Tadeusz Kowzan

THE SIGN IN THE THEATER

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE SEMIOLOGY

OF THE ART OF THE SPECTACLE

The idea of sign, O’1)(1Œ (sema), has been popular in philosophy

and the history of the sciences. Hippocrates and the Stoics, Plato
and Aristotle, Saint Augustine and Descartes, Leibniz and Locke,
Hegel and Humboldt figure among those who have dealt pene-
tratingly with it. It has engendered a wide variety of sciences and
disciplines: semiology, semiotics, semasiology, semantics, sema-
tology which changed their name and content with the influence
of time and sometimes of fashion, becoming forgotten to reappear
with the impetus of a great thinker. The history of the sciences
of the sign deserves systematic study. We shall content ourselves
to point out that, of the terms quoted above, semiotics and se-
miology (or semeiology) have had a longer and richer career than
the others. Since Greek antiquity they were applied to two appar-

52
ently distant fields: military art (the science of manoeuvring
troops with the help of signals) and medicine, in which they
showed a greater perseverance. In many countries, throughout the
19th century and even today, medical study of the symptoms of
illnesses is called semiology.
The term &dquo;semiology&dquo; made its appearance in the human
sciences thanks to Ferdinand de Saussure or rather to his Cours
de linguistique generale, compiled posthumously and published in
1916. Let us record the passages which, though too well-known,
should serve as a point of reference in any attempt to expand the
field of semiological research into the social sciences.
&dquo;Language is a system of signs expressing ideas and as such
is comparable to writing, the deaf and dumb alphabet, symbolic
rites, forms of courtesy, military signals etc... But it is the most
important of these systems. One can therefore conceive of a
science which studies the life of signs in the core of social life.
It would be a part of social psychology and consequently of general
psychology: we shall call it semiology (from the Greek simeion,
&dquo;sign&dquo;). It will tell us what signs consist in, and by what laws
they are ruled. ( ... ) Linguistics is only a part of this general science,
the laws that semiology will discover, will be applicable to lin-
guistics ( ... ). If one wants to discover the true nature of language,
one must first of all take into account what it has in common with
all the other systems of the same order; ( ... ) we are of the opinion
that, considering rites, customs etc... as signs, these facts will
appear in another light, and one will feel the need to group them
in semiology and explain them by the laws of this science. &dquo;1
For half a century semiology, as postulated by the Geneva
linguist (and before him by Ch. S. Peirce, under the name of
semiotic) has not succeeded in establishing itself through the
different disciplines but semiological research has made great
strides in recent decades, above all in linguistics and social psy-
chology. The attempt has been made to introduce methods of
semiological analysis into some fields constituting repertories of
social signs: the highway code, fashion, food, gestures, sign-boards.
On the contrary, very little attention has been given to the
semiology of art, with the exception of literature, the nearest to
linguistics.
1
Cours de linguistique générale
, Paris, 1966, pp. 33-35.

53
 One of the first attempts to examine art as a semiological fact
was the communication of Jan Mukaiovsky at the 8th international
congress of philosophy at Prague, in 1934. Mukar’ovsky starts
from the principle that &dquo;any psychic content surpassing the limits
of individual consciousness acquires the character of sign by the
very fact of its communicability,&dquo; he affirms that &dquo; the work of
art is simultaneously sign, structure, and value,&dquo; and concludes
lucidly: &dquo;( ... ) as long as the semiological character of art is not
sufficiently clarified, study of the structure of the work of
the
art will necessarily incomplete. Without a semiological
remain
orientation, the art theoreticians will always be inclined to regard
the work of art as a purely formal construction or even as the
direct reflection either of the psychic or even physiological dis-
positions of the author or of the distinct reality expressed by
the work, or of the situation, be it ideological, economical, social
or cultural, of the given environment. ( ... ) The semiological view-

point alone will allow theoreticians to recognize the autonomous

existence and the essential dynamism of artistic structure and to
understand its evolution as an immanent movement, though in
constant dialectic relation to the evolution of other fields of
culture. &dquo;2 Nevertheless, Mukarùvský s developments have a very
general character. He distinguishes two semiological functions: the
communicative function and the autonomous function, but he
proposes no method of semiological analysis in the field of art.
Far from treating a work of art as a collection or a sequence of
signs, he appears to consider it as one sign (&dquo;every work of art is
a sign,&dquo; &dquo;the work of art has a sign character,&dquo; etc.).
The same tendency to consider a work of art as a semiological
unit appears in Eric Buyssens. In his book published in 1943
which represents one of the basic works in the early days of the
history of semiological science, he gives very little space to the
phenomena of art. Contrary to Mukafovsk’, Buyssens expresses
the opinion that &dquo; art is hardly semical. &dquo;Its economy, he con-
tinues, is purely artistic: it is the means of giving prominence to
the elements that should produce emotion. ( ... ) The artistic work
does not fulfil the utilitarian part of the semical act calling for

2
"L’art comme fait sémiologique," in Actes du Huitième Congrès International
de Philosophie à Prague, 2-7 september 1934, Prague, 1936, pp. 1065-1070.

54
collaboration; it is rather the testimony of a psychological event. &dquo;~
In relation to Mukarovsky’s theses, this last statement is a step
backwards. Let us keep in mind that the Belgian linguist distin-
guishes two categories of semies: the systematic and asystematic
semies. Among the former he enumerates speech, road and mari-
time signals, mathematical, physical and chemical formulae, com-
mercial, musical, prosodic symbols. By asystematic semies he
means: art, publicity, politeness, gestures, shop-signs etc. Nowa-

days this distinction only has a historical value, as less arbitrary

criteria of classification have been elaborated since then; by
recording it here, one is emphasizing that though judging art
&dquo;hardly semical,&dquo; Buyssens reserves for it the role of a distinct
semie.
After the war, the idea of treating art as a semiological fact
gains ground among linguists and semiologists. Literature, the art
of the word, is the favorite field of semiological research principally
followed in France, the United States and the U.S.S.R. As for the
fields of artistic activity other than literature, the &dquo;intrusions&dquo;
are shy, rare and not very systematic. It is as well to note that
Roman Jakobson is ready to acknowledge painting and cinema as
&dquo;non-linguistic languages,&dquo; that Roland Barthes’ openings into
different fields of art enrich his semiological analyses, that &dquo;Art
as a semiological system&dquo; was one of the main themes of the

symposium on the sign organized in the U.S.S.R. in 1961.

The theory of sign, however, has not up to now been applied
systematically to any field of art. What are the causes of this
state of affairs? How can one explain this fear of approaching
the fields of art? Modern semiology begins with Saussurian lin-
guistics. But, while &dquo;linguistics is only a part of this general
science&dquo; (semiology) for the Geneva master there now appears a
counter-tendency to consider semiology as a part or an aspect
of linguistics. This tendency to reduce all the problems of sign
to language is perhaps the principal reason why semiology deals
so little with the arts, preferring fields of signification (highway and
mathematical signs, furniture, cartography, tourist guides, tele-
phone directories, cars) where linguistic equivalents are easily
found. What is more striking is that the spectacular arts although
3
Les langages et le discours. Essai de linguistique fonctionnelle dans le cadre
de la sémiologie
, Bruxelles, 1943, p. 37.

55
having a common ground with the linguistic facts, have almost
been kept apart from semiological analysis. In Buyssens one finds
the statement that &dquo;the richest combination of semical facts
certainly seems to be that which happens during the presentation
of an opera.&dquo; But to the means of scenic expression (words, song,
music, mime, dance, costumes, scenery, lighting) he adds audience
reactions, manifestations of society life, without overlooking the
participation of the theater staff, firemen and policemen. Buyssens
is therefore thinking of spectacle as a sociological phenomenon
when he concludes: &dquo;In short, it is a whole world that comes
together and communicates for a few hours. &dquo;4 The only kind of
spectacle that, to our knowledge, has been scientifically considered
from the semiological viewpoint is the art of cinema.’ But any
analysis of this art, one of the most recent and a slave to special
techniques, is determined by this very technique and would gain
a lot from the possibility of relying on a semiology of the theatrical
art. It should be noted that several theatrical theoreticians as well
as people in the trade, use the term &dquo;sign&dquo; when they speak of
artistic elements or means of theatrical expression, which proves
that semiological consciousness or subconsciousness is something
real among those who deal with the spectacle. This confirms at the
same time the need of a semiological opening in the theatrical art,
the necessity to consider spectacle from the viewpoint of semi-
ology. This is the principal aim of the thoughts proposed here.
Of all the arts and perhaps of all the fields of human activity,
spectacle is the one in which the sign shows itself in the richest
and most dense and varied way. The word pronounced by the
actor first has its linguistic meaning i.e. it is the sign of the
objects, the persons, the feelings, the ideas or their interrelations
that the author of the text meant to evoke. But already the
intonation of the actor’s voice and the way of pronouncing that
word are likely to change its value. How many ways of pronounc-
ing the words &dquo;I love you&dquo; can mean passion as well as indif-
ference, irony as well as pity. Facial mime and gestures of
the hand can underline the meaning of words, belie it or give
it a particular shade. That is not all. A lot depends on the attitude
4
Op. cit., p. 56.
5
Cf. the articles
by Christian Metz, especially "Le cinéma: langue ou
langage?" Communications, No. 4 (1964), pp. 52-90.

56
of the actor’s body and his position in relation to his partners. The
words &dquo;I love you&dquo; have a different emotional and significative
value inasfar as they are said by a person sitting negligently in
his armchair, a cigarette in his mouth (the supplementary signif-
icative role of the accessory), by a man holding a woman in his
arms or with his back to the person he is addressing these words to.

Everything is sign in a theatrical presentation. A cardboard

column means that the scene takes place in front of a palace. The
beam of the spotlight picks out a throne and here we are inside
the palace. The crown on the actor’s head is the sign of royalty
whereas the wrinkles and whiteness of his face, obtained with
the help of make-up, and his hesitant gait are all signs of old
age. And lastly, the sound of galloping horses growing louder in
the wings is the sign that a traveller is approaching.
Spectacle uses the word as well as non linguistic systems of
signification. It has recourse to auditive as well as visual signs.
It puts to good use the systems of signs made for communication
between men, and those created by the needs of artistic activity.
The signs it uses are drawn from anywhere: from nature, social
life, different crafts, all the fields of art. If one examines
out of curiosity the list of &dquo;major&dquo; and &dquo;minor&dquo; arts, a hundred
in number, established by Thomas Munro,6 one can easily state
that each of them can find its place in a theatrical presentation,
playing a semantic part, and that some thirty of them belong
directly to the spectacle. In practice, there is no system of signifi-
cation, there is no sign that cannot be used in the spectacle.
The semiological richness of the art of the spectacle explains at
the same time why this field has preferably been avoided by the
theoreticians of sign. It is because richness and variety in this case
mean complexity. In the theater the signs seldom appear in their
pure state. The simple example of the words &dquo;I love you&dquo; has
just shown us that the linguistic sign is most of the time ac-
companied by the sign of the intonation, of the mime, of the
movement and that all the other means of scenic expression-
decor, costumes, make-up, sound effects- act simultaneously on
the spectator as combinations of signs which are complementary,
derive strength and precision from each other, or are in contradic-
tion. The analysis of a spectacle from the semiological viewpoint
6
The Arts and Their Interrelations, New York, 1949.

57
presents serious difficulties. Should we proceed along the vertical
or horizontal section? Should we first of all detach the superimpos-
ed signs of different systems or divide the spectacle into
units in its linear development? But the spectacle and most
combinations of signs are situated in time as well as in space
wich makes analysis and systematization all the more complicated.
The vast field of the art of the spectacle as a field of semiological
exploitation could be approached in several ways. What method
is to be chosen? The task would be made considerably easier if
one could rely upon the sufficiently developed theoretical analysis
of each system of signs which the spectacle uses or can use. But
this is not possible in the present state of semiological studies.
Certain fields of artistic expression such as the plastic arts or
music, are still practically unexplored by semiology. Others, speci-
fically scenic, such as movements of the body (mime, gestures,
attitudes), make-up, lighting are in a hardly better position. Their
semantic value is perfectly appreciated and exploited by the people
in the trade but the theoretical foundations are missing; the
existing treatises are only indexes of a purely practical character.
For want of semiological bases strong enough to be able to draw
conclusions on the role of different systems of signs in the complex
phenomenon of the spectacle, we have decided to approach the
question by its result, that is to say the spectacle as an existing
reality, trying to clear up this disorder or rather the appearance
of disorder due to the richness of all that takes place in space and
time during a theatrical presentation. We shall be content to
consider only the theatrical art, but in its broadest meaning (drama,
opera, ballet, pantomime, puppets) leaving aside the other forms
of spectacle, notably cinema, television, the circus and the music-
hall.
First of all the idea of sign must be considered. The general
theory of signs is a prosperous science which is developing
essentially in logic, psychology and linguistics. For semiology it
is an indispensable start, which is no proof that the idea of sign
is clear. On the contrary, the existing definitions vary noticeably,
the very term sign is contested or rather competes with many
analogous terms: index, signal, symbol, icon, information, message,
symptom, badge, which do not replace it but differentiate the idea
of sign, according to the numerous functions that have evolved

58
from it. We shall not try to create new nomenclatures and
definitions so as not to further embroil the theoretical situation
of the sign. We shall endeavor to choose those that seem most
sensible and at the same time most appropriate to our subject i.e.
the semiology of the spectacle.
1. We accept the term sign without having recourse to the
other terms from the same ideological field.
2. We adopt the Saussurian schema signi fie and signifiant, two
components of the sign (the signifié corresponds to the content,
the signifiant to the expression).
3. As for the classification of signs, we accept that which
divides them into natural and artificial signs.
This last point needs comment. The distinction quoted is to
be seen in the Vocabulaire technique et critique de la philosophie
by Andr6 Lalande ( 1 st. ed., 1917). Here is the essence of his
definitions: &dquo;Natural signs, those whose relation with the thing
signified results from the laws of nature alone: e.g. smoke, the
sign of fire.&dquo;&dquo; &dquo;Arti ficial signs, those whose relation with the thing
signified relies on a voluntary and more often collective decision. &dquo;’
This fundamental distinction between natural and artificial signs
which has been adopted by several authors is based on a fairly
clear principle. Everything is the sign of something in ourselves
and the surrounding world, in nature and the activity of men and
animals. Natural signs are those which spring forth and exist with-
out the participation of the will; they have the character of sign
for whoever perceives and interprets them, but they are emitted
involuntarily. This category includes principally the phenomena of
nature (a flash of lightning-the sign of storm, fever-the sign of
disease, the color of the skin-the sign of race) and the actions of
men and animals not meant to signify (reflexes). Artificial signs
are created voluntarily by man or animals to signal something, to
communicate with someone. By slightly modifying the definitions
of Lalande, one can affirm that the essential difference between
natural and artificial signs is situated at the level of emission and
not of perception and that it is determined by the absence or
existence of the will to emit the sign.
7
F. de Saussure distinguishes the natural sign from the arbitrary sign. Charles
Bally opposes index to sign. The term conventional sign is also used in opposition
to natural sign.

59
 Though fairly clear, this distinction does not solve all the
practical problems, it does not answer some borderline cases. Let
us take an
example of a linguistic sign. The exclamation &dquo;ow&dquo;
of the smoker who has burnt his hand with his
cigarette is a natural
sign. But is the swear-word uttered on the same occasion a natural
or an artificial
sign? This depends on certain circumstances, such
as the linguistic habits of the
person who pronounces it, the pres-
ence or the absence of witnesses.
Let us take a sign relevant to
mime. To what extent is a
grimace of disgust a natural sign (invol-
untary reflex) or an artificial sign (voluntary act to communicate
disgust)?
The signs used by the theatrical art all
belong to the artificial
category. They are artificial signs par excellence. They are the result
of a voluntary process and most often created with
premeditation;
they tend to communicate on the spot. Nothing surprising in an
art that cannot exist without an audience. Uttered voluntarily and
in full consciousness of communicating, theatrical signs are perfect-
ly functional. The theatrical art uses signs drawn from all the
manifestations of nature and all human activities. But once used in
the theater each of these signs acquires a significative value much
more pronounced than in its original use. The spectacle
transforms natural signs into artificial ones (a flash of lightning),
so it can &dquo;artificialize&dquo; signs. Even if they are only reflexes in

life, they become voluntary signs in the theater. Even if they have
no communicative function in life, they necessarily acquire it on

stage. The soliloquy of a scientist, for instance, who is trying to

formulate his thoughts or that of a person in a state of nervous
over-excitement is composed of linguistic signs i.e. of artificial signs
but without any intention of communicating. Recited on stage, the
same words recover their communicative role, the only reason for
the monologue of the scientist or the angry character is to com-
municate his thoughts or his emotional state to the audience.
We have just said that all the signs utilised by the theatrical
art are artificial. This does not exclude the existence of natural
signs in theatrical presentation. The means and techniques of the
theater are too deeply rooted in life to let the natural signs be
completely eliminated. In an actor’s diction and mime the strictly
personal habits go with the voluntarily created shades of meaning,
the conscious gestures are intermingled with reflexes. In these

60
cases, natural signs mixed with artificial signs. But the
are
complications go even further for the theoretician. The trembling
voice of a young actor playing the part of an old man is an
artificial sign. On the contrary, as the trembling voice of an
octogenarian actor is not created voluntarily, it is a natural sign
in life as well as on stage. But it is at the same time a sign
voluntarily and consciously used when this actor plays a very old
character. He does not will his voice to be as it is: he cannot
speak differently; his voice becomes an artificial sign by the will
of the stage or theater director who has chosen him for that
part. And so we see that the choice of an actor for a part or the
choice of the play for an actor, a choice made according to his
physique (expression of the face, voice, age, size, constitution,
temperament), is already a semantic act tending to obtain the most
adequate values for the dramatist’s or director’s intentions. Here
we are near the problem of the subjects of volition in the theatrical

sign, a problem which we shall have to reconsider in the course

of this article.
After these general remarks concerning the idea of sign and
the specificity of sign used in the theater, let us try to define
the principal systems of signs used in a theatrical presentation.
The classification as proposed below is arbitrary like all clas-
sification. We have distinguished thirteen systems of signs. Clearer
sections could be made by reducing the number of systems to
four or five; a much more detailed classification could also be
made. The one we propose is intended to reconcile, to a certain
degree, the theoretical and practical aims, in order to help towards
a more profound semiological research and at the same time to

provide a temporary tool for scientific analysis of the theatrical

spectacle.
1. THE WORD

The word is present in most theatrical forms (except the

pantomime and the ballet). Its role in relation to the signs of the
other systems varies according to the dramatic genres, the literary
or theatrical fashions, the styles of the stage setting (cf. a verbal
recital and a grand spectacle). We consider the signs of the word
in their linguistic acceptation. They are consequently the words
pronounced by the actors during the presentation. Because the
61
linguistic semiology is much
more developed than the theory of

any other system of signs, one must refer to the very numerous
works of the specialists (who, moreover, do not agree on many
essential problems) to elaborate the bases of a semiology of the
word in the spectacle. We shall only point out that semiological
analysis of the word can be situated at different levels: not only
at the semantic level (which deals with words as well as sentences
and more complex units), but also at the phonological, syntactic,
prosodic etc... levels. In a cue the superabundance of hissing and
hushing consonants (s, z, sh, j,) can in some languages express
anger and irritation in the character speaking.’ The archaic order
of the words is the sign of a remote historical time or of an anach-
ronical character living on the edge of the linguistic habits of his
contemporaries. Rhythmic prosodic or metric alternations can
mean the changes of feelings or mood. In all these cases it is a
question of supersigns (compound signs at the 2nd or 3rd degree)
in which the words, beside their purely semantic function, have a
supplementary semiological function at the phonological, syntactic
or prosodic level.
As an example, there is a specifically theatrical problem of the
relationships between the subject speaking and the physical source
of the word. Contrary to what happens in life, they do not always
make one in the theater, and what is more important, this
inadequacy has semiological consequences. In a puppet-show, the
characters are represented from the visual viewpoint by dolls, while
the words are pronounced by invisible artists. The consecutive
movements of a puppet in the course of the dialogue mean that
it is the puppet who &dquo;is speaking&dquo; at that moment, they point out
the sham subject of a ripost, they link the source of the word
with the character &dquo; speaking. &dquo; It can happen that the procedure
of the puppet-show is imitated in a dramatic presentation with
living actors, but the semiological role of that game is then quite
different, even an opposite one. Let us take a character who makes
stiff gestures and only opens his mouth while his words are
mechanically transmitted by the means of the amplifier. The
intentional rupture between the natural source of the voice and
the subject &dquo;speaking&dquo; is the sign of the dancing-jack, of the
8
The famous line from Racine: "Pour qui sont ces serpents qui sifflent sur
vos têtes" ).
Phèdre
(

62
puppet. The separation of the word from the subject speaking,
an expedient fairly widely spread in contemporary theater, thanks
to modern techniques, can assume different forms and play several
semiological parts: such as a sign of the hero’s inner monologue
or a sign of a visible or invisible narrator or a collective character,
or a ghost (Hamlet’s father in some stage settings), etc...

2. THE TONE

The word is not only a linguistic sign. The way it is pronounced

gives it a supplementary semiological value. &dquo;The tone makes
the song.&dquo; Even if a word is apparently neuter and indifferent,
the actor’s diction can give it the most subtly shaded and
unexpected effects. A comedian of the Stanislavski troupe drew
attention to himself by his forty ways of saying the words
&dquo;tonight&dquo; with his audience capable of guessing their semantic
context in most cases. What we here call tone (the actor’s diction
is the vehicle of it) includes such elements as intonation, rhythm,
speed and intensity. The intonation in particular throws into
relief the height of the sounds and their pitch and creates the
most varied signs with all sorts of modulations. In this system of
signs one must also include what is called the accent (country,
aristocratic, provincial, foreign accents) although the signs of the
accents are divided between the tone and word itself (at the
phonological and syntactic levels).
Every linguistic sign therefore has a normalized form (the
word as such) as well as variations (the tone) constituting a
&dquo;ground of freedom&dquo; (A. Moles) which every speaking individual
and especially the actor exploits in a more or less original way.
These variations can have a purely aesthetic value; they can also
constitute signs.
3. THE FACIAL MIME

Let us nowconsider the expression of the actor’s body, the spatio-

temporal signs created by the human body’s techniques, signs that
could be called kinesthetic, kinesic or kinetic.
We begin with the facial mime because it is the system of kin-
esthetic sign nearest to verbal expression. There are many mime

63
signs needed by articulation; at this level, it is very difficult to
define the border between spontaneous and voluntary mime,
between natural and artificial signs. A striking example of this is
the execution of an opera in which highly developed facial mime
is almost entirely a function of vocal emission and of ar-
ticulation. On the contrary, the mime signs relative to the text
recited by the actor i.e. the words at the semantic level, are in
most cases artificial signs. By accompanying the word they make
it more expressive, more significant but it also happens that they
attenuate the signs of the word or contradict them. The muscular
signs of the face have such an expressive value that they often
successfully replace the word. There are all sorts of mime signs
linked to forms of non-linguistic communication, to the emotions
(surprise, anger, fear, pleasure), to pleasant or unpleasant physical
feelings, to muscular feelings (for instance, effort), etc.
4. THE GESTURE

After the word and its written form, the gesture constitutes the
richest and the most supple means of expressing thoughts i.e. the
best developed system of signs. Theoreticians of the gesture claim
that it is possible to make up to 700,000 signs (R. Paget) with
the hand and arm. As for the art of the spectacle, it is worth
noticing that the 800 signs executed with both hands by the actors
of the Indian &dquo;danced drama,&dquo; Kathakali, correspond, from a
quantitative viewpoint, to the vocabulary of Basic English or of
fundamental French and allow the characters to carry on long
dialogues. By differentiating the gesture from the other systems
of kinesthetic signs, we consider it as a movement or attitude of the
hand, the arm, the leg, the head, the whole body in order to create
and communicate signs. Signs of gesture include several categories.
There are some that go with the word or are substitutes for it,
that replace an element of the setting (gesture of the arm to open
an imaginary door), an element of the costume (imaginary hat),
of several accessories (play of the fisherman without a rod,
worms, fish or pail), gestures that signify a feeling, an emotion
etc... All the gestures. being more or less conventional (cf. the
signs of politeness or physical comfort throughout the different
areas of civilization) it is as well to underline that in the arts of

64
the spectacle of some countries, such as the Asian, gestures are
supraconventional signs: carefully codified and transmitted from
generation to generation, they are accessible only to an initiated
audience.

5. THE ACTOR’S MOVEMENT ON THE STAGE

The third system of kinesthetic signs includes the actor’s move-

ments and his petitions in the scenic space. It deals principally
with:
1. successive positions in relation to the other actors, the
accessories, the settings, the audience;
2. different ways of moving about (slow, hurried, hesitant,
majestic gaits, moving on foot, in a chariot, by car, on a stretcher);
3. entries and exits;
4. collective movements.
Considered from a semiological viewpoint, these principal ca-
tegories of the actor’s movement on the stage are capable of
providing us with the most varied signs. A character comes out of
a restaurant (sign of his connection with the restaurant: he is
himself the restaurant owner or a waiter, he is a customer or he
had entered it to see someone). When he sees another character
in the middle of the stage, he comes to a sudden halt (the desire
of not communicating with that character) or else he goes to him
(the desire of communication). A third character appears, the two
interlocutors part in a hurry (the sign of their complicity).
A hesitant gait is the sign of drunkenness or exhaustion.
Stepping backwards can be the sign of the reverence demanded
by protocol, of shyness, of defiance towards who is left, or of
affection (the real value of this sign depends on the semiological
context). The actor’s entry (as well as his exit) from the right
or the left, through the door or the window, from under
the stage or across the footlights are all signs used by the dramatist
or the director. And lastly, the movements of groups and crowds
can create specific signs other than the sum of the signs provided

by the individual movements. For instance, a slow apathetic gait

becomes the sign of a threatening power as soon as it is executed
by some twenty or thirty walk-on-parts, in a group or coming from
65
all directions (the same sign multiplied by a certain number of
individual cases changes the signifié; it is given a new value).

6. THE MAKE-UP

Theatrical make-up is designed to show-up the actor’s face as it

appears on stage in certain conditions of lighting. With the mime,
it contributes to the character’s physionomy. While the mime,
thanks to the movements of the facial muscles, creates essentially
mobile signs, make-up forms signs of a more durable character.
Sometimes it is applied on the other uncovered areas of the body,
such as the hands or the shoulders. Using various techniques and
materials (make-up, pencils, powders, mastics, varnishes, postiches)
make-up can create signs relative to the race, age, health and
temperament. They are generally based on natural signs (color
of the skin, whiteness or redness of the face, line of the lips and
eye-brows). By means of make-up, one can set up a collection
of signs that constitutes a type, e.g. a vamp, a witch, a drunkard.
The signs of the make-up (often combined with these of hair-style
and costume) also allow a representation of a historic or contem-
porary personality. Make-up as a system of signs is directly inter-
dependent with facial mime. The signs of the two systems are
mutually strengthened or complementary but it is also possible
that make-up hinders the actor’s mimical expression. People in
the trade well know the make-up called &dquo;mask-make-up&dquo; which
partially immobilizes the face; the technique of make-up also uses
rubber-masks. This leads us to point out the role of the mask
itself in the semiological frame. In our opinion, the mask belongs
to the system of signs of make-up though, from the material
viewpoint, it could be part of the costume, and from the functional
viewpoint, part of the mime.

7. THE HAIR-STYLE

From the artisan viewpoint, the theatrical hair-style is most often

classified with make-up. As an artistic phenomenon, it belongs to
the field of the costume designer. From the semiological viewpoint,
however, the hair-style often plays a part independent of make-up
and costume, a part which appears decisive in some cases. This

66
is why we have decided to consider it as an autonomous system of
signs. For instance, in The Physicians by D3rrenmatt, the spectator
being warned that there is a pseudo-Newton among the characters
recognizes him at first sight thanks to the typical wig of the English
17th century; in this case, the make-up plays an entirely secondary
part. The hair-style can be the sign of belonging to a geographical
or cultural area, to an epoch, to a social stratum, to a generation
that is in opposition to its fathers’ habits. The semiological power
of the hair-style lies not only in its style, its various historic and
social aspects, but also in the more or less elaborate state which
it is in. While discussing the hair-style, one must not forget the
semiological role that the beard and the moustache can play as
indispensable complements of the hair-style or as autonomous
elements.

8. THE COSTUME

&dquo;
In the theater, &dquo;the apparel makes the man.&dquo; The costume
transforms Mr Smith-actor or Mr Brown-walk-on-part into an
Indian maharajah or a Parisian tramp, into a patrician of Ancient
Rome or a ship’s captain, into a vicar or a cook. The costume
brings artificial signs of great variety into life itself. In the theater
it is the most external and conventional means of defining the
human individual. The costume signifies the sex, the age, the
belonging to a social stratum, the profession, a particular social
and hierarchical position (king, pope), the nationality, the religion;
it sometimes defines a historical or contemporary personality.
Within the limits of each of these categories (and also outside
them) the costume can have all sorts of shades of meaning such
as the material position of the character, his tastes, traits of
his character. The semiological power of the costume does not
only define who is wearing it. The costume is also a sign of the
climate (colonial helmet) or the historical epoch, of the season
(panama) or the weather (raincoat), the place (bathing-costume,
mountaineer’s costume) or the time of day. A costume, of course,
usually corresponds to several circumstances at once and it
is generally associated with signs which belong to other systems.
In some theatrical traditions (Far East, India, Commedia del-
l’Arte) the costume, fossilized by rigorous conventions, becomes
67
(like the mask) the sign of immutable types that are repeated from
one play to another and one generation to another. It is as well
to underline the fact that the signs of costume, as well as those
of mime, make-up and hair-style can work both ways: it is possible
that the costume is used to hide the character’s real sex, his true
social position, his true profession, etc. Here lies the whole
problem of travesty.
9. THE ACCESSORY

For several reasons the accessories constitute an autonomous sys-

tem of signs. In our classification they are best situated between
the costume and the decor because many borderline cases bring
them near to one or the other. Any element of the costume can
become an accessory as soon as it plays a particular role
independent of the semiological functions of clothing. For instance
a cane is an indispensable element of the dandy’s costume in one
of de Musset’s comedies. But when left behind in the boudoir
of the courted lady, it becomes an accessory loaded with conse-
quences. On the other hand, the frontier between the accessory ,

and the decor is sometimes hard to define. A car is more of an

accessory in the 3rd scene of Master Puntila and his valet Matti,
it is an element of the decor in the 1 st act of Knock. And which
is Mother Courage’s cart in the play by Brecht?
A practically unlimited number of objects that exist in nature
and in social life can become theatrical accessories. If they only
represent objects encountered in life, these accessories are artificial
signs of those objects, signs at the first degree. But, as well as
this elementary function, they can indicate the place, the moment
or any circumstance connected with the characters who use them

(profession, tastes, intention) and this is their significance at the

second degree. The lantern burning in the valet’s hands means
that it is night, the saw and the axe are the signs of the woodcutter.
There are cases when the accessory can obtain a semiological
value at a higher degree. The stuffed sea-gull, an accessory in
Chekhov’s play, is the sign, at the first degree, of a recently killed
sea-gull; this is the sign, at the second degree (or symbol in
current language) of an abstract idea (failed aspiration to freedom)
which is in turn the sign of the hero’s mood in the play. To be

68
more precise, we can say that the signifié of the sign at the first

degree, is linked to the signifiant of the sign at the second degree;

the signifié of the latter is linked to the signifiant of the sign at
the third degree and so on (the phenomenon of connotation).

10. THE DECOR

The primordial job of the decor, a system of signs that can also
be called scenic apparatus, decoration or scenography, is to
represent the geographical place (landscape with pagodas, the sea,
mountains), the social place (a public square, laboratory, kitchen,
cafe) or both at once (a street towered over by skyscrapers, a sitt-
ing-room looking out on the Eiffel Tower). The decor or one of its
elements can also indicate time: a historical epoch (Greek temple),
a season (roofs covered with snow), a time of day (sunset, moon).
Beside its semiological function of determining the action in space
and time, the decor can include signs related to the most different
circumstances. Suffice it to say that the semiological field of
theatrical sets is practically as vast as that of all the plastic arts:
painting, sculpture, architecture, decorative art. The means used
by the stage-designer are greatly varied. Their choice depends on
theatrical tradition, the epoch, the artistic currents, personal tastes,
material conditions of the spectacle. The decor can be richly
detailed or reduced to a few essential elements, even to one single
element. In an overloaded bourgeois interior, every piece of
furniture and every object (solid, painted or cardboard) is the sign
at the first degree of a piece of furniture or a real object, but most
of them have no individual signification at the second degree; they
are the combinations of several signs at the first degree, and
sometimes their totality, constituting the sign at the second degree,
is the sign of a bourgeois interior. When the theatrical decor is
limited to one element, to one single sign, this automatically be-
comes the sign at the second (and even at the third) degree. The

semiological value of a decor does not therefore depend directly

on the quantity of signs at the first degree. An isolated sign can
have a semantic content that is richer and denser than a whole
collection of signs.
The semiological function of the decor is not only the signs
implied in its elements. The movement of the settings, the way
69
of placingthem or changing them, can introduce complementary
or autonomous values. A spectacle can do entirely without a decor.
Its semiological role in this case is played by gesture and movement
(an expedient to which pantomime readily has recourse), by the
word, sound effects, costumes, accessories and also by the lighting.

11. THE LIGHTING

Theatrical lighting is a relatively recent device (in France it was

not introduced until the 17th century). Exploited principally
to make the other means of expression stand out, it can however
have an autonomous semiological role. Progressing rapidly from
the use of electricity i.e. over a century ago, theatrical lighting,
with its perfected mechanisms of distribution and command, has
an increasingly wide and rich use from the semiological viewpoint,
on the indoor stage as well as in open-air spectacles.

Firstly, the lighting is capable of defining the theatrical place:

the spotlights concentrated on a part of the floor point out the
momentary place of action. The spotlight can also isolate an actor
or an accessory, not only to outline the material place, but also
to show up the actor or the object in relation to his surrounding;
it becomes the sign of the momentary or absolute importance of
the character or the object picked out. An important function
of the lighting consists in being able to enhance or modify the
value of the gesture, the movement or the decor, and even give
them a new semiological value; the face, the actor’s body or a
part of the decor are sometimes &dquo;modelled&dquo; by the light. The
color cast by the lighting can also play a semiological role.
A special place must be reserved for projections. In their
functioning, they belong to the system of lighting but their
semiological role goes considerably beyond this system. One must
first distinguish the still from the moving projection. The former
can complete or replace the decor (projected image or photo-

graphy), the latter can give added dynamic effects (the movement
of clouds or waves; the imitation of rain or snow). The use of
projection in contemporary theater takes on greatly varied forms:
it has become the technical means of communicating signs belong-
ing to different systems and even situated outside them. For
instance, a cinematographic projection during a theatrical spectacle
70
must first be analysed in the frame of the semiology of the cinema;
the fact that this projection takes place, is for us a sign at a
compound degree: this happens simultaneously in another place,
or it is the character’s dreams.

12. THE MUSIC

Music, one of the great fields of art, requires specialized studies

in order to outline its semantic or semiological aspect. The signif-
icative value of &dquo;program-music,&dquo; of &dquo;imitative&dquo; music has always
been evident. But a method of valid analysis is only possible if
we start with semiological research at the level of the fundamental
structures of music-rhythm, melody, harmony-based on the con-
nection between the intensity, duration and pitch of the sounds.
This research has not yet gone beyond the preliminary stage. As
for music applied to the spectacle, its semiological function is
nearly always indubitable. Specific and rather difficult problems
arise when it is the point of departure of a spectacle (opera, ballet).
In the case when it is added to the spectacle, its role is to underline,
amplify, develop, sometimes belie or replace the signs of the
other systems. The rhythmical or melodic associations linked to
some genres of music (menuet, military march) can evoke the
atmosphere, the place or the epoch of the action. The choice of
instrument has also a semiological value capable of suggesting the
place the social environment, the atmosphere. Among the nu-
merous uses that stage-directors make of music, let us take the

example of the musical theme that accompanies the entry of every

character and becomes a sign (at the second degree) of each of
them, or that of the musical motif that, when added to the retro-
spective scenes, signifies the present-past contrast. A special place
must be reserved for vocal music, the signs of which are closely
linked with those of the word and diction (just as word and tone
are linked in spoken language). But music sometimes means

something other than the text (e.g. soft music and crude text). In
opera, the semiologist’s job is all the more complicated because
the signs of music appear simultaneously on two levels: the
instrumental and the vocal. This is also, to a certain extent, the
case of musical comedy and song.

71
13. THE SOUND EFFECTS

We come to the category of sounds which belong neither

to the word nor to the music: sound effects,. There is
first a whole field of natural signs (footsteps, creaking of doors,
rustle of accessories and costumes) which remain natural in the
spectacle. They are the involuntary and secondary result of the
communication obtained by other signs, a result that cannot or
is not meant to be avoided. The only sounds that interest us are
those which, being natural or artificial signs in life, are artificially
reproduced for the aims of the spectacle; they make up the field
of sound effects. The semiological ground of sound effects is as
vast as, and perhaps even vaster, than the world of sounds in
life. Sounds produced in the theater can indicate the time (the
chime of a clock), the weather (rain), the place (noises of a big
city, bird-cries, noises of pet-animals), the movement (sound of
a car approaching or drawing away), a solemn or worried at-

mosphere (heavy bell, sirens), they can be the sign of the most
varied phenomena and circumstances. The means used to obtain
sound effects are very varied: from the actor’s voice imitating
the cock’s crow in the wings, through all sorts of mechanical
devices, to the tape which has produced a real revolution in this
field. On the one hand, it enables one to record and reconstitute
the rarest natural sounds and, on the other hand, it makes possible
really creative work and the most audacious experiments with a
view to making signs which are often on the limit of music and
the word. Is not a spoken text, recorded and played back, a sort
of stammering like a sound effect?

When one embraces at one glance the thirteen systems of signs

that we have passed quickly over, observations emerge that lead
to a more synthetizing classification. Systems 1 and 2 relate to the
spoken text; 3, 4 and 5 to the expression of the body; 6, 7 and 8
to the actor’s external appearance; 9, 10 and 11 to the aspect
of the scenic place; 12 and 13 to the inarticulate sounds. This
makes five large groups of signs. Let us note that the first eight
systems (three large groups) directly concern the actor.

72
 Another classification allows a distinction between auditive and
visual signs. The first two and the last two systems of our
classification-word, tone, music, sound effects-include auditive
(or sonorous, or acoustic) signs while all the other groups together,
visual (or optical) signs. With this last classification, which deals
with the perception of signs, is connected that which situates them
in relation to time and space. The auditive signs are communicated
in time. The case of visual signs is more complicated: some (make-
up, hair-style, costume, accessory, decor) are, in principle, spatial,
others (mime, gesture, movement, lighting) function generally in
space and time.
By applying the distinction concerning the sensory perception of
signs (auditive-visual) to that which divides them according to
their mouth-piece, we obtain four large categories: auditive signs
emitted by the actor (systems 1 and 2), visual signs localized in

73
the actor (3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8), visual signs going beyond the actor
(9, 10 and 11), auditive signs outside the actor (12 and 13).
The figure will help to follow the suggested classifications.
The signs and their systems can also be classified according to
the subjects of volition i.e. the characters who create them by
their will (since every artificial sign implies a voluntary creation).
First we have the dramatist; he is principally the creator of the
signs of the word but by the text itself or by taking part in the
rehearsals he can inspire signs belonging to all the other systems.
The director is, nowadays, the almighty master of the spectacle,
capable of creating or suppressing the signs of any system (includ-
ing those of the word, by cutting or adding to the text). The
actor in a more or less independent way determines the signs of
tone, mime and gesture, partly those of his scenic movements,
sometimes these of make-up, hair-style or costume. The stage-
designer’s role (also called the person in charge of the scenic
apparatus or the scenographer), consists in creating the signs of the
decor, the accessories, sometimes the lighting; he or his specialised
collaborators create the signs of the costume, hair-style and make-
up. By a certain disposition of the stage-space, the stage-designer
can suggest the signs of movement. And lastly, to mention only
the principal co-authors of the theatrical spectacle, the composer
creates the signs of music and, eventually, of the sound effects; in
the case of ballet or pantomime-music, the composer inspires the
signs of the actor’s movement (as the dramatist does in relation
to the different systems of signs). In ballet and danced interludes
the choreographer is the principal creator of the signs of gesture
and movement.
After these attempts to systematize the semiological phenomena
of the theatrical spectacle, it is as well to insist on the fact of the
interchangeability of signs between different systems. This problem
has already arisen during the presentation of the various systems.
The word, first of all, has the power of replacing most of the
signs of the other systems. The gesture comes second to it. But
it can happen that the most material signs, these of the decor or
the costume, are substitutes for one another. &dquo; Some man or other
must present wall: and let him have some plaster, or some loam,
or some rough-cast about him, to signify wall; and let him hold
his fingers thus, and through that cranny shall Pyramus and Thisby

74
whisper,&dquo; Bottom says in A Midsummer Night’s Dream (act III,
sc. I), and, in fact, Snout’s costume is an element of the decor:
&dquo;This loam, this rough-cast, and this stone, doth show that I am
that same wall; the truth is so,&dquo; he affirms (act V, sc. I). In an-
other representation, the actors come and recite couplets putting
their faces in the holes of a partition on which their silhouettes are
cleverly outlined. Here an element of decor takes the place of
costume.
Let us note, in passing, that there are equivocal signs in the
theater with a double meaning, consciously entangled or hermetic
at the level of the word as well as the other systems, signs capable
of being interpreted in different ways. A decor can indicate a
cathedral vault and a forest at the same time (out of an artistic
taste for simplification, for practical reasons, to create a meaning
at the compound degree). A costume can contain mixed elements
of both sexes or different epochs. A sound effect can signify at once
a character’s heartbeat and the drums of an army, it can pass from
one meaning to the other.
The problem of the perception and interpretation of the signs
is worth being analysed with the methods of the theory of infor-
mation. Where there is a system of signs, there must be a code.
The codes of the signs used in the theater are provided for us
by social or individual experience, by education, by literary and
artistic culture. There are types of spectacle for which the knowl-
edge of a special code or codes is needed. To reach the heart of
the problem, let us take the radical example of a deaf or blind man
attending a dramatic performance: the latter will only perceive the
auditive, the former, the visual signs. The example of a spectacle
in a foreign language is much more subtle (the degree of the
knowledge of that language, and of the play in question). In all
cases, the number and value of the signs perceived, in relation
to the number and value of the signs emitted, varies according
to the general culture of the spectator, his knowledge of the
environment and customs presented, the degree of his tiredness,
how much he takes part in what happens on stage, his capacity
of concentration, the quantity of signs simultaneously emitted
(the problem of the economy of signs to which we shall return),
the conditions of transmission of the signs (e.g. bad diction of an
actor or insufficient lighting), and, lastly, the position occupied by

75
the spectators from the front rows in the pit to the gods, which
makes a difference for the possibility of seeing and hearing, already
differentiated priori by their individual auditive and visual ca-
pacities. But these considerations run the risk of taking us too
far from the main object of our research since they belong to the
theory of information as well as the spectator’s psychology and
physiology.
What is essential from the viewpoint of theatrical semiology
is the problem of the economy of the signs communicated during
the spectacle. Semiological prodigality and parsimony are the two
poles.
Before the performance starts, the spectator looks at the painted
curtain that tells him unequivocally about the place and the epoch
of the play. A piece of music confirms that we are transported
into the time of Offenbach. Once the curtain is up, a huge calendar
on the wall gives us the precise date and one of the character’s
first replies contain the precious information: &dquo;We are in 18...&dquo;.
In another presentation, while the actors speak and move about,
a luminous newspaper runs above their heads and at the same
time pictures are projected on a screen so that it is practically
impossibile to follow the three levels simultaneously. In such
an excellent spectacle, the director is not content with just

representing the place and the atmosphere of the dramatic action

(a lunatic asylum) by making a few patients walk about; he puts
scores of them in every corner of the decor, which is built on
several levels, and makes them issue the most elaborate sounds
and gestures all through the performance. The prodigality of
signs is huge but here it serves and indubitable artistic aim. Se-
miological wastage can show itself in several aspects: duplication
or multiplication of the same sign, juxtaposition of signs whose
signi fie are identical or very close, repetitions of the same signs,
simultaneous emission of a large number of similar or unsimilar
signs, only one part of which can be perceived by the spectator.
It is easy to say that the notion of redundancy borrowed from
the theory of information, does not explain all the problems
relative to what we call the prodigality of the signs of the spectacle.
A practically empty stage, black curtains and a rostrum. The
troop enters like a homogeneous gang in working denims. An
actor emerges, takes a hat, a cane and speaks; the character is

76
formed. The spotlight picks out another actor who comes forward
and replies. Little by little with some accessories and a few
elements of costume, with words and movement, a whole small
world begins to live, fight, suffer and rejoice. This is the &dquo;bare&dquo;
setting in which semiological parsimony shows up every sign and
charges it with a task that is usually distributed between several
signs of several systems.
Situated between both these extremes, prodigality and par-
simony, is the problem of the economy of the signs. This demands
not only that they are not multiplied and repeated without any
semantic or artistic necessity but also that among a large quantity
of simultaneously communicated signs (demanded by the dramatic
work or by the style of the setting) the spectator can easily
disengage the most important, those indispensable for on under-
standing of the work.
Enriched by some analyses and several examples drawn from
different systems of signs, we must reconsider the problem of the
theatrical sign in general and especially the relations between
signifié and signifiant. To begin with, we accepted the Saussurian
schema : signifié-signifiant, two components of the sign. How does
this schema, elaborated for the needs of linguistics, stand up to
the test of the theatrical sign, a sign that extends into extremely
vast semiological fields?
A certain sound effect is the sign of rain. The sound emitted
by the sheet-iron is in this case signifiant, the idea that it is raining
is signifie. But rain can be represented (signified) in the theater
in several ways, by different systems of signs: by the lighting
(projection), the costume (raincoat and hood), the accessory
(umbrella), the gesture (actor who shakes himself when entering),
the hair-style (wet hair), the music and, above all, the word. And
so there are different signs (simultaneous, successive or virtual),
different signifiant but the signifie is always the same: &dquo;it is
raining.&dquo; (Not forgetting that each of these signs can have a
supplementary semiological value e.g. a particular tone to pro-
&dquo;
nounce the words &dquo;it is raining,&dquo; a gesture that reveals a rustic
or a gentleman.) Let us take another example. The concept of the
uneducated man is represented in a theatrical character by several
signs: the word, tone, mime, gesture, movement, hair-style, cos-
tume, accessory. Their signifig is: &dquo;the uneducated man.&dquo; In

77
Act V of Pygmalion by G. B. Shaw, Mr Doolittle arrives at Mrs
Higgins. This time, the dustman is in the costume of a rich
bourgeois: frock-coat, white waistcoat, top hat. The actor playing
that part settles himself in an armchair, puts his top hat down on
the floor beside him and lights a cigar. During the dialogue, he
wants to tap the ash of his cigar off; he hesitates for a while, and
then he uses his top hat for want of an ash-tray. His gesture
means: 1. that he gets rid of the ash of his cigar, 2. that he has
no manners, 3. that he wants to be considered as a gentleman.
Here we have one sign, one signifiant, and three superimposed
signifie, or, as we have often said for the sake of simplification, the
sign at the first, second and third degrees.
We have just cited the case when several signs have the same
signi fie and the case when a single sign has several super-
imposed signifié. It is important to add a more complicated
case when the spectator is obliged to associate two or more signs

belonging to different systems, to discover the compound signifié

(or in another nomenclature, the sign at the compound degree).
A gang of protesters crosses the stage, empty-handed; while
slogans are projected on to the screen. And so there are several
signs of two systems (movement and projected decor), different
signifiant and different signifié; by associating these signs at the
level of their signi fie, one grasps their compound signi fie (the sign
at the x degree): people protest with posters, they claim the real-
ization of their postulations. And here is another combination.
The actor stays motionless on stage while his words are diffused
by loud speakers and the mime of his face is projected like a film.
Beside the signs emitted within each system, the sign at the x
degree or the compound signifié, the result of the association of
these three elements is, &dquo;it is an inner monologue.&dquo; The examples
quoted are enough to prove the complexity of the theatrical sign.
The idea of connotation (Hjelmslev, Barthes) can help to solve
certain problems but is inefhcient in more complicated cases.
The theoretical aspect of the sign of the spectacle will become
clearer and more precise with the advance of the research about
the particular systems of signs and the different types of spectacle.
A synthesis, i.e. the semiology of the art of the spectacle, will
not be achieved in the very near future. If we have dared to
sketch this general view (though limited to certain types of spec-

78
tacle) it is with thehope that it could encourage and facilitate
practical research without which a valid synthesis cannot be
achieved. The remarks proposed here may be useful for a scientific
analysis of theatrical presentation. A really scientific and
comparative analysis is compulsory today. The Colloquium of
Royaumont on the contemporary theater, organised and directed
by Jean Jacquot in november 1966, was one of the first attempts
in this direction. In the course of the discussion, it was apparent
how much people seriously interested in that problem-resear-
chers, academics, directors, critics-need a method that would
allow a collective and efficient effort. It seems that the semiological
method would be perfectly adequate as a starting point for this
kind of research, all the more because the existing techniques,
the cinema and the tape-recorder, provide a means of examining
and re-examining at will each fragment of a presentation that has
been chosen to that effect at the level of the visual and auditive
signs.
The application of the semiological method to the analysis of
the spectacle demands the elaboration of some methodological
principles: first of all the determination of the significative (or
semiological) unit of the spectacle. If one takes into account that
linguists do not agree on the semantic unit of language (morpheme
word, sentence, wording), one realises the difficulty presented by
this task. The significative unit for every system of signs must
be determined and then the common denominator of all the
signs, emitted together, must be found. The following definition
could be postulated a priori starting from the idea of time: the
semiological unit of the spectacle is a slice containing all the signs
emitted simultaneously, a slice the duration of which is equal to
the sign that lasts least. In practice, this could lead to an excessive
atomisation of the units of the spectacle and might demand the
introduction of a distinction between the small and large units
(especially at the level of the word and kinesthetic signs).
Beside its utilitarian functions and the help it is able to give
to theatrical studies, semiological research in the field of the
spectacle opens up large horizons from the theoretical viewpoint.
The confrontation of the most heterogeneous signs within an
artistic entity, in relatively restricted time and space, of signs
whose interdependence is considerable and varied, obliges one to

79
look for theoretical solutions and to draw conclusions that would
be valid for the sign in the widest possible acceptation. The
semiological study of the spectacle can become the favorite battle-
ground for the elaboration of a general semiology. Thanks to
the necessity of confronting very varied systems of signs, the
semiology of the art of the spectacle can reveal itself as the
touchstone of a general science of signs.

80