Grzegorz Sinko
Description of a theatrical
performance: its language and
subject
Literary Studies in Poland 11, 81-94
G rzegorz Sinko
D escrip tion o f a Theatrical Perform ance:
Its Language and Subject*
1
T he discussion m ay conveniently be started w ith the statem ent th a t it is im possible to present this article as a dance o f its a u th o r, a pantom im e, a com ic strip, a silent movie, a solo concert, o r a sym phony. O n the o th er h an d it is possible to write articles on ballets, pantom im es, paintings, m ovies an d m usic. T he obvious ph en o m enon is to d ay fully explained by linguistic an d sem iotic research which clearly speaks in favou r o f using n atu ral language for the p urpose o f describing a theatrical perform ance. N a tu ra l language is “the m ost pow erful sem iotic device th a t m an h as invented” 1 an d it is endow ed with “qualities [...] th a t allow its b ro a d application as the basic sign-system o f m ankind, i.e. as m etalanguage in relation to o th e r languages.” 2 In o th er term s, n atu ra l language lends itself to the purpose o f m aking com m u nications a b o u t all the dom ains o f life; “all the o th er signs produced by m an can be in terpreted by signs o f language while language itself ca n n o t be interpreted by signs th a t are lim ited to specific dom ain s.” 3
* A m odified version o f ch. I o f th e b o o k : G . S i n k o , Opis przedstaw ienia
teatralnego — problem sem io tyczn y (D escription o f a T heatrical Perform ance — A S e m iotic Problem ), W rocław 1982.
1 U. E c o , A Theory o f Sem iotics, B loo m in g to n —L o n d o n 1976, p. 174. 2 V. V. I v a n o v , „ R o i sem iotiki v kibern etich esk o m issledovanii cheloveka i k o lle k tiv a ,” [in:] L ogicheskaya stru ktu ra nauchnogo znaniya, M oskva 1965, p. 99.
3 J. T r a b a n t , E lem ente der S e m io tik , M iinchen 1976, p. 75.
T he m iracle o f language is explained by its double articulatio n system : the first system is th at o f m orphem es and lexem es—o f m eaning-carrying units by m eans o f which we can break up the su rrou nd ing w orld into units o f m eaning and then connect those units in syntagm atic chains. The second system consists in dividing m orphem es an d lexemes into a lim ited num ber o f discreet units which no longer convey m ean in g — in to ab o u t forty phonem es which ap p e ar in all n atu ral languages.
As to the sign-system s used in a th eatrical p erform ance there is full agreem ent a b o u t the absence o f a d ouble system o f articu lation and o f discreet units in visual a r ts 4 an d in iconics in general. The situation in kinesics is less clear. R. L. Birdwhistell tried to carry over into his field the m eth od s o f A m erican behaviourism o f the nineteen- -forties and ‘fifties. T h e theoretical outcom e is the establishm ent of kinem orphs (assemblages o f m ovem ents in one area o f the body) which the a u th o r com pares to m orph em es.5 But the next u n it—the kines into which kinem orphs are split —does not co rresp on d to a phonem e. K ines are defined as “ab stractions o f ranges o f behav iou r produced by a m em ber o f a given social gro u p which, for an o th er m em ber o f the same group, stands in perp etu al co n trast to a different range o f such behavio ur.” Birdw histell adds th at
A kine is no t a p o in t or p o sitio n o f a rtic u la to ry a ctiv ity ; it is a ran g e which the u n so p h istica ted in fo rm a n t re p o rts as the sam e [...] E ach kinesic system will have differently sh ap ed kinic classes.6
In spite o f th e typically structuralist definition by m eans o f con trastive distrib utio n, the n otion o f kine rem ains so vague that it can n o t serve to establish a second articu latio n system in kinesic com m unication. O ne o f the consequences is th a t in his p ro p osed artificial language o f graphic sym bols Birdw histell can produce n o th in g like a phonem ic tran scription . W hat he provides is sim ply a taxonom ic lexicon o f actual kinem orphs which, in spite o f the a u th o r’s assurances to the con trary, resem bles M eyerhold’s o r L ab an ’s catalogues of
4 E. g. M. P o r ę b s k i , “ Sem iotyczny i ikoniczny h o ry zo n t b ad ań n a d sztuką” (Sem iotic a n d Iconic Perspectives o f R esearches o n A rt), S tudia E stety czn e, X vol. X III (1975), p. 5.
5 R. L. B i r d w h i s t e l l , K inesics an d C o n text, P h ilad elp h ia 1970, p. 197. 6 Ibidem , pp. 193— 194.
D escription o f Theatrical P erform ance 83 m ovem ents. T he n o tatio n o f B. K o ech lin 7 as presented by A. J. G rei- m a s8 is a sim ilar case o f basic stock-taking which G reim as justly com pares to a Basic F rench vocabulary.
G reim as him self rejects the m orphological taxonom y o f m ove m ents based on the areas o f h u m an body. H e starts from a sem antic basis in search o f com m on m eanings m anifested in different “ lexical item s” o f m ovem ents. H is procedure is th at o f com po nen tial analysis o f m eaning with the sememe as one o f its notions. Yet, in spite o f his initial design o f creating som ething like the n otion o f a “gestual phenem e” on the surface level, he is com pelled to state after exhaustive research th a t “the categories an d gestual units [...] never constitu te a system o f signification which m ight be co m p ared to linguistic system s.” H is proposal to treat gestual units at the same tim e as phonem es (i.e. no n-m eaning units in th e surface structure) and sememes (units of the sem atic plan e)9 is a ro u n d a b o u t acknow ledgm ent o f the lack o f double articu latio n in kinesics which he finally proclaim s to be a sym bolic and n o t a linguistic system.
T he fun dam en tal characteristics o f iconic an d kinesic systems bring us from an apology o f n atu ral language as m etalanguage for these system s to the problem o f form ing artificial m etalanguages. In iconics the situation is clear: there is universal agreem ent th a t any possible units o f m eaning such as m otifs an d them es 10 m ust be discussed in n atural language. T he basic theoretical argum en ts against the use o f artificial languages for dealing with kinesics have been ju st sum m arized; lexicons o f sym bolically noted m ovem ents are only m ore or less intricate stock-lists while the proposed sym bols can only be used to supplem ent the n o tatio n o f dialogues in n atu ra l language (as is the case with B irdw histell’s series o f analyses o f b rief filmed conversations). The investigation o f kinesics on an ordered theoretical basis, such as that o f G reim as or o f Eco when he applies com ponential analysis o f m eaning to kinesic p o in te rs ,11 is always carried on in natural language. All this su p p o rts the statem ent o f G reim as a b o u t the
7 B. K o e c h l i n . “T ech n iq u es co rp o relles et leur n o ta tio n sy m b o liq u e ,” Langage, V il, pp. 36 — 47.
8 A. J. G r e i m a s , Du sens, P aris 1970, pp. 62 — 63, 83. 9 Ibidem , pp. 82, 85.
i‘> P o r ç b s k i , op. cit., p. 3 fif. 11 E c o , op. cit.., pp. 118— 121.
“basic incapacity o f gesticulatory expression to c o n stitu te itself as a code o f sem iotic com m unication th a t w ould be b o th au to n o m o u s and com plete.” 12
In the field o f m usic the existence o f the artificial language of scores gave birth to m any m isunderstandings which only recently begin to disapp ear ow ing to advances in sem iotics. F irst o f all, the special position o f m usic am ong sem iotic system s has been fo rm u lated as “the problem o f a sem iotic system w itho ut a sem antic level (or con ten t p lane).” This feature is, how ever, cou pled with “the existence o f ‘m usical signs’ (or syntagm s) with an explicit denotative value (trum pet signals in the arm y),” o r with the existence o f “syntagm s or entire ‘texts' possessing preculturalized co nn otative value (‘p a sto ra l’ or ‘th rillin g ’ m usic, etc.).” The sign-vehicle o f the artificial language of m usic (a note) “denotes a class o f sound events which have for in terp rétan ts m athem atical values and oscillographic o r spectro- graphic m easures.” 1 * T he possible cultu ral m eaning o f these events is always fo rm ulated in n atu ra l language an d the system o f notes is used only by way o f q u o tatio n . In o th er w ords, the “lang uag e” o f m usic is sym bolized by notes, but the language o f m usicology is natu ral language.
A gainst the back g ro u n d o f the b rief survey o f th e possibility (or ra th e r the im possibility) o f applying artificial languages to sign- -systems used in the theatre, the creation o f a “theatrical score” — an artificial language to describe the stage a n d its e v e n ts—seems to be deprived o f any fo undation . A general arg u m en t in favour o f his thesis m ay be form ulated as follow s: w h ether we treat the theatre as a reflection o f the w orld or as a w orld in itself, we m ay agree th a t it is received by us in a way th a t is an a lo g o u s to our experience o f the w orld. T o enclose the th eatre w ithin the limits o f a sign-system is a task th at is equivalent to the sem iosis o f the su rroun ding w orld which is incessantly done by every representative o f o u r species. W hether n atu ra l language is the forem ost an d original system of such semiosis is a problem for separate discussion, but we m ay agree th at it is a t least the m ost universal vehicle for form u lating the results o f such a process. T o speak a b o u t the “ language
12 G r e i m a s , op. cit., p. 75. o E c o , op. cit., pp. l i , 88.
D escription o f Theatrical Perform ance 85 o f the th e a tre ” is basically equal to speaking ab o u t the “language” in which we are addressed by the world.
T he old and new pro posals to create an artificial language for dealing with the th eatre are h ap h a zard and blind. O ne o f the recent exam ples is D. C o le’s system o f 1976 l4: in o rd er to account for the sim ultaneous occurrence o f events in various sign-systems he introduces, ap a rt from a linear rendering o f dialogues in natural language, a “ language” o f sym bols denoting stage-m ovem ent. T hus far he repeats B irdw histell’s p rocedure in which graphic sym bols play only a su bord inate p art. Yet, the a u th o r’s aim is far m ore am bitious: his artificial language is to include not only kinesics, but also psycho logical occurrences w hich are presented by diagram s m odelled upon the n o tatio n o f B uddhist m editations. T he present au th o r is not an expert in B uddhism , b u t he thinks th a t even if an artificial language m ight serve the needs o f a philosophical system with a limited num ber o f term s an d n otions, C ole’s attem p t to extend such a language beyond one philosophical system is no less th an a proposal to create a graphic “ language” fo r all the possible contents o f m a n ’s spiritual life. T here seems to be no need for a detailed refutation o f such an idea which negates the biological an d historical im portance of m a n ’s acquisition o f the gift o f tongue as the m ost com prehensive an d m any-sided sem iotic system.
A very sou nd voice in the discussion on the theatrical score cam e tw enty years ago from the leading Polish histo rian o f the theatre, Z. Raszew ski. A historical survey o f the subject brought him to the conclusion which is in full accordance with the principle o f limited applicatio n o f artificial languages. T he highly codified classical ballet with its fixed num ber o f postures and evolutions lent itself to n o ta tio n ; the sam e applied to acting in the times o f M oliere when acting was “so precise in w ord and gesture th at a score sim ply im posed itself as a m eans o f facilitating the work o f preparing a perfo rm an ce.” In the 19th century “th e unstability, o r even the d isintegration o f th e perform ance m ade this kind o f precision im possible.” 15 T his statem ent o f a h istorian m ay be treated
14 D. C o le . “T h e V isual S c rip t," The D ram a Review, vol. X X (1976), fasc. 4. 15 Z. R a s z e w s k i , “ P a rty tu ra te a tra ln a ” (The T h eatrical Score), P am iętnik
as an illustration o f the lim itation o f all artificial languages to certain specific sem antic dom ains.
The present a u th o r does not preclude the possibility o f w orking o u t som e sort o f auxiliary theatrical score in the future, b u t he w ants to stress th a t it should be sem antically oriented (i.e. startin g from m eanings an d their relations and not from th eir surface m anifestations) and th at it should be based upon the general theory o f artificial languages. A t the present m om ent there is, however, no o p tio n , but to use natu ral language for describing perform ances as it is the only sign-system th a t is capable o f acco un tin g fo r the vario us sign- -systems used in the theatre.
A n add itio n al p arag ra p h seems necessary to conclude the rem arks on the sign-systems o f the theatre and th eir m utual relatio ns: som e light m ust be throw n on the problem o f the so-called “theatrical sign” and “theatrical co d e.” Both n otion s seem to be relics o f the early phase o f studies on m eaning in the th eatre as represented by the Prague school. F o r scholars o f this g ro u p the special way o f functioning o f different sign-system s in the theatre becam e an inducem ent to postulate the existence o f a special kind o f signs. The tangle o f the ensuing falsely form ulated problem s was first cut by R. B arthes: his statem ent based on Peirce’s trip artite th eo ry o f sign and the role o f the in terp retan t is th a t objects, gestures and images which in principle are no t m eant as vehicles of signification are endow ed with m eaning by social usage. B arthes calls this p h e n o m enon the assum ption o f a sign-function by a prim arily non-signi fying o b je c t.16 L ater on, U. Eco gave fu rth e r explanations by fo rm u lating the n otion s o f “ostensión” and “sq uare sem iosis” as co n stitu tive factors o f the th eatre in g e n e ra l.17
O stensión m eans th at
A h u m an body, alo n g w ith its co n v en tio n ally recognized properties, s u rro u n d e d by o r supplied w ith a set o f objects, inserted w ithin a physical space, sta n d s fo r som ething else to a reactin g audience. In o rd e r to do so, it has been fram ed w ithin a sort o f p erfo rm ativ e situ atio n th a t estab lish es th a t it has to be tak e n as a sign.
16 R. B a r t h e s . E lem ents o f Sem iology, L o n d o n 1969. p. 41.
17 U. E c o , “S em iotics o f T h ea tric al P e rfo rm an c e,” The drama Review, vol. X X II (1977), fasc. 1. [F rench tra n s i.: “ P ara m è tre s d e la sém iologie th é â tra le ,” —in:
D escription o f Theatrical P erform ance 87 T he perform ative situation is created by the a c to rs’ im plicit speech ac t: “ I am actin g,” “I am an o th er m a n .” A s fo r square semiosis it applies to all non-verbal elem ents o f the perform ance:
W ith w ords a p h o n ic object stan d s fo r o th e r objects m ad e with different stuff. In the m ise-en-scene an object, first recognized as a real object, is then assu m ed as a sign in o rd e r to refer back to a n o th e r object (or a class o f objects) w hose co n stitu tiv e stu ff is the sam e as th a t o f the rep rese n tin g o b je c t.18
O stensión and square semiosis are, like the very p henom enon o f the theatre, a m atter o f social convention. T he p articulars of various conventions m ay differ th u s providing different “theatrical codes,” but these codes are (to use a term o f the T artu school) only “secondary m odelling system s” ; in R ussian term inology the “first m odelling system ” is equivalent sim ply to a sign-system 19. Now, the sign-system s used in the theatre are essentially the sam e as in o ther d om ain s o f m a n ’s activities; they “m a p ” in the sam e way between m eaning an d its expression. M odifications b rought a b o u t by ostensión and by square semiosis are consciously o r unconsciously included in the com petence o f any sp ectato r w ho belongs to a civilization th a t h as evolved the theatre. These m odifications allow for the specifical ly theatrical conditions o f the signifying process, b u t do not change the very sign-system s and their “m ap p in g ” qualities. Instead o f speak ing a b o u t “ theatrical signs” one should ra th e r speak o f “ signs in the th e a tre .”
F o r exam ple, the secondary m odelling systems differ in the theatre o f E urope an d th a t o f the F a r East. They m ay require learning, b u t the k ind o f know ledge th at is needed here is certainly part o f the cu ltural com petence o f the “ideal sp ec ta to r” w hom we are going to p ostulate as a u th o r o f description; the n otion is discussed in the ch ap ters o f the present boo k dealing with the pragm atics o f the text. Briefly speaking, it corresponds to the n otion o f the “ ideal com petence” in linguistics an d th a t o f the “ ideal read er” in literary studies. W hat is essential for the present chap ter is the thesis th at culturally conditio ned changes o f m eaning apply only to certain individual signs, but the principles o f the respective
sign-18 Ibidem , pp. 117, 111.
19 Cf. A. S h u k m a n , Literature and Sem iotics. A S tu d y o f the W ritings o f Yu. M . L o tm a n . A m s te rd a m —N ew Y o rk —O xford 1977, pp. 3, 14.
-system s d o not chan ge; with due allow ance for the cultural com petence o f the tra n sla to r the problem s o f th eir tran slatio n into n a tu ra l language rem ain unaltered.
A n o th er m isunderstanding arose in connection w ith the fact o f ov erlappin g o f several sign-system s in the process o f creating m eaning. It is n o t a p artic u la r feature o f the th eatre as m ay be seen e.g. from B irdw histell’s recorded conversations in which linguistic, paralin- guistic an d kinesic behaviou r is presented in parallel lin es20. The d iag ram s show th a t kinesic behaviour, paralinguistic behaviour, and au dible speech do not ap p e ar sim ultaneously in given units o f time, but ap p e ar with regard to one a n o th e r in an overlapping o r interm ittent way. It is im possible to cut out any com m on unit in the surface structu res o f different sign-system s; the “global theatrical sign” is som ething th at cannot be observed in any actually investigated com m unicative process. A so lution o f the problem has been b ro ug ht by recent advances in the theory o f text with which we shall be dealing a few lines below. Let it only be said here th a t w hat unites the use o f different sign-systems for the purpose o f creating an d transm itting m eaning is their com m on sem antic plane which alw ays has the structure o f a text, even if it is only a m icrotext. As such it is translatable in to n a tu ra l language as a p arap h ra sin g sentence. W hat we have to deal w ith both in th eatre an d in life are n o t “global signs” but global m eanings o f sem iotically polyphonic texts.
2
Polem ic rem arks a b o u t the “global sign” b ro u g h t us to the crucial notion o f text. A ccording to U. E c o ’s definition it is “a m acro- -unit, ruled by p artic u la r generative rules, in which som etim es the very n o tio n o f ‘sign’—as an elem entary sem iotic unit has been a n n ih ila te d .” 21 T he an n ih ilatio n o f the sign in a text is further exp an d ed by M. C o rti:
The tran s se n te n tia l u n ity o f signifiers an d m eanings p roduces a g lobal m eaning o f th e text th a t is n o t ab so lu tely the sum o f the p a rtial m eanings isolable am ong th e m ; o u r use o f p a rtial m eanings is n e u tra lized by the tex tu al la w .22
20 Bi r d w h i s t e l l , op. cit.. p. 221. 21 E c o . A Theory p. 12.
22 M. C o r t i , An Introduction to L itera ry Sem iotics, B lo o m in g to n —L ondon 1978, p. 79.
D escription o f Theatrical P erform ance 89 Finally, P. H a rtm a n n observes th at
O n e m ay call a “tex t” w hatever occurs in language in th e w ay o f giving it a co m m u n icab le social form , i.e. a from th at is related to the p a rtn e rs, [and a lso that] language is o b servable only in fo rm o f a te x t.2-'
M icrotexts in n atu ral language m ay even consist o f a single w ord like “ F ire !” or “H elp !”
T he creation o f texts is no t limited to n atu ral language. E co says th at
A n iconic sign is indeed a text, fo r its verbal equivalent is n o t a w o rd , bu t a p h rase o r indeed a w hole s to ry ; the iconic re p re se n ta tio n o f a h o rse d o es no t c o rre sp o n d to the w o rd “h o rse ” but ra th e r to a desc rip tio n (a black horse, s ta n d ing up, o r ju m p in g , etc.), to a m en tio n (this horse is galloping) o r to som e o th er different speech act (look, w hat a beautiful horse!). If inserted in a scientific text, an iconic sign can c o rre sp o n d to the sta te m en t o f the type: all h o rses have fo u r legs and such visual p r o p e r tie s ...24
The sign-system o f th e n atu ral language does no t seem to be essential fo r the no tio n o f the text; w hat is involved here is th e capacity o f o u r species to create texts and not only signs. F. Jam eso n even proposes to replace the definition o f m an as homo loquens by the term o f homo sem ioticus25— a being which not only speaks, but is capable o f semiosis o f the su rrounding w orld an d o f arran ging its results in texts.
If the sign-system o f a text is not o f prim ary im portance, there is no obstacle to apply the term to the “p olysu b stan tial” p h eno m eno n o f the th e a tre 26 which, according to R. D u ra n d , is a “specific h eterogenous com bin ation o f several codes which do n o t have to be specifically th eatric al.” 27 Such an extension o f th e term “ tex t” beyond the trad itio n al m eaning o f a spoken o r w ritten u tterance in n atu ral language is beginning to spread am ong students o f th e theatre. O ne o f the recent purely theatrical studies which follow s this
2-' P. H a r t m a n n , “Text, T exte, K lassen von T ex ten ,” [in:] Stru ktu relle T e x t
analyse, ed. W .A . K och, H ild esh eim —N ew Y ork 1972, p. 5.
24 E c o , A T h e o r y ..., pp. 2 1 5 —216.
25 F. J a m e s o n . The P rison-H ouse o f Language, P rin ceto n 1972, p. 31. 26 T he term com es from S. S k w a r c z y r i s k a ’s b o o k W okól teatru i literatury (Around Theatre and Literature). W arszaw a 1970. p. 27 ff.
27 R. D u r a n d . “ P roblèm es de l’analyse stru c tu ra le e t sém io tiq u e de la fo rm e th é â tra le .” [in:] Sém iologie de la représentation, p. 113.
line is the article o f M . D e M arinis o f 1978—9. W hat he calls a testo spettacolare is a given concrete theatrical perform ance endow ed with tw o basic characteristics which con stitu te any text: com pleteness an d coherence. Y et, althou gh both o f these qualities are sem antic ones, De M arinis (like his predecessor and co llab o rato r G . B ettetini) starts with the study o f surface structures by introducing a h o rizon tal division into levels— texts in different sign-system s which he calls testi parziali. C onsequently, he defines the m acrostru cture o f a text (i.e.
o f a perform ance) as an intersection o f m any testi parziali, o f the levels o f m any sign-systems.
T he passage from surface to m eaning is effected in D e M arinis’ article by m eans o f the highly dou btful n o tio n o f the theatrical code (icodice spettacolare) which is “the convention th a t allows us to jo in the given contents with the given elem ents o f one o r several expressive system s” 28. T he tro u b le with such a n otio n is th a t it takes for granted certain assum p tions th at are still far from being sufficiently established while on the o ther hand 'it neglects certain alread y well- -founded theories.
O ne of the basic assumption^., o f generative sem antics is that “a language is a system th a t ‘m a p s ’ between the co n ten t o f well- -form ed portio n s o f discourse and their form , i.e. m aps betw een m eaning and its expression” 2y. Yet, even in studies on n atu ral language this “m appin g” , especially when we leave the dom ain o f phrase- -gram m ars and pass to texts, is still very far from being properly know n. W hen we leave n atu ral language we are in a situatio n that m ay be sum m ed up in the statem ent th a t nothing resem bling the work o f the A m erican school o f generative sem antics has been done with texts in o th er sign-systems. T he “jo in in g o f co ntents with given elem ents o f expressive system s” is still virgin ground.
On the o th er hand, the investigation o f sem antic structures and o f their configurations irrespectively o f the form s in which they ap p e ar on the surface level has been fairly well advanced in sem antic text-gram m ars (e.g. by T.A . van Dijk). Such approaches are em inently
28 M. De M a r i n i s , “ Lo sp e tta co lo com e te s to ,” P. I, Versus, 1978, no. 21, pp. 68. 75. 7 8 - 7 9 . 82.
^ D. G . F r a n t z . “G en erativ e S e m a n tics—A n In tro d u c tio n .” [in:] Readings
Description o f Theatrical Perform ance 91 suited to deal with the th eatre which uses m any different sign-systems on the surface plane while the sem antic plane is the sam e for all the systems. T he com m on sem antic basis, an d no t th e non-existing “theatrical co d e,” is here the unifying factor.
H aving once established th at a th eatrical p erform ance is a text, the present a u th o r does not generalize in the succeeding chapters o f his boo'k on the m ethods o f its analysis, but trea ts the problem in the light o f a survey o f differeht text-theories such as classical French structuralism (Barthes, G reim as, T od orov), F rench post-structu- ralism (K risteva and D errida), the G erm an stru ctu ralist school with its Peircean bent and its stress upo n the pragm atic com po nen t, and finally A m erican generative sem antics (mainly G o rd o n and Lakoff). Inspiration s fo r structuralizing b o th n arrative and n on -n arrativ e texts, i.e. theatrical perform ances o f a n arrative or no n-narrativ e type, are d raw n from the existing attem p ts at form ulatin g sem antic gram m ars o f the text. Yet, for the lim ited purposes o f the present ch ap ter it is enough to agree with De M arinis’ notio n o f the perform ance as a text while adding th at this very text in different sign-systems is the subject o f description in n atu ral language which in this case serves as m etalanguage.
T he subject o f description is no t any series o f linguistic, kinesic and iconic events, but a text which is defined a n d characterized by sem antic coherence p rodu cing global m eaning. C onsequently, the function o f description is equal to tw o task s: th a t o f tra n slation into an d th a t o f p arap h rase in n atu ra l language. In b oth o f these activities the preservation o f the text-constitu tive quality o f sense is essential; otherw ise, there is no tran sla tion o f a text (i.e. o f a theatrical perform ance), b u t a catalogue of events in the surface structure. T o use a term o f G reim as, the description m ust be isotopic with the perform ance. F urtherm ore, once we leave the sem antic plane as th e basis o f description, we deprive ourselves o f the hierarchy o f m eaning o f the objects we are describing. N um erous existing descriptions are cloyed with details o f secondary im portance treated on an equal footing with crucial elem ents. A sem antically-oriented description perm its to intro duce m ore o r less details according to the technical requirem ents o f its sm aller o r larger size, b u t the selection is alw ays done according to the m eaning-creative role o f these elem ents. T his is the reason for
which th e present a u th o r is against the so-called “objective," non- -interpreting descriptions o f perform ances which even in their m ost detailed form can n o t replace either the “ reading” o f the actu al per form ance itself, o r the use o f recorded d o cum entary m aterial, while on the o th er h a n d they lose from sight the m ost im p o rta n t thing: the sense o f w hat is being described. T o sum the m atter up, it appears th a t a non -in terp retin g description o f a perform ance (which som e o f its Polish advocates call a “reco rd in g” — zapis) destroys its ow n subject — the text und er description, or ra th e r under translation , by neglecting its constitutive fa c to r—its sem antic coherence.
T h e present a u th o r’s o ption in favour o f n atu ra l language does no t preclude the im portance o f collecting theatrical do cum entation. T he subject has already quite a rich literatu re o f its own dealing m ainly with technical problem s and with problem s o f o rg anization 30. F rom a theoretical point o f view it m ay only be observed th at audiovisual recordings, how ever valuable or even indispensable they m ay be in supplem enting the description, o r fo r the purp ose of historical d o cu m en tatio n , leave the task o f their sem antic in terpretation to their users; u nder ideal conditions they are replicas and not tran sla tions. Besides, they d o not include the pragm atic co m po nen t — the influence o f the p articip an ts in th e text upon the m eaning o f the text itself (in the th eatre it has the physically observable form o f interaction between actors and audiences). In o rd e r to allow fo r this very "difference T. K ow zan reserves the term o f “d escrip tio n” fo r the results o f observing an actual perform ance from the seats while proposing to use the term o f “ recordings” for all the w ritten m aterials com ing from the a u th o rs o f the perform ance 31.
It m ay be w orth while to observe in this connection th at pro m p tb o o k s, how ever useful they m ay be as subsidiary docum
enta-30 In Polish th ere is the basic w ork o f Z. R a s z e w s k i , “ D o k u m en tacja przed staw ien ia te a tra ln e g o ” (The R eco rd s o f the T h ea tric al P erfo rm an ce), [in:]
D okum entacja vr badaniach literackich i teatralnych, ed. J. C zachow ska, W rocław
1971, Cf. also: S. S k W a r c z y ń s k a , “ S praw a d o k u m en ta cji w idow iska te a tra ln e g o ” (P roblem s o f the T h ea trical P e rfo rm a n c e ’s R ecords), Dialog, 1973, no. 7; Z. O s i ń s k i , “ Z p ro b lem aty k i scen ariu sza te a tra ln e g o ” (F rom the P ro b lem atics o f T h eatrical Scenario), M iesięcznik L iter a ck i, 1972, no. 1.
31 T. K o w z a n , “S p ek tak l tea tra ln y p o d m ik ro s k o p em ” (The T h eatrical Spectacle u n d er the M icroscope), Dialog. 1971, no. 8.
Description o f Theatrical P erform ance 93 tio n , are only a sort o f fragm entary catalogues o f events. The logbooks o f rehearsals th ro w light upon the process o f creation o r upon the intended m eanings, but d o n o t necessarily present the actu al m eanings o f the text (i.e. o f the perform ance) as offered to the audiences. The m ost interesting problem seems to be th a t o f d irec to rs’ copies o f plays an d scenarios. K ow zan m ade the apt o bservation th a t d irec to r’s m aterials are norm ative an d n o t an a ly ti cal 32 while Z. H ü b n e r add ed th at a theatrical scenario is not a description, b u t only a p ro po sal, ju st like the scriptb ook o f a m otion p ic tu re 33. Briefly speaking, b o th a u th o rs p o int to the fact th at a d irec to r’s ideas and intentions are n o t identical w ith the actual perform ance. The fact has an obvious ex p lan atio n : texts in n atu ral language and iconic texts have usually but one single a u th o r who provides perceptible surface-structures for his intended co ntents w hereas sem iotically polyphonic texts like theatrical perform ances have a num ber o f c o a u th o rs; m eanings are created an d expressed by their com m on work.
3
H aving established the language and the subject o f the descritpion, the present a u th o r w ould like to conclude the ch a p te r by at least a few rem arks on the object which ap p ears as the result o f describing. It is a text in n atu ral language which is an intersem iotic tran slatio n (a tran slatio n from a n um b er o f different sign-system s). By the fact o f its being a tran slatio n it retains the sem antic coherence o f the original while rendering its surface m an ifestations o f m eaning in one sign-system only —the n atu ra l language. A n im p o rtan t w arning is required at this p o in t: the fact th a t n atu ra l language is in m ost cases one o f the systems used in the original (i.e. the perform ance) often leads to the erro r o f first p arap h rasin g the dram atic texts an d then o f com paring them with theatrical perform ances, instead o f treatin g the perform ances as sep arate subjects in their own right. A com p ariso n o f the text o f a play an d the text o f a perform ance seems to be only a second step for which it is necessary to have
Ibidem , p. 144.
tw o term s at o n e’s d isposal; it is the fu nction o f the description to furnish one o f these term s. W hat is actually being co m p ared in books, articles a n d reviews is no t a d ram atic w ork an d its p erfo rm an ce a t the theatre, but always a d ram atic w ork an d a description o f the perform ance. The second term o f co m p arison is not established by takin g readers to the theatre, but by w riting ab o u t w hat happened a t the th eatre. C om p ariso n is always being m ade between tw o texts, both o f them in n atu ra l language, one o f these texts being a translation. T o be conscious o f w hat is being com pared seems as im p o rtan t as to know w hat is being described an d w hat is the essential process involved in the description. The present ch a p te r was m eant as an answ er to these tw o questions.
