Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T07:13:17.606Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Functions of Language in the Theatre

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2009

Eli Rozik
Eli Rozik
Affiliation:
Professor of Theatre Studies atTel Aviv University.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Roman Ingarden's publication of ‘The Functions of Language in the Theater’ (1958) was a landmark in the development of theatre theory in the twentieth century. Since its appearance several methods of research have radically influenced our understanding of the functions of language within this art, particularly semiotics, pragmatics and philosophy of language. More than thirty years after publication of Ingarden's work, it is sensible to address the same question once again and to suggest a theory that reflects the state of the art today.

Type
Articles
Information
Theatre Research International , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , Summer 1993 , pp. 104 - 114
Copyright
Copyright © International Federation for Theatre Research 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1. Ingarden, Roman, The Literary Work of Art, translated by Grabowicz, G. G. (Evanston: North Western University, 1973).Google Scholar All quotations from this edition.

2. Rozik, Eli, The Language of the Theatre (Glasgow: Theatre Studies Publications, 1992).Google Scholar This is the main thesis of the book.

3. Ingarden assumes that the functions of language in the real and fictional world are the same, which is at least partly erroneous. He even conceives the theatre as an object of enquiry that can reveal the various functions of language in real verbal usage (p.391).

4. Aristotle, , The PoeticsGoogle Scholar, in Butcher, S. H., Aristotle's Theory of Poetry and Fine Arts (New York: Dover, 1951), ch. VI, 2.Google Scholar

5. Peirce, C. S., Collected Papers. Hartshorne, C. et al. , eds. (Cambridge University Press, 1965–1966).Google Scholar Cf. Sebeok, T. A., ‘Six espèces de signes’, in Degrés, Brussels, 2. 6. 1974.Google Scholar

6. Actors imitate real indexes that do not refer to themselves, as real indexes refer to those that produce them, but to characters. On the fictional level, however, the enacted index is supposed to have been produced by the character. For a detailed discussion of this principle see Rozik, Eli, ‘Acting’ in Helbo, A., ed., Approches de l'Opera (Paris: Didier, 1987).Google Scholar

7. Aristotle, ibid.

8. Austin, John, How to Do Things with Words (London: Oxford University Press, 1962).Google Scholar It is noteworthy that Ingarden published his well known article in 1958 in Polish, three years after Austin's lectures were delivered (1955) and four years before they were published (1962). Both claim that they recapitulate former ideas. None of them mentions the other. These could be seen, however, as parallel developments.

9. Beware: the verb ‘perform’ is used in two senses: a) to ‘enact’ and b) to ‘do’ or ‘act’. In the theatre actors may ‘perform’ (enact) a character that ‘performs’ an act. The former meaning is currently used in theatre studies, whereas the latter stems from philosophy of language and pragmatics.

10. Van Dijk, Teun A., Text and Context (London: Longmans, 1977), p. 168.Google Scholar

11. Van Dijk, ibid., p. 167; Cf. Levinson, Stephen C., Pragmatics (Cambridge University Press, 1987 (1983)), p. 246.Google Scholar

12. Austin, ibid., p. 11; Searle, John, Speech Acts (Cambridge University Press, 1969), p. 43CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Van Dijk, ibid., pp. 173 & 182.

13. Austin, ibid., pp. 55–6; Searle, ibid., pp. 20–27; Levinson, ibid., p. 231.

14. The prepositional content does not appear in the form of a detachable sentence in every speech act: certain transformations delete duplications.

15. Beckett, SamuelWaiting for Godot (London: Faber, 1970 (1956)), p. 15.Google Scholar

16. For a detailed discussion see Rozik, Eli, ‘Speech Acts and the Theory of Theatrical Communication’, Kodicas/Code, 12, 1–2 1989.Google Scholar

17. It might be advisable for playwrights to specify the type of speech act of which the words are part, by means of a prefix or any other conventional sign.

18. The fact that the index of an action is a verbal expression is probably responsible for a basic misunderstanding in the analysis of speech acts: viewing the response of the hearer in terms of communication.

19. Sophocles, , Oedipus the KingGoogle Scholar, in Greek Tragedies, Vol.1. Grene, D. and Lattimore, R., eds. (The University of Chicago Press, 1968).Google Scholar

20. It seems that Ingarden discovered the ‘active’ function of language by enquiring into the theatre: ‘The existing “dramatic” literature, with its extraordinary wealth of different forms of human intercourse in speech acts, can best inform us of the manifold functions of speech in human life.’ (p. 389).Google Scholar

21. Carlson, Marvin, ‘Dramatic Texts and performance’. Semiotica, 82–1/2, 1990, p. 159.Google Scholar

22. Lyons, John, Semantics (Cambridge University Press, 1981), Vol. 2, p. 191.Google Scholar

23. For further details see Rozik, Eli, ‘Theatrical Conventions’, Semiotica, 89-1/3, 1992.Google Scholar

24. Rozik, Eli, ‘Theatrical Conventions’, op. cit.Google Scholar

25. Shakespeare, William, Macbeth.Google Scholar

26. The fact that Ingarden does not see a communicative function in soliloquy, (p. 382)Google Scholar indicates that he is not fully aware of the two axes of verbal intercourse in the theatre: soliloquy is certainly not interactive but is communicative to the audience.

27. Sophocles, , AntigoneGoogle Scholar, in Greek Tragedies, op. cit.

28. We should add that the boundaries of stage and offstage are not absolute and that they shift constantly: some of the offstage components of the fictional world may appear in iconic guise at a later stage. We deal here, therefore, with permanent offstage entities.

29. The translation uses ‘vividness’, (pp. 381 and 393).

30. Euripides, , HippolytusGoogle Scholar, in Greek Tragedies, op. cit.

31. For further discussion see Rozik, Eli, ‘Towards a Methodology of Play Analysis—A Theatrical Approach’, Assaph—Studies in the Theatre, No. 6, 1990.Google Scholar

32. If the play including stage directions resembles a recipe for baking a cake, as John Searle claims, it is a bad one since it lacks essential ingredients: ‘The Logical Status of Fictional Discourse’, New Literary History, 6, 1975. p. 329.Google Scholar