual, etc.., but – namely as codes that belong to a particular dominant cultural environment of the performative text. For the performative text appears to be a discursive construct precisely in the relation between the performance itself and the specific culture system (code), where „the preformance code are the result of the usage, more or less particular and specific, in the performance, of non-specific cultural codes… The distance between an extra-performance code (as we will call the cultural code before its use in the performance – for example a code of an everyday gesture) and the performance code the gestures of the actor in a performance) varies notably according to performances, ‘genres’, authors, periods, etc.”[40] and is reflected in the audience's perception, as performative code, namely when cultural and supra-performative codes are configured in a performative entirety. The whole modern theatrical situation is based on the relation between theatre (in general) and performance (as a performative text), which imposes the idea that theatre, at its core, is solely the show that is being presented, while the performative text „is a performance unit which the analyst’s intention (or the intention of the ordinary audience member) designates as semiotically complete.” (author's emphasis)[41]