Marvin Carlson, 1990. Theatre Semiotics: Signs of Life

The first part duplicates in many respects Fischer-Lichte's semiotic model of theatre what I have called earlier "the theatre of semiotics" -- although with more sensitivity to the problems which this approach creates. The notion of codes occupies a central position in both scholars' analytical strategies, thus focussing on the cognitive organizations and transactions implemented by performances. They are undoubtedly correct. However, the issue is whether this aspect is definitional. Upon reading their development, one cannot help notice that what they say about performance also applies to other types of social events which are not considered as "theatrical performances" in the contextual culture. A case in point is de Marinis' specification of "the two basic conditions that any theatrical events must fulfil in order to be included in the class (theatrical performance): (1) physical co-presence of sender and receiver, and (2) simultaneity of production and communication"(137). These conditions may be useful to distinguish, in communicational terms, theatre from cinema and television, but they apply to such an array of other social events that they are actually trivial with respect to the type of performance which is the focus of de Marinis' attention. This is a general reproach which can be addressed to the semiotic of the past decades. The communication model -- more particularly Jakobson's version -- acted as a revelator by showing how a wide range of events and objects which were previously considered unrelated could indeed be construed as communicative processes, but proved to be unable to account for the specificity of the classes of socio-cultural phenomena which map everyday experience. By contrast to Fischer-Lichte, whose general approach is confidently unproblematic, de Marinis seems acutely aware of this theoretical difficulty (e.g. 137-144) and attempts to come to term with it:

Theatre Semiotics: Text and Staging in Modern Theatre (Google Books)

systematic treatise on theatrical semiotics to have appeared in English.

Marvin Carlson, 1990. Theatre Semiotics: Signs of Life

Theatre is composed of a multitude of signifying systems that have a dual function: as literary practice and as performance practice. Fernando de Toro carefully considers the multiple and complex components which constitute the relationships between a text, its concretization as performance, and its reception by the audience in this translation and revision of his Semi3/4tica del teatro: Del texto a la puesta en escena. He focuses on discourse, textuality, semiosis, reception, actantial functions, and history; this comprehensive overview of the various semiotic approaches is placed in the context of modern European, North American, and Latin American theatre. De Toro begins with an examination of theatre discourse as linguistic expression and as semiosis, and differentiates theatre discourse from other forms of literary discourse and performance. He then thoroughly explores the relationship between the dramatic text and the performance text. A chapter devoted to theatre semiotics establishes how signification functions in drama and performance, in terms of Charles Sanders Peirce's trichotomy (icon, index, symbol). Final chapters focus on theatre reception (the emitter and receptor); the actantial model, and how it has evolved; and a semiological reflection on the history of the theatre. Theatre Semiotics provides a thorough argument for the place and the necessity of semiotics within the interpretive process of theatre.

---. 1980. "Introduction to Theatre Semiotics." 10.38. 47-53.

De Toro begins with an examination of theatre discourse as linguistic expression and as semiosis, and differentiates theatre discourse from other forms of literary discourse and performance. He then thoroughly explores the relationship between the dramatic text and the performance text. A chapter devoted to theatre semiotics establishes how signification functions in drama and performance, in terms of Charles Sanders Peirce's trichotomy (icon, index, symbol). Final chapters focus on theatre reception (the emitter and receptor); the actantial model, and how it has evolved; and a semiological reflection on the history of the theatre. Theatre Semiotics provides a thorough argument for the place and the necessity of semiotics within the interpretive process of theatre.

theatrical semiotics in the Thirties, i.e. within the framework of the
the stage as a mod e of semiotization that theatrical semiotics has its

JSTOR: Theatre Semiotics, March 1995

The second part of the paper presents how Susan Bassnett and Patrice Pavis, a translation theoretician and a theater semiotician, respectively, have polarized the theory of theater translation into the notions of (or ) and since the mid-1980s.

keywords: theatre semiotics, narratology, children's books, performance

The Theatre of Semiotics - University of Toronto

The first part duplicates in many respects Fischer-Lichte's semiotic model of theatre what I have called earlier "the theatre of semiotics" -- although with more sensitivity to the problems which this approach creates. The notion of codes occupies a central position in both scholars' analytical strategies, thus focussing on the cognitive organizations and transactions implemented by performances. They are undoubtedly correct. However, the issue is whether this aspect is definitional. Upon reading their development, one cannot help notice that what they say about performance also applies to other types of social events which are not considered as "theatrical performances" in the contextual culture. A case in point is de Marinis' specification of "the two basic conditions that any theatrical events must fulfil in order to be included in the class (theatrical performance): (1) physical co-presence of sender and receiver, and (2) simultaneity of production and communication"(137). These conditions may be useful to distinguish, in communicational terms, theatre from cinema and television, but they apply to such an array of other social events that they are actually trivial with respect to the type of performance which is the focus of de Marinis' attention. This is a general reproach which can be addressed to the semiotic of the past decades. The communication model -- more particularly Jakobson's version -- acted as a revelator by showing how a wide range of events and objects which were previously considered unrelated could indeed be construed as communicative processes, but proved to be unable to account for the specificity of the classes of socio-cultural phenomena which map everyday experience. By contrast to Fischer-Lichte, whose general approach is confidently unproblematic, de Marinis seems acutely aware of this theoretical difficulty (e.g. 137-144) and attempts to come to term with it:

Centre of Theatre Semiotics & Department of Theatre Studies, University of Athens | 2008

theatre semiotics - Digital Games Research Association

As usual, the most important subjects are neglected! If only we can give the students the basic of Theatre Semiotics, how easy our life could be! Because they would understand the LANGUAGE of theatre!