THE SEMIOTICS OF THEATRE

Patrice

Pavis

is reprinted
published

This article
Fre~ch original
It ~s one of a number
five specific
the semiotics
was translated

questions
of theatre.
by Tjaart

with permission
in ~
of papers published

from the
(No. 21, 19781.
dealing with
posed by Marco de Marinis on
The version which appears
potgieter.

1.

of theatre"

of theatre,

theatrical

aesthetics,

between the
(history of
etcl?

apparatus

to linguistics"

can be placed historically

(Barthes)?

invalidating
linguistic
"theatrical

to mind the famous debate,
about the relationship

instigated

between linguistics

only part of "this general science",

the proper relation
and "theatre studies.

The semiology
formulation
in the 'thirties)

theory
brings
by Barthes,
are linguistics

on the other hand, model itself on the general

but
to the rank of a methodological
metaphorically

the other approaches,
terminology
conrnunication",

by Saussure and
and sem-
semiology,
(Saussure), Or does
pattern of 1in-
of the theatre is a recent discipline -
(the linguistic
- and it is to be expected that it

What is, in your opinion,
"semiotics
theatre,
This Question
continued
iology:
of ~hich the laws "shall be applicable
sem1o10gy,
~uistics
l~S theoretical
Clrc1e of Prague
should try to take its place in the spectrum of studies of the performance,
wlthout
to be devalued
to employ
mythical
mance.
In spite of the terms sciences
should be clear from the outset
claim a scientific
logy of theatre,
conceptual
logical objective.
iology of theatre
botany, etc.) or rather a method and an attitude towards
In the latter hypothesis,
but would
approaches,
theory the known results of those disciplines.
time the propaedeutics
reflecting
the results of one area to interpret the other.

it
du spectacle or Theaterwissenschaft,
that "theatre studies" could by no means
The semio-
to that of linguistics.
the rigorous
studies, nor share their epistemo-
is that we need to ask whether the sem-
discipline
the performance.
.
lnto 1tS
It should be at the same
of the various t~eat~e studie~.
of uSlng

status comparable
of 1inguistica1
What follows
is an autonomous

also not allowing itself
"gadget" which is content
in connection
with some

semiology would not dup1icate.t~e

itself with them by aSSlml1atlng

e~ist~ng

and sheds no new light on the perfor-

integrate
and epistemology

on their conditions

of validity, and the posslbl11ty

therefore,

can neither use, by extension,

(like, for example, SOciology,

rather we should recognize it as unconscious,

The semiology of theatre could be differentiated from other theatre studies
as follows:
at their best, they
Interpretative criticism and performance reviewinq;
"select" from the performance and text certain indices - details of prod-
uction, of costume, meanings suggested by the text, the actors' performances -
to build up a total meaning, discovering in the chosen signs redundancies or
contradictions, confirming or refuting the proposed interpretation.
Of course, this procedure should not be disqualified by allegations of
SUbjectiVity or impreSSionism;
"wild" semiology, concerned with reacting to the performance as a receiver
What is lacking in this approach for
who judges only what is perceived.
it to be considered as semiology?
Only (but this is considerable) an expla-
The selection of signs is, in fact,
natlon of its analytical procedures.
done without considering the problems of breaking the performance down into
s~gnificant systems (d~coupage), of the relation between signifier and sig-
n1f1ed, of the hierarchy of signs and their possible permutations, or of ,
the integration of the sign into the total meaning.
There is no clear dis-
t1nct1on made between the levels of "sense" (Sinn or relation between
signifier and signified, or between the signs"'themselvesl and "meanifg"
(Bedeutun9 or relation between sign and referent, between the work 0 art
and represented reality), so that one preceeds from considerations of
structural coherence of the work to remarks on what the performance re-
veals about our everyday reality, without examing, a fortiori, the relation-
ship between the two wholes.
Theatre history and the study of external conditions prevailing at the gen-
eS1s.of the work have contributed largely to the development of semiology,
but 1n a negative way.
The reaction against this type of approach has been
so great as to make semiology often appear to be an anti-history of theatre,
preoccupied with the final and "actual" result of the production (mise en
sc~ne) and rejecting totally the archaeologifal dimension of theatrical
51gns.
The advent of structuralism has confirmed the tendency to d1sm1SS
research into the origins and historical development of theatrical forms.
1n order to concentrate on the internal and synchronic functioning of the
system of the performance.
Biographical anecdotes about authors "vulgar"
soc1010gy which regards the work as a mere reflection of socio-econom1c
conditions, and the isolated explanation of historical facts yielded by
the text have all definitively been excluded from the semiological method.
It would, however, be to the detriment of theatrical semiology to depr1ve
It of historical apparatus. even at the level of synchronical analysis,of
the performance.
It is revealing that there is at present a tendency 1n
structural linguistics to return to History in full force, in an ~ttempt
to go beyond the Saussurian opposition between lanque and parole I.e. be-
tween "social system. independent of the individual" and "individual act
~f wlll and intelligence" (Saussure).
We should refuse, therefore. to see
1n the ...paro~e_ in theatre
the concrete realization of a work and a par-
ticaular per ormance _ a pur~ly free and individual usage of ideological
~esthetical and theatrical codes by the author or director.
For ~xample,
1n the analysis of characters' dialogue. we can attempt to determ1ne how
It is influenced by the discourse formations of a certain ideology or a
certain historical period, thus replacing the so-called "f~ee" discourse
of the character in the framework of its historical determInants.
The analysis of theatrical discourse could take inspiration from the.very
precise existing studies on social formations and enunciation (R RobIn,
H P~cheux, ODucrot).

One could rightly expect an explanation of the "stage

2

primarily

operation

of 1977?
the synchronic

theoretical

the materials

dramaturgy

remains entangled

wish not to separate

dramaturgy

the tiles, the quotations

in original

Its methOdology

is also inverse, since it sets out from stage

also clarify
in its contemporary

of content

into form' - loqik der Wissenschaft).

It studies both the ideological and formal structures

semiology
work, and more particularly

attempts the comparative

by comparing,
the double system of foromand content.

of even

the visual signs of the performance:
space, these social and physical distances

or stage object come from?

why this setting,
between characters?
Why the "smoke", the
language. and all the other
The answers to these questions will
arrangement
of Signs in a performance.

meaning asks how and according
of the plot are disposed in the textual
of
tension between a stage form and its ideological
by the spec-
mode of reception of a performance
and the contents to be transmitted.
the dram-
ties up with semiology, which is also concerned
of a total signifer and its correspond-
dramaturgy

from ideology, i.e. the

remains at a very general level in
the written text and textual and
at all
at the level of stage
adding-up and checking the redundanCies
Finally, and
in the Hegelian problem of
identical.,.;
content is nothing but the
If Hegel
relationship
and a content which does not exist unless
That is why dramaturgical

formations"
this dramatic
W~ere does this technique
mIrrors.
tics in the Paris productions
inevitably
Dramaturgy
to which temporality
and stage space.
the work, the dialectical
content,
and the specific
tator.
In its
means of transmission
fo~l
a~urgical
Obviously
~lth accounting
for the articulation
1n9 signified.
But whereas
this endeavour,
by considering
scenic macrostructures,
levels of the performed
systems.
signs to reconstruct.
of signifying
systems,
most importantly,
COntent and form ('True works of art are those of which the content and
form are seen to be rigorously
~ransfo~tion
IS concerned
with a dialectical
but the expression
of a content,
form, in practice
expressed
form and content dialectically.
work actually
in spite of
"world vision" which finds artistic
the observation
ed.
presupposes
which the engendering of the message
ing everything
termine which structuration
to what extent meaning
tator, and how the recognition
related to signifiers
The aesthetics
mIning composition
integrating
category.
theory, arts system, aesthetical
work to a particular
system which is often only vaguely defined.
of the theatre are most frequently
definition
its conformity
defined as centring
formulated
Or total and specifiC
work on a different
internal functioning
in some predetermined
break-down

studies of a
Hegel's warning, either from a certain
in a certain way, or from
expression
attribut-
approach
or ideological code, according
to
structure, semiology "aims to de-
the spectator can set up,
by the.spec-
respectIvely
in the work, takes place.

of text and stage;

at
system into a larger whole - genre, lIterary
This reduces th~ theat~ical
ties i~ to some phl10so~hlcal
.
ThIS is why aesthetIC th~or~es
normative, proceeding from.an a prIorI
of theatre, and judging the work In term~ of

the theatrical genr~ 1s. for Instance.
ep'.cth.eatre - or )
- which disqualifies
art (an irregular combl'.latlonof codes
Se~lo10gy goe~ to
Gesamtkunstwer~).
ln~ere~ted In ~he
witho~t preJUdglnghltshln~~~~ai~~n

of forms to which certain contents are afterwards

terms, we could say that the dramaturgical
of the aesthetic
by means of a ready-made

is then explained.

(the Wagnerian
level, since it is more pragmatl~all~
of the performance,
aesthetical
theory.

is the object of an active elaboration
of signifieds and signifiers,
and signifieds

contained

between a form which is nothing
to define

it is extremely difficult

of the "essence"

to the proposed model;

upon conflict
as either a bastardised

or poetics of theatre would aim at formulating the laws deter-

into systems

(d~coupage),

the search for ~1nlma

ObVl0U~, f O~it~

It,s

and functIonIng

the theatrical

in a certain
proceed,

In semiological
knowledge

of the performance

Instead of explain-

it always.aims

case and inevitably

approach

the

•

u

3

accorded

choices.

to text or stage. etc .• are always the con-

and belong,

therefore,

to pre-aesthetic

importance
of aesthetic

~elative
sequences
considerations.
The theory of theatre
i(s; it is aimed at finding
phenomena.
Following
"1 iterarity"
(Jakobson),
ity. i.e. with specific
forms.
historical
of theatre.
because
of textual structure
the performance.
In method,
at least
semiology.
To conclude.
integrates
should allow us to make
while confirming

Semiology

from aesthet-

theorization

of theatrical

a non-normative

be distinguished
of the theory of literature
properties
to be formulated

can only with difficulty
the example
the theory of theatre is concerned
aesthetic
We are, nevertheless.
the problems
and of its performance.
and theatrical
in the purpose

theory, therefore,

of the stage and established
theory
include the description
of
if not

as well as the reception
unite,

still far from a unified

or theory of

wi th theatrica 1-

of their approaches.
with other

far from conflicting
them and integrates
better

with them;
use of the results of older disciplines,

this methodological

studies".
reciprocity

"theatre

at the same time their scientific

status.

2.

and significant

the lingUistic-literary

approach to theatre has generally
level, over
(mise en scene), or performance
amongst all the constit-

element as
It has even been said that

to the written text, or textual
of the text

Until now the semiological
awarded priority
the performance
level, by considering
the most important
uent elements
the literary
"deep structure"
this position,
theatre worthy of its name should necessarily
with all the elements
an equal level),
its attention
level?

or do you think that a semiotics
(theoretically
that it should redirect
textual level to the performance

or
Do you agree with
of the
be concerned
placed on

of the theatre.
text functions

of theatre
and especially,

of the performance.

as "invariable

from the

element"

textual

"imperial-

of the text.

as nothing but a literary genre,
When we
to its place of
Then the
to performance
before (without)

Aren't we in fact
when we reflect on the text's .situation
(mise en scl?ne) as

on the production

theatre

semiology

semiology

has arisen

in reaction against

to talk about a semiology

is no longer whether
a text
but whether
during which
semiology
in performance
and,
in consequence,

been restored
the sys tems of the who Ie of the performance.
(is) opposed
"textual
can be ana lysed' semiotically
the text is enunciated.

Since theatrical
~sm" and the habit of regarding
It may seem paradoxical
do. it must be born in mind that the text has
ale syS tem among
Question
semiology",
the performance
engaged
of enunciation",
a whole?
the defendants
To avoid a fruitless
I have suggested
to their dominant
articulates
and the nature of their relationship
indeXical/symbolic)
between textuality
Instead of an irreconcilable
tension between dramatic
we should accept a "dialectical
a tension
based above all on the fact that the accoustic
part of the vocal resources
sign are an integral
linguistic
the actor".Z

signs according
OPPosition

controversy
inspired

theatrical

a model

'

(lconlc/ 1

of ~ext or stage.
,
functlon
with the referent.
and iconicity.
text and actor,
of the
elements
by

utilized

between
by Peirce's typology of Slgn~, wh~ch

4

The key diagram, therefore, is no longer:
PERFORMANCE

Text ~

Stage, but:

Textuality

Iconicity

creating situation
of enunciation
(indexisation & iconisation
of text)

possibilities of codification
search for units of meaning
process of stage symbolization

What P Gulll Pugliatti

The inter-relationship
between icon and symbol becomes apparent as soon as
one can follow, in the performance, the circuit of codification (of the
stage, of visual elements which are supposedly "non-symbo1isab1e") and that
of decodification (of the linguistic text, which, in the theatre, cannot be
understood except "visually", i.e. in the situation),
According to this conception, the text is not an "invariable element" or
"deep structure" of the performance, but as much "to be created" as the
production (mise en sc~ne),
What semiology has to explain, therefore, is
the interaction between the two systems, the "construction" they can impose
on each other;
that which can be made of a ~ext, and what the stage situ-
calls the pre-textual object-
ation can say to it.
lYe (wh:ch "precedes" the linguistic transcription and stage transcodification)
could. ln this case, serve as mediator in the classic opposition.
From the
outset, however, we would have to clarify to what extent this objective is
determined jointly by spatial and linguistic considerations. that is, to
questlon again theoretically the theatricality of dramatic expression and
the "discourse" of the stage.
If all the stage systems (including the textual) are equal "by right" -
the stage invoking all of them to create its meaning - that does not mean
that they are all always to be found on the same level or in the same rel-
ation to each other.
The positivist procedure of chopping the whole into
numerous systems, tacitly assuming that they function in parallels, does
not ~llow us to go beyond simple description of the performance or to
c1arlfy the spectator's constitutive act of understanding.
We have to
choose a hierarchy of codes and sub-codes, keeping well in mind that the
choice of a hierarchy itself is made according to an aesthetic or ideolog-
ical code.
This is the case, for example, with the traditional concept of
action as a "unique current" which "fuses word, actor, costume, decor and
music, (a current) which goes through these by passing from the one to the
other or through several at once".4
The choice of "action" (or of "narr~
ativity") corresponds to an ideo10gico-aesthetical code which obliges the
spectator to reconstruct a logic of actions, linked to the linearity of
the verbal message and to the cultural code of the Western nar~ative tradition.
static hierarchy or randomly according primacy to
Rather than proposing a
any signifying system, we can distinguish basic systems or "ar~iculators",
Thus. ln T Kantor s
and "grafted" systems - those which are "articulated",
"Classe morte"
text and music are based on ("articulated on") the class-
room desks and'the make-up/bodies of the characters.
The musical and text-
ual systems are super-imposed, because if they were eliminated. the.to~al
meaning/dead class/ could still be constructed.
The meta-language lndlcat-
ing all the relations between articulator/articulated still has to be
elaborated, as well as a theory of the linear break-down (d~coupage) and
the modification of "articulations. during the course of a performance.

5

The

3. The theatre specialist (and, therefore, also the semiologist
he must study an object (the performance)

of thea~re) finds himself in a rather paradoxical and un-
enviable position:
which, as such, is never present.
Indeed, none or almost
none of the constituent elements of the performance exists
beyond the ephemeral duration of the performance itself;
nothing remains but the written text, when that exists.
how do you think the semiotics
following question arises:
of theatre could resolve the problem of reconstructing the
sign systems which are used by a performance and which dis-
appear with it (paralinguistic codes, codes of gesture,
spatial codes, codes of stage design, etc.)?
Of what use
(A question
can audiovisual recordings be in this regard?
as yet applicable only to a few contemporary productions.1
It is obviously im-
What do we mean by "reconstruction of sign systems"?
possible, even for a short sequence, to reconstitute all the systems of a
A magnetoscopic recording reconstitutes nothing - it merely
performance.
records the "flux of signification" of the stage event, without isolating
Or structuring the various systems.
It is a mere transcription or trans-
codIng which, at best, provides information about the final product's com-
position of signs, but none about the signs' productivity, i.e. their
reception and elaboration by the spectator.
A real reconstruction of sign
systems, on the contrary, should consist of defining the systems, deter-
~in~ng their signifying units, and establishing the relations between units
InSIde the same system, as well as between parallel systems.
Rather than
!ry to identify the signs of a system exhaustively, we must stre~s the
Important moments in the signifying sequence and clarify the varIous stages
of the process of semiosis.
If we take the example of the code of gestures,
it is immediately apparent that it would be both impossible and useless to
notate in some system of codification or another, all the gestural positions
In the case of the biomechanics exercises photographed by
of actors.
Meyerhold5 (representing an actor in variQus positions, the consecutive
logic of which is unknown from the start), all that can be determined is a
code of rules governing the whole group of positions:
1. extreme tension of the body concentrating several incomplete movements
2.
3.

in time and space (Meyerhold's principle of "taylorism");
bOdy postures suggesting possibilities of movement without actually
initiating them;
fixed co-ordinations' of parts of the body, e.g. body bent forward -
arms arched in a circle - head sunk forward, etc.

In this case the choice of an art1culatlng

At present semiology must be satisfied with formulating ~ome gener~l laws of
the code, attempting afterwards to reconcile this code W1tn other systems.
Often the break-down into systems does not coincide with th~ leve~ of the
smallest pOSSible units.
system (cf. above) will reveal the "grafting" of other cades.
A~though the
b~ea~-d?wn into codes is done according to the matter,of e~pr~s~lon, the
s1gnlfY1ng systems must be translated into correspond1ng Slgnlfle~s bef~re
they can be compared, reconciled, or their articulation on an art1c~tatlng
system studied.
In this way we can avoid choppi~g ~he performance,lnto a
mass of heterogeneous signs, which happens when It IS broken down 1nto
parallel systems. '
This presents a more concise procedure than the inverse method use~ by
Greimas, who starts by creating a general model of ~aning,
pro~e~ s to
narrative level, then to an "actantia1" model, and f1na11y spec1fles and

th
e

6

refines his description to encompass the actual linguistic and visual mani-
festation.
"gap between manifested signs and all that precedes them must still be
filled•.

We would have to use one method to verify the other

but the

4.

S.

the old aesthetical

(and amongst

should
In
"artistic lan-
them that of the theatre! constitute
Or do they combine

Do you think that semiotic analysis of the performance
re-examine
problem of specificity?
other words,
guages"
"combinations
.~ombinat10ns
non-specific
On the whole,
zation"
ments, of the performance-text
will be possible;
the idea of "a-codification"
should be extended

do you think that the various
of specific codes", or, on the contrary
of non-specific
and specific codes?
do you think that at some stage a "formali-
(or of one of its codes),
or do you think, on the contrary, that
expressed by Metz on cinema
to the theatre also?

(mise en forme), even if it were only of some frag-

codes"?

.

The "specificity" of theatre, the "language of theatre" or "discourse of
the stage", "theatricality"
- these are all metaphors, made attractive by
the perspective of a discovery rather than by their actual meaning.
Yet,
nothing prevents us from verifying if semiology, which hopes to discover
some rules of the organization and interaction of codes, can circumscribe
a minimal group of specifically theatrical properties.
But we shouldn't
rest content with a semiological reformulation of the innumerable defini-
the "minimal" speCificity could, in fact, be defined
tions of theatre:
as the simultaneous presence - in the case of spoken theatre- of textuality
and iconicity (i.e. linguistic arbitrariness and stage iconicity).
This
opposition is expressed variously in the antitheses acting vs. linguistic
mime vs. loqos, visual vs. acoustic, action through thought vs.
~,
The
action through gesture, and symbolic structure vs. uncodifiable event.
theatrical sign has a syntactical-semantical dimension (relation between
sign and object, between signs themselves) as well as a pragmatic dimension
(relation between stage iconicity and~/enunciation).
In other words, the problem is to decide:
(a) whether there is a specifi-
cally theatrical sign, i.e. a unit in which stage iconisation and textual
symbolisation could blend to form an irresoluble union which would be
specifically theatrical;
(b) whether the theatrical performance is a
construction of specifically theatrical signs or, on the contrary, a
"collage" or synthetic amalgam of the various stage arts (e.g. the Wag-
nerian Gesamtkunstwerk)
or an ensemble of systems distantiated from one
another, never losing their autonomy (the Brechtian epic production).
(a) The answer to the first question has to be, at present, ~egative•.
During a performance no theatrical sign is created in WhlCh textuallty
and iconicity could blend into a specifically theatr~cal product.
The
symbolic signs of the text, the visua~ an~ music~l S1gns remain autono-
mous even when their combination, thelr dlSpositlon i,nthe linear
sequence, produces a homogenous and univoca~ meaning ~e.g. the actor's
face lit in a certain way and a certain mus1~al .r~fraln a~d mime and
gesture will produce by cross-checking the Slgnlfled/ph~Slcal presence,
demonstrative
insistence/etc., but a new total a~d SP~C1~1~ S1gn~ de-
fined by a specific signifier and the correspondlng s1g~lfled, w1ll not
There are no .synthetic. theatrical S1gns in the
be established).
theatre ("synthetic in the sense in which the colour green is the

7

of blue and yellow),

only continuous

produced

by the signifying

systems.

"synthesis"
the signifieds
examine,
the theatre,

therefore,
between

is the possibility
the codes of a performance

of an Interaction,

(cf. below).

interaction

What we should
specific

between
to

(b) When we consider

refusal

the problem

of the relationship,

stage arts, we are not concerned
the semiolgoical

status of codes, but with an
the goal is a synthes is of the arts, the dilec~

choice made by the director:
of a self-sufficient

more or less close,
with a theoretical
in the Gesamt-
and closed
"the actors, the set de-
the musicians
of the communal

artists,

and to facilitate

of the performance

to blend the stage materials

the costume designers,
place their arts at the disposal
giving up, for all that, their independence"
Brecht's
(Erlebnis)
of decoding
precise
consisting

is to be explained
the performance.
definition.

and
(Lit~le
into
by his wish to show
for the

When speaking of theatri-
of two groups of signs translatable
sign

(as in the Morse code, where one single graphical
At other times, "code" is opposed to
lanque and parole can
the code being,
of the message,
is referred

that to which each element of the message

in terms of "code" and "message",

opposition
which allows

of communications,

between
the composition
In this meaning of the term
the object of a recon-
of the code and the
the discovery
by the know-how of
being determined
switches
from one usage of the
(1) that the codes are given, and that
them in the different channels
is the same as
the spectator thus
grid (Barthes, S/Z).

the performance
code instead of another,
by using a chosen decoding

production

the make-up

the organization

a total illusion

For the Brechtian

the various
involving
and ideological

to each letter).
"the traditional

between
question
aesthetic
kuns twerk, where
strives to produce
stage world.
signers,
the choreographers
enterprise
without
Orqanum,
par. 70).
experience
a unique
the process of production
spectator
the process
The term "code" requires
cal codes, we often mean the codes of a semiology
i.e. substitutive
systems
into each other
corresponds
"message":
also be expressed
firstly,
and. secondly,
in order to construct
(also used by Jakobson),
struction
reading of the message
the decoder.
Semiology
word to the other,
they need only be enumerated
of transmission,
deciding
creating
~ Mounin has already
natural
language",
and pre-establ ished convention,
are implicit,
of the communication
itself".7
When, therefore,
requires some theoretical
Specific
theatrical
at least be limited
rules of dramatic
the term.
Amongst
1.

it allows
quite frequently
by tracing

its meaning".6
from the message,

the "lexical ised" specific

we speak of the "artistic

to use a certain
the performance

the code is considered

(they) are established

or (2) that reading

justification),

warned
showing

considering

starting

the abusive usage of "code" ~o~
against
that a code is the resul~ of an expl1clt
of language
durlng the course

"the conventlo~s

spontaneously

whereas

codes should not be taken for granted, or they should
to explicitly

theatrical .conventlons and

art, in short, to a code in the technlcal sense of

formulated

languages"
the existence of flxed and

(which, in itself

codes we could group:

(a)

conventions

general
racter embodied
the world,
space and time (in the fiction and the performance),

the fictio~ o~ ~he cha-
by the actor, the stage which slgnlfles,the
etc.,

the "fourth wall" of dramatic

of performance:

theatre, two-dlmenslonal

.

8

(b)

conventions linked to genres, historical periods, character
types (e.g. farce, classical drama, Harlequin).

(b)

2.

3.

The non-specific codes are, by definition, more difficult to enum-
erate.
Here we are concerned with codes which could also be used
in everyday life or in the other arts:
(a)

for instance, French as a language used at

linguistic codes:
the same time by Moli~re, in the seventeenth century and partly
in the twentieth century;
everything which allows the
ideological or cultural codes:
spectator to identify the system of values contained in the
This is the perfect type of the "hold-
meaning of the play.
all" code, unstructured
and unconnected with a precise lin-
guistic or aesthetic form.
It is at this level that a study
of the mechanics of reSponse (psychological, sociological,
imaginative) to the performance would occur;
code of perception:

perspective, perception thresholds, etc.
(c)
Mixed codes (specific and non-specific):
these codes do not form a
distinct third category, but would result from the use of an exter-
in the theatrical situation, causing
nal code (i.e. non-specific)
the code to be adapted to the means of expression peculiar to the
stage.
This brings in question again the earlier distinction, which
was made, at that stage, partly as a pedagogical means of separating
what appears as particular, individual usage (parole) in the per-
formance from a group of materials (langue) derived from various
fields, and of which only the combination or global structure
is relevant.
For instance, in the code of gestures, it is practically impossible
to disentangle signs belonging to the actor's individual and social
reality from those belonging to the gestural code of the represented
character.
The smallest natural gesture of the actor is transformed
into an element of a codified system, since it has to be understood
correctly by the public.
Even the linguistic text, as soon as it
is uttered on stage. becomes distinct from the same text as it could
exist in everyday life or another artis in system (novel. painting,
etc.).
As a matter of fact, the theatrical text takes on a perform-
ance value, since it is always related pragmatically to the stage
and produces the action in the act itself of its enunciation.
"Formal izing the fragments of the performance text" means concept-
ually reconstructing an object which never exists apart.from the
form in which it is perceived during the performance; .'t also means
locating the performance
(and the ensemble of semlolog1cal ~ystems)
in a relationship of interpretation with the interpr~tl~g l~ngulstlc
system.
as Benveniste has Shown,8 we must dlstlngulsh be-
tween articulating
become apparent through the grid of another mode of expresslon ).
To "formal ize" the performance, which is com~osed of heterogeneous
semiological systems (language, gesture, mUS1C, etc.), any lnter-
pretation must interpret and categorize the stage systems by means
of language, which leads to a "flattening" of the performance, by
eliminating the differences in the materlals.
Can we envisage a "formalization" which allows the differences to

systems (those "of which the semiotics O~ly"

Indeed

9

be retained?
codifying
notation
from being technically
compare
these codes,
have nothing
in common.
The only "formalizations"
following:
(i)

formalization
used in relation

In that case, we would have to think of a system of
voice, etc., and this is far

melody,
Also, one would not always be able to
their modes of codification

gesture,
easy.
because

would

that have been achieved

until now are the

of the circuit
to another,

of signifiers:
producing

how one system

a certain meaning, etc.9

(ii) clarifying

visualization
allowing

the relations

between

of the referent;

and visua1ity:
textuality
iconic and indexib-al signs

us to move from one field to the other;1

(iii) the dialectics
ship between
(iv) reconstruction

performance;
sys terns.

of sign types:

the pragmatic

icon/index

and the symbolic;
amonost

of a code of
distinction

riorit

the codes of the
between articu ating and artlcu ated

vs. symbol, relation-

verification
character

But the only possible
and this is the specific
ance of the text, the production
and the relative
choice of codes
their mutual
resolves
through
praxis what the theory can only partially formulate.

remains -
art - the perform-
(mise en scene) with its pragmatic
to them and
assigned
importance
This is an extreme
solution, which merely

of such a formalization
of theatrical

relations.

Prob1emes
du Quebec,

de s~mio10gie
1976, pp. 29, .96.

th~ltra1e,

Montr~a1,

Presses

"Dramatic
eds., S€miotics
MIT Press,

Text as a Component
of Art.
1976, p.114.
I segni 1atenti,

of Theatre",

in L Matejka &

Praque School Contributions,

Firenze, D'Anna,

1976, p.272.

Travail Theatra1, 4, 1071, p.19.

du signe th~atral.
in The Drama Review

J

57, 1973, p.ll3.

de 1inguistique,

Paris, A Colin, 1967, p.2S.

~ 1a s~mio1ogie,
de 1inguistique

Paris, Ed. de Minuit, 1970.
9~n~ra1e,

II, Paris, Gal1imard,

2.

References
Cfr.
P Pavis,
1.
Universitaires
J Ve1trusky,
I Titunik,
Cambridge,
P Gulli Pug1 iatti,
J Honz1, "La mobilit~
reprOduced
Photographs
A Martinet,
E1~ments
Introdu~tion
G Mounin,
E Benveniste,
Prob1emes
1974, p.61.
9.
P Pavis,~.,
10. P Pavis, ~.,
11. P Pavis, op.cH.,

3.
4.
S.
6.
7.
B.

pp. 52-61.
pp. 34-45.
pp. 18-23.

10