The semiotic approach The theatrical sign as icon, index and symbol

In the early 1980s semiotics, as the study of signs, was systematically applied as a basis for the theoretical discussion of drama (Fischer-Lichte, 1983). The concept of the sign is indeed helpful in explaining the basic

workings of theatre, particularly in the famous trichotomy established by Charles S. Peirce, according to which a sign can be an icon, an index or a symbol:

A sign can refer to an Object by virtue of an inherent similarity ('like- ness') between them (icon), by virtue of an existential contextual connection of spatiotemporal (physical) contiguity between sign and object

(index), or by virtue of a general law or cultural convention that permits sign and object to be interpreted as connected (symbol). (cf. Gorlee, 1994: 51)

The system of signs belonging to the world of the theatre presents a kaleidoscope of these three types, and the differentiation between them is essential for the spectator's interpretation of what he/she is seeing and hearing on stage. An iconic sign (such as a Tudor costume in a naturalistic production or a table set for dinner) can be taken as it stands, and it is fully interpretable as long as the spectator can situate it in context. An indexical sign is interpretable as long as the spectator can understand the point of connection (e.g. that smoke can stand for fire). A symbolic sign is only understandable if the spectator is familiar with its meaning in the culture concerned (e.g. that in Western cultures black is the colour of mourning). The theatrical experience varies with the spectator's previous experience and knowledge, and hence with his/her ability to arrange and interpret the abundance of sensory perceptions conveyed to him/her by the perfor- mance. The problem for stage translation is that the interpretation of the signs can also vary radically from one culture to another (particularly so with symbolic signs: the colour of mourning in Asiatic cultures for example

Theatre and Opera Translation 109

is white), and much even depends on the acting styles and stage conventions of the country or cultural community concerned.

The above observations referred only to non-verbal signs. What is important for verbal language, and is therefore of special significance for translation, is the insight that the linguistic sign is essentially arbitrary and symbolic. In other words it is interpretable only if the recipient (or spectator) is familiar with its position or meaning within the language system and culture concerned. And this is where the stage text assumes its significance as dramatic potential.

Paralanguage, kinesics, proxemics and the stage text

As well as their potential for interpretation as signs, the naked words of the printed stage text provide a basis for action and co-ordination with the immediate environment of the dramatic world in which they are to be embedded. The means for such co-ordination are paralinguistic, kinesic and

proxemic. The basic paralinguistic features concern vocal elements such as intonation, pitch, rhythm, tempo, resonance, loudness and voice timbre leading to expressions of emotion such as shouting, sighing or laughter. Kinesic features are related to body movements, postures and gestures and include smiling, winking, shrugging or waving (Poyatos, 1993). Proxemic features involve the relationship of a figure to the stage environment, and describe its movement within that environment and its varying distance or

physical closeness to the other characters on stage.

The performability of a stage text as a dramatic 'score' is closely connected with the possibilities it offers for generating such vocal elements, gestures and movements within the framework of its interpret- ability as a system of theatrical signs. An outstanding example of the performable stage text — not unsurprisingly taken from Shakespeare — with paralinguistic, kinesic and proxemic potential is Macbeth's famous mono- logue before the murder of Duncan, 'Is this a dagger which I see before me?' What is generated by the text is a kind of optical illusion, described by Nich- olas Brooke in his edition of The Tragedy of Macbeth as follows:

Words play a great part here, but not words alone: The invisible dagger is necessarily created also by his body, gesture, and above all by his eyes, which focus on a point in space whose emptiness becomes, in a sense, visible to the audience. (Brooke, 1990: 4)

The focusing of the eyes on a point in space is the natural consequence of various verbal elements in the text — including the reiterated phrase 'I see (thee)'. I It is also a consequence of the personification of the object throughout the passage, whereby its presence is established in a quasi-

A Companion to Translation Studies dialogue as a kind of partner with whom the speaker naturally maintains

eye contact. In this case the dramatic effect arises from the interaction of word, gesture and motion needed to create the ominous vision of the poised dagger. Usually, however, in dramatic discourse such interaction

takes place within the framework of real dialogue involving two or more partners. Here, too, the same principle applies: the performability of the verbal text depends on its capacity for generating non-verbal action and effects within its scope of interpretation as a system of theatrical signs (cf.

Snell-Hornby, 1997). Sometimes the methods used by the dramatist are amazingly simple: misunderstandings arising from puns, for example, differing social conventions, irony or multiple associations have for centu- ries been the essence of stage dialogue.

The semiotic approach The theatrical sign as icon, index and symbol