Филологические науки / 3. Язык, речь, речевая коммуникация

Karimova D. Kh.

Bashkir State University, Russia

Deictic Representations of Dramatic Discourse: Non-Verbal Aspect (based on 20^th century American Drama)

The given article is dedicated to the analysis of deixis and its realizations in the dramatic discourse from the perspective of non-verbal forms of communication. “Discourse” is a term that has many uses. In its broadest sense, discourse encompasses units that are larger than the basic grammatical unit, i.e. the sentence. The concept is employed in this study in its reference to spoken speech elements within the contexts of verbal communication in drama, the emphasis being particularly placed on the explication of the basic cultural codes and their respective interpretation.

To the extent that it provides a framework for the construction of worlds, drama can be understood as what Y.M. Lotman and V.A. Uspensky term a “secondary modeling system” together with literature, painting and art in general which are all based on the primary system, i.e. language, whereby human beings organize and model their world. However this does not mean that drama simply models or reflects an existing reality, that it is merely exploitative of language. On the contrary, the dramatic model is essential to our understanding of the world. What is more, our understanding of the “primary modeling system” is dependent in this or that way on the dramatic model. Very illustrative in this case is the grammatical category of person which originates from the theatrical tradition. “The Latin word “persona” (meaning “mask”) was used to translate the Greek word for “dramatic character” or “role”, and the use of this term by grammarians derives from their metaphorical conception of the language event as a drama in which the principal role is played by the first person, the role subsidiary to his by the second person, and all other roles by the third person” [5, p. 638].

The dramatic discourse as a peculiar type of unity, originally meant for stage performances, that constructs hypothetical worlds and imaginary contexts through verbal and non-verbal signifiers includes two levels of communication between the writer and the reader (spectator) of the text, i.e. one indirectly through the characters interaction and the other directly through extradialogic stage directions. The latter include paralinguistic, kinesic, proxemic, haptic, oculesic and other extralinguistic elements that serve as certain codes used and deciphered variously from culture to culture. Being formalized in writing and constructing the sub-discourse of author’s speech, stage directions that contain the above-mentioned extralinguistic units serve as indexical signs or deictics signifying various sorts of information related to age, gender, social status, emotional and physiological peculiarities underlying the verbal behavior of dramatis personae, culturally and ethnically determined norms and codes of conduct acceptable within this or that linguo-culture, etc.

It should be mentioned that the primarily deictic articulation in the drama was first noted by J. Honzl, who attributes its centrality to “the supremacy of dialogue over recitation” in the development of Greek tragedy, entailing “the supremacy of action over narrative” [3, p. 118]. More recently A. Serpieri, in an important contribution to dramatic and theatrical theory, has argued that all linguistic and semiotic functions in the drama derive from the deictic orientation of the utterance towards its context, so that what R. Jacobson [4, p. 26] terms the “shifter” (empty verbal index) becomes the founding semiotic unit of dramatic representation at large. “In the theatre meaning is entrusted in primis to the deixis, which regulates the articulation of the speech acts. Even rhetoric, like syntax, grammar, etc. are dependent in the theatre on the deixis, which subsumes and unites the meaning borne by the images, by the various genres of language, by the various linguistic modes of the characters, by intonation, by rhythm, by proxemic relations, by the kinesics of the movements, etc.” [7, p. 20]. In its incompleteness, its need for physical contextualization, dramatic discourse is invariably marked by performability, and above all by potential gesturality, which the language of narrative does not normally possess since its context is described rather than pragmatically pointed to. According to F. Antinucci, deixis creates “the possibility of exchanging information operating on the sensori-motor rather than the symbolic level” [1, p. 243], that is, it involves the speaker’s body directly in the speech act. Hence, the language of the drama calls for the intervention of the actor’s body in the completion of its meanings. Its corporeality is an essential rather than optional extra: as J.L. Styan puts it, “the words as spoken are inseparable from the movements of the actors who speak them [8, p. 2]. The latter is easily detected almost in every other fragment of the dramatic discourse as it is in the following example:

ANISE: I woke several times during the night.

FANNY: Did you? Then you were careful not to stop snoring. We must finally get around to rearranging your room. (ANISE hands her three or four letters.) Even when you don’t snore, it irritates me. (FANNY opens a letter, begins to read it. After a minute.) What time is it? [2, p. 6]

In the given episode the movements referred to in the sub-discourse of author’s speech are relatively independent from the contents of the sub-discourse of direct speech, that is, the described actions parallel each other, hence, they indicate each their own information.

The following fragment exemplifies situations when the contents of both sub-discourses intersect, that is, they complement each other in this or that way and serve as deictics of similar or identical information:

BABETTE: Thank you. Fix your hairpin, Mama. (SARA shoves back a falling hairpin.) [2, p. 44]

The episode depicts those cases when the movements referred to in the sub-discourse of stage directions prove what is being told of in the direct speech.

Unlike the above-mentioned instances, the next fragment exemplifies cases when the contents of at least one of the sub-discourses are enough to get a whole picture of the situation from the point of view of non-verbality.

DAVID: How do you do, Bodo? (David shakes hands with JOSHUA.) Boys can shake hands. But so pretty a girl must be kissed. (He kisses BABETTE. She smiles, very pleased, and crosses to the side of SARA.) [2, p. 43-44]

According to North American social norms, the underlined expression is, as a rule, accompanied by a firm handshake with men [6, p. 18-20]. In fact, the content of the direct speech here proves to be sufficient and capable of carrying relevant information accompanying it. Hence, various culturally specific corporeal codes underlying this or that verbalized theatrical signal can be easily identified and deciphered by readers / spectators on condition that they are familiar with them.

To sum it up, dramatic discourse is characterized by a high level of deicticity. The information related to non-verbal ways of communication can be found both in the sub-discourses of direct speech and stage directions. Therewith the units of the respective sub-discourses function as deictics of this information.

Literature

1. Antinucci F. Sulla deissi // Lingua e stile. – LX, 2. – Bologna: Il Mulino, 1947. – P. 223-247.

2. Hellman L. Watch on the Rhine. – New York: Random House, 1941. – 170 p.

3. Honzl J. The Hierarchy of Dramatic Devices // Semiotics of Art: Prague School Contributions / ed. by Matějka L., Titunik I.R. – Cambridge (Mass.): The MIT Press, 1976. – P. 118-127.

4. Jacobson R. Selected Writings. Vol. II: Word and Language. – The Hague – Paris: Mouton, 1971. - 752 p.

5. Lyons J. Semantics. – Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977. – 897 p.

6. Post E. Etiquette: In Society, In Business, In Politics and At Home. – New York: Cosimo, 2007. – 680 p.

7. Serpieri A. Ipotesi teorica di segmentazione del testo teatrale // Canziani A. Come communica il teatro: dal testo alla scena. – Milan: II Formichiere, 1978. – P. 11-54.

8. Styan J.L. Shakespeare’s Stagecraft. – Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971. – 244 p.