Semiotic Theory and Practice. Proceedings of the Third International Congress of the International Association for Semiotic Studies Palermo, 1984 3110099330

Citation preview

DE GRUYTER

Michael Her:ifeld (Ed.) et al.

SEMIOTIC iTHEORY. A P.RAClilCE

VOLUMEl

I

Semiotic Theory and Practice Volume I

Semiotic Theory and Practice Proceedings ofthe 1hird lntemational Congress ofthe IASS Palermo, 1984

Volume I Editors

Michael Herzfeld Lucio Melazzo

Mouton de Gruyter Berlin • NewYork· Amsterdam 1988

Mouton de Gruyter (forrnerly Mouton, The Hague) is a Division ofWalter de Gruylcr&Co., Berlin.

Ubra,y QfO,npns Ca1al0((.lng In l'llbllrarlan Da/a

lntemational Assoc:iation for Scmiotic Studics. Congrcss (3rd : 1984 : Palermo, Sicily) Semiotic thcory and practic::e. English, French, and ltalian. I. Scmiotics-Conar=. 2. DiKOursc analysis-Congr=. I. Herzfeld, Micbael, 194711. Melazzo, Lucio, 1950. lii. Title. P99.IS7 1984 001.Sl 88-12991 ISBN 0-89925 5302 (alk. paper)

Dtutsrlrt Blbl(otlitk Cataloguing in Publlratlon Data

Voi. I (1988) Semiotlc theory ■Del practlce : Palermo, 1984 / ed. Michad Herzfcld ; Lucio Melazzo. - Bcrlin ; New York ; Amsterdam : Mouton dc Gruyter. (Procctdings or the ... intematiornil congrcss or thc IASS ; 3) ISBN 3-11-009933-0 NE: Herzretd, Michael [Hrsg.J; lntcmational Assoc:ia1ion for Semiotic Studies: Proceedings of tbc ... congress of tbc lntcrnational Association for Scmiotic Studics

Printed on acid free paper.

& Co., Bcrlin 30. Ali riahts rcservcd, including thosc of1ranslation into foreign lanauaacs. No pan oftbis book may be rcproduced in any form - by photoprint, microfilm, or any other mcans - nor transmiued nor translatcd into a machinc languagc without wriucn permission from Mouton dc Gruy1cr, a Division of Walter de Gruytcr & Co., Bcrlio. Printina: Prolf GmbH & Co. KG, Suirnbcrg. Bindiag: Petcr Mikolai, Bcrlin. - Printed in Gcrmany. O Copyright 1988 by Walter dc Gruy1cr

EDITORIAL NOTE The papera in thia collection are arranged in the alphabetical order ot their authore, •xc•pt that th• round tabl• material ha• been gather•d together at the end tor convenience. Whil• thi• approach ha• entailed th• eeparation ot papera that were conceptually linked to each other and that in some casea appeared together in the context ot special panela, the rich texture ot many papera defied unilinear arrange••nt ot any but this rather arbitrary kind. The present mode ot preaentation s•••• l••• invidioua, and allow• each read•r to explore in independent fashion the co•plex intertext that this semiotic enterpriae represents. We would like to thank all the authors who sent in their papera tor inclusion in this record of the IASS Congress held in 1984 in Palermo. We b•lieve that the reaulting collection otfera a truly global perapective on current directiona and develop•enta in the varioua doaaina of aemiotically inapired theory and reaearch. We would like to thank Rita crouch tor her help with typing several •anuscripts. We would alao like to expreas grateful personal thanka to conni• Adama, Ruth Fiahel, and Jania Kearney-Williams, whose heroic technical aaaietance in Bloo■ ington throughout the final stage• enabled ua to preaent a far aore orderly and preaentable volume than auch a complex international venture could otherwiae have aapired to become. Hichael Herzfeld Indiana University, Bloomington1 Indiana,

u.s.A.

Lucio Melazzo Università dilli Studi, Paler■o 1 slc1 la, Italia.

COKTBNTS

Volume I V

l.

EDITORS' HOTE

2,

Ilaria

3.

Gian Franco Arlandi, THEORIB STATISTIQUE 00 TBXTE:

A■brosini, L'OPACITA REFBREHZIALE

TAXIHOMIE DBS PARCOURS TBXTUBLS ARCHITECTOHICO-URBAHISTES

4.

llaria-AUCJllsta Babo, L'INSCRIPTION SOMATOLOGIQUE DES PRATIQUES SIGNIFIANTBS:

s.

LES MBTAPHORES DE LA MALADIE

Nichel Balat, DE PEIRCE ,. LACAN:

))

LE STADE DU MIROIR ET 41

L'ACCES AU LANGAGE 6.

Il

Ziva Ben-Porat, LYRICAL POBTRY AHD THE LYRICS OF POP: AU'l'UMH SONGS AS AN EXAMPLE OP 1'KE RBLATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE "POPULAR SOHG POLYSYSTEM• AND THE LITBRARY POLYSYSTBM

7.

Jaff Barnard • Gloria PRACTICE OF SXGNS:

8.

Withal ■, THEORY OF SIGNS --

CONTOURS OP A CONCBPTXON

Mare Bartrand, SEMIOTIQUE LITTERAIRE:

S9

UNE UTILISATION

DE PBIRCE

9.

SI

69

Andraaj BoCJll•Jav•lci, THE PROBLEM OF XFS VS. LOGXCAL 81

IMPLICATIOH REVISITED 10. J.S. Bordrauil • S. O•trovat9Jcy, SOCIOLOGIE ET SBMIOTIQUB 21

IDENTITB SOCIALE BT MEDIATION SYMBOLIQUE: 89

DE LA PUBLICITE AUX KOUVEMENTS SOCIAUX 11. Sandro Brio•i, IL LETTORE MODELLO B IL LETTORE REALE. SEMÌOTICA E INTERPRETAZIONE DEL TESTO LETTERARIO. PROPOSITO DI U, ECO

A

VIII 12, Jaaae B, Bunn, ON LAWS OP INVERSE PROPORTION 13,

Warnar Burslaff, LA PBRCEPTION

14,

Garllb carvajal , Lucncia

SEKIOTICS:

CHBZ PEIRCE

IOS 111

Bacudero, THEOR.ETICAL

THB CONCEPT OP ISOTOPr IN THB CONTEXT OF A

SEKIOTIC THEORY OF SPATIAL DELIMITATIOK

117

15, Franca Mariani Ciaapicaci9li, PER UNO STATUTO DELLA DIGRESSIONE

12)

16, Alain J.-J. Cohan, KICRO-COIIVERSATIONS EN SEMIOTIQUB APPLIQUEE:

00 "SQUBLCH"

131

17, Aaadeo G. Conta, SEKIOTICS OP CONSTITUTIVE RULES

IO

18, Lucia Corrain, IL PUIITO DI VISTA NELL'ANNUNCIAZIONE DI

LEONARDO DA VINCI

ISI

111. IIU))ert Da•i•ch, LII TRAVAIL SEMIOTIQUE

161

20. Karcelo Daacal, 'l'OWAJIDS PSYCHO-PRAGKATICS

21, Aaadeo Da Doaanicia, QUALCHE OSSERVAZIONE SULLE

STRUTTURE DISCORSIVE NELLE SBMIOTICIIB VISUALI

177

22, Jaraila Doul>ravon, DBNOTATION AND CONNOTATION OF FUGUE

IN KUSIC AND VISUAL ARTS IN THB TWBIITIETH CBIITURY

23, Oabarto Beo, NHOOOHIT?

189

THB CASE OF DBNOTATION ANO/OR

SIGNIFICATION

197

24, Paolo Facohi, ABSENCB OF BVBNT AS CAUSAL EXPLANATION:

LINGUISTIC FORMULATIONS

213

25. LUcr,cia D'Al•••io Ferrara, Lll TBXTE EN SILENCB

221

26, Mauro Ferraraei, NARRATIVE HYPOTHBSBS

231

27, I(Jnazio Filippi, IL RUKORB DEL TEMPO

239

IX 28. Jean-Karie Flocb, UN TYPE REKARQUABLE OE SEKIOSIS:

LES

SYSTBMBS SEKI-SYKBOLIQUBS

249

29. Barbara Folkart, OPACIFICATION ANO SEMIOSIS:

ULYSSES AS

OOUBLB STRUCTURE

2S'I

30. LUanne Frank, HBROBR, IIUKAROVSKY, ANO THB HISTORY OF SEHIO'l'ICS

~'I

31. Br1Jca ~ S b e l k b o l e s l. .i, CUSTAV G. SPET:

PHBIIOKENOLOGICAL SEHIO'l'ICS ANO HERMENEUTICS )2.

Niguel B. Garrido Gallardo, SEKIO'l'IQUE ET HISPANISME

33. Adrian

s.

Gi■ate-Welsb,

279 2'1)

ANALYSIS OF THE RELIGIOUS

PROCBSS THROUGH DISCOURSE ANALYSIS

.lOI

34. lfiesJav God&ic, SOME REKARXS ON "ABSOPIAN COMKUNICATION" IN FILM 35. Dinda L.

)I)

Gor1,.,

ANTONIO GALA'S AVIARY:

A SEKIO'l'IC

PBRSP8CTIVB ON BIRO SIGNS IN EL CEMENTERIO OE LOS PAJAROS

)~S

36. llaoi•::I Groobov•Jd, ON 'nfB PROBLEK OF ANALYTIC SENTENCES FROM THB VIEWPOINT OF NATURAL LANGUAGE SBKANTICS

))7

37. Claudio Federico Guerri, SBKIO'l'IC CHARACTBRISTICS OF ARCHITBCTVRAL OBSIGN BASED ON TRE KOOEL BY CIIARLES SANDERS PBIRCB

~7

38. Riccardo Guerri, CONTENUTO SEMANTICO OEGLI AUSILIARI NEI TEMPI COMPOSTI DEI VBRBI ITALIANI

)S7

39. Gbor Ba::tnòczi, COME SI LEGGONO GLI ARTICOLI DI ARCHITBTTORA NEI GIORNALI

)6S

X 40. André lliilbo, LE TEXTE SBHIOTIQUE:

L 10BIL, LA VOIX, LA

SCENE 41. llichael Herzfeld, 'l'HE POETICITY OP THE COKKONPLACE

371 J8J

42. Bllzabeth ltennedy Hevltt, RHYKE AS KETAPHOR IN THE WASTE ~

)9)

43. Andri van HolJc, TOWARDS A SEKIOTIC THEORY OF LITERARY TKEKBS

401

44. Hugu•• Rotler, CODBS ET TRAHSGRESSIONS DES CODES AU CIRQUE

409

45. Gerard Iabert, POUR UNE SOCIO-SBKIOTIQUB DE LA PRESSE A PROPOSE DE EL PAIS

419

46. Patriclt Illbert, CONTEXTE ET ABSENCE DB CONTEXTB DANS LES QÙOTIDIENS

419

47 . Gennaro D'Ippolito, SEMIOLOGIA E OUELL!KPORSCNUNG: ORIGINE, SVILUPPO, APPLICAZIONI DEL CONCETTO DI INTERTESTUALITA

441

48. Marco Jacqu•••t. ENTRE TOPOLOGIE ET ASPECTUALISATION: RECHERCHES SUR LA GESTUALITB SONORE

49. Jacelt Juliuez Jadaclti, ON SEKIOTIC PUNCTIONS OP CONDITIONALS 50. Cesar Jannello, PONDENENTS POUR UNE SEKIOTIQUE SCIENTIPIQUE DE LA CONPORKATION DELIMITANTE DES OBJETS DU MONDE NATUREL 51. Jjilrgen Dine• Jobaneen, 1'lfE OISTINCTION BETNEEN ICON, INDBX, AND SYKBOL IN THE STUDY OP LITERA'lVRE

4SS

Xl 52. Jellll Pierr• ltaainJter, LA KOTION DE RAPPORT AU LA>IGAGB, ELEKEIITS POOR UNE APPROCHE SEKIOTIQUE

SOS

53. Andrev bnnedlf, SEHIOTICS AND THE STUDY OP DRAKATIC

m

DIALOGUB

54. Boni Jtiretein,

ON RBFERBNCE IM PRAGHASEHIOTICS

~19

55. Jean-Nari• Jtlinken!>erg, STRUCTURE DU SIGNE ICONIQUE

~41

56. Leon J:oj, A NBCESSARY CONDITIOM FOR KUTIJAL UNDBRSTANDING

~~s

57. Tadeuaz Jtovzan, SUR LE R!!FERZlf'l' DU SIGHE AU TH!ATRE

m

58. llartin ltraapen, SEKIOTICS AND THE ONTOGENESIS OF INTELLIGBHCE

59. Wladi•ir Jtrya1naki, SEMIOLOGIE, SEHIOTIQUE, SEHIOTHBORIES:

CONFLIT DES INTERPRE'l'ATIONS OU APORIES DES

OBJETS DE CONNAISSANCE

Volume Il 60. Priedricb Lacbaarer, SEHIOTIC STRUCTURES OF PROVOCATION 61.

~

Lindaey, Robert Bucban, ,

J-•• s.

su

Duncan, 'l'HE

RESIDBll'l'IAL LANDSCAPE AS A SYSTEH 01' COHHUNICATION:

A

SBNIOTIC APPROACH

S91

62. Alexlllldro• Lagopouloe, KARXISH, SBMIOTICS , AND URBAJI SPACE: 63.

THB SOCIAL SEMIOTIC TYPOLOGY OF tJRBAN TEXTS

Anneaarie Lange-Seicll,

64. svend Brik Laraen,

THE IDU.L SIGN

URIWf CODES AND LITERATURE

601

611

619

65. LUigi Lentini, AN BXPBRIBNCE IN NON VBRBAL LANGUAGE AND ARCHITBCTURB

631

Xli

66. Jaap Lintvelt, AlfALYSB NARRATOLOGIQUB ET THBMATIQUB DB L 1AUBERGB DB GUY DE MAUPASSANT

641

67. Gisele Losier, CONVBNTIONS DB RBPUTATION

6SI

68. Pas(lllale Lovero, SOMB ASPBCTS OF SBHIOTICS OF RB-USBD ARCHITBCTURB:

TKE CASB OP LA TOURETTE KONASTBRY

6S9

69. John Lyons, THBORBTICAL SBKIOTICS ANO THBORBTICAL LINGUISTICS

671

70. JUan Jlngel llagari.6aa da llorentin, CONTRIBUTIONS OP SEHIOTICS 'l'O ANTHROPOLOGICAL RBSBARCH 71. Marco De llarinis, ASPETTI SEMIOTICI DELL'EMOZIONE

TEATRALE (CONTRO ALCUNE KITOLOGIB POSTKODBRNB)

701

72, Gianfranco llar~one, PROPOSITIONS POUR UNB RBDEFINITION SEKIOTIQUE DE LA NOTION DB 'PERSONNAGE'

711

73, Francesco llarsciani, IL NBUTRO B LA NEUTRALIZZAZIONE IN

HUSSBRL

721

74, Robert Jlarty, CHAHPS D'INTERPRBTANT:

UN KODBLB

FORKALISB DE LA Sl!!KIOSIS

729

75, Jlarcello La Jlatina, ISOTOPIA B PRAGMATICA DEL TESTO TRA A,J, GRBIKAS B U. ECO 76. Gentaine Jlatonian, LA DBKAIIDB CLINIQUB ET SON INTBRPRETATION 77. Giuseppe llininni, THB DEVELOPKBNT OF A DIALOGIC SUBCOKPETBNCE:

A PSYCHO-SEHIOTIC APPROACH

739

Xlii

78. Pierre-Yvea Kocquaia, SCIENCE ET SEHIOTIQUE DANS LE ROHAH

-- SAVOIR, NON-SAVOIR ET TRANSFORHATION DANS

L'ANTIPHONAIRE DE HUBERT AQIJIN

76)

79. Jtlr9en B. Mtlller, ECRITURE ET LEC'l'URE FILHIQUES, PROLEGOMENES A UNE THEORIE DE L'INTBRHEDIALXTB A L'EXEHPLE DES LIAISONS DAHGEREUSES DE CHODERLOS DE LACLOS

773

80, Jo•• ••ria lfadal, L'HISTOIRE COHME DISCOURS SECRET

7ll9

81. Mibai Kadin, SIGN AND VAWE:

m

THE AUTHORIT'IC OF AUTHORIT'IC

82 . LUdvi9 Ka9l, SIGN AND SIGN USE:

IS PRAGMATICS IN IIEED

OF A PHILOSOPHICAL THEOR'IC WHICH EXPLAINS OUR ABILIT'IC TO ACT? 83. Mariana Ne1:, SCHEKE -- TEXT -- DISCOURSE:

TENSIONS

WITHIN, PROJECTIONS BETWEBN

813

84 , Adolpbe Ryaenbolo, POUR UNE SEMIOLOGIE DU HEROS COHIQIJE 85.

Aato■

821

Ojala, THE APOPHANTIC PUNCTIOlf OF NARRATIVE DEIXIS 829

86. Cid•ar Teodoro Paia, POUR UNE S'ICNTAXE-SEKAHTIQUE DES S'ICSTEHES DE SIGNIFICATION

83S

87 . Beraan Parret, POUR UNE SEMIOTIQUE DE LA SUBJECTIVITE

847

88. Jer&y Pelc, A PLEA FOR SEMIOTICS

8SS

89 . Pierre Pell99rino, SEMIOTIQUE, ARCHITECTURE ET SCIENCBS HUHAINES :

NOTES EPISTEMOLOGIQUES

90. Cristina Peiia-Karin, L'IRONIE:

873 LA MASQUE DE L'AUTRE

883

XIV

91. Ma••i•o P•••r••i, TIIE SUlf AND TK1! CITY:

S'tKBOLOGICAL

ASPECTS OF CITY PLANNING IN CAHPANELLA'S UTOPIA 92. Jerzy PocJonovaJd, SEKANTIC ENGINEERING

893 899

93. Roland Poaner, BAI.ANCE OF COKPLEXITY ANI> HIERARCH't OF

PRECISION:

TWO PRINCIPLES OF ECONOM't IN THE NOTATION OF

909

LANGUAGE AND MUSIC

94.

Aurelio Principato, THEORIES DE L'EXPRESSION IMPUDIQUE

AU GRAND SIECLE

921

9$.

Giorgio Predi, LA BIOLOGIA COME SEMIOTICA NATURALE

919

96.

Giaapaolo Proni, ARISTOTLE'S ABDUCTION

9S3

97.

llalburga von Raffler-Engel, LA RELAZIONE DELLE

COMPONENTI VOCALI E NON-VOCALI NELLO SVIWPPO DELLA COMHUIIICAZIONE UMANA

963

98.

Pran90ia Raatier, HICROSEMANTIQUE ET SEHIO'l'IQUE

99.

Roaa Maria Ravera, NOTE PER UlfA TEORIA DEL TESTO

PITTORICO 100. Monica

969

981

Rector, INTBRACTION AND DECODING OF VERBAL AND

NONVERBAL SIGNS:

ORCHESTRA CONDUCTIHG

993

101. Carlo• Raia, POUR UNE SBKIOTIQUE DE L'IDEOLOGIE

IOOS

102. Jo8lle Retboré, LES CONDITIONS DE L'APPROCHE D'UN TEXTE LITTERAIRE DANS LB CONTBXTE PEDAGOGIQUE:

LECTURE ET

IN'l'ERPRETATION COHHE PROCESSUS COGNITIFS 103. Alain Rey, lfHAT DOES SEHIOTICS COME l'ROH?

1013

1023

xv 104. Adriano Duart• Rodrigue•, L'INAGINAIRE SOCIAL DU CORPS: POUR UNE SENIOTIQUB DBS NODES D'INCARHATION DB LA LOI

1037

105. JCatarzyna Ro•ner, THB ROLB OP SENIOTICS IN THE CHANGB OF AESTHBTICS PARAOIGN IN THE 20th CEN'lVRY

1045

106. Ferruccio Ro••i-Landi, A FRAGMENT IN TIIE HISTORY OP ITALIAN SENIOTICS

1053

107. Nancy P•l•on Rubin, A MODEL POR THE ANALYSIS OF CHARACTER IN ANCIENT GREEK LYRIC:

THE POET FIGURE IN

PINOARIC OOBS

1065

108. Ilaria Teresa Ru•eo, ROLANO IIARTHES ET LA PORCWSION DU

1073

SENS 109. Thoaa• A. SebeoJt, COHNUNICATION, LANGUAGE ANO SPEECH:

1083

EVOLUTIONARY CONSIOERATIONS 110. Tatiana Slaaa-cazacu, PSYCHOLOGIB, PSYCHOLINGUISTIQUE ET SENIOTIQUE:

LA NBTHOOE CONTEX'l'UELLE-DYNANIQUE EN TANT

QU 1ANALYSE SEMIOTIQUE DU TEXTE LITl'BRAIRB

1093

111. Antonino Di Sparti, VERBALE ve NON-VERBALE, EMISFERO SINISTRO ve EHISPBRO DESTRO 112. c.w. SpinJte, SEHIOTICS ANO DREAMS:

1105 PEIRCE'S SIGN POSTS

TO THE UNCOHSCIOUS

1115

113. Conetantin Spyridonidi•, APPROCHES SEHIOTIQUES AU fROCBSSUS DU DESIGN 114. llalina Stefanova, CONNUHICATIOK IN THB TIIBATRB

112$ 1135

XVI

115. GideoD 'l'oury, SURNAHBS AND TIIEIR SUBS'l'ITIITBS

1143

116. Bleonora 'l'rafioante, U. METAFORA IN BORGES

11S3

117. Siniltka

'l'llohl■aa, THE

IIIAGB THEHB AS AN ISO'l'OPIB LEVEL:

THB SHADOW IIIAGB THEME IN T.S. BLIOT'S THB WASTB u.ND AND THB HOLLOW MEN

11S9

118. Slrltlta-Lii•a Tllo■ inen, LA SBHIOTIQUE DU BONKBUR:

LES

BFFBTS SBMAN'l'IQUBS DE STYLB DAllS LBS POEHBS DE JOSIANB GEORGB

116$

119. '?bure von Vexk1U.l , Martin

Kra■pen,

BIOLOGICAL SYSTEHS,

SIGN PROCESSBS ANO THE OBSBRVER

120. Patrizia Violi, A TEXTUAL APPROACH TO PRBSUPPOSITION

1177

1187

121. Sandro Volpe, UNB HYPOTHBSE INFORHATIONNELLE SUR LE POINT DE VVE AU CINEMA

122. Roy 111lliaaa, A STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF MACBETH

1197 120S

123. F. Bllgene Yat••· SIGNS, SINGULARITIBS, AND SIGNIFICANCE:

A PHYSICAL NODBL FOR SBHIOTICS

124. Richard Zal:la , Nihal Hadln, VISUAL !DUCATION

1217 1237

125. Naeel■o A. Bonfantini, J,rgen Di.Ma Jobanaen, 6'rard

Deledalle, PANBL ON ABDUCTION 126. ~ Deledalle, Jean-Pierre Jra■ inlter, Joalle ~thor,, Narc Bertrand,

werner llllrzlaff, Robert Narty, Nic:bel Balat,

TABLB RONDE •• DBVBLOPPBNBNTS DB LA SEKIOTIQUE INSPIRBB DE • PEIRCE:

SEMINAIRE DE SBHIOTIQUB -- UNIVERSITE DE

PBRPIGNAN, FRANCE

126$

128$

Volume I

2

L'OPACITA' REFERENZIALE Maria Grazia Ambrosini

Un problema di ampio dibattito nell'ambito logicolinguistico contemporaneo è costituito dall'esistenza di quelli che si sogliono denominare i contesti referenzia! mente opachi. E' una questione che serge, sul ~iano formale, dal noto problema della sostitutività. Il principio di sostitutività garantisce la verità di una asserzione quando un termine viene sostituito con un altro in una asserzione vera. w.v.o. Quine asserisce (1971): Uno dei principi fondamentali che regolano l'dentità è quello della -6o-6tituU.v.i.t4. o, come si potrebbe anche dire, della indiscernibilità degli identici . Data una asserzi2 ne vera di identità, uno dei suoi termini può essere sostituito all ' altro in ogni asserzione vera, e il risult~ to sarà ancora vero ••• \etc.) ••• due termini di una asserzione di identità vera sono reciprocamente sostituibili in ogni contesto, 4alva ve.,..i,ùte. . I contesti nei quali viene meno la sostitutività s2 no detti referenzialmente opachi. L'opacità referenziale interessa i contesti ove compaiono le espressioni "nece! sariamente" e "possibilmente", intese nel senso della n§. cessità e possibilità strette come nella logica modale di Lewis (1918, 1932). Essa si riscontra nei contesti ove compaiono termini singolari e dice Church (1972:100): 'deve riflettersi su! la quantificazione come sui termini singolari' in quanto 'gli oggetti cui ci si riferisce in una teoria devono e~ sere considerati non come le cose nominate dai termini singolari, ma come i valori delle variabili di quantificazione'. Per OUine il principio di sostitutività vige allorchè 11 termine da sostituire si riferisce all'oggetto n2 minato e non può essere esteso a quei contesti nei quali

2

il termine da sostituire è presente senza riferirsi allo oggetto nominato. Il venir meno della sostitutività mostra soltanto che l'occorrenza da sostituire non è puramente referenziale: è in tal caso che c0111pare il fenomeno dell'opacità referenziale. Questo tipo di opacità referenziale, relativa ai~ mini singolari, presenta una difficoltà di non piccolo rilievo, come è dimostrato dalla sua ricorrenza lungo tut ta la storia del problema logico-semantico, da Leibnz in poi. La sua impostazione di base risale, infatti, al noto principio dell'indiscernibilità degli identici, quale fu appunto formulato da Leibniz, ove per identici si intendono i termini singolari. si tratta di un problema che trascina con sé la stessa definizione dell'identità. Già Leibniz (1840: 94) aveva definito l'identità proprio attraverso il principio di "indiscernibilità degli identici", che stabilisce c0111e oggetti identici non possano differire qualitativamente. Col sorgere della logica formalizzata questa fomulazione dell'identità si rivela assai utile a sgombrare il campo del formalismo logico dalla scomoda presenza di una singolarità irriducibile degli oggetti (da essa trasformati in referenti), sancendo il non senso di una distinzione degli oggetti identici e impiantando, con ciò stesso, il principio di sostitutività e quindi la loro intercambiabilità. Russell nei Pw1cq,.ia m.them4Uc.a esprime l'identità con la formula seguente:

La formula di Russell significa non solo che, se s2 no identici, x e y hanno in c0111une tutte le loro propri~ tà ma anche che gli oggetti non possono differire, seco~ do l'espressione di Leibniz, 6olo ltllnleJlO. Come dice Wittgenstein (1922), l'identità qualitativa non implica la identità numerica ma non si può pensare in modo coerente che l'identità numerica non implichi quella qualitativa. Che i termini di una asserzione d'identità vera si~ no ovunque intercambiabili, 6al11a 111!.\.Ua.te, c0111porta che i termini singolari abbiano un riferimento singolare. Dice Linsky (1971):

3

sostituendo con una variabile appropriata un qualsiasi termine singolare in una o in più delle sue occorrenze, in ogni asserzione che contenga almeno un termine singolare, costruiamo una classe di predicati (a un posto) . Ogni termine singolare così sostituito in una asserzione vera si riferisce a un oggetto che soddisfa il predicato costruito in questo modo. Un oggetto soddisfa un tal pr~ dicato solo se (ma non se) sostituendo la variabile li~ ra del predicato con un qualsiasi termine singolare che si riferisca all'oggetto in questione il predicato si trasforma in una asserzione vera. Pertanto, il risultato della sostituzione di un ter mine singolare in una asserzione vera con un altro qualsiasi termine singolare che si riferisce allo stesso oggetto lascia immutato 11 valore diverità dell'asserzione stessa, poichè i termini di una asserzione vera di identità si riferiscono alla stessa cosa. Per Frege (1891) non è corretto parlare di contesti referenzialmente opachi; piuttosto essi producono un mutamento nel riferimento per cui egli li chiama obliqui. Pertanto, se utilizziamo dice Linsky (1971), la distinzione tra designazione e significati già adottata da OU! ne ed applichiamo ad essa la concezione fregiana in modo che le desig,nazioni dei nomi nei contesti obliqui siano i loro significati, 'abbiamo una dimostrazione della non esistenza di contesti opachi'. In tal caso, se con Quine 'prendiamo 11 venir meno della sostitutività come criterio dell'opacità referenziale, allora non ci sono piùOC!l testi referenzialmente opachi'. Ma'se consideriamo i sen si (o significati) come oggetti, dobbiamo anche fornire loro delle condizioni di identità'. E' a questo punto che bisogna intervenire se si vu2 le superare la diffic~ltà insita nell'opacità referenzi~ le nei contesti quantificati. Infatti, se vogliamo elim! nare la causa dell'opacità dobbiamo usare una formula dell'identità adeguata a tali contesti. Riteniamo che la formula russelliana dell'identità dei termini singolari debba essere sostituita con una fomula diversa. In (1) (x=y)

m

df

( ♦)(♦x• ♦y)

4

x e y sono i termini, ,p è la proprietà, = è il simbolo dell'equivalenza tramite i valori di verità delle variabili - termini x e y in relazione all'unica proprietà 'P. L'identità, in tal caso, viene determinata per i termini singolari. Se, invece, la ricerchiamo tramite le propri~ tà, ci avvaliamo dell'equivalenza necessaria nella sua forma della doppia implicazione; per cui al posto della suddetta formula (1), espressione dell'identità dei termini, mettiamo la formula

espressione dell'identità per le proprietà ,p e ljl in ri ferimento allo stesso termine x. Ne deriva che se per ,p intendiamo la proprietà "essere uomo" e per ~la proprietà "essere animale ragionevole", l'espressione si legge cosi: "per tutti gli x, l'essere x un uo1110 implica l'essere x un animale ragionevole e l'essere x un ani111ale ragionevole implica 1 • essere x un uomo", ossia l'essere uo1110 di x implica l'essere ani-le ragionevole dix e l' essere animale ragionevole dix implica l'essere uomo di x. Ciò significa che le funzioni proposizionali, corri• spondenti alle proprietà "essere uomo" e "essere animale ra9ionevole", relative costituiscono la condizione di identità dix. Ne discende infatti che se per tutti glix! sex è un uomo, x è un animale ragionevole,ciò vale per l'individuo x. Altrettanto vale per l'individuo y avente le stesse proprietà dix. La concezione dell'identità basata sulla formula (1) di Frege e di Russell, cosi recepita dagli a.nalisti log! ci, risale, come si è visto, a Leibniz; la proposta da noi avanzata trova, invece, il suo fondamento nella log! ca aristotelica. Già Aristotele aveva espresso l'identità tramite termini non singolari, bensi universali facen do riferimento alle proprietà che si predicano dei term! ni singolari . La formula (2) dell'identità va letta nel senso che essa indica la condizione per l'identità tramite le proprietà, denotate nella logica formale dalle funzioni pr2 posizionali . L'implicazione, infatti, è un rapporto tra funzioni proposizionali e non tra termini; gli argomenti del !untore " ~Uca " sono funzioni proposizionali e non

termini. In tale ipotesi l'identità dei temini è garan• tita dalla doppia implicazione delle corrispettive funzioni proposizionali. Già Lukasiewicz (19S8) nel suo st~ dio sulla logica aristotelica, ove propone una lettura della logica dei termini in chiave di logica delle proP2 sizioni, considera le costanti aristoteliche come terniini universali piuttosto che termini singolari. I filosofi ed i logici che hanno esaminato le aporie che costituiscono l'oggetto del presente esame si s2 no attenuti al criterio di identità per i termini singolari; ma, cosi facendo, si sono trovati nell'impossibili· tà di risolvere le difficoltà.i ove, invece, all'identi• tà per i termini singolari si sostituisca l'identità tr~ mite le implicazioni delle funzioni proposizionali, qui proposta, le difficoltà possono essere superate. R. Barcan Marcus, rifacendosi ai sistemi di e.I.~ wis, sembra avviarsi verso tale direzione ma non perviene alla individuazione delle condizioni di identità ri· chieste da Linsky e che noi indichia110 nella formula de! la doppia implicazione quale corrispettivo della necess! tà logica nella quantificazione, venendo cosi meno quelle condizioni che consentono la sostitutività delle proprietà. L'esame del principio di sostitutività ha qui port~ to alla formulazione del principio di identità in una formula che esprime la ne

lJ,x) (tx :> ♦xl

che esprime l'equivalenza necessaria (x) (♦x=tx), notiamo che essa altro nor. è che la formula della quant! ficazione universale, sicché quantificazione e necessità logica coincidono. Ma poichè nei contesti quantificati necessità logica e modalità coincidono, quantificazione e modalità coincidono anch'esse. Quine (19711 afferma in vece che •quando la logica modale è estesa (come fa la Barcan) in modo da includere la teoria della quantificazione ••. (etc.) ••• si incontrano seri ostacoli all'interpretazione'. Infatti, gli ostacoli permangono se non si rivedono

6

alcuni aspetti connessi con tale teoria, ostacoli che, a nostro giudizio, possono essere superati con l'introduzione della formula per l'identità fornita nel presente studio. La soluzione proposta comporta che non si possono sostituire, nell'ambito semantico, nomi di termini sing2 lari con nomi di proprietà o di predicati sicché talvolta l'opacità referenziale dovuta alla raancata sostitutività è da ricercarsi in una indebita sostituzione di nomi di termini singolari con nomi di termini generali. Nell'ambito semantico l'opacità referenziale relat! va ai nomi viene spiegata in base al venir meno della s2 stitutività dei nomi che nominano lo stesso oggetto. Venuta meno l'identità, e con essa la sostitutività di una espressione nell'ambito logico, correlativamente viene meno la sostitutività di quella espressione nel contesto semantico. Vi è una stretta connessione tra il problema dell'identità, messo in luce dal paradosso dell'opacità, e il problema dell'antinomia del nome-relazione, entrambi correlati nell'esame effettuato da Carnap (19371. Abbiamo individuato in un difetto di concezione de! l'identità, e conseguentemente nell'inadeguatezzs della sua formula, il fondamento della mancata sostitutività che produce quella che Quine chiama l'opacità referenzi~ le; l'ipotesi, sopra prospettata, a nostro avviso, vale anche per la problematica relativa alla sostituzione dei nomi. Nell'ambito del linguaggio-oggetto le condizioni di identità, fondate sui valori di verità per i termini sin golari, portano ad individuare nell'equivalenza il crit!. rio di verità: l'equivalenza, infatti, viene formulata sulla base di uguali valori di verità. Ma se, pur rilllanendo nell'ambito del linguaggio-oggetto, vogliamo superare i limiti che il criterio di verità per i termini si!). golari comporta, bisogna cambiare il criterio di verità e procedere, quindi, alla sostitutività dei nomi in base al nuovo criterio. Applicando nell'ambito semantico un criterio analogo a quello prospettato nell'ambito logie~ individuiamo nella "stessa condizione di verità" la caratteristica corrispondente alla doppia implicazione de! le funzioni proposizionali. Essa vale non per i valori delle variabili-termini, bensi per i valori delle variabili costituite dalle funzioni proposizionali.

7

E' proprio della doppia implicazione, infatti, fornire uquali valori di verità. La doppia implicazione o equiv~ lenza necessaria, fornisce quella "condizione di verità" che si collega con quella "condizione di identità", ricercata sia da carnap che dagli altri analisti logici, primo fra tutti Quine. La doppia implicazione, infatti, indica la condizi2 ne di identità delle proprietà, ossia della condizione corrispondente all'identità propria della verità delle funzioni proposizionali. Né si può dire che le funzioni proposizionali non sono né vere né false e quindi non~ sono avere un criterio di verità. Vi è, infatti, un modo attraverso cui le funzioni proposizionali possono diventare proposizioni: allorchè vengono assegnati i valori alle loro variabili-termini. Poichè l'identità delle funzioni proposizionali indica l'identità delle classi che da esse sono formate, ne deriva che l'identità delle funzioni proposizionali si estende alle variabili individuali che sono il loro argomento. Ma non viceversa: l'identità degli individui non assicura l'identità delle proprietà. Quando Carnap (19S6) asserisce che 'l'equivalenza delle proprietà è esattamente la stessa cosa dell'identità delle classi' e che 'le proprietà espresse da due predicatori' sono equivalenti', considera l'equivalenza delle proprietà basandosi sugli stessi valori di verità delle variabili individuali. Nella doppia implicazione, invece, gli stessi "valori di verità" riguardano non i termini individuali bensi le prop,r ietà. Infatti nella Pl2 posizione "l'uomo è un animale ragionevole" le espressi2 ni "uano" e "animale ragionevole" non sono termini individuali bensì funzioni proposizionali per cui la proposizione deve essere così letta: "l'essere uomo" dix" implica" "l'essere animale ragionevole" dix. Nella logica aristotelica, come dice Lukasiewicz (19S8), i termini A e 8 sono funzioni proposizionali che il funtore "implica" collega come suoi argomenti, sicché essi possono essere letti come funzioni proposizionali e tradotti nel formalismo loqico contemporaneo, nella formula sopra citata

8

In conclusione, 11 criterio di identità per le funzioni propos1zional1, risulterebbe pi~ adeguato. Esso ••••••• Cette graph1cat1on rel•ve que, dans l'4conoc1e de la typoloeie dea textea et la taxin0111e dea parcoura textuela arch1tecton1courban1stea, l'fqu111bre de tel syatw a611otique ae développm dana dea proc4durea d'organiaat1on aya~t1que dea donneu obeerviea et décritea, eelon leaquellea il y a: "· la ahi1ot1que "t" de la sém1oa1s "CJ" dea textea de base, lealtse la dieendon pragiu.t1que "Dp" aeul-nt au text. 3"E";

b. e. d.

et locaUse la d1mena1on syntact1que "Deyn" aux texte• l"P" et 2"C", oil le biti 2"C" eat un enaeable plus vaste dea proc4duree detextual1sat1on, reepect au proJet l"P"; la sieiotique "t" de la anlos1s "CJ" dee textes coabines 4"PC" et 5"CB" se charge de mettre en Evidence la part1alité de ces combinaiaone; . la aie1otique "t" de la aémioaia •o• du po1Ytexte 6"PCB", peGt développer la plue vaste d1■ena1on amant1que "Daéa" du lang94e conatruit arch1tecton1c~urban1ate.

THl!ORIE DU TEXTE E:J: TlPOLOGIE DES T!X'rES Dans le cadre de la a6Diot19ue de l'eathétigue ( ae■ iot1ca dell'estetica, Semiotica ot Aesthet1ca, liathet1ache Su1otik) de Ch. Morria (1939) et F. Roas1-Land1 (1967), un texte Ht une oeuvre d'art l1n&u1at1que loraqu'il traneaet une intor■at1on eathét1que 11ur base atatiatique, en aàectioM&nt et en diatr1buant lea tréquencea dea classe& dea éle■ents (knae 1965). l'l\r■ i le• problèea tond&lllentaux de la theorie 1tatiati9ue du ~ (teoria statistica del testo, atatistical Theoey ot the Text,

13

atat1at1sche Theor1e dea Textea) de Max Bense (1965), celle de l'1ntoniat1on (aéquence dea aignea) qui ae conatitue en texte ciana le langqe, se distingue en infoniation estbét1que (proc~a àbltir: tabbr1cat1vo, building, baulich; s1ngul1er a'il est 1nvent1r, général a'11 eat atyllatique) et en lnro.-ation aéaantique (proc~a coaunicatit, codlt1é en convention) (Wigglna). Cette llodal.1té conatruct1ve de poaer le texte, est valable pour l'eathl.tique ex~érlaiental.e de nature verbale (TynJanov 1924; Jakobaon 1928), et n cEesalreaient valable pour le bltir de nature non-verbale archltect1onlco-urban1ate (Doeaburg 1923, 1924; Gropiua 1925; Arland1 1980). Dana l'éconoaie de la aleliotique textuelle, le tiltrage de la théorie du texte -- dana la théologle de la tbéorle atatlatlque du texte -- paaae l travera la cr1t1que du groupe Tel Quel (Derr1da 1967; Kr1steva 1969), de laquelle 11 s'enau1t une trlchotoaie dee orlentatlons textuellea, ~ la :-e-product1on du langage (verbal) "Rp" se déroule en tex~-co:anounlcation "Te" ve texte-repréaentation "Tr", d1chotolllle va à la production du langage (acr1pturale) "Ps" qui produ1t le texte-,p::1T;tivlté "Tp": Rp

_,...

VS ) YS

Ps)l,,,,Tp

Le texte-cOD1un1catlon de la re-productlon du langece verbal, est conatltui par l'analyse de la fonctlon algnlque. C'eat un ayat~•e connotatlt en rappon à un autre syat~ de a1gnlt1éa (HJel•slev 19113), ou étbodlqueoient segaenté en 61&.nts ayntll«JD&tlquea group6a en claaaes d'équlvalence (Jakobson 1958), ou afquence ordonnEe de algnea 11ngu1at1quea entre deux 1nterrupt1ona 111&rqu6ea de la cou,un1cat1on (We1nre1ch 1966), ou une perapectlve de la c011111un1catlon (Carpov 1982). Dana le contexte de re-product1on du langage, de cea détinltlona de pré-textuallaatlon se d6veloppe l'or1entat1on deacriptlve du texte-représentatlon. Une reprhentat1on ae distingue esaentlelle..nt par le sena d'un a1gne, qu1 peOt ftr~ la propr1etf coanune de plua1eura 1nd1v1dua (l'Nge 1892). La conatructlon d'un langage de deacrlptlon d'une a6a1otlque-obJet, eat repréaentfe aoyennant divers ayatnea de repr6aentat1on (arbre, matrice, pftNnthéalaatlon, r~gl•• de rfécriture, ••• ) hoaologablea au dae nlveau aétallnguistique (Greima et Courtéa 1979: 315), Nous a01111es déJl au-dell de la pure verbalité. !t dana l'homologat1or. d'out1la et d'énoncéa chez F. Ross1-tand1 (1968: I, II, III) le coeparat1a■e entre la production llngu1at1que et ~roductlon 11&térlelle pose dea •relationa 1ntell1g1blea "a1gnit1catlvea" et dea "v6r1tablea hootologlea" (Rey 1976: 322). L'autre comp&ratla.. dea canaux dea ayat~■e• a1gn1quea chez T,A, Sebeok (1974: table 3) ~ondult à la d1atlnct1on dea textearepréaentatlona.

14

Le cllange..ent crltlque de la production du langage du verbal acriptural (:>errida 1967), dana le texte-productiviU (Kriateva 191:9), devient le lleu de l'hoaologation de la production .,,.teriélle dea "out.ila" textuela à la production linguiatique dea "6noncfe" textuela (Roael-Landl 1968). Le texte-productivité aaa1111e une fonction tranagréaaive d'un texte-écriture qu'inataure la aignlflance et la productivité du travail textuel (Whal 1972) dans la •ultiplicitf deA textea au niveau de la l!Odàlation intertextuelle (Po dlszi linarverfahren: Wittgenatein 1914-16, l~l, 1939; Arlandi l ; th orie dea ronaants: HJelaalev 1939, 1971; l"loch 1979; intertexte extra-verbal: Greiua et Nef 1977; Ruprecht 1981; intertexte ~piat&iigue: Delattre 1982) . Du texte-productivlt6 ae diveloppera une quatriàe orientation textuelle, où la production du la1141:ace (graphicatioMel) "Pg" produit le texte-inventivitA! "Ti": ftU

Pr,

>-- Ti

Donc nous avons la pro~ression: Te >-Tr >-Tps >-Tig Le texte-lnve:itivi~ a une hiatoire toute a. "inventer". Pour 9reai~me aatrice, il a la "Mth6satique logique": dee Py~oriciena à Vi6te, de Leibniz à LobacevakiJ, et Peano, de Peirce à Carnap et 111 ttgenatein, de Boole à Bourbakl. Pour deuxiàe matrice l'"esth6tique rationnelle": de Vltruve à L.B. Albertt, de Leonardo à Pacioll, de Wren à Eiffel, de Heltoholtz à Birkhor, de Proplua à Max Bill, de Doeaburg a. Luigi Veronesi. La troial~e matrice eat celle de la ••totique graphicationnelle": de Leibniz (characteriatica univei-.alia) à tukaaievicz, de Euler (Graphik) à llutilton, de Peirce (Grapha) à Hilbert, de KandinakiJ 1 Doeaburg (po).ytoT«), de Wittgenatein à C"-oodvn (grapha), la cat6gorie: Vaaarel.y !!raphiaM)/(fraphique) Bertin, de Soloe1on Marcua à Jerzy Pelc, de T,A. Sebeok Eugene Yatea, de Waddington à Ren6 Th011 (1DOrpho«6nhe), Petitot et Giorello, Martin Krampen et Giorgio Prodi, Moreton Hoore et Jaczek Svi,cki, Gabrlela Ghioca et Arlandi (graphice.tion, avec dea poaaiblea correlatlona à la Ch011ak)'enne graphicization: Grlffiths a.nd llarrla 1985: 206; à la Koeatlerienne teorlei grafurllor: Marcua 1985: 327; et aux Prieatleyena aigned grapha: llar&r)' 1985). Noua ~ppliquerons u. théorie atatiatique de texte à la typologie des textes architectionico-urbanistea.

TAXINOMIE DES PARCOIIRS TEXTUELS ARCHITECTONICO-URBANISTES QI tenant c011pte dea "texte1-inventivit61" paradigaatlquee de la logique uthmtique: Dlaeertatio de arte combinatoria (Leibniz 1666), Architecture dea uthè11&tlque1 (Bourbaki 1§62); de l'eath6tique ratioMelle: Vera un'architecture plaatique et!!:!

IS

Concret (Doe•burg 1924, 1930); et de la "séllllotlque graphlcatioMelle": Vereo un trattato di semlotlca della gra1'1ca~1one (Arlandl 1963}; ••annonce une taxln01111e de• parcour• textuel• arch1tecton1co-urban1stes: A, Texte-c01111unlcatlon architectonlco-urbanlete Al, extratexte de l'aaeublecent urbe.in (Koenlg 196/1) et de l'e•pace vert ciana le texte ~ile (Greaaet 1973), iMtalangage planl~trlque (Groupe 107); A2, prapatlque de l'urbanis11e: senaatlon de l'eapace arch. (Goldtinger 1941) et eapace vEcue (Watson 1970), espace collectlf et espace peraonnel ( ~ d 1966; Lautler 1973; o,trovetski 1974), ur-textuallté sociosé■lotique (Klapp 1974) et eyetèmation urbalne; A3, paychologle de la perception (Arnhei■ 1954) et psychoanalyse du sena arch. (Moley 1970), per,pectlve de l'eapace vue (Alberti 11>35; Knudaen 1973; Dal Canton 1974) . 8. Texte-repréaentatlon architectonlco-urbanlate 91. dlpenclance du texte arch. dea extratextes: de la g&l■étrle (Zevi 1967, 1968; Eco 1968); de l'anthropologle et aoclologle (atrovetsky 1972, 1974); de la productlon induetrlelle (Cohay 1972; Oatrovetaky 1973); et de la politique (Jenks 1974; Ottokar/Nuck 1979; Caatelnovl 1980; 8l0t1eyer 1981); 82. éplat&iologie de la repréaentatlon visive (De Fusco 1971; Provoost 1974; Arlandl 1971>, 1984); et structure de la perceptlon urbanlate-arch. (Heaaelgren 1974; Boia 1984); 83, coq,aralaon avec dea mod~les appliqués: co■ee "parole" du langsge arch, (Gaeberinl 1959; Ledrut 1973; 8eno1st 1973; Greaset 1973; Renler 1971>, 1981); recoura à "modHee• peirceena (8roadbent 1974; Wlttlg 1974), à mod~les hJelmalevlena (Groupe 107; 11-4 1974; Scalvlnl 1974), à mod~lea benaEena (Dreyer 1979), à la théorle de la aclence boha..,lenne (Arlandl 1980a), co■paralson entre IDOdHe sémlotlque et lllod~le a:·ch. pour détlnlr le ■od~le avMtextue! dea romee textuellea (Odlnot 1970; 8oudon 1984);

84.

85,

fonctlon a'-antlque : crltlque séMntlque et dlachronie a:-ch. (8ett1ni 1958); structures autoplques (Cohay 1973; Marln 1971>); proJet topologlque (Cohay 1967, 1971; Grelmas 1974: llamlad 1974); tendancea ldéologlques (Hauvette 1971) et symbollquee (Palaade 1973; Muratore 1974; Wlddovson 1979); tenclancea ■éthodologlquea (Kepea 1961; Argan 1965; Rapoport 1967; Naldonado 1970, 1974; Krupen 1974; l'rezlosl 1979; Ottokar/Muck 1979; Scalv1n1 1979; Praecarl 1979, 1981; Zevl 1980; Tatllri 1980; l'&cllla 1980; 8resler 1984);

86.

ayntaxe arch. -- urb.: sepentatlon analytique (Gulberlni 1953, 1961; Koenig 196/1; Eco 1971; De Fusco

16

c.

o.

1973); ~thodoloele syntaxique (Caxtex 1970, 1974; Groupe Syntaxe 1972/Paner&i 1974); procédurea cocaputeriatiques (R&1wont 1972; SsrC&ti 1984; Zeitoun 19811); et quadridimenaionneUea (De StiJl 1923-24; Doeaburg 1924; Zevi 1974; Arlandl l.980; Nerdiger 19816). Texte-iroductiv1té arch1tecton1co-urbaniete Cl. "cr1ture" et "lecture" de l'eep&ce, de l'initi&l contr&le cr1tique (Bettinl l.958) vers l'urb&niame c "p1ttoresque" lqage qui tocbe dana l'uaemblage anal.ogique en perd&nt l'&n&l.ogie proportioMelle (B&rthea 1971); et Clou "exiatentiel" d'eapace (GandelaOIUUI 1974; Fauque l.974; Lovero 1979); C2, pracn,atiquo de la diligence "laborieuae" de la con,tructivité dea b&ti~enta (Iktinoa; Hippodeaos; Maglstri C\lllacini; b&tl-nts lndlgàne•; Brunelleschi; Br&mante; Palladio, Michelange; Manaart; Borrocaini; · Guarini; Vlollet-le-Duc; EiCCel; Gropiua; Aalto; Wright; van der Rohe; Le Corbus1er; Pier Luigi Nervi; Ken~o Tange; Induatrial Design; Victor Gruen; Arata Iaozaki; Marco Zanuao) • Texte-invent1vit6 arch1tecton1co-urban1ste Dl. -.odàlagea de atructurea graph1c&t1onnellea de l'avantgarde: tend&nce p~tico-expéri■entale-tectonique (de EifCel 1.889 à Tatlin 1919; Gropiu, 1921; Rietveld 1924, Aalto 1957); - tend&nce a&iantico-philoeoph1que-utopique (Arnolfo di Caabio XIV a., 1975; Sant'P.li& 1914; Malevié 1924, 1980; Gropiua 1925; Doeaburg 1928; Giedton 1955; Bloch 1959; Ragon 1967) ; -tend&nce ayntactlco-logico-relatloMelle (Vitruve 25-23 a.e., 1960; L,B. Alberti 1452-85; Wittgenatein 1926, 1973; Gropiue 1925-50; Terragni 1936; Wachall&M 1960; De Puaco 1973; Greiaaa et Courth 1979; Arlandi 1980; Ungera 1982; Preziosi 1983). -tend&nce textuelle-obJective-conatructive (Rietveld 1926; van der Rohe 1926, 1927; Hilbereeimer 1924, 1926, 1931, 1950; Aalto 1928; Le Corbuaier 1922, 1935, l.942, 19la8; Wright 1928; Kahn 1943, 1968; -tendance 1ntertextuelle-1ntersubJect1ve-intenpat1al.e (Doeaburg 1923, 1924; Gropiu, 1925-56; Le Corbuaier 1922, 1923, 1925, 1932, 1933, 1965; Arpn 1951, 1984; Bill 1952, 1955; Haldonado 1959, 1964, 19711; Krampen 19711; Netach 1969; Roasin 1976; Arlandi 1982, 1983, 1986; 02. -textuaUt6 arch1tecton1co-urban1ate: une aérie de phaaea:

-aéiologén~,e de1 texte, verbawc dea blti■ente (Cohay et Adrianboluana 1973); -codit1c&t1on do• traitéa (Alberti l.952, 1782; Leonardo XVI a. ; Pal.l.adio XVI •. : mal.evié 1920, 1924; Mctuhan 1964; De Puaco 1968; Arlandi 1980&; Ssvignat 19816);

17

-eodela&e• dea proJeta (Le Corbualer 1928, 1930, 1942, 19", 19115, 1947; Otto 1959; Vlgnal 1970; Provooat 1974; Bole 1984); -ronctlonnallaae IIOd~lant (Nervi 1945, 1954; Muaford 1949; Muck 1981; Oreyer 1981); -plur1d1■en•1on pour l'unit, textuelle et teeporallté textuelle (Wr1gbt 1953; Le Corbualor 1947~9; Gruen à l'ort Worth 1956; llureter et Sklchaore au Golden Gatevay or San l'ranciaco 1961; l'itch 1962; von Branca et LubicaNycr. à Tel Aviv 1963; Aalto 196'-; De Carlo à Urblno 196380; Holford au Plccadilly Center or London 1968; ·Tange à Osaka 1970 and Hiroehi.ma 19"6-56; Marcua 1974· Krupen 1974; Bernard 1981, 1985; Legopouloe 1983, 1985; Arlandi 1986). Bn neww la probl6■at1que textuelle architectonico-urbaniate, nous

obtenons la graphlcatlon auivante:

·· ························ · ··· ······ · ······· · ········· ►

···· · · ··· · · ··· ··· ·· · ··· · ··· ········· · · ··· ····· ·· ►

..............................................

.....

........................................ ···•·· ~ -·······

f l -

-.... IIl l ·

--

• l"-:=::-~-:::::_:;--'::.:::::"1-

- ... .,...,tc:dQr. •···"~......

CONCWSIOH La th6orle ~tat1•t1que de la taxino■ie du texte architectonico-urbanl•te, peiwet de renveraer la traditlonnelle "•6■iolog1e architectonlco-urbanl•te" le plu• souvent "exi•tentieUe" par le polnt de vue du deat1nata1,re "cona-teur" -- ba•6e eur les textea-co■-unlcatlon Al-A2-A3, lea textearepr6•entat1on 81, et le• texte•-productlvité LCl - en propoeant l'inveralon de tendance de• parcours textuela archltectonicourbaniatea de nature "proJectuelle" par lea pointa de vue: l. du deatlnatalre "rlgourewc" baU eur lea textea-repr6aentatlon

2.

82-83-84-85;

du deatlnatalre "op6ratif" bu6 aur lH texte•-productlvlté C2;

Il

3.

4e la Mtlll'i~ 41&lectlq11e rt.coweuH 4e •procn-tlOII" entre 4Htlnatelll' et 4eet111&taire 4H teztea-tn•eot1"'1.~ ciana •tricH Clll.turellee (dane la tll6or1e dll tute et la 4ee textee), 8IIJ'tollt en l'fcllp4nnt la protuel-11té 411 1104'1.ac• 4u etrllct\lN8 gnphicattonnell.ee 4• l'aqntga:Nle, con4ltton tond.aMnt&le pOlll' la "textll&l.1t6" arclùtectonioollrtlaniete. Le tablffll coapentlete l e e uncer par lo cnphi- utoplqlM (a: Sant'llla) q11l . . N&llH 4ane le bltl-t plutlque (e: Le Corblleler), 4ane lii\ p&l'CCIUN &'114:ratlt qui" rat10ll&l.1ee arctlitectoaiq11-t (b: lllttcnetoln) et lll'tMuliet1q1,1-t (4: Gruen), 4o•lent paracUcaatlqll8:

~oe••

GJ'llpbtcatlone pro«mahea d'annto,rde 4ee texteelnventlYlte arcbitoctonico-urbanletee a. Antonio s.iit•hia (1913-1') Collo: "Centrale lflectrique" (texte Dl: tendance eéaantlcopblloeopbico-utopiquo), b. I.ud.vi& Wittcenetoia (1926-28) Vien: "llalll Stoabol'Ollgh-'littenateln" (texto Dl: ten4ance eyntactlco-loglco-relatlonnelle), c. Le Corbllelor (1929-31) Poleey1 "Maieon Savoye" (texte 02: ■o4eJ.a&e toxtuel 4u ·p roJet ~tlque), 4. Vlctor Ollerl (1956) Port llort,: •reetructur.tton llJ'banlete" (texte 02: pllll'14iaffle1on polll' l'unité textuall.e et la teaporalité textuollo).

19

Référencea autorlaéea: a. Co11: Musei C1vic1, inv.n.202; b. Ludovico Gey.onat (1972) Storia del pensiero flloaoflco e aclentifico, vol. VI: 215, Hllano: Garzanti; c. 5ergio Berai-Carlo Ricci (1976) Linguassto e progetto, Al: fig. 198, Bologna: zanicheUi; d. Bruno zevi (1971) Cronache di architettura, vol. II: 1116, Bari: Laterza, Centro Cardia e gli altri dati citati colmeranno la lacuna del lettore carente rlo,plendo la voce enciclopedica "lago di CCXIIO". M:1 che aspetto avrà questa voce? Più o n,eno quello di una "località Cornata da piccoli centri in cui non avvengono rivolte di nassa cane a Milano, posta sotto un cielo 'bello quand'è bello' e in Wl paese caratterizzato da prepotenze mlsterlosamente carpensate dalla Provvidenza divina". Mli non è cane dire, questo, che nel\ 'enciclopedia del lettore &i costituisce non 1 'W'lllà culturale lago-erto !1979), Lector In rabula, Ml lano: llarplanl. Enpsai, Wllllam !1965), Sette t lpl di anblgul tà, trad. ltal. Torino: Einaudi. Gadamer, Hans Georg, (1983/2), Verità e metodo, trad. i tal. Ml lano: Barplani. Heldeager, Msrttn (1969), Essere e te,po, trad. ltal., Torino: Einaudi. ~lerleau~aity, Mllurlce (1967), Recherc:hes sur I' u&age lllleralre du langage. In Résunié de cours, Parls: Galllnard. Sartre, Jean-4>aul (19,0), L' lm.sginaire, Pari&: Galllnard. (19,7), ~• est-ers--the sequence I, 2, 3, .•• --could be seen as fractlons. Thls step occurred for hlm In the transltlon from countlng to measurlng. That 1s, lf measurlng ls conducted wlthln magnltudes of llne seg,nents, then sectlons a ♦ a ♦ a ♦ a ♦ a may be lterated as Sa, a coa,blnatlon of countlng In natural nl.lnbers wl th measuring: Within the don,ain of line segments, the operatlon of iteration admlts of a unlque lnversion, partltlon: given a segmenta and a natural number n, there exists one and (In the sense of equallty) only one segment x such that nx • a; lt ls denoted by a/n. The operatlon of partltlon may be comblned wlth that of lteratlon. Thus e.g., we get Sa/3, called "5/3 tlmes" a. The fractional symbol m/n serves as the s'(llbol of the coa,posi te operation, so that two fractions are equal if the two operations denoted by then, lead to the s - result, no matter to what segmenta they are belng applled. (Phllosophy of Hothematics and Natural Sclence) Hence the inverse formula x • M/n denotes an elementary coa,poslte of counting and measurlng. Thls dual CQlpoSlte of countlng and ,neasurlng follows fro,n a conflatlon of flock numbers and field numbers. Flock numbers regulate groups of thlngs In the same species, such as sheep or goats; whereas field numbers regulate fields such as acres or pounds per inch, which depend for thelr n... ber upon unexpressed smaller units of measure. Hence in the equation x • a/n, lf a involves a hidden fleld number, then à useful conflation--an

equatlon i$ a conflatlon--of countlng In flock$ and mea$urlng In flelds has been accompllshed. Frac tlons In these cases are usefui lnverslons of eounting and measurlng that allow a new proportlon, one that retain$ the conflation while retaining new iterativo petterns. 11

The composite operation of countlng and moasuring wlth fraetlons ls a corollary of a 1n11ch more elementary 1ingui$tlc co,,poslte. The fundamental unit of slgnalllng ls ealled a Slgn, and that unlt ls usually expressed as a fractlonal composite, though not In the sense desc rlbed above. The Swlss llngulst, Ferdlnand de Saussure, taught that a Slgn ls a whole made up of a Slgnlfler and a Signified, and that the relation between the two is arbitrary. This ls comnonly expressed as S • Sr/Sd. Should I pronounce the word "tree," as I am doing now, tho sound Imago >iOVld be tho slgnlfier and the concept would be the signified. Should you si lently read the word "tree," the letters would sla,llarly represent that part of the $lgn called the slgnlfler. Even lf you were to polnt to a tree, that sol Id three-dlmenslonal growth would be the slgnifler that refers to a concept. And because slgns In nature are ali three-dlmenslonal, the expresslon of that kind of signalling beco,,es trieky. To appropriate Einstein's tenns, the signifier applies to sense data, and the signified applie$ to the proposition. Why did he think that a logically unbrldgeable gu lf divides them1 Signlfier$ are $Ub$tantial things that referto hu,nanly sha red conceptlons, such as planets or electrons. The obJects are located In three space but thelr a,eanlng as human concepts exl$t nowhere but "In" our shared understandlng. That caveat ls not meant to suggost that slgnalled moanlng rosldos on ly In human assllfllptions. On the contrary, one wants to find out how a natural slgnlfior, a hormone for lnstance, tranwiits lts slgnals to another rocipiont in a natural system. In order to mako the corol lary between Sr and Sd agreo with the $ama kind of mathematical rigor as Weyl's fraetlonal c0111posito of countlng and ...asurlng, lotus begln to rephra$e Sau$$uro's fomoula as S • Sr X Sd. Thls lndlcates that the Iterative language of the slgnlfler ls a 111Ult lple of the slgnlfled substance to be measured; furthemore, 1-t al lows an assinptlon of dual contro!, to be dlscussed later, that every materiai structure involves both the physlcs of materiai connection as well as the Nthematics of spece fllllng. The Saussurean formula S • Sr/Sd allows an inclplont confuslon that a dlvlsor ls at play, that soa,e klnd of Inverse equlvalence ls po$sible between the Sign end lt$ coa,ponent$. In fact thl$ lntultlon is correct but based upon a wrong ratio. At pre$ent the dl$tlnctlon between Sr and Sd shnply exposes a varlant of Hwne's rlft, the logica! gulf brldged by the slgn. For every Sr answers the questlon, ''llhat ls the Slgn made of1" And every Sd answers the question, ''llhat ls the Slgn for?" 1s there a way to make Saussure's formula equlvalent to Weyl's?

108

Conslder the c0111poslte as lf lt were a fonnula capable of baslc algebralc transfonnatlon: S • Sr X Sd Sd • S/Sr Sr • S/Sd This denotes simply that an Sd or an Sr is a fraction of the composite Sign, as 1/2 is to unity of I. So the fomula Sr • S,Sd indicates a c0111posite of two dissimilar logica! processes in which the relations between Sr and Sd are inverse. Except for the fomula, there 1s nothlng new about the fomulation of these disslmllar logical processes . Any seniiotic usage lnvolves a tacltly coded lnterplay between the dlsslmllar demands, simultaneously composed, of syntax and semantlcs, fom and content, figure and ground, and other varlants of dual control In any slgnalled c0111poslte, The dlfference ls that the Sr • S/Sd hlghlights an inverse ba lance between the two dlsslmilar loglcal principles. Earlier I defined a law of inverse proportlon as belng one that could express maxima and mini.a in simultaneity. The seesay is a nietaphor for horoeostas is between maxlraunt and minimum extremes that characterize laws of inverse proportlon. Newton's law was understood as belng a unlversal law preclsely because lt balanced the extrenies In nature. Great thlnkers In the history of sclence who endeavored to compose unlversal laws based upon the balance of extr-s in natu re were Haupertuls and his principle of least action, LaGrange and his principle of vlrtual work, Euler•s maxlnia and min ima wlth curves; ali of these principles were based on the premise that nature 1s a structured economy that runs to extrt11es. Not simply that nature laz lly favors least actlon, but that the longest way round, a geodesie, 1s the shortest way home. 111

The fomulatlon of Sr • S/Sd as belng an Inverse balance between extremes of maxlll\UIII and minimum lmplies that there should be homestasis wlthin the structure of any sign, whether the Sign be a formula or sentence or paragraph. That is, the infonaation content of any sign will Involve a balance interplay between minimallst conslderatlons of least effort and 11111xlmallst conslderations of redundancy. Thls 1s a variant of Zlpf 's law about the correlatlon between the length and the frequency of syntagn,atlc unlts. Though I have not time to explaln thls further, the polnt to conslder ls that the funda,nental principia of lnfomiatlon theory ls,as John Lyons noted about Zipf's law: "infomatlon content is inversely proportionate (and logarhythmically related) to probabillty." Although meanlng is high when expectation is low, we do not llke lnformatlon to run to extrenies. We seek the golden mean. Laws of language do not reflect the laws of nature. Laws of language reflect lnstead a concern fora balanced response to the extremes of nature. Laws of nature such as the lnverse-square law In lts severa! man lfestatlons balance two or more partlcles

109

In space-time lntervals: lndlvlduals, uslng language or other slgn systems, use lt to coaaunlcate to others a concordance about some extreme discords in nature. Fomulas express this hon,eostasls in nature l'IIOSt elegantly in themselves. That is, the test of a useful formula involves the test of dual contro!: a flttingnoss wlth what is tostable about the l.iws of nature under consideratlon (whether gravlty, Brownlan nootlon, or electroniagnetlcs for lnstance) as well as the se111lotlc systeais used (whether symbollc logie, calculus, blnary codlng for lnstance). Thls means that the test lnvolves soa,e klnd of Tarski-llke iaetastat-nt, "thls fomula ls true if ••• " it subscribes to the inverse logie of the sign, Sr •S/Sd. This pr i11111cy of metastateraents ls of course thc priawiry inversion to be considered in any dlscussion of laws of Inverse proportlon. While nobody would doubt that in the scheme of things laws of language are a loglcal subset of other natura l c011111unlcatlon systems, In no way sharlng tempora! prlniacy wlth other natural laws such as for lnstance the lnstructlons for two hydrogen aton,s comblnlng into H2, stili language ls our prl11111ry deflning scope, wherewith we recognize our limlts though not necessarily the limits of nature. So for instance we use other semiotic tools In dlfferent dlmenslons to wlden the limitatlons of language In order to multichannel the world. The laws of physlcs and the laws of slgns are lntertranslatable as algebralc transformatlons because both klnds of laws do not deal wlth unlque events or thlngs but wlth a class of events or thlngs In Peircean hypothetlcal sltuatlons. For lnstance, the slgnlflers t-a-b-1-e- referto the llnguistlc class of the hypo• thetical tab le even though one polnts to , shouts over, or th11111ps upon the very thing to be lsolated. In other words, as W. H. Wauon said, "laws of nature" are "laws of representing it" with signs. 8ut what ls the·slgnlflcance of the more generai fonnulatlon that the slgnlfler ls lnversely proportlonal to the slgnlfled In any slgnal? Here, Sr • S/Sd means that S ls the Slgn that calls àttentlon to, by "splitting", a coonposlte held In equlpolse. (One does not have space here to explaln how the Slgn ltself is an exponent of noise, but thlnk of a thunderclap as an lndex that focuses attentlon on a dlfferent order of events, such as divine intervent lon, while it 1s slmultanoously true to the laws of humldlty whlch proaipted the condltlon at that lnstant.) The fomula shows mathematlcally how two loglc1lly dlfferent sets of pehnocnena are fused lnversely In a single law of nature. Accord lng to Cyrll Stanley S...lth In the openlng sentence of hls Search for Structure, ''The structure of IWltter , on both an atontlc and macroscoplc scale, ls the result of the interplay between the Individuai parts and the niathematiul laws of space fl 11 ing." Thls stat-t about interplay suggests that In nature there are two klnds of relations, physlcal plus mathe11atlcal. In other words, every 1H1rtlcal of metter, as slgnifler of a unlt of

110 lnformatlon, ls acconpanied by lts lnstructions for flttin9 lnto lts slgnlfled context, lts next noar9lnal boundary. Hence the conflation of flock n1.111bers and f leld nunibers In Inverse equatlons about 11ass, distance , speed, tl111e, is a servlcable mlrror of the duallty of nature In two orders, physlcs and Nth-tlcs. The logically unbrldgaeble gulf between parallel but dlscontlnuous operations--the sensuous observation of pllysical data and the lln9ulstic operatlon of countln9--ls nonetheless lnversely bridged In the structure of matter. And so the fonaula Sr • S/d ls the cnost baslc representatlon of thls dual structure. In another verslon of thls paper I shall dlscuss how lt happens that the laws of physlcs are llterally lnverted lnto laws of lnfor11atlon by a processor, but that ls a longer ar9.-nt. For now I shall conclude by saying that laws of inverse proportlon are culminations of that age-old desire forali thlngs to find their natural restln9 piace, balanced In a scale wlth ali other things. Office of the Provost State Universlty of New York at Buffalo Buffalo, New York 14260

13 LA PJIRCIIPl'ION CRBZ PBIRCB

Verner Burz~t

Ce tltre deaande quelquea expl1cat1ona qui voua pel'llettront de •1eux cerner le euJet a1ne1 que us intentiona. Au 1101M1nt oà J'ai coauniqué ce titre awc orpnisateu'l de ce congNe, Je travaillaie eur la conscience cinEaatographique, aur le aouveaent tilaique et aur dee questione voleinea, bret, aur l'iuce et le ■ot. Da.ne ■ea rétlexions, Je •'appuie eur ~e• écrits de Pelrce tela qu' 11• ont été interprétéa à Perpignan. Me vite, Je .e aula apersu du tait que la perception est au centre de la penaée de Peirce, Non propos est diviaé en dewc partiea. D'abord, J'examinerai la question de la perception en a'appuyant eur de lar&ea citations, Enauite, Je propoaerai une schfaatiaation, un d&coupece phanéroacopique de la perception.

2,

SUR LA PBIICEPTION

Dana un artlcle de la grande aérie pour le •Mon1at• en 1906, Peirce dit: "no• percepte aont le résultat d'une élaboration cognitive" (5 .•16) . Retenon• que le• percept• font partie de notre taculté de conna1Hance consue coae un proceasua. Nous savona que la aéthode pour "rendre noe idées clairea• a'appelle le prec■atieae. Charlea Sanders •Santiago" Peirce dit à ce propoa: "Il y a le prapatlsae de Juiee•,· V1111u Juee qui a rendu cette doctrine célàbre en Burope vere 19()(), "dont la d6tln1t1on ditt~re de la 11ieMe aeulecent dans la .eaure ~ 11 ne reatreind paa la "•1gn1tlcat1on' ( 'aeaning') ... à une habitude, aaia perut awc percepta, c'eat-à-dire à dea aentieenta coaplexea dote• de coaipuleion, de pouvoir de contrainte d'8tre de la aorte" (c'eat-ldire d',tre une habitude) (5,494 de 1906) , Dan8 lee cél!brea "Lovell Lecturee•, lea contérencea tenue• à Rarvard en 1903, 11 réeuae son explication exhaustlve du prac-&ti... par un credo: "Le• éléaenta de chaque concept entrent dane la peneff logique par la porte de la perception et font leur aortie par la porte de l'action délibérée, et tout ce qui ne peut pae aontrer son pas1eport à cea dewc porte• doit 8tre arrlté parce que non autorieé par la ralaon" (5, 212), Cea pauacea 111011trent claireunt l'iaportance de la perception dana la penaée du philoaoplle uéricatn. La détinition .eme de "l'art de peneer• ('reuoning') repoae sur la perception: • , •• le raiaoMe■ent coaaence donc par dea préaiaees qui aont adoptéa c - dea repréaentations de percepte ou dea général1eat1one de tele percepte. Toute conclueion du penaeur

112

devralt ae r6t6rer unlqueaaent à dee percepta, ou plut&t à dea proposit1ona qul exprlaent dea tait• de pereeption" (2.773 Baldvin D1ct1on&ry). Nou, mettron, lei à p&rt lee notlone de "t&1t de perception• et de "propoeitlon" pour ne retenlr que l'upect dynulque du proce,eus 1n1tlé par dee percepte. Toue ceux qui eont tuiller, de la peneée de Pe1rce ou .a.e de sa pen,6e phénoafnologlque, la pllanéroscop1e, ont recoMu lee éléaent• qui caractérleent la cat641;orle de la eecond61t6. Clarltlona cet aapect. "Lea pereeptlons eont plus ou 110lna lnattenduea. Sea degr6a lntérleurs eont ce sena d'extérlorlté, de pré■ence d'un non-ego qul accoirpacne c~é•ent la perceptlon et qui alde à la diatlnguer dee rlvee" (l.)32 de 1905), ou exprlH autr-t: "La dlttérence principale entre le monde 1nterl6ur et le monde extérleur eat que le■ obJeta lntér1eura preMent tout de suite le■ tormea que nous ■ouhalton■, tandle que le• obJeta extérleur• ,ont de• t&1te brute que peraoMe ne peut tr&natonaer" (5.~5, Lovell Lecture). Pour expllquer l'étoMeMnt d"une per,oMe, Peirce constate: "l'attente ant6r1eure qui lui étalt tulliàre conatltue son 1101\de 1nt6rleur ou ~- Le nouveau ph6no.àne, l'étranger, v1ent du 1101\de ext6rleur ou Non-Jrgo" (5.57), et 11 continue per ce• •ot, preeque poétiquee: "cette perception dlrecte préaente 1111 ~ d6tenteur de l'attente d6trulte et un Non-Bfo, propr16',1re du piilno.be nouveau 1111 hooale plus tr1,te et plu, •ace" (5.58). Il taut 1n,1eter lei aur le caractàre analtique dea d1atinctlone e - 1nt6rleur et extérleur, Jrgo et Non-Jrgo. Il e'qlt en tait d'une double valence, d'une blvalence, d'un tait de co.plexlté non divielble en él&ente. C'eet la découverte •Jeure de Pelrce: "L'idk d'autre', de •non" devlent un pivot i11portent de la penaée. a cet élésent, Je contàre le noe de ,econd6it6" (1.324, Lovell•Lecturea III). !l'Icore une tlneeee pour dee Pelrc1ens: la pr1■61t6 de la aecondélté e,t la notion d'actuallté dana l'accept1on de pr6aence. La préaence de ce billet de ■ille Llrea n'eet pu attaire de pr~1té coue ea couleur ou ea tor■e rectengulalre. Voua pouvez l■114iner un tel blllet. Voua alltt talre l'expérlence de la aecondéité du blllet perçu, pr6eent au -ent oil nous allona acheter un verre de gre,ppa. Apràa, voua pouvez touJoura luglner l'avolr bu. Penchone-noua ■alntenant eur la queatlon de aavoir ce que nous pereevona. DéJà, en 1868, Pelrce écrlt: "La vue en tant que teUe nous lntol"lle eeule■ent de couleur• et de tor■ea" (5.306). Bt encore: "J'iral Ju•qu'à dire que noua n'avona pu d'i■acea, .eme pu dana une percept1on actuelle". !t en 1903: "une l■qe elgnltie c-,iEaent quelque choae qui a l'lntentlon de repréeenter - ou déclare vlrtuelle■ent repriaenter - quelque choae d'autre, réel ou ldéal. Coeprle de cette 11&111àre, le mot 'lJla&e' aer&it une tauaae d6nOC1lnatlon pour un percept" (7.619). Introna dan• le• eubtillt6• de la conceptlon phanéroacoplque de l'lmace, et nous co■prendrona le• ravqH qu'ont caude le ■■uvale e■plol de cette notlon et l'abua du tenae lc&ne. A partir du _,,t oil 11& perceptlon eet cena& produlre dea luce• et oì). l'luce repréaente autre choae, on dolt lire, déchlttrer l'laace. On dolt

113

tatre appel à une thEor1e bine.ire de e1gn1t1ant.-el.cnitié, on doit e'interroger eur le proceeaua peychologique de la crfatlon de l'luge, chercher eene et e1gn1t1cat1on à l'lnUrleur de ce proceeeue, créer le probl~ae du mé~age, et alnai de euite •••• Naia laieeona parler Peirce In extenao dane sa déf1n1t1on du "repr4eentat1on1a■e" en précieant d'ecbl,e qu'il eat, que noua aoaaee du c8té de la prhentation. "Repréaentat1on1-, la doctrlne eulvant laquelle le• percepte eont conaidérée coae quelque choee repréeentant autre cho1e ••• le repréeentat1on1ate rece,rde le percept à la luml~re d'un t&loignage ou d'une image ('plcture') à partir desquele la cause cachée du percept pow-ratt ttre coMue par lntérence, ou par un acte aental analogue à une intérence, tandl• que le preeéntattonlete attir■ e que la perceptlon est une coneclence bllatérale ('tvo-eided') de telle aorte que le percept apparatt co..e quelque choae qui agit énergique■ent aur noue. Dana la perception, la conaclence d'un obJet actlt et d'un euJet aur lequel on aglt est aussl indlv1e1ble que le eena de puleeance eet unte à et est ins~rable du eene de réaiatance dane un ettort IIWICulalre." Il insiste eur le tait "qu'il n'y a rien d'lntellectuel ou d'1ntell1g1bl e dane cette duali~". C'eat, dit-il, "un falt brut expérl■ent4 ■aia Ja■ala c011pria" (5,6oT Baldvln-Dlctlonary), Rei.nona donc que, pour Pe1rce, l'l■age ne poaaìtde que ).a taculté d ' lntonaer eur dea qualltéa, dea tor■ea, etc ••• , et exuinone lea notlone d4Jà ■entlonnées de "tait" et "Jug-t perceptuel." !n ce qui concerne la relation entre "Jugeaent perceptuel" et "percept", Pelrce nous a lalseE un croqule. Il trace deux tratta verticaux, ensulte un trait horltontal et de nouveau deux tratte verticaux: Un Jugeaent perceptuel, c'est-à-d1re le prealer Jug-nt d'une pereonne concernant ce qui est devant aea aena, ne reaa•ble pa• plua à un percept quo _la rtgure deeainée ne reHeable au aot uiglala "MAN" écrit en lettres d'l111>rl111erle. Il taut cOll1)14ter les trait■ obliquea (5. 115). Lee deux talta, trait• horl&ontaux et vertlcaux, slgnltient pri110 qu'll est lmpoeslble de corrlger un Jugeeent perceptuel et aecundo qu'll déclare ne coneidérer qu'un eeul aepect du percept (5,568) . Le processue perceptlt noue est ■alntenant plua tuiller. Il convlent de deter■ lnér exaci-nt le r8le de la pena4e. "Il ~•~xlate aucun doute aur le tait que chaque percept lnclut dee ele■ente qui d-dent une expllcatlon. Mala Je ■alntiena que la critique logique ne peut paa deacendre au deaeou• du aeu11 dea tait• perc:eptuels qui sont les pr•iera Juge■enta que nou• tormulona aur dee perc:epts" (7.198). C'est une ■iee en garde c:ontre le 4an&er d'a■algame entre la logique et la peyc:hologle. Peirce y échappe en 4v1tant d'aller vere le ba• et en lnc:luant le Jug-nt dana la propoa1t1on log1que. Lea Jugementa eont dea "ac:tea d'acceptatlon de• propoeltlons", c'e•t expliquer par ce qui est eeaentlell•ent lntell1&lble, Bxpllquer la propoeition en tonctlon du 'Jug-nt', c'eat expllquer ce qui est lnte111g1ble en aol en tonctlon d'un acte

114

peychlque qul e4t le lplue obecur dee phé~nea, le plue ot>ecur dea tait•• (2.JlO). Port de cea préeautlona, Pelrce peut dlre lor• de aa deuxlàae contérence à Rarvard: •Par Jug-ent perceptuel. J'entenda un Jugenent aasertant dana une fonie propoeltioMells quel est le caractàre d'un percept direc-nt prfeent à l'esprit. Le percept n'eat évld-nt pas en lul-a&e un Jugeaent et un Juaetaent et un Jugeaent ne peut à aucun degré reseembler à un percept• (5. 5lt) • La perceptlon peut etre coaprlee cOMe une pU:ce mttreHe du prapatleae de Pelrce. Le percept conçu coue une aecondélté poaaédant une exiatence indepéndante de la tlercéité, voilà ce qui fait la dlftérence avec la peneée de Hegel. Le talt que la aecondéité préauppoae la priaéité et que la tiercéité est néceeaalre ~ médlatlon entre lee deux p~làres catégoriea, voilà ce qui aet la penaée pbanéroacopique en aouv-nt et la rend dynullque.

2. LE D!COUPAGB PIWIBROSCOPIQUB DB LA P:mCEPTION Revenona aprh cee généralitée à notre problhe. Nous avone vu qu'll eet difficile , aalgre l'excellent travail dea éditeun, de se retrouver dana lee Collected Papera quand on veut réaoudre un problùe. Nous propoaons lei un schàaa penaettant peut-ftre une Milleure coepréheneion dea analyaea phanéroecoplquea. Le phanéron se divise selon eea mode• d'8tre en priaélté, eecondéité et tlercélté. Nous parlona d'une trichotolllle. Peirce exaalne 10Uvent dee dlvleione ultertéurea, la dégénérescence dee catégorles. La pri~ité ne pouàde pas de forae dégénérée. La aecondélté poeaMe une for •e authentique et une forae qualltativeeent dégénéffl, La tlercéité eet dotée d'une forae authentique, d'une toraa rnctionnelleaent dégénérée et d'une forae qualitativacent dégénérée. Noue réauaona cee procédée et ratanona come principe qua la prillélté peut ltre réitém sana changer aa fonie, que la eecon~lté t011be par dlchotomle ln catena■ et que la tlercéité eet dlvieée par trlchotomle. La prealàre dlvleion du phaneron noue préeente ,es IIOdee d'&tre, c'eat le niveau de la quallfication catégorialla. Par la déteralnatlon de la nature eesentielle de cette trichotollie, nous obtenona aix éléments. Noua avona proposé le tenie d'•hexatollia", Une demlàra diviaion est poaalble par g6néralieation dee réeultat• antérleura produieant dix élémenta, donc une décatotlle. Lea trola niveawc dietlnguéa poaaMeet Ecalement un certain earactàre catégorlel dana la ineaure o~ la préaence dee niveaux antérieura tapllque une aug,,Htntatlon della coaplexité. Par la 1u1te, nous utlllseron• pour indiquer le preaier niveau un seul chiffre au1v1 d'un point aarquant son caractàre catAgorlel. Le dewcU111e niveeu aera ident1f16 par deux chlffree, et le trolelàme par trola. Une préaentatlon arborescente aettralt davantage en évidence lee trola nlveaux et le• poaalblllltéa de dlviaion. Le d6coupage phanéroecoplque de la perception peut donc etre ordOMé coaae aulte:

11$

l,

lo eeneitit, la tacult6 de •entir, do voir, la aenaation, du troid, de• eaveun, dee collle\11'8, de• aon,. 1,11, la •en•ibilité, lo toucher, le goClt, l'odorat, l'oule, la vue.

l.l.

le percept le percept per~, la reconnaiaaance dee tol'llea, l'exeitation du nert optique, p. ex. 2.11. l'iaage, la eieilitude dea tol'llee, lei Je elaeeerai le• "halluclnatlone, 1llue1one, euperetitione, iaaginatione et trocaperiee de toute• eortea d'expérience•.• Maie Pelrce pr'clee qu'il e'agit "d'el(JM!riencee Al COCIIJ)r1see• (6.492). 2.2. le percept v~u, le choc vieuel. 2.21. le percept lnhib~, paaalt. C'eat iei que Je localiee le percept til.llique. 2.22. le percept concentr,, actit, la preuve de l'exiatence d'un obJet perceptuel. 2. 2.1.

la perception. le tait perceptuel. l'aperception . - capacité de "eaieir par l'esprit". Un aper~u eet une eetiaation au praiier coup d'oeil. Suivant Peirce, Je propoeera1 lei conteaplat1on, •car la c011priheneion clalre eu1t la cont.emplat1on eana proceeeue intenédiaire quelconque• (, .75). 3.2. le Jug-nt perceptuel eoue tor,ae d'une propoeit1on. 3.21. le Jugeaent perceptuel eubJectit; ce qui eet appréheneible, ce qui peut !tre aalei par l'esprit tout de euite apr~• le.paseace par le• HJIB. 3.22. le Jugeaent perceptuel obJecttt; l'appreheneton, une tacilit' l e011prendre; la preatàre id& qu'on a d'une choae. le rahoM-nt perceptuel aoue la torae d'une 1nt,rence. le raiaoMnent perceptuel abductit. Peirce dlt on ertet: "l'tnt,rence abductive glhae vere le Jug•ent perceptuel sana ltcne de d'-arcation nette quelconque entro le• deux" (5,181 Lovell Lecture).

Je propoaerat lei ~eeent le ter,ae d' 1net1gat1on. Pelrce donne un exe■ple: •voue reprde& quelque choee et voue dltea: 'c'eet rouge'. Jo voua d-,ide c011eOnt voue pouvez Juetttler ce Jug-nt. Voue ae ripondez: 'J'ai vu que c•,tatt rouge'. Pae di.I tout. Voue n'avea rien w qul naseable à cela le 110in1 du 1101\do. Vow, ave& vu une 1-.ge. Il n':r aftlt en elle nl •uJet ni priclicat. c•,ta1t eieple■ent une iaage globale qui ne ree-blait en rien l une propodtion. me voue conduit à porter un Jugeaent grtce lune ponibillte do pena'9; aate elle ne vou, l'a pae dit. Or dans toute

116

1mag1natlon et perceptlon 1l '1 a 1&11e *ratlon de cette sorte par laquelle la peneée Ja1ll1t; et ea •~e Juet1t1cat1on est que par la eu1te elle ,•av~re utile" (1,538) . Inu1t1le de pric1eer que 3.22 et 3.33 ,ont le raleoM-nt par 1nduct1on et par déduct1on. Par a1lleur,, 11 est po111ble de faire re,,ort1r le• '1&ent• phan,roecop1quee du al.gne. Ce procédé dépoullle évld-t le slgne de son caractàre essentlel: la relat1on par 1nclus1on. Il ••ble cepandant que Peirce ait ,ouYent analysé de cette unllre no~nt en ce qu1 concerne le a1gne bexad1que et le •lene décad1que. Cependant, une euperpoa1t1on du deux1• n1ve&u d'1&11 découpage phanéroacop1que du a1gne et du deux1eae n1vuu de la perception pel'llet de 11re aia&ient lea p&ra&rapbea riputéa d1ft1c1lea c 2.309 •. , du "•yllabua" eur le, propoa1t1ona ou ~.535 à 4,543 de l'art1cle pour le "Noniat" aur lea diven 1nterprétant• et obJet• par rapport à la percept1on. Noua tel'll1nerona avec deux c1tat1ona qui prendront peut-etre toute leur e1gn1t1cat1on à la l1111llre de notre expoa,. "La log1que noua enee1gne qu'1l taut a'attendre à quelquea rielduea de r3ver1e ciana le ■onde" (~.79), et "Le ,en• est l ' a•aoclatlon d'un ■ot et d'l■age,, ,on pouvolr d'engendrer le rive" (4.56). Un1vera1te de Perpignan

l,

A paraltre clan• "s&lotlque et prapatique• Mouton ed , G, Deledalle. et.: Collected Papere, Rarvard Univenity PreH, vol. 1-6, 1931-35, ed. Bart8home et WelH, vol. 7 et 8, 1958 ed. Burka. Le nW16ro du vol1111e eet ,&par& du nUMro du pancraphe par un point. C'eat lcl qua e'ouvre le cr,neau d'une thforie de la ~ication dont Pe1rce noua a tourni toue lea ~lfaenta: &etteur, percepteur, 1nt'ol'll&t1on, etc. G. Deladalle: Bcrite aur le algne, Seull, Paria 1918, p. 167. - PP• 115-116,

14 THEORETICAL SEHIOTICS: THE CONCl!PT OP ISOIOPY IN TBE COltTEXT OP A SEHIOnc TBEORY OP SPATIAL DELIMITATION.

Cermn Carvajal/Lucrecia Eacudaro

O. IHTRODUCTION

In the present state of •••1ot1c research related to non11ngu1at1c aignificant objecta, a tacit agraament haa baen reached, recognizing architecture aa part of the c-nication proceaaea of a given culture, thus uking legitiaate its ee1Diolog1cal approach end study (Eco, 1968; De Fiasco, 1967; Garroni, 1972), The adoption of a perapective focueed on a linguistic IIOdel, which hae preveiled theee laet yeare in the analyaia of a Seiaiotica of Architacturo, does not •••• pertinent to ue, aince it aseueee a criteri• of tranelotab111ty betveen one ayeta■ -tha n8tural languagaa-, end• distinct one -the objects of the natural vorld, conetructed objacta. One criteri• of pertinence 1s the o■n1forut1vity of the eyetem operated upon: while language can epeak of space, the latter presents its own specific foru of articulation. Space 1a the element in whtch all objects of the n8tural vorld mnifeat theuelvea; hence, •• a a1gn1f1cant space, it te• aeaiotic space (Greiua, 1976). Space 1a the object of • natural vorld's saaiotica: it 1a a continuu■ whtch becoaea discrete through the delillitation perforMd by design,••• apec1f1c aod• of progra-1.ng both space and human functional patha.(parcoura) "Design makes it poaaible to iapoae an order onto space. It operatea vith aorpho-aynthetic elements, through • ayatem of d1g1tal coding, and generates logical relationships of sense" (Jannello, 1980:S). l. HYPOtHESES

1.1. A Syatu of Deaign aaau■ea the fon, of • production'a gra-r of apatial objecta, and •• auch - and aince 1ta IIOdel 1a forul-geoDGtric - 1t atteapta to turn discrete the apparent cultural continuity of the Mtural vorld's objecta . It 1a poasible to iugine thia cont1nu1ty of space as an effect of aenae, sublllitted to a set of operationa of sega,entation and pertinency. Th••• operationa grant aignificanca to the apatial ele■ent, and througll the■ it baco•• poaeible to perform • tranafonoation operation. (Jannello, 1984). In the context of the Theory of DeUlllitation of Design'• objacta, vith which ve are vorking novadaya, the set of rulea

118

which allow ua to deacribe theae operationa of 1dent1ty or "alter1ty" (otherness) in a given direction, are called dimensiona, and are the 110rpho-ayntactic co■ponent of e graamar of production of objecta of design. The dialeneiona are of three types: numeral, related to the nullber of ele■ents contained in each configuration; 110rfhlc, according to the classes of the ele■ents; and tactic, refernng to the collbinatory claesea between ela■ents . 1.2. Historically, architecture haa been one of the trad1t1onal apherea of action of the syateu of design. Actually, architecture 18 the aocial practice which articulatea aymbolically the inhabitable space, operating with d1mens1ons'syste■s to give it shape. If we conaider the architectonic producta as objects of design which coexiat vith other non-architectonic objecta, the aignificant fiald ia enlarged to all the objects whoae aenae 18 atructured fro■ the starting point of only one spatial graauur. ''?he senso which e■ergea fro■ the configuration of an object ste■s fro■ the syntactic elaboration of aynthetic foru; that iato say, fro■ a set of reatrictions, fro■ the use of a ayate■ eetabl1ah1ng nor■a, integrated by fonoal relationeh1p8 between aegaenu" (Jannello , 1980: S) • 1.3. The poaaibility of beginning to propose a gra-r of space, accor ding to the teru of a Syate■ of Design, allowa usto define, vithin the theoretical reflection on the exiatence of an architecture's ae■iotica, the proble■s linl,i,t appare chiaramente nella digressione che precede l'ultima, pi~ lunga macrosequenza in cui il secondo dei due temi si sviluppa in tutta la sua interezza. Diversa e pur integrata attraverso 11 sapiente gioco di espulsione/impulsione, la digressione si manifest~ nella dinamica testuale, come il luogo privilegiato in cui si concentra e si accumula l'energia argomentativa necessaria all'ultimo definitivo attacco all'avversario, nel gioco di cedere la parola e di riappropriarsene, infatti, l'enunciatore scompare del tutto nella digressione in favore di un' auctoltU44 extratestuale, fuori del tE!! po e dello spazio del testo, una auctolt«44 indiscutibile che argomenta con accento di inconfutabile verità sulle condizioni dell'ua'IIO . Riappropriandosi di quelle argomen tazioni, l'enunciatore, investito di quell' auctoltUa4, può irridere alle opinioni dell'avversario. Non è certo casuale che ~oto dopo la CU9,\Uoione l 'avversario è introdotto nel testo come enunciatore in prima persona; solo quando l'autore sente che la vittoria argomentativa è sua, che l'wniliazione dell'avversario è sicura cede la parola. Ma la parola che l'avversario assume è or11111i una parola imbelle, completamente devalori: zata nel momento testuale in cui gli viene ceduta. La forza della digressione non consiste dunque nel

130

contenuto semantico delle argomentazioni, non 1110lto diverse da quelle espresse precedenteraente, ma consiste s2 prattutto nell'organizzazione formale intratestuale che assolutizza quelle arg0111entazioni· nella diraensione dell'ineluttabilità e dell'eternità, una dimensione nella quale naufragano le opinioni personali e gli affanni dei piccoli uomini della storia. L'azione argomentativa ha proceduto illlplacabile ve~ so il suo obiettivo: l'annientamento dell'avversario, ed ha proceduto proprio attraverso una figura retorica che, nella tradizione classica, è letta c0111e una pausa ornamentale. C.R.S.

CeM-W Roaiano d.i. StllM.OU.C4 l!()tll(l, I.tati4 NOTE 1. Particolarmente significativa a questo riguardo è la lettera del 24 luglio 1828 indirizzata a Pietro Giordani: In fine mi comincia a stomacare 11 superbo disprezzo che qui si professa di ogni bello e di ogni le! teratura: massimamente che non mi entra poi nel cervello che la sonnità del sapere U11111no stia nel saper la polit! ca e la statistica. Anzi considerando filosoficamente la inutilità quasi perfetta degli studi fatti dall'età di Solone in poi per ottenere la perfezione degli stati civili e la felicità dei popoli, mi viene un poco da ridere di questo furore di calcoli e di arzigogoli politici e legislativi; e umilmente mi domando se la felicità dè popoli si può dare senza la felicità degli individui. I quali sono condannati alla infelicità dalla natura, e non dagli uomini né dal caso: e per conforto di questa infelicità inevitabile mi pare che vagliano sopra ogni cosa gli studi del bello, gli affetti, le illl'llaginazioni, le illusioni •

BIBLIOGRAFIA Leopardi, Giacomo (1835), Palinodia al Marchese Gino Capponi. In Canti. • Napoli: Starita. Ora in: Tutte te. op«e. di. G.utcomo LtoJ)(llldi ( a cura di Francesco Ploral (1940), Le poesie e le prose (I:109-116). Milano: Arnoldo Mondadori.

16

NICRO-COIMIRSATIOIIS IN SIINIOTIQUB APPLIQUBB: DU "SQUBLCH"

Ala1n J.-.1. Cohen

I•

NB'l'HODE

I'1lluatrat1on qu1 au1t ae eltue dana l'entredeux de la r6tlex1on de la emlot1que gre1ma..1eMe (et de l'Bcole de Parie) et de la ■icroenalyee uér1u1ne en eociolinguietique (delle dei d'-rchee tellee que cellea de Goftllan, de Sacke ou de Labov) . Blle prend pour balle la pre.t1que de 1•~•e de converAt1one et de ea thior1eat1on, Ane chercher pov.r l'lnatant 1 oppoeer un enregietreaent de la iuot1d1eMeté convereatiomelle 1 un extrait de cUaloglque 11ttéraire , et Ane avoir 1 prendre lei parti eur l'oppoettion e&totique/p~tique, euivant, ainai la prudence de Grei•e (1983b) • 2 cette recherche eur l'interaction convereatiomelle port eur la notion "d'avoir le demier mot•, dan• une 1nteract1on d'ordre poléaique, de nature agoniatique, lee 1uJet1 S et S •• po1itiomant dan• lee r&lea d'advernlre,. ~ . cett. intere.ction, "le demier mot• peut &tre aolt le demier 110t d'une conver1ation (ai s2 est krue par la demlàre r6part1e de s et adaet, ou implique qu'il adaet, la eupériorité de s1 dalle1cet kbange - ou mhe une eupérlorit6 extetentielle et géntrale de s1 relative à l'~hange part1cul1er), eoit "le demter eot• dane 11n eene plua largo que celui de la discuntvité de l'échange converntioMel (dane le cae où s sort du regietre diecureit et l'eeporte eur s 1 2 par un acte de violence). Ll-deeeua lee recberchee de Labov (1982) eont eHentielles. Bllee portent eur une actlon dlecurelve qui provoquere.it une ructlon de violence ■Eta-diecureive allant Juaqu•eu aeurtre, et tellee que ce• action, et réactione 1ont rapportéee. Le tait qu'll y alt •rapport•, c'eet-à-dlre auaei "r6ctt•, peraet d'unltler mfthodologiqu-nt le1 perepectivea de la 1ociol1ngul1tlque qul ,•attache au •reportage• de la quot1d1enneté, et celle• de la littérarité qui e'attache plutot à la 11aulat1on de ce reportage. L'intérft de ce "re.pport• tient l ce qu'il retrace, delle le déntvell-t de la diacureivité et de la violence ph)'aique, le• pointa de rupture interactionnele qui crée le Jeu de tout aodlle pr,dictit eur la vlolence. L'incidence de la vlolence dane un échange ver'bal pourralt &tre marqu,, pare.llngulatinqu-nt ou aéta-Ungui1tlqu-t, l partir de n'iaporte quoi: tel heua,_t de volx ou telle ineulte Hral1nt des conditlon.• 1uttlnntes (Mie paa nécesnlre1) à un acte de

132

violence. Cependallt, on pourrait tout auaai bien enviaeger que la violence est d6Jà ~lench& par la aenace, verbale, de violence avant ■f■e l'ineulte provocante. Bn outre, le denheUeeent aera d'autant plu• extra.e au aien de la 41acuniv1t4 quand il y a menace, aunl bien qu'ineulte, et que S , par une provocation de n'importe quel ordN, aet en Jeu un d1e~1t1t r6actionnel qui ne perwet paa à S de ".auver la tace" - ainon p&r la Yiolence. SunTd (de ■eae q~e Nachiavel, von Clauaevitz, ou Napol6on inter allo• redoutait tout particull~re■ent l'archareaent de l'adveraaire 1, au pied du ■ur. De.ne l'analyee de séquencee converaationneue, qui 'finiaaent par devenir violente•, et indEpendaalent de Labov (1982), il peut ltre utile de ee souvenir de ce que Gott■an (1969 • 197.li) appelait dee "key,• ou do1 "■odee" dana le sene musical. Bn ettet, le cycle de violence et de rupture iera-t-11 ■arqu6 d~• quo le• preaiera coupa do teu aont EchangEe, ou bien avant, dalle une ■enace dieeua11ve qui Evoquerait la po1,1b111té de ce, premier, coupa de teu, ou avant encore, quand lee coupe de teu de l'Enond disauaeit aeraient euphémieée en évocatlon abetraite de "contre-•ure•"T Ou, taut-11 re■onter plue loin, et penaer à l'inetant oà une action quelconque de s2 mene s1 à 6voquer cea poaeibilltEaT Ne taudrait-il paa plut&t voir que la aeat1bili1&tion eat 1ntr1naeque à tout equ111bre Jouant aur l'ordN poléllico-contractuel (GrelMS, 1983a:ll), puiaque la d6etab1lieatlon néceeeitera la repriae de nouvelle■ n6gotiationa qui n'aboutiraient qu'à un autre ■oment pol6mico-contractuel! Et coabien de variablee et d'1nvar1anta contextuele et 1nteractionnela per■ettraient-ila de d6couvrir le• cleta de la gr-tre prédtctive et 1nduct1ve, co-pr61ente à toute 1nteract1ont On le volt, l'analyae de type "eacro", dalle son eouci de contextual11ation, ■àne touJoura au labyrinthe de la probléeatique do• originee, tandie quo, d'autre part, l'analyff de type "■icro" re■et touJour• l plu, tard la conetruction d'une g~ire générale de 1'1nteract1on. I .1. Pricaution De.ne cette recherche, aoyenne■ent "■tcro", 11 aera queation de lee potnt• de rupture d'une repture aaoureuae. Je ne ■ 'attarderai pu davantage 1ur l'oppoaition 11icro/Acro, ni .... 1ur ea aubaomption occaaionneUe on tact1co/atra"g1que, atin do proc6der dalla le eena d'une recherche appliquée, aelon le• coupa d'un 6change révUant les pointe de ruptunie interactionnelt. Pour apprécier le c&lcul dee coupa, ■aie sane chercher l rendre co■pte d'un contexte, 11 auttira de dire que s1 et !t!vaiont proJoté leur mariage, et d'adJouter que S aaene ici son t S à une vente aux ench~r!•,d'obJete qui ont ap~rtenu a s 1 - s 1 que §1 e'i■agine avoir ete la ■attreeae de s2 • Noue • - • donc dana l 'exé.:ution d ' un proJet de Vengeance (Greimu, 1981). Noton• que le choix d'une aclne dialoguée de Flaubert -- que ■ea lecteura avertb ont d ' ailleur• tout de suite reconnue -- plut6t que l'analyte d'un ■arquer

13)

enrqletrecent de convereatlon extralte de la quot1d1enneté, eat autant une pr,térence toute perconnelle qu'un hc ,~ au u.ttre de la elaultatlon u.gnétophonlque avant la lettre: ce cllo1x n'lapllque null-nt pour aol un parti prla, dana l 'analyse de Dlecoura, pour le prlvilqe (ou la aacrallaation) de la 11twrv1té ciana une t:,pologle quelconque de la d1ecura1v1té. Il a'aglt d'abord et avant tout d'un cllo1x expéd1t1t vlaant l corroborer Labov (1982) et Labov et hnahel (1977) dana une ~fiexlon aétl1ot1que. CoMe la queatlon a été aapleMnt dlecutée, dleone tree vite, et aane h1érarch1aer, qu'un docuaent dlt •11ttéra1re• est un docwtent, pour l'lnetant du 1101na, plua unlveraelleaent acceealble, que la tranacr1pt1on (touJoun dlecutable) d'un texte enreglatré de la quot1d1enneté. I.2. Appendice eur l'Intentlon Un aot eur 1'1ntent1on (et 11 ne a'aglt pae, blen aGr, de l'lntenalon dane le eena loglque), 011 aa toraal.1aat1on en coapétence ■odale, crltlquée par Grelae et eourtla (1979:190) cOMe ••e eltuant entre la vlrtuallté et ea r~leatlon•, avant de c-encer notre calcul eur •1e demler ■ot". L'1ntent1on, e1 dltt1c1le à apprecler dalla la tlléorle dee actea de parole•, tout en étant la queatlon tondulentale poefe par la notlon d'etteta "perlocutlonnalrea", eat l prendre au départ, a&1ot1qu-t, cooae l'attronte■ent entre dewc prog~• attrlbufia au ■he S : par exe■ple, ce que s1 dolt talre, ■ala ne peut et/011 ne neut ~ talre. Ou encore, dana Ie calcul d'1ntent1one dana l'attronteeent entre S et S, ce que s2 cro1t/dev1ne du déalr de s1 (ou, a partir du taih de §1 ), c'eet::à-dlre la tace cacllée de l'llctlon de s1 pour s2 (et ■e■e pour s1 1111- quand, en partalt obeeaaloMel, 81 ne ea1t pu au Juete ci qu'll veut, et ne connatt clone .a.e paa set proprea 1ntent1one/aob1lea/■ot1ta/déa1ra). Le problae du calcul d'lntentlona est partlcullà~t précla loraqu'1nterv1ent la violence dana l'lnteractlon pulaque'elle d&ontrera eolt la ■auvalae lecture du calcul 1nteract1onnel, eolt, au contralre, la riponae ponctuelle à un déti ou à une provocatlon (Grelae, 1982; Labov et Panellel, 1977), en eortant alnel du cadre 1-■édlat de la d1ecure1vlté préeente et/ou rapportée. A1na11'1ntant1on auppoaée, attrlbuée, proJetfe, eat l la tota le prog..- de S dana sa relatlon à l ' exécutlon du pr-osr-, et le tait qua! prédlae, ant1c1pe, ou veullle interdire le taira dana son ex~tlon. Il n'Y' a donc paa de problm plua lourd de conaéquence pour une théorle de l'actlon et de l'lnteractlon. A tortlorl el •'Y' adJolnt celul de la •lolence. II .

PROGRAMMB &'l' COll'tRB-PIIOGRAMNB

Le "aquelch" (1ntradu1alble) eet détlnl t1gurat1v-.nt dalla le Oxford lflutllah D1ct1o:K "a dleconcertlng aurprlee•. Et le verbe eai&iiìi-t d ini tlpratlvnent e - •to aq\lUII or cruah; to put dovn or auppreH thoroughly or co■plete>.y•. C'e•t a11Hi un

134

terae de B.D., onoa.topélque, à la llalte Gottunlen dana la raculté que dfployalt Gottaan d'élaborer une conceptuallsatlon à partir de tene■ prle de la bana.Uté. Le •equelch" a auu1 1n~a, Saclte (197"8.).

II.l.

Protocolea

Dari• ce p a ~ , rapldeaent "■lcro•, de quelquee ~h&ngee de cette convereatlon, le ■odàle de priaentatloa de L&bov et hnallel aera utllief (et détourné) et adapté. Il penet de v1aual1aer en tableaux: (a) le texte dlalogu.é 1u1...a.e priaenté en 1t&liquea; (b) le caa échwt, la ■ention dea ilé.ente "paral.1ngu1atiguea• - ceuxc1 aeront n,ceaaairwnt adaptée, ou pr6eente au niveau d'une enonciation ,nonc&e, pulaqu'il a'agit d'un dialogue littéraire, plu~t q110 du vid6otexte d'une converaation; (c) une ayntaxe ■ini■ale de caractérisatlon de l'interaction: par exemple, d-d d'intor■ation ou d-.ide d'action, dEti d'action, ou d,r1 quant au etatut exiatentiel, auivi de retraite et/OIU. de aurenchériaeeaent, ou de ■1t1gation du déti, de ■e■e que de reaiee à plue tard de l'actlon d-.idée, ou encore de contre-déti; (d) la partie du ■odlle la plus conteatée est l'expanaion: c'eat-à-dire la repriee et la "trad11ction• prepatique dea élé■ent• dlaloguée - l'oxpanaion JOIU.&ftt aur l'111J)licitat1on, elle dépauera aouvent le c&dre deecriptir pour ■ettre en l11■iàre le• upect• plur1-prosr-t1que•· A ceci a'adJOllteront néceaeaire■ent quelquee élé.ente d'analyee tactique, dana la pol&1que de 1'1nteract1on, de ■hle que quelquea él'■ente grei■aae1ena aur la co■pétence ■odale et le tactitit. Avec quelquea rétérencee au Jeu de l'explicite et de la préauppoa1t1on, dont lea prfauppoaéa aeront antith,tiquea à l'explicite. Dana cette illuatration, une aérie preaque continue de quinze répliquea aera préaentée: s1 ■ N■e Dubreuee; s2 ■ PNdéric et s 3 (l'abaente) N■e Arnoux.

II.2.

Venceance aux enchlrea 3

11 .2.1. "Tienal Je vala l'acheter•. (dlt s1 à propoe d'un cottret) lnteraction: S Joue, dana un dfcl&ratit, à tnnuettre une intor■atlon banale. 1 1nitiation de l'action ciana un déti vollé adreaaé à

~-

Dpanlion: (l) Cet obJet ■e pl&!t. (2) l'artqe&-VOUI ■on goQtf (3) L'apprecie&-voua autant que ■oif (-) Devine&-VOUI d'Jà ® Je veux en venirf 11.2.2. "Mala ce n'eat paa curieux•. l::\teraction: s, ii&e Jeu que S, co■■entant par contre-uaertion aur 1a trana■1ai1on d'lntor■at1o~, et JOIU.&ftt à ne paa vo1r le d,r1 voilé par une de■ande d'intor■at1on a11ppl&enta1re. E,rpane1on: (l) Ce cottret n'en va11t pae la pe1ne, et ne ■érite pae votre attention. (2) Je ne vola paa ce que voue J vo1ea, 011 ce qua

13S VOIUI pouvez bien y voir. voulez-voue en venir!

(3) Je voue pr1e de .. le diN.

(4) Oìl

11 .2.3. "Quelle ei"Jl!liàre 1dfel" (continue S) Interection: Bltten•lon de "curlewc• caul Etait $01onta1reaent prle à contresen• par s1 et ~2 • Coaenta1re rfduieant à un caprice l'action de s et rerua de taire tace l l'extraordlnaire d6t1 caue s1 eat entra n de lui adNeaer. s2 Joue donc à 11&1ntenir 1'6change •ur un plan qu'11 peut ancore controler sana taire tace au d6t1. Bxpanaion: Je u.1nt1ena caue voua avez tort de voulo1r acheter cet obJet. (2) Voue n'o•eres pas me dftier Ju•cau'au bout.

, 1

ll.2.4 . "Cela voue ttchet" lnteraction: · Deunde d'1nto~t1on innocente et agreHhe. Bxpane1on: (1) S1 cela VOIUI fiche, Je ■ 'en dfa1nt6reHe, et voua n'avez cau'un ■ot à dire, car Je tera1 tout ce caue voua voudrez. (2) J'eepàre caue cela vou• fiche, car c'Ht exact■ent là l'ettet de• vengeance. Voue aouttr1rez autant que J'a1 aouttert (Grei■aa, 1982) . Note: Lee deux -l ecturee aont pour l' 1natant co■poH1blea . L'alguillage de (2) 1ntrodu1t dfc1•1ve■ent l'attaque, ■aia cette attaque ava1t dfJà 6t6 lanett dàa n.2.1. l!:n ettet cette rfplique COIIJ)Ortait dane le dfti voll6 lea prf■1HH de la violence. Selon la lecture nous eoaee eoit dan• le ping-pong trad1t1oMel de la converaat1on (Coben, 1985), eo1t au po1nt de rupture qui, partant de 1'1nchoatit pueionnel (ee t&cher) introduit la v1olence. On le Mit, la lecture ritroe.cthe (ou a poeterior1) ne la1Hera aucun doute: 11 ne a'ag1t que de (2). Naia la preaiàre lecture poaa1b111ae l'ub1guit6. C'eet dane cet ettet ritroactit de "lecture" que se Joue la viol ence. Dana eon prccraa■e de vengeance, 8 teate la ccepftence ■odale de S: dan• une ayncbronie dee dewc rure, s2 ne aacbant pae encore qui S l'a ■en6 dana ce pUge, pour •• venger - en ce qu ' elle cro1t devolr •e venger - atin d'obeerver l'ettet de aa vengeance loreque s2 co■prehendra tinal-nt que s1 ee venge de lui . Il y a donc vengeance, ant1c1pat1on de vengeance, C011J1r6benaion de vengeance. Il y a auui le topoe vengeance, et son chronotope, et tout ai■pl-t le dErouleaent tellporel loraque s1 , du tait de aon progra■ae, eat en avance aur s2 • s1. eat voyeur de l'ettet de vengeance. Car le pla1a1r aera a~ru pour s de ce que s2 alt pris le te■p• (lacanien) de cocprendre, et qu'il1t1n1ra par e&voir (aia trop tard) en quo1 conaietait le procra- du taire de s1 • Selon ce type de coneid6rat1one, il y aurait dewc vengeancH: (sch'■at1qu-t) (a) S •tue• (equelchee) S eana prendre la peine de le lui laieaer aavo1J; (b) ~l "tue• s2 , ei le lui laieeant eavoir (exe■ple du tragique dane la perip6t1e aYec/aan• reconnaieeance).

n.2.5. "Noni Mai• gue peut-on taire de ce bibeloU" lnteraction: InJonction IIO\la to,-e de d-de d'into~tion. D4it1 vo1l6, teint6 de ■éprie. s2 nie &tre atrect6 par le proJet d'action de 8 . Lexical-nt, "bibeiot" riduit le etatut du cottret, et par eon tneignUiance pointe vere la nature du d6plac-nt: car la ba-

136

ta1lle aura l1e11l 11eme 81 elle 11e d~lenche eyapt8aat1queaent. BIil .e.e tet1p11 aaintlen dll ne pu vo\llo1r-aavo1r q\lant a\l ta1re de S. Tactiq11e11ent: 11 n'eat paa po111ble pour s2 que s1 aoit 111 Jaloà.e qu'elle ve111lle se venger de s2 , et par s 1 , dont le dçlacalent • tol\yll1q11e e,t le tait de ce cortret expoee au pl&1e1r de tout un chacun dane une vente awc encblre,. L'•cart pron0111nel "on" 4v1te encore l'attrontement tinal, lxpandon: (l) Je ne me t&cbe pu. (2) Je ne ae ■ettra1 pu en coare. (3) Mai• quel e,t votre prog~, ql,IU\d vou, dite. vouloir acq11fr1r cet obJet ridlcllle! ('-) Je ne peux pu ad■ettre que voua eoyez d'une telle ba11eeee que vou, vO\llez t'lùre ce que Je dev1ne, ( 5) Bt Je voua en emp&chera1. 11.2.6. "Qui aait? Y Mttre dee lettrea d'UIOUJ', pe11t-3trel" Elle 1 eut un reprd qui rend&it l'&Uu,109 tort claire, Paral1ngu1at1qu-nt: Du recarci, S1d aontre l s2 que pouvo1r-taire et voulo1r-ta1re colnc1dent dane aon proJet. lnteraction: dft1 avec 1ntoraat1on 111n1mle, en dl11oc1atlon avec 1'6nonc1at1on q111 en rend 1'1ntoraat1on mxi■ale, lnJonction à S de relever le dét1. ll'Ol\1e accentuée par le "peut~tre" qui, attrfbu6 au cro1re de s quant au talre de s,, eet une cert1tu4e. Expane1on: (l) Je1aaie tout de votre ~latlon avec s • (2) Bt Je 3 1111 venge. (3) o,ez relever le d6t1, II,2,7, "Raleon de plue pow: ne paa d6pouWer le, 110rt1 de leure secrete." Interaction: Brillante tact1que de s2 • Fe1nte llttérale de pu vo1r d'all.uaion à s3 danll lee propoa Ge s1 , en reet1tuant au "peutatre" toute aon a■bxculté. Tactique du deplace■ent et, ce taiaant, de dEpa1111eaent: appel au ..cré, au de 110rt1bue. Reru, pereletant de ,e lancer dane la bata1lle avant de ne plue avolr de cbo1x, De .a.e au11l peur d'une batallle dont 1l ne connatt pee encore lee enJeux. S ee ma1nt1ent danll 1'6change ancore prudent (118ae e1 le ton peut •ionter") tout en e11ayant de recallbrer la converaatlon atln de retrouver l'ucendant dane un contrat conver..tlOMel df16qull1bri. "Je ne la croY$111 pu 11 110rte." Bile aJouta "Huit cent quatre-vi~ trance!" Paral1n«1111tlque■ent: "Dlllt1ncte■entdanl la aecond pertle de la riplique 111pl14ue que la prea1lre pertle était 1111n1ur6e. Celle-cl a s2 pour deatinataire pr1v6. Celle-là •'adreHe à SD, c'e,t-à-dire ail crieur, età toute la ealle de la vente awc enchere,, dont en pert1clll1er, et particulià~nt, S. Tactique: te. bata1lle est aa1nte~t 1n6v1table, Il n'y a plue de doute poH1ble pour s2 et, hor■11 le n011 de s , s est phyelqu-t 3 3 p~eente entre S et S. Interaction: •a&> ~cii" eat un détl 11Ul.t1ple (l) aux autre, acheteure dane le Jeu cod6 de la ,urenchàre, (2) au crleur pour 11gnal.er qu'elle eet dane la couree, (3) à s2 en pert1cllller, pour II,2.8,

d1et1ncte■ent:

137

pour1uivre vengeance et provocation dana le déti, en ae portant au Jeu de l'acquleition de la "dépouille" de aa rivale. L'upect le plus e&totique de ce détl eerait aa aultl-dtmenetoN\11.liU: 11 a'adreaee à S par S 1nterpoe4e, Lexicale■ent le pronoa "la" ne lalese plus di doute~ aate "la" en re.Joute anaphorlque■ent en ratsant _ . 1'11 avalt touJoure été queetlon de S. Bxpanalon: Inutile de talre appel au eacrél (2) J~ connala votre secret, (3) Je eal• que voua la voye& touJoura. (4) Que •oue l 'ai■e& , (5) Et que c'eat pour elle que voua ■ 'ave& eaprunté 12000 Fra en prétendant qu ' ll a'agleaalt de quelqu'un d'autre, et pour lui épargner Juatellent cette vente aux ench~rea. II,2,9, "Ce que voua rattee n'eet paa b1en" 1 ll\1J'lll.lr& Frédéric, Tacttque: s2 reconnaft l priaent le Jeu de aon advenatre, et adllet l'1név1tab11Ité de la batallle, Interactton: Evaluatton de l'actlon, et condaanation par aanctlon ■orale, s reconnatt le déti et chercbe à raire-ne-pae-talre par la 2 aanlpulatln de la aupérlortté 11rale, In outre, lnJonctlon ratble à la rote de ne pae contlnuer la batallle et de changer le cadre du détl , La coapétence de s1 n'eet atnat paa ■tee en queetlon: C'eat la sanctlon de s qui lui tera défaut, Or, de.ne le progr&IUle de vengeance de s1 , 2c'eet précie-nt cette eaactton négattve qui eet recberchEe, Bxpaneion: (1) Ce que voua taltee, et ce que voue VO\lle& ratre eat poaaible. (2) Mala ne le tattee pul (3) [un peu 1nfantiliaant) Et voua ..ve& que ce n'eat paa bien, Paral1ngu1et1qu-nt: Un IIW'llure de s , lntéressant dans aa correepondance à la pre■Ure partle de2 II.2.8. Muraure, car S2 , aey■étriqueeent à s1 , eet loin de défier toute la sall.e. A ce ■ur■ure de s ~nara un rlre de plus grand détt encore de s • 2 1 n.2.10. "Na1e 1 chàre a■ie 1 c'est la pre■ tlre gr&ce que Je voue deaande. " Interactlon: d-.id d'actlon - actlor de ne pu talre, Chan&e■ent de cadre, apri, l'appel au aacr6, puis celul de la aanction ■orale, S p&He Mintenant à l'appel pereonnel dane l'lnteratton. Bn ■eme thpe, tris vague ■enace (qui sera uplltiée trh vite) de non cont1nuit6 de leur interactton. Bxpaneion: (l) Ne taltea pae, ne continue& pae à tatre, ce que •oua &Ye& l'lntentlon de taiN, (2) Je VOUI le d-.id. (3) Et c'e•t la pr..tàre tote que Je vou• deunde quelque cho••· II ,2,U . "Male voue ne aere& pu un ari atuble •• ,900 Francai" Interactlon: Ironie, et ■ise en queation de leur tutur aartage, donc détt quant au atatut extetentiel et tutur. Contre-eenace avec 1nJonct1on d'accepter la d6t1n1t1on exletentlelle de s • Poureulte du détl 1n1t1al, et du d6t1 de la vente aux enclllrea, 1 Bxpan11on: (1) Vo• obJectton• ■e la11aent tndlttérente, (2) Youa n'arrlvere& pae a ■ 'etlpfcher de ae venger de voue, (3) J'at l'intentlon de touJoura ratre ce que J• veux,

138

II.2.1.2. "Pro11vn--1 su• u. t - eat raiaonnable" 1 41t Prédvic. Il l'entratna do11ceaent ven la ~rte.

"rt-•.

Interaction: Ping-pong lexical ìiìaz.1 Repriae de la a1H 'llleetion d11 •tatut t'lltUJ", aa1• dan• le sene de (l11el(l1111 atatua 'l"O, avec contre-d,t1 a1t1g,. Paral.1ngu1ati'l11eaent: Coerc1t1on, toute douce 'lll'elle eo1t, Expan•ion: (1) Je saia, ..icr, ce -ent de caprice 'lii• voua ftea raiaonnable. (2) Je V0\18 torcerai à ltre raiaonnable. (3) Ne ae torcez paa à rEpondre à votre déti. (4) C'eet à voua de prouver ai notre prograaae coaaun peut encore ae r&liaer. Tacti(l11e: Apre• l'&:hec de l'appel pereonnel, derniàni tentat1ve de 41•auaeion en J)lUsant &11 •ta-di•curait dana une violence p~aique 'liii H 11aa(l11e dana un gHte de douceur. en

u.2.13. Nae Dubreuae, 9111 6ta1t errivEe eur le ae1111 1 ,•arrata; et 1 d'1111e voix haute: "Mille Francai" ' Interaction: la rl!ponee de S1 à l'inJonction de raiaon, età la tentative de coerc1t1on, aera de aurencb6r1r dana le deti, "Mille Prel" doit ltre conaidtri coaae 1111 6noncM6t1 poly-interactioMel: (l) !Miti a11 p11bl1c {S) e-e deat1nata1ni, en aontant cona1d6rableaent la aiae de ta~on à taire taiN l'adversaiN dana le Jeu trà• cod6 de la vente awc encherH. (2) Retu• de partir au - t où s2 l'entralnait ver• la porte, donc contre-d6t1 à II,2,12. età l'inJoilction, avec Nt'us aiaultan6 de c6der à la torce p~•i'lu• en t&iaant revenir l 'interaction, pour 1111e dernU1n1 toia, à la diacuraivit6 et au cadre de la vente awc encbàrea. (3) Donc tri~he dana le déti adreee6 à 8 2 , et égal-t trioapbe contre 8 , par l'achat awc ench~rea d11 cof'h'~t polya&li(l11e, et a6tonya1(lue de3 l'h1111iliation de :i.:wc yeux de s 2 , et aoua le regard de Sdl et de S conJ'U&Ué•; de , poUJ" 81 , trioaphe •urla relation aaoureuae Sn/S, fictl'lueaent: S1, 'liii obtient l'adJ11dication, a le de••ua •ur Sn' le public dea aclleteurs, de allae 'lii• aur 82 et S. C'eat bien le caa d11 dem1er ■ot, dana la direction d'un "•'l11e¾cb" interactionnel, s1 ~ t réd111t ~2 à n~t. Apna ce triOIIJ)he de sl' s1 et s2 quitient en ailence la a&l.le, et•• rendent J11&'l11 ' à la Voitllre de 8. (L'expan•ion, dont noua terona l'6conoa1e, correapondrait perl~tionnaireaent à chac1111 dea 616aent• de 1'1nteraction - b1en que d'a11trea pr6•11ppo•1t1ona pu1•••nt to11Joura ltre 6vo(lu6ea poUJ" enrichir le calcul de l'interaction; par d6tin1tion l'expan•ion n'eat Jaaa1• exhauative.) II.2.14. "Voua ne aontft paat• Interaction: Deaande d'Woraation avec inJonction d'action. A11tre dsande d'intoraation quant au atat11t present {et tutur) de leur interaction. Abouti••-nt tinal, et a,ratar, du grand d6t1. B:xpanaion: (1) V0\18 aentez-vo111 eutti-nt vaincuf (2) Btea-v0\18 vraiaent t&ch6f (3) Suie-Je aU6e trop loinf (li) Po11rriea-voue 11&intenant vivre avec aoi - victorieueet

139

11.2.15. "Non, Naduel" lnteractlon: Contre-"■ci.11elch", et r&ponee retard6e au "1ci.11elch" dee France. Refue de l'actlon de.ndée. Contre-dUl l II.2.14. Expanalon: (pol.ya'91ci.11e■ent) trb rlche: (l) Aprea ce ci.111 voua avez tait, Je ne pewc pl11a monter dana votre volt11re. (2) Je ■eta alnll fin l notre proJet de ■arlage. (3) Bt ,ro11a •'Y' avez forc:6. (4) Ce retua e1t l prendre cow 1111 adle11. Lexlc-1-t "*d•N" e1t l'aapect phatici.111 de la diatance dana l'lnteractlon, l'éci.uivalent Adie11. ■llle

III.

COl(CWSIO!f ET PROSPBC'l'IYB

L'adllirable IIOd~le de Le.bov et Panabel (1977) a ft6, on le volt, adapté, pour lnclure a11rto11t dea 616■entl tactlci.uea. L'expenelon aurtout eet ,rlrtuell-nt i■preeelonnante ai elle per■et d'inclure le wcul (et la torce) de la préauppoaltion. Allleure (Cohen, 1985) no11e avon1 ■ontri ci.11e l'expanllon pouvalt ltre inclusive d11 IIIOI\OloCII• lnterlt§ur. Nous noua •-•• alnal lnt6re116a l 1111 pro'bl~ dlttérent de celul de Le'bov (1982) puieq_ue la violence reste lei ■attrieée (ci.uoici.11'extre11e), tout en conetltuant le ae11ll de la dlecurelvit6. Par allllllN, tout en nous ineplrant l&rge■ent d11 ■odàle de Grelllu (1982), c'eat plutat le dire de la vengeance, dan1 1On etfet "eci.uelch" ci.11e n011a avona voulu"Tiiutrer et d6crlre. Nou1 • - • d6Jl loin de l'anal.yae dei Toura, et du te■p1 de cea Tour- dane la prlee de parole, ci.ul lnauguralt autretol1 avec Sacke et al. (1974b) lea 6t11dea çEclflq_ue■ à l'anal.yee de con,reraation1 dana lee écolea d'ethnOMthoclologle auaal 'blen ci.ue d'Interactlon S)lm'bollque. C'eat en étudiant un caa extr&e, celul de la vlolence et de la contre-vlolence, ci.ue Le'bov (1982) d6puee la dé111rcbe d'acq11leltlone de doMées concentréee, de taçon dlvertiaaante, aur dea dé'bute de converaatlona t6l6pboniq11ee (Scheglott, 1972). Dana notre exeiq,le la vlolence pbyeiq_ue est é,rlde••nt a'baente, 'blen q11e la rupture aoit en elle ■loie extrl-ent violente. Quand s1 acq_ulert le cottret de 4S,, en ottrant à S le epectacle de Ili propre 111.pulaaance, et aana ceaaer de falre clualon à lew- ■arlage future qu'elle ■et en queatlon, s1 6craae ("aci.uelchee•) S, l'lnaulte, et venge Jalouae■ent de la liaison qu'elle attrl'b~alt à s2/s1 • s1 accepte le rlaq_ue de eon progruuae, et l'énoncé "Mille l'rllf" ee~ le détl que noue avon1 d6crit, de ma- quo la réponae l 11110 eituation inaccepta'ble pour s1 • Ce talaant, s1 ne laieeait aucune placa l s2 pour "aauver la tace•, et n'eupb&la!iit .a.e plu1 d6f1• et ineultel ,roil61 . Dana ce d6fi ■axl■al les cone6q11encea 1ont san• i■portance par rapport l l'bu■lliatlon quo s tait subir l eon adveraalre. s Joue le tout 1 1 pour le tout dana un Jeu exceptionnelle■ent l aoae r;6ro. De ■he, le contre-"equelch" "Non, Nadamel" n'6value pa1 plus lee con1éci.uencea: s2 ae retire du Jeu 1-'diat (enne ■ontant pae on volture), et du Jeu l plua longue 6ch&nce (en ■ettant fin l 1111 proJet de aarlage). 'N■oin de son propre la-pouvolr, s2 par son contre-demler mot r4egit a11 pz-ocr- de s1 ; et ciani son contro-

140

PZ'OCJ'Ulle, ll dkouvre era tlllgrane aon procru11e l lui: en taieant ce qu'il ne pouvalt pae ne pae taire, U talt ce qu'll ne eavalt pae ne plu• pou•oir talre. Hu.1116, et reconnai,eant ,on Mattre, s &te en ■file te■p• et par la ..a.e occaelon l S la reconnai,eance 2 (hfg6lieMe) qu'll lui accordalt Juaqu'l ir6aent. Sl Gott.an rleque de nous talre revenlr (alnlaal.•ent) l Regel, Hegel, en rovanche, nous talt revenlr l Gott.an, par vole de Grel■a,. Notona que la a&lotlque de l'lnteractloo, et avec elle la tataeaatlque, l'l11aglnaire et l e• priauppo16a de cette lnteractlon, repr61ente une 1-nse proapectlve, et un renouvelleaent. Car l'6nlgaat1que de l'lnteraction et de eon calcul eet un •uJet plu1 vleux que le ■onde. Bt aan• doute une e&iiotlque qui prendralt l'interactlon pour obJet riaquerait d'ottrlr un nouveau ■6ta­ langage: loin do la thick de,criptlon geerttlenne, une "h1Perdeacr1pt1on• (Parret, 1985) dan• un aonde trapent4. La

Jolla-Palorae, Mai-Juin 1984

Compan.tive Llterature & Socloloq Univereity ot C&lltornia, San Diego La Jolla 1 C&litornla 92093 NO'l'ES

l. 2.

3.

C'eat un probl- qul eat partlculU~nt trait6 ciane aee Probl6a&tlgues Paranoiaguea (A parattre). Si "l'interaction" eet univereelle, lee n11ancee de la rinexlon eur l'interactlon eont 1nt1n1ee. Dana ce texto Je chercheral (■6thodologlqu-nt) l rapprocller lee ritlexlone europ6ennee et aa6r1ca1nee, au lleu d'en eouligner lee d1Yergencea - choae qui•• pràteralt à une rechorche conal dérable. Toutoa loa r6pl1ques aont extraltea de Flaubert (l~: 4111415).

REPERBNCBS

Cohen, A.J.J. (1985). Prol6go.nea à une a6a1ot1que du monologue. In N6j:"'es A.-J. Greiaa, Parret, R. and Ruprecht, B.-G. (ede •• Aaetol"UII: John BonJaalna . Flaubert, a. (1869). L' Bducation Sontlaentale. Paria: Garnier (1964) .

Gotfun, B. (1969). StAteglc Interactlon. Philedelphia: Unlver•lty ot PeMeylvanla Pre••· -(1974). l'nule ~•le. New York: llarper Colophon Booke. GrellDU, A.-J. (l§lli~ l& Colere. Docullent• 111(27). -(1982). Le d6t1. Bullotin V(23). -(l983a) . Du Sene II. Paria: SeuU. -(l983b). Obeervatlona 6piat6aologlque1. Docuaent• V(50). Grelau, A.-J. & Courtàe, J . (1979). Stalotlgue. Dlctlonnalre ralaoM6 del& Th6orlo du Lanpge. Parla: Lcbetto.

141

Labov, W. (1982). Spffeb actlone and reac:tlone ln pereonal narrative. In Analyzl11& Diacouree: 'l'ext and 'l'allt, 'l'annen, D. (ed), 219-247. Wublngton, D.C.: Georgetown llniverelty Preee. Lebov, w. and Fanahel, D. (1m). Therapeutlc Dlscourae. Nev York: Acade■ lc PNH. Parret, B. (1985). L& ealotlque: ll)'per-deacrlptlon. In Sftllotl ue-A lr et auto de l'Oeuvre de A•..J. GNi..., Arrlve, N. a. Coquet, J.-c. eda. Parla: ADIS Seuil. Sacka, B. (197lia). An analysle ot the couree ot Joke'a telllng in conver■ation. In Bxploratlone in the Ethno~ ot Speaki11&, Bauaan, R. and Shener, J. (ede), 337-353, bridge: C&abrldge llnivenity S&cke, B., Scbeglott, B. and Jetteraon, G. (197,b). A aimpleet eyeteaatice tor the organlzation ot turn-taklng in connr■ation. r.anpage 6': ~735. Scheglott, B. (1912). sequencing in convenatlonal openinge, In Dlrectlone in Soclolinguietlca, Gumpen:, J.J. and Rymee , D. (ede), 31ì6-j8o. Nev York: Rolt, Rinehart and Wlneton.

Pr••••

17 SEMIOTICS OF CONSTITUTIVE RULES

Amedeo G. Conte

O. INTRODUCTION O.O. In this paper I am going to present some hypotheses that I have formulated durlng my research in the semiotlcs of constitutive rules {konstitutive Regeln, regles constitutives, r!S2J! oostitutive). My paper is d1v1ded into three parts. 0.1. In the fltst part (Typology) I wlll sketch a typology of eideticconstitutive niles (eldetlsch-konstitutlve Regein, regole eidetlco-costlMive). 0.2. In the seconcl part (Phenomenology) I wlU try to establish the speclfic b_ehaviour oi eidetic-constitutive rvles by conducting two Cìedankenexperunente. 0.). In the third and blst pvt (Epistemology) I wiU discuss two epistemologie.I questlons concerni,. eidetic-constitutlve rules. I. TYPOLOGY

1.1. The lnsight that there a.re e ldetic-constitutive rvles has a long hlstory: lt is an old idea that the rules of a praxis like the game of chess are constitutive both of the graxis itself and (in the praxis) of its praxemes. (The term 'prueme', 'Pruem, which I have used here has been rnodeUed on 'phoneme', 'Phonem', and stands for 'unit of praxis', 'Praxiseinheit',) I.I.I. Here are some documents I have trac:ed in my research in the history of the semlotlcs of eldetlc-constltutlve rvles. 1.1.1.1. The oldest lntultlon of the eidetlc constltutivlty of eldetlc-constltutlve rules goes bacie to Mi essay written In 1898 by the Cìerman mathematician Jonannes Thomae. Thomae affirmed that in the praxis called chess, the identity of each piece (bishop, king, rook, ...) is determined by the rules. In a more expllcit form, the lhesis that the rules of chess constilute the identlty of the pleces reappears (wlthout any reference to Thomae) in the works of severa! ph.ilosophers, sudi as Edmund Husserl, Ludwig Wlttgensteln and Emst Mally. (As far baci< as 1934 Wlttgensteln even makes express use of the verb 'to constltte', when he wrltes that 'the rules constltute the idea' of the ~ In chess.) 1.1.1.2. The idea that the rules of chess constitute the pragmemes (the Prftmeme, Le. the type$ of the moves) of chess has 1fen foreshadowed In I§ lf by Czestaw Znamierowski ('norma konstrukcy:'r,'). t.t.t.3. The idea that the experience (Erlafin,n«> Ò • pruis presupposes lts eonstltutlve rules was formulated as far back as 1907 by Max Weber. lt was

144

1,,,

1,,.,

restateci in by Alt RO$$ and in by John Rawls.4 The tokens of a pragmeme (tor example, of the pragmeme castllng) are perceptible (are recogniz~e as sudi) only with reference to the rules which constitute that pragmeme. 1t is only by reference to the rules that the phenomena of chess be-come phenomena of chess ('Skakfaenomenerne bliver f«st $kakfaenomener i relatlon til skaknormerne'). 1.2. Durlng my ·research on eldetlc-constitutive ruJes, I have elaborateci .!l!!2 definitions of this concept: an onto199ca1 one (in terms of cond~lon, ~ dingung) and a semiotic one (in terms connotation, KoMotation). 1.2.1. I am going to present my definitions of this concept. The first definition (the ontologica! one) is in terms of condition: the eidetic-const1tutive rules are in a threefold relationship of conditlon with the praxis and the praxemes they constitute: they are their (eidetic) conditlon of concelvabilit{. (Denkbarlw:née sur laquelle travaille le peintre est la métaphore pour ainsi dire littiérale. Le spectateur - oame parle F'oicault - "papillote", sollici~ qu' 11 est, sillultanénlent, par le xegard que le peintre porte sur lui, par le miroir qui lui ferait face, et par la porte ouverte au ford du tableau et sur le seu.11 de laquelle se tient, un peu en xetxait, un autra spectateur, à delniret:o.lmé, dont cn ne sait s'il est sur le point d'entrer ou de sortir (pas plus qu'cn ne sait, dans les perspectives urbinates, si la reprhcntation vient de s'aàlever ou si elle n'a pas encore eomiencé), et qui ne voit lui-tD!!lre que l 'envers de la sol!ne que le tabJeau nQlS déowvre. P0ur ne rien dire de t0Us les yeux qui nooa regardent de la plupaxt c1es points du tableau oocupés par des figures, et jusqu'à oe chien, au premier plan, qui ne xegarde n1 ne bouge, et qui est là, oouché à terre come le sont, dans les batailles de Piexo della Francesca, les cadavres épars sur le sol ou cette t:éte ~ . a.ix yewc: oependant grand ouverts, qui s'inscrl.t au dE!part de la Dlifaite de

Co8roàs. Lié à la représentaticn, le spectateur l'est donc par tout un réseau de lignes qui naissent di• tablea,1, qui le traversent et qui paraissent oonvexger vers IDI point que Foica11J t quallfie de "douteux• parce qu'invisible. Point idéal, et en lléae teal)S parfaiteuent réel, pu1aque c 'est à partir de lui que la representaticn devi.ent possible, et dont le tableau lui-m@ne doit pi;q, eer l 'écho SOJS l 'etl{ièoe de l' ilnllge t0Ut à la fois Nfractée et diffractée des trois faicti.0ns dont il est tour à ticur le lleu: les figures refl45tées dans le nù.ro1r des modèles qui se tenaient là et qui fQicanltl étant parfait:arent anac:lu:alique dès loxs qu'elle se falde sur la définition la plus stxicte àu paxadi(Jtle xenaissant, dont Lécnaxd a xepris la fomule

d'Alberti. Mais si l 'on veut bien oaçten:b.e l 'opéxation du tableau, enoaxe oonvient-il de 00IMXJU8r le matériel qu'il txansfome pour le faixe 00nc0Urir à l' i n ~ t i o n . ignage: par xapport à quo1 la subecxiption immacrite est ailrpl-t xecxndante qui n' a d' autre fonctioo que de fai.te passer le tableau de l 'espsoe de la visibillb§ à celui de la lect:uxe. Mais là encoxe, ce dlsp,eitif qu'on dira d'illplication n'était pas sans pxéc4dents, au lllOins objectifs. Une déoennie ou deux avant le Portrait des Amolfini, la prauièxe expér1ence de Bxunell.esà\i avait déjà mls en cl.réuit une porte et un nu.xoir: et c'est dans l 'encacb:e-ment d'une porte, enoore, seloo l'hypothèse que j'en ai faite (une hypothèse un peu foroée, j •en 0011viens, mais que toute cette ·"histoixe" vient justifiex a posterioxi), que s'inscrivait le point qui, par le relais du mixoir, se situait au droit de lbeil. Cette parte s'ouvrant, en l 'ocx:uxxence, dans un talple à plan centxal, 0Cfflll8 le veut l ' ~ sux laqualle 1111 xègle la Città ideale d'Uxbino et, avec elle,nonbxe d& OCJi4X181t1ons trils d i ~ dciit le Spasalizio de l'éz'ugin et celui de Rapha,11 sont les exenples les plusiiilnents. Soit un lieu, ooame je l' ai dit, synt,ollqumient connoté, et que la dénaistxation Bxunelleschi oonfondait avec le lieu g~ique chi sujet, ainsi qu'il en va cli 1111.roir des Amolfini.

Si Vélasquez, dans les Ml!nines, a disjoint les deux teDDes, ou les de\Jx lieux, c'est par une opération qui s'inscrit dans le droit fil de oelle, d4jà, de Carpeccio, Jaqne]]e prend xétrospectiveirent t0ut sc:n sens, par delà l'anecdot.e. Ains1 en va-t-11, encoie, cll

167

point 111!1%t1Ué dans le fdtre de l'llnnonciatioo de Ghirlandajo, ce point tangent IIU volet femé came l'est, dans la Città ideale, le point de fuite tangent au battant de la porte, mais un point en l'espèoe p.irement symbolique, &!pourw de to.ite fonctioo g4 COHHOTA'l'ION OP FUGOE IN MUSIC ARTS IN TRE 'l'WENTIBTH CBN'l'ORY

ANI>

VISUAL

Jat'llila Doubravovlf

THB GENERAI,

CONDI'l'IONS POR

'l'HB

RELA'l'IOHSHIP

Tbe relation• between aueic and vieual arte bave pereieted tbrougbout tbe centurie•, environaente and culturee. 'l'bere are •ound environaente, where mueic

repreaenta tbeir special cultural part, and there are visual environaenta, wboae special cultural partis tot'lled by vieual arte. 'l'hese very general conditions tor tbe relationehip between both culture• and arts tound their particular expression in ditterent perioda, culture• and etyl•• (ancient Indian Veda•, Chinea• poetry, ancient Greek painting, renaiaeance in Burope, the art nouveau with ita curvilinear design, etc.) (Doubravovll 1982). Tbese relations are atiaulated by the •utual intluence ot two ••n•••• Sight and hearing aediate most ot tbe intoraation about tbe world (95 per cent according to biocybernetica). Tbe special position ot sight and bearing is eabodied by ot coa•unication: man ba• created a •Yat•• ot eounda, language, and a special eyetea ot vieual eigne, writing. Tbe viaual and auditory activity couined with tbat ot the other ••n••• participatee in tbe co•plex exiatence ot aan. Pro• this coaplexity tollows tbe possibilty ot subetituting one activity tor tb• otber (a• applied in •any tberapeutic proceduree), tbe pet'lleation ot soae sanse activities (synae•tbuis, synop•i•) and the peraeation ot mutual intluencea ot botb art• (Wellek, 1963), Tbe relation• between tbe two art• tben are conditioned by general circuaatancea deteriained by the exi•tence ot botb arte in tbe culture ot a given period, by the character ot •an•s existence and by special physical and pbysiological properties and capabilities of tbe bwaan aubject. Tb••• general circwaetances intluenced a large-scale hi•torical activity involving tbougbt• about the relationehip ot colours and ton•• and leading to tbe design and conetruction ot colour in•truaents. Tbe old Indian Veda• aention connectiona between the beat ot a tonal scale and aeri•• ot colour11.

•ean•

190

Ariatotle expresaed the idn of the relationahip between colour haraony and conaonance on the baaia of nu■erical ratios. This idea was actualized by Leonardo da Vinci in the renaissance and the project of a colour Arc::illboldo lute originated 1n the aa■e period. The Jeauit Pather Athanasiua ltirc::hner and Pather L.8. Castel laid down the theoretical and prac:tic::al foundationa of the creation of ■usical inatru■enta up to Skrjabin's 1 clavier a luaifre• (1911). In the tventieth century, thia idea acquired nev posaibilitiea of being realized thanlcs to the technical progreaa. The generel circu■atances influenc:ed the no leaa exten■ive atudy of the reletionahip and differencea in the recording sphere, that is, in writing and notation. Music and graphic art, ■uaical graphic art and graphic auaic, are the ideaa presented in cage•s publication Notationa (1961) and in the exbibition Pittura~ ■usica at Lugano in 1974. The general circu■ stancea, hovever, ■ignificantly influenced the relationship of ■uaic and architecture. Kusic needs space tor ita pertoraation. The buildera and architec::ta had to take into account in the cathedrala, theatrea and concert balla that ■uaic:: of a definite atyle, orcheatration and ■ode of perforaance would be heard there (Winckel, 1974). The Gothic eathedrals, tor exa■ple, with their long lasting resonance (approx. 4 seconda), vere ideal tor the pertor■ance of Gregorian c::hant. Elec:tronic ■uaic:: initiated ■tructur•• oriented towarda electro-acouatic::al ■oditicationn ot sound, such as the New Berlin Philharaony of Rana Scharoun (1956-1963), or the Sydney Opera Mouse ot Jorn Utzon (1977), one of the ■oat ■odern theatres in the world. THB SPECIAL CONDITIONS POR THB RBLATIONSRIP The relationship between the two arts, however, has its apecial eonditiona given by the exi■tence and relations ot the individual kinds ot art in a definite culture of a definite bistorical era, and deter■ined by the aesthetic and artiatic hiatorieal retlection ot the given atate, with a regressive intluence of the hiatorical con11ciousne11111 they are detined by the exiatenee of varioua artistic progra•• and aove■enta and by the develop■ent ot new kinda of art, of new co■■unication ■•dia and of new econo■ic:: conditiona tor the pertor■ance and propagation ot art. All th••• tactors give a ■arked accent to larga artistie projects. Let ua recall the Novellbergruppe, Der Blaue Reiter, Dia Br1!icke, the dadacabaret Voltaire of tbe early twentieth century, the BaUhaus (Meyer, 1957)1 the activity of the Cobra

191

experi••ntal group and it• •anitesto ot experiaental art dated 1948, the avant-gerde activity ot the soviet Jcinetiat• ot the Motion group in the sixtie• and the project ot •meta-art• in the ••venti••• Thi• project co11bined the arte ot all perioda and culture• and on• ot it11 realization• waa the Berlin teatival ot aeta11uaic in 1974. The new aedia ot co•aunication -- broadcaat, televiaion, the graaophone induatry, -- allow ua to formulate the aaauaption that aan in the second halt ot the twentieth century livea in •eta-art,• because ha has the actual possibility to be contronted with art ot all genrea, lcinda, orientationa and culture• in either way. 'l'hi• bring• ua to another, again general, problea, naaely to the role ot ti•• and 11pace in the lite ot preeent-day aan, to the expreaaion ot tiae in a work ot art and to its retlection in the aesthetics and in the theory ot art. The conterences on time organized in the seventies vith speciali•t• troa aany prot•••iona in attendance, arrived at the general state11ent that people in the ••cond halt ot the twentieth century experienced time becauae ot their dependance on the quicker changes in the style ot lite. In aeethetics and in the •ciance ot art, tiae waa uaually thought ot in connection vith the claaaitication ot art subject to Lessing•s Laocoen (1766) and to it• innovationa by Munroe (1954). Lesa attention was paid to the tact that we perceive a work ot art in ti11e: we •••• read, liaten and ve look. A 11igniticant tactor bere i• the expectation, ita tultill11ent or non-tultillaent, anticipation ot auggestions, as ha• been atated by phenoaenological

aeathetics.

Pro11 the point ot view ot the author, time is one ot the aeaninge vhich ha tixes and ot vhich he tale•• hold by 11eana ot hi• work. Quotation, stylization, aontage, collage, all ot vhich experienced their renaisaance in all the arte ot the aeventi••• are 11eant, aaong other things, to create a ti•• different tro11 the ti•• in vhich the vork was created. The tiae ot actuality is artistically transtoraed into a difterent tiae of the subject ot a novel, poe11, symphony, its tundaaental characterietic being its •otivation (Siegele et al., 1972). The confrontation of the paet, the preeent and the tuture, which ha• its hietorical roots in th• claaaical unity of placa, tiae and action, in the preaent ti•• leads to a reveraed, lav-like and unavoidable consequence, in vhich the preaent or the past •resUlt' troa a near or reaote future. 'l'ha 'actual' ti•• ot an action otten is interconneated vith the 'dreaa• tiae. There exists the time ot the creation of a vork, the

192

period, in whicb the work originated and the epoch in which it was created. According to Kant, tbis •internal ••n••' i• proper to all art■• The more recent tbe art we ■tudy, the aore abaurd appear■ the cla■■itication into topical and out-ot-date arts. Music al■o takes hold ot ■pace with tbe aid ot its spacitic aeans ot orchestration and by exploiting tbe diatances: toretront-baclcground; large-aaall; tarnear; up-down, right-lett; hence, we may speak ot musical perspective (Druskin, 1976). siailar probleas ot a rever■e character vere atudied alao by tbe viaual arte in aultiaedial pertoraancea, projecta and concepta. Froa this point ot view, rbytha, aotion and tora represent a special problem ot the relationsbip between tha two arte. The movements wbich deterained tbeir relationabip to another art in a prograa, bave a special po■ition in connection with tbe givan problem. However, let ua ■tate in advance that the programs and the realization ara expres■ed by two kinda ot aanitestation, are realizad in two kind■ ot aaterial: in apaach and in musical or creative aaterial, both ot whic:h ara not always autually coaparable or even interchangeable. Syabolisa, tuturisa, surreali•• and experiaental art expre■■ed their attitude toward■ mu■ ic in ■anite■to■: orphi■a, whic:h i■ Apollinaira•s denomination tor tbe •poatical and ■usical language• ot Delauney•a, Ruplca'• and other paintera• picturea, eaphasized the rhyth■ ot coloured surtacea1 the conteaporary critica atated the musical character ot Munch'• picturea, or even the musical character ot a genre specitic tor the turning point ot the century, the co-called •Farbradierungen' (Arnason, 1969). Rhytha becaae a great tb••• in the picture■ ot Piet Mondrian, one ot tha laading ■aabars ot tha Da atjil group. Ha is the author, aaong others, ot two picturas with the naaa ot Boogie-woogie, a captivating dance at tbat tiae. Tbe picturea represent the raalizaton ot Mondrian•a opinion on the painter•s line, toraulated on the baais ot the theory ot bis triend, M.H. stoen■akar■, a aatheaatioian and philoaopbar. Tha interaadiary batween creative and auaical aanitestation could be th• dance in tha aphare ot rhytha. An outatanding aanite■tiation ot a painter•s intaraat in dance i• the cycle Dance (1932-1933) ot Hanri Matisae, oraated tor the Barus Foundation in Pennsylvania, tba cycle Jazz ot cut-out pictures originated at the saae ti••· Tha connection ot rbytha, aotion and viaual art i■ represented by kinetic art. Kinati•• contiraa tha

193

aediating character of the aueic-visual art relationship not by aeana of an external aanifestation of time, that is, by aeans ot aotion, but through the internal bonds betveen arts. Initially, kineti•• vas characterized by it• atteapta to create a li9ht or colour inetruaent, outatandingly in the case of the czecb architect Zdenek Peaanek1 kinetic art proper rather evaded any connection vith ausic. The dada-cabaret Voltaire is perhaps an exceptiion. The exceptional developaent ot kineti•• is connected vitb ita aabivalent intereat in the combining ot arte. An actual audiovieual ayntheeia vae achieved in the vork of Zdenek Peaanek, probably thanke to hi• cooperation witb the coaposer and pianiet Brwin Schulhoff, and in the aecond half of the century, in the works of Schatfer, Kalinov, Van Thien and in the concepts ot tha soviet kinetiata (the exhibition of the Kotion group in Koecow in 1964). The hi9heat de9ree ot realization waa reached in the coabination ot Schattar•s cybernetic robot Cype and of Bejart•a ballet in the Rhyiathaic Btudea (Doubravova, 1982:26-30). Kention ahould be •ade ot the activity of the Laterna magica 1958, a cinematic autoaaton, vhich perforaed at the Montreal world BXhibition in 1967 and at the BXPO 70 in Osaka, and of the czechoalovak audiovisual art group at the Art Centrua. 'lHB

RELATIONSHIP IN TRE SPHERE OF FORJI

Finally, visual art and ausic aay be traced in the sphere of fora. Tha creative artista paid special attention to fugue, as tor exaaple in the vorlts ot JUee, ICandiMlena9en, Geortadol■clie veriagageaell•chatt. Winckel, Pritz. (1974), Space, Nueic and Architecture. culture• 1, 2:135-206.

23 lfi!ODUHIT? Th-.,.; 'CAS:.) OP D:.1NOTATION AJJD/Ol SIGtlIPICATION

Umberto Eco

Semioticians, linguista and philosopters of language frequently meet the term adenotationu. Denotation, (along with its counterpai.•t, •connotation 1 ) is alternatively considered as a property or tunction of (i)single terms,(ii)predicative sentences,(11i)descriptive noun phrases and definite descr1pt1ons. In each case one has to decide whether this term has to be taken intensionally or extensionally: is denotation tied to meaning orto reterents? Does one mean by denotation what is meant by the term or the named thing and, in case ot sentences, what 1s the case? As far as connotation 1s concerned, 1t denotation has an extensional scope, 1t becomes the eqUivalent ot intension, that is, ot meaning as opposed to referent.It on the contrary denotat1on has an 1ntens1onal scope,then connotation becomes a sort ot turther meaning depending on the tirst one. These discrepanc1es between different trameworks are such that Geach (1962:65) has sugge8ted that this term should be 1withdrawn trom ph1losoph1cal currency• since it produces •a sad tale ot contusion'. In the tramework of structural 11ngUistics denotat1on 18 1ntensional. Such 1s the case of Hjelmslev (1943). where the d1tference between a denotat1ve semiotica and a connotative one lies 1n the tact that the tomer 18 a semiotic whose expression plane is nota seDl1otics,wh1le the latter 1s a ,semiot1cs whose expresston plane 1s a semiot1cs. But the denotat1ve relat1onsh1p has to do w1th the correlat1on between the torm ot expression and the torm ot content. L1kew1se llarthes (1964} elaborates upon HjellllSlev•s suggestiona and develops a merely intensional approach to denotation. A denotative relat1onah1p always occurs between a s1gnif1er and a t1rst (o zero) degree signitied (see also Prieto,1975:66). Thus one can say tt.at 1n the structuralistic milieu denotation, 1t we assume as a parameter the well known Prege•s triangle, is more s1milar to the Sinn than to the Bedeutung, that is, more similar to the sense than to the reterence.

198

The whole picture change8 radically 1n the anglosaxon trad1t1on of philosophf of language and of extensional semantica: 1n aussell s 'On denot1.ng 1 (1905) denotation 1s undoubtsdly linked to reference, as radically opposed to meaniDg. This usage 1s tollowed by the whole ot anglosaxon ph11osoph1cal trad1t1on (see tor instance Ogden and Richards, 1923). In this sense an expression denotes the class ot 1nd1v1duals of which it 18 the name, while it connotes the properties by virtue of which the8e individuala are recognized as members of tbe class in question. If we sub8titute -as Carnap (1955) doe8- the couple denotation /connotation with the couple extens1on/1ntens1on, we can say that denotation 18 a tunction ot connotation (except if one follow8 the theory ot rigid de81gnation). In order to avoid such a growi.ng terminological contusion somebody has preterred to use 'de81gnat1on• 1n place ot 'denotation' and recently Lyons (1977,I: 208) haa proposed to use denotation in a neutral way aa between extension and intension: •we will normal.ly say, for example, that 'dog• denotes the claas of dogs (or perhaps some typical member, or exemplar, of the claas), but that 'canine' denotes the property, 1! there 18 8Uch a property, the posse8s1on ot which 1s a condition tor the correct application ot the expre8s1on•. The proposal sounds very reasonablei and sometime8 even useful, but it represents a pis al er. since it does not elilllinate the paintul fact that fdenotation 1 1s a polysemous term and can hardly be used as a technical category. Moreover, even when denotation recognizably 8tands tor extension it may reter (i)to a cla88 ot 1nd1v1duals, (ii)to an actually existi.ng 1nd1vidual (as 1n the case of the rigid deeignation of proper names), (iii)to the truth value corre8ponding to an assertive proposition (so that, in theee frameworks, the denotatum of a proposition 1s what 1s the case or the tact that 'P' is the case). The firet case 1n which denotation haa been blatant ly used 1n an extensional 8ense wa8, aa far as I know, the one ot John Stuart Mill (1843,I,2,5): 'the vord li:ite denote8 all white things, as 8now,paper,the foa11 of e sea, and so torth, and implies, or as 1~ was termed by the schoolmen, connotes the attribute whiteness•. Peirce was probably the first one to realize that there was something odd in thi8 usage. Undoubtedly Peirce alway8 used denotation 1n an extensional sense, and he al80 meant by •to denote• to 'brutely _direct the mental eyeballs ot the interpreter to the object 1n question' (Collected Pa~rs: e.350). But he .uner8tood clearly that -as far aa •connotation' was concerned- Hill was not tollowing, aa he ola!!!

199

ed, the traditional seholaatie uaage. The Sehoolmen distinguished (at leaat until fourteenth eentury), between mean1ng ('significare•) and ~am1ng (•appellare•) and uaed eonnotation not as opposed to denotation but as an additiona1 form of aignification: It has been, indeed, the opinion of all the studente ot the logie of the fourteenth, fifteenth and sixteenth eenturies, that t~nnotation waa in thoae agea uaed exeluaively tore reterenee to a aecond significate, that ia (nearly), fora reference to a relative aense (auch aa father, brilhter, etc.) to the co=elate of the object it prlmarily enotes ••• Mr.Mill as however con.aidered himaelt entitled to deny this upon hia aimple dictum, without the citation of a aimple paaaage from any writer of that time (Colleeted Papera: 2.}9}). Peirce alao remarka that the eommon oppoaition, in the Middle Agea, waa between 'significare• and •nominare• (to mean and to referto). He aays that Mill uaea, 1n plaee ot 1 signity 1 , the term •connote•, uaing then 1 denote 1 for nllllling or reterring to. He quotea John of Saliabury (Metalogiçua II,20), aeeording to whom •nollinantur aingufula aed universalia signifieantur•; it untortunately happened that ••• the precise meaning reeognized as proper to the word 'signity' at the time of John ot Salisbury ••• was never atriotly obaerved, either betore and aince, and on the contrary the m~an1ng tended to slip towarda that of 'denote• (Colleoted Papera: 2.4}4).

In thia discussione Peiree was right (and percept1ve) and vrong at the a8111e time. He lucidly realized that at a certain mo111ent •significare• partially shifted from an 1ntena1ona1 to an extensional fraaework, but he did not aoknowledge the fact that, during the following oenturies, it uinly retainecl 1ta inteneional aenae. On the other aicle he accepted clenotat1on aa an extenaional category (and argued w1th Hill only a propoa ot connotat1on) wh1le it waa 1deno;tare• that, or1ginally uaecl llid-wa;y between extenaion and intension, at the t1nal ud took over ae. an extenaional oategoey. fhie paper aiaa at providi.ng a aeries ot preliainary eviclenoea to be uaed by a turther hietory ot the term 1 clenotation 1 by ahowing at wh1oh point of the medieval 1 tradition 1 eignif1care 1 ehitted (at least philoaophicaJ. tor some authora) troa the intensional eide to the extenaional one. AB we ahall aee, auch a propoaal waa not ent1rely accepted by the ph1loaophical and logieal

200

community, but, by a sort of 111etonymical fate, what did not l,e.ppen to •significare', did happen to 'denotare'. A.:1ISTOT1E In tt,e famous passage 16a (and ffg) of De interpretatione, Aristotle implicitely but clearly deslgnes a semlotic tria,nele, in which words are related on one side to concepts \Or passione of the soul) and on the other to things. Aristotle says ttat worde are symbols of tlle passions and by •symbol' means a conventional e.nd arbitrary device. It 1s true, as we sr.all see later, that he also says t,.at words can be taken as symptoms ('seme1'a 1 ) ot the passione, but lle says this only in the sense that every verbal utterance can be, first of all, the Sy1!1ptom of the fact tliat tl,e utterer has something 1n his mind. As tor the passions of the soul, they are likenesses, or icona, ot the thing. But in the Aristotelian ti,eory we know t:hings through the passione of the soul and there is no direct connection between symbols and things. We name things by meaning tì.eir icona, tl:at 1s, the corresponding ideas they arouse in our Vli.nds. Aristotle does not use, tor this symbolic relation, the word 1 sema1'nein 1 , but in many other circumstances he uses this verb to indicate the relation between words and concepts. Single terme taken 1n isolation do not assert anything about wtat is the case. They onl.y •mean• a thought, As far as sentence or complex expressions are concerned, tl,ey undoubtedly mean a tr.ought but only a particular kind of sentences (a statement, or a proposition, 1 apòphasis I or 'lbgos apophantikòs I J asserts a true 01· false state of atfairs • .:.ristotle does not say that statements 1 s1gniff' what is true or false but rather that tl:ey •say' ltì,e verb 1s 1 lé11:ein1 ) that something A belongs (the verb is 'jpàrcheinT) to something B.

EAaLY ì-iIDDLE A.GES Boethius translates •sellléi):hein' with 'significare•, but he tollows also the Augustinian line of thought (followed by the wllole i-U.ddle Ages at least until the XIII century) according to which 1 sign1ficatio 1 is the power that a word has to arouse in the mind of the hearer a thought, through the mediation of which one can implement an act of reference to thinge. For Augustina 'eignum est enim rea praeter speciem, quam ingerit sensi bus, aliud aliquid ex se taciens in cogitationem venireT (De doctrina christiana II,1,1) and signification is the actlon of slgn upon a mind. Boethius takes 'significare• - ae well as, lesa

201

frequently, 'designare• - 1n an 1ntens1onal sense.Words are conventional instruments used to make lalown one•s thoughts ('sensa• or •sententias') (In Per.herm.I). Words do not desi(9Ulte 1 res sublectae• but 'passi~ nes animae•. Tt.e designated tM,ng is at most said to be 1 underlying tl:e conoept of i t (si'TT1fioation1 su-o':losi ta or suB1>ositU1A)', see de ;{ijk 1967: 80-161. oethlus uses indifferently •si:i-ni:fioare• and 'designare• and the following tradition will do t~e sa.me. The status of 1 denotatio 1 and 'desil'.Platio' re11.ains for a long time unoommi tted and at least until t,:e XIV century t hese terms were used some times intensionelly and some other times extensionally. Ti.ey existed 1n t,,e Latin lexic:on sinoe the ol?..ssio period, and tti ti: c:i.ny senses. Let us aay that t:,ey meant, among oti".er senses, • to stand as a sign foc somet::ing', il·respeotively of the faot whet!-er that sometr,ing was a oonoept or a t i:ing, For 1 des1anat10 1 the etymoloSY 1s self-evident, and :for 1 denotat1o 1 one u:ust remember ti.at •nota' was a si~, a token, a symbol, something eending baok to something else lBee also Lyons 1968:40:5-404). 1 Ilota I is however so vague tl,at Boethius uses 1t twioe to translate both 'symbolon' and •seme'l'on' in t ,ie Aristotelian text, In Peaiherm.II, debating tl:e question whetf.er words refer iDlllle iately to concepts orto tl:ings, 3oethius uses in both cases t l.e exfression 'designare•. :.e says in the same oontext that vox vero oonoeptiones animi intellsotusque signifioat• and tì.at •vooes, •• intelleotus designant•. Speaking of 'litterae, vooes, intelleotus, res• he says that 'litterae verba nominaque signifioant• and that 'haec vero (nomina) principaliter ~uidem intelleotus secundo vero loco res quoque designant.Intellectus vero ipsi nihil aliud nisi rerum significativi sunt• (ed.i-ieiser:20-27), In Arist.catH.(col.159 B4-C8) Boethius says that •prima lgltur I a fuit nominum positio per qualem vel intellectui eubiecta vel sensibus designaret 1 • It seems tl;at •ridge Mass.: Harvard unlverslty Pre•s.

---(1984), Le leggi dell'ipoteai. M,A. Bontantinl, R, Grazia, G, Proni and M, Ferraresi (echi). Milano: Bo•piani,

27 IL RUl10RE DEL TENPO Ignozio FUippi

La ca,,un!.cozione sorga da un prS..o tentativo di eseminora lo possibilità di uno corrispondenza tra una tipologia della cultura a uno tipologia amniotico dei taeti. evidenziando nel brusio di fon do dallo cultura, qual r1AOra semiotico dal t-.,o (riprandando"\11 titolo di una calabre prosa di o. l'landal'atanl che ambiento i'l di n1111iS110 dalla saniosi 1111ona par saltare sul nostro trasportatore ..sul quale scorrono le struttura fond4mantoli dallo produzione sasn! CO.

Os alcuni anni è 110lto vivo l'aaiganzo di introdurre lo spassora dal tinpo ·nall'onolisi sllllliotico, in particolare per i tasti di letteratura. Lo proposto di alcuni è quello di evidenziare il ti po di aagnicità che, in uno canplessivo visiona di.acronico, anuclai uno potenza regolative interno olla trosfomoazioni, pennattando di definire lo latteroturo un sist- din11111ico, uno continuità nel dia continuo. un ristrutturar-si ininterrotto di continua disaarninozionT lcf. Corti, 19761 18311 altri, coma Van Oijk, prop~ono une strutturazione profondo di tipo poradip,otico articolato in un nucleo di categoria, altri ancore, coma Greilnos panaeno o un algoritmo estrot to eone impianto generativo. Il probl- in fondo è &81!1>NI 1dantico1 11 rapporto tre anc1clopadio • innovazione, da dova sorga a con,a ai definiaca. Il punto nevralgico è 11 rapporto dal codici culturali col segno lcf. Lotanan, 1979:41) e le tipologia strutturali che ne scoturiscono, non, e qui sto 11 nocciolo dal probl-. in uno reciprocità necessitante, spesso neanche conseguente. L'in,poatozione del probl- coal corae ai presento in LoUtan a Grairnos, ripropone lo sch- del bipolarie11111, un binori11110 di contrasti e opposizioni (es. inta"'° vs aeterno, con tipologia di oaa:llailozione o di evoluzione), che pur aa Slll)i-nte roppraaantotivo oppore atn.nento ancoro troppo rigido che lascio aeoparti anpi varchi di neutralità strutturale apaaao in rapporto embivolenta col contesto. L'easunziona dall'ambivalenza o fattore interno contrapposto all'univocità nello d1nemice dai sistemi (cf. Lotlllon, 1980: 21-221. non toglia 11 problarno in quanto 1 sistanu 881ftiotici reali si d1apongono su un pi~ largo apatt"rO strutturale lcf. Lotman, 1980 : 26) Che elude uno scelta rigida, negativo-positivo, per 1ne1nuora1 fra la p19&he dal neutro ed aprire nuova strode e condizioni di ••neo, nuovi percorsi a correlazioni codificanti, E' importante di conseguenze datanoinere accento agli •l-nt1 (dati apaeso della scola binor1a) anche il vettore che 11 lega in un canuna trend a111111ot1co, furgando da varo catalizzatore taatuola, una aorte di istruzione par 1naaguira.1 salti nel modello O a far

2AO

-rgere 11 dise1no sllllliotico 1enerole souiocente ol testo (cf. Eco, 1975:338), Lotmon, coll'eloborozione di uno teorio sullo convergenze nei testi letterori di differenti codici sovrapposti e Von Oijk penson· do uno cotol1s1 dl elamenti porod1gmot1c1 nel tasto reolizzoto (cf, Von Oijk, 1976 :17) suggeriscono l'ipotesi di un quolche coordino• tore semiotico dagli elementi testuali, Tole cotolizzotore aandotico ~ doto ll)l)aao proprio dol in.mo cotegoriole sintetico che individuo 11 rapporto dal codice con 11 segno che, determinando 11 principio salazionotore nel nnore dal ten,po, imnetta in quel nostro trosportotore priv1leg1oto ovviondo l'indefinito concotanoziona sellliosico. Ed eccoci opprodoti ol punto coldo: quonti e quoli tipi dir~ porti 11 codice pub 1ntrottenere col 1e1no? Innumerevoli. poiché è indefinito l'a1pon1iona cod1f1conta dal segno. S1 po1aono però tan· tora dalla tipologia corottariaticha, corrispondenti od oltrattonti possibili trend aen1ot1c1 non univoci (poiché 11 loro ropporto con 1 sottoinsiemi non è nacessitontel. mo operti, Lotman individuo due principi fondomantoli: 11 porodipotico (sGn10ntico) fondato su un repporto di sostituzione e quello sinte&· mo ico. ratto do uno di corciunzione1 dollo canbinotorio dei due principi ai proapettono quattro tipo.logia corotteriaticha (che non aono in teorie temporalmente conseguenti, mo che tuttovio ai sono succedute dol J ol IV nello 1torio rusao. cf, Lotmon. 1973141·42). che mentercono ol loro interno uno atrutturo bipolore minimo ottor· no olla quale si orgonizzo l'assimilazione semiotico del mondo (cf. Lotmon. 1980:48·50), In verità, 11 bipolor191110 non è prassocché mai r1&1do, apscia nei testi letterari dove l'oas11D1loz1one s-1ot1co dal m~ndo goda di 1rnp1 morg1n1 espressivi di s1n1olorità rispetto 01 codici cultu• rol1 dominanti. S1 trotto olloro di ricarcore uno possibile formu• lozione più COlll)rensivo di struttura tipologiche. che pur roppre· sentendo lo culturo coma uno seria porodiglnatico, ai proporcono nel conteq,o come le energie d11111nicha atta o individuare l'intri&o se· miotico che sfocio in un corotterietico (tipoloeico) atteui-to verso 11 secno, uno specifico se1nicità (cf. Lotmon, 1969:318) che ol suo interno fondi l'efficocio produttivo dei a,eccon1111111 aeno1ot1· ci odottoti. Noturollllente. l'approccio non è ol segno come microcoamo se· miotico, quonto oi siat..,1 di segni, oi tasti intesi come 1para1· atemi di cmologia strutturali o euperfunzioni segniche (cf. Eco. 1975:339), In questo ampio morgine. intendendo 11 tasto cena un se· ll18lltO esponao o l'esponaiona di un verbo (cf, Eco, 1979:491 Genette. 1916:18). divento interessante tantore un eaernè che focalizzi la linee di forzft di toli esponaioni1dai percorsi testuali coma diss~minozioni r0&ionote di istruzioni semiotiche che supportono le strut turozioni codificonti. In questo contesto. •~9tico del teeto e semiotico dal codice riaultono circoloniianta dipendenti a divantono riproponibili dei 'tanaint anbrallo' lorgomantè.roppra■antot1v1 (cf, Eco, 1979:24).

241

Non voglio sostituire 11 3 ol 2, per, de for■es Csy■étrique/dissy■é­ tri que, s: ■ple/conaplexe> ••• ou encore de positions Chaut/bas, conjoint/di$joint). tlais ce-• peut etre aussi des utégories de techni ques : graphique/picturale ou traiteoient en ■odelé/traitement en aplat Cqu'on songe aux peinture de G. Kli■t). o•autre part, un systé■e se■i-symbolique peut se réaliser dans un seul texte, dans une seule oeuvre, par un jeu de contrastes; mais il peut aussi se réaliser sur la globalité d'une couunication. Oirigeant,paral lèle■ent à •• recherche, une unité d'études sé■i otiques au sein d'un institut de sondages et d'études publicitaires (IPSOS>, j'ai été auné à travailltr sur un grand no■bre de colNllun i cations sectorielles : la "publicité" faite pour les whiskies, les pilts électriques, les ■édica■ents psychotropes ••• età y reconnattre airisi un certain no■bre de ces s:rstè■es se■i-sy■boli­ ques que j'appellerais globaux. Prenons l'exelDl)le de la coHunication sur les psychotropes CS). A partir d'un corpus de 130 1nnonces-presse représentant la quasitotalité des ca■pagnes é■ises ces dernièrts années (ca■pagnes réal i sées par des 19enc1s de publicit6 très di ff6rentes>, on a pu d6gager un s:rstème , ..i-syd>oliqut global fond6 sur l'ho■ologation de la catégorie sé■antique euphorie/dysphorie avec plusieurs catégories de l'expression, de nature et de co■plexit• divecses. Cet exe■ple a donc été pris aussi pour ■ontrer un cas particulier de

2S3

rhlisation, par "redondance du signlfiant" si l'on peut dire. 01ns cette co•unication psychotropes, douze cat~ories de valeurs, de couleurs, de traits, de for■es, de relations spatlales et enfin de techniques, sont syst6■atique■ent hoeol09uées à l1 c1t69orle euphorie/dysphorle, que nous 1vons ici projet6e sur un carr6 st■iotique car l'ho■olo91tion se fait aussi bien avec les con- . traires, euphorie/dysphorie, qu'avec les sub•contrai res, nondysphorle/non-euphorie (6). Volei coMent on peut repr6senter le systt■e se11i-syClbolique caracttris6 par une redondance du signlfiant : Clair Nuanc6

SlGNlfIAHT ou

EXPRESSION

vs " Polychro■atique " Trait .fin " Trait continu " Oessin net " For■e sl ■ple " For■e sy■ttrique " For■e unique " Haut " Conjoint " Technique picturale "

I

So■bre

Contrast6 Konochroa,atique Trait épais Trait discontinu Oessin flou ou "fil6" For■e co■plexe For■e dissyétrique For•• dt1111ltip l i6e

8as

Oisjoint Graphique

I

Oépression Angoisse

8ien-itre Plaisir

EUPll RlExOYSPHrRlE

1

SlGNlFlE ou COflTENU .

NOH-OYSPHORIE vs NOH-EUPHORIE TristHse Cal■e Paix inUrieure Anxiét6

Venons-en ■aintenant à une troisit■e considtration sur la rtalis1tion de ces syst6aes se■i-syllboliques. Cert1ines catégories du pl1n de l ' expression sont suffis-•nt profondes, abstraites, pour r6gir un syncr,tis■e de langage, de ..nifestation. Oans cette annonce de la ca■pagr,e de l1nce■ent pour la cigarette "News" (voir ci-contre> la ■he ho11olqgation d'une cat*rie d'expression et d'une cat•vorie de contenu: Exoression Contenu

Oiscontinuit6 / COfltinuit6 /ldentité/ / /AlttritH

" '"•'r >r,.. , .,

_, .

,·

. .~..:--~ SDIIOSIS:

ULYSSES AS IXlUII.B S'mlJC'nmt:

Bl!lrt>ara R>lkart

'Itle literary text has often heen defined as a pnly reflexive entity: metaphors such as •1es rUractions et inversions multipli~ du texte, son 1!lan• is epified into "O'N:>lan, clad in shining armour, low bending made obeissanoe to the puissant and high and 11ighty chief of all Erin• before meta110tphoei,lCJ, during a whilnsiLOOATION OP PJpague dans aee parcoura de aena et qui ee placa dans 1•,cllange cocaunicatlt entre énonciateur et énonciataire". Il attinae plus loln la necéas1t41 d'élaborer de raçon precise cea deux notiona, celle du auJet énonciateur et celle du euJet énonclatalre, ce dernler étant "l'iaage du r4cepteur que le texte conetruit" . Bré110nd et Welntrlch se aont occupéa de ce qui concerne le genre narratit, Claude Bré■ond a'eat pos6 un problàae technlque qui peut ftre extJhement i■portant pour le• phllologuea et lea ethnologues: "la question de eavoir d l'un1t41 narrative tonduentale eat caracteriaée par une etructure interne invariante et par une tonct1on contextuelle varlable, ou au contraire par une etructure interne variable et par une tonction context.uelle tixe". Il a proposé que "la structure interne et la ronction contextuelle co■portent toutee deux dee élé■ente relatlveaent stablee, qui peuvent servirà definir le 1110tir dane aa g6n6ralit6, et dea élé■enta plua variablea qui peuvent, aoit eervlr a detinlr dea aoua■otlta qui apécifient le ■otif ciane lea aoua-corpows, eoit caractériese dea variante• uniquea, dee~• a la p6riphérie du ■otit".

Welnrich a prée~té une COIDWlication qui n'avait rien à voir avec la d&arche narratologique, - t en étudiant eon obJet. D'aprh lui, dane l'hietolre de la culture europeàme on peut réléver •un croieecent de deux IIOUV-nta eéelologiques, l'un, deecenclant, de dénarrativiaatlon et l'autre, aecendant, de roaan trionphant": et a l'lntérieur de cea deux eouve■ente l'on obeerve -- poursuit-11 - "dea déplac-nte aecondairea en direction opposée, c'eat a dire, de temporaliaation dana lea eciencea, de epatlallaation dane le ro■ane dane le but, d'un coté e - de l'autre, de d01111ner eneeable le grand pl'Obleee de la aéaoire culturelle ■oderne, c'eat a dire, l'abondance dea donn6ee disponlblee". Ml■e ai la thàee de Veinrlch est tràe rlche de coneequencee et acceptable darul eee preauppoeée, l'option que répreaente cette orlentation dome lieu partlculienaent aux deux carene•• du Congrla dont J'a1 parl6 tout à l'heure.

296 CAIUIIICBS

La prol~re eet le dlence 4111 se prodlllt dane ce■ contéNncee pl,n1àree à propoa de la dénoaée lkole de Parla: BNaOnd •'eat aurto11t occ11pé, on l'a déJl dlt, d'une queatlon de d,ta11, per1phér1q11e par rapporta la narratologie elle-■IH: .et Weinrich a entend11 narration 011 récit ciana le sena restreint de genre, la1Hant aind de coté la poaaible tertilité d11 "prograae narratit" 4111, e - chacun aait, n'a rien l voir, l atrict-nt parler, avec •rcaan•, •conte• ou a11tre cboae de aeeblable. Ce dqr6 s6ro a'av~re d'a11tant pl11e reurquable quo Oreillae a été l'a11te11r le pl118 e■ployé pour lee analyeee de textee eignaleéa par lee pbilologllea q11e J'ai claeeéa pl11• ha11t dana le groupe B, et eon Dictionnalre (1979) eet, peut-ltre, l'ouvrage la pl118 clté. L'autre carence on rélatlon avec la précédente, concerne le mnquo de repreaentation de la Llnguiatique du Texte ciana le progruae dee contérencee généralea. Certainnont, ai to\lte aé■iotlque n'eat pae ling11iatlque du texte, toute llng11latique du texte, rlgourouaesent parlant, e■t une a&iotique: pl118 encore, elle aollligne l'élétlent pnpatique dont le beaoin a été mia en évidonce dane ce Congràe . On eapérait aueai dane ce eone q110 We1nr1ch -- l'auteur d'une gra■■aire toxt11elle du trança1n publiée l peine 11ne aMée &IIJ)IU'&vant (We1nrich, 1982) -- aupoaer&it une repreeentat1on de coe orientationa. Par ailleure, C. Segre q111 e'occupait do la conterence intitulée "La nature e&iotique du texte• a'eet borné a rappeler a ce propoe "l'union biunivoque de la compétence Unguietiq11e et de la cOIIJ)étence textuelle: la deuxike ne peut e'accomplir qu'à travere la pre■làre, la pre■iere n'ad■et pu to11te aeule l 'union de phraaee dane un énoncé ( ••• ). Pl11a complàte - et elle a déJa été tentée - eerait une repreeentation de toue lee éléaenta en Jeu q111 aboutirait a un ■odeU de la production d'unitéa ~1cat1voa•. Ho11e noua retr011vona dovant un appel cénériquo de l'attentlon vere la prac,,iatique. Il va aane dire que, coaoe dan• le caa précedént, la l1ngu1at1que textuelle a trouvé auaai aa placo dana lea co■■leaiona reapectivea. Qu'on ■e permette, à ce •uJet, une ~ u e atatletiq11eeent tondée: le aanie■ent d'une •'•lotlque dlacun1ve expliclte (ou aémlotique dana le eone tort) a été plus cOUr&nt par■l ceux q11i •• aont occ11p,a do diacoure ou de textea non llttéraux (bande deaalnée, cinna, téléviaion, texte de tbéitre) q11e par■i lea apéc1al1etee de ce quo nous appelona Uttérature. La cauee eat probabl-t banale: un congràa d'hiapaniatea (ciana le sena convontionnel d'Jà noté) n'a p11 accue1ll1r q11e le• non-hlapaniatea atrictnont a&iologuea, de la inecie taçon q11'un congràa de a&ioloeuea ne peut acc11e1111r, peutltre, q11e lee philologuee stricteaent ae■1otic1ene. MeJ.gr~ tout, le c ~ e a atteint dane une borMe ■eaure à ■on avia, lea obJectita tixée:

297

OBJBC'l'IPS

1) aettre en c:ontac:t pour la preanre toie cee chercheur, lliapaniatea (que noua avona appel& pbllologuea a&ioticiena) qant dea intfrfta c:oaauna, aal• a011vent laolH et inconnua l.H una pour

l•• autrea.

2) a01aettre à une crltique l.a v1ab1lité dea travaux qu'on pl.açait eoue J.'étiquette de a&iotique qui, partole, n'étaient que l' lgnorance IDIUlquée par un terae ~ t . 3) raettre en rapport le, pllllologuea et ceux que noua a•ona appelfa a&iol.ogue• non l.inauiates, C011111111&utéa ac1entit14uea, toute lea deux, QU1 général.eMnt travaill.aient che& noua dalle une lgnorance ll\ltuelle autant 4ue aétiant. Le premiere polnt a été contiraé par la rfponae •HiYe 4ue cet appel a trouvé: 5li0 specialiste• du monde entier est un c:bittre certaine■ent ~uable. Le deuxiae, par lea tort.es diecusaions ■cientitiquea qui ont eu lieu au c:our■ del.a quasl-totalité dea efancee tenuea dan8 preeque toutee lee eallea qui accuellirent le■ 217 coaunlcation■ preaentées. Le trol■i-.e par la pré■ence d'un groupe noabreux de •--iologue• non lincui■tea . Il ne paa que■tion lei dea dlver■ app9rte qui ont été tait• ■ur dea point■ tbéor14uea pnlcl■ qul concernent l.a Lingulatlque, les lnatance■ 1oc:1al.e• et paycbologlque■ del.a productlon du eerus, l.a tbéorie l.1ttéra1re généraJ.e, l.a tlléorle dea genrea, l.a déter111nat1on de certalnea typologle• dana le corpus littéraire biapanique par l'appllcation du parcoura génératlt del.a tbéorie grei■aeeieMe, l.ea 4ueetione ouvertea eur le texte draeatlque et le texte tb6itral. (par exeaple, lea notions de per■onnace, point de vue et unitéa th~tralea), l •ineertion ■&iotlque del.a atyU■tique, etc. Plus inabordable encore ••t l 'apport plus ■odeate (tlléoriqu-nt) uh, peut-ltre, dana l'en■eable, plue aubetantiel dee Actea en tant que contrlbution large à une lecture actualiaée dea textea lllapaniquee (llttéraux et non Uttéraux); à cel.a e'aJoute le tait que le contraate avec dea texte■ aueel particul.ler■ que ceux dee cul.turea del.a découverte de l'Aaérique peut apporter, d'apri, ce qu'on volt dana l.ea étude• de aotlta qul ont été lua au Cong?"àa, dea enr1cll1aaeaente llll)Ortanta qul vont au-delà de ceux que Todorov avalt entN1vua dana certaina de ■ea ouvragea l.es plua récenta (ctr. Todorov, 1982) . Le rétard rel.atlt dana lea aource■ blbliograpbiquea de certainea c0a11111ication■ ne contrediaent .aae pea l.a vaJ.eur général.e dont Je parle. On peut eapérer, en eatre, que lea contact• tavorieéa par le Congràe penaettent dee écbangea téconde dana ce sena .

••ra

198

COHCWSIOltS Je ne tera1 que signaler wie caractér1et1quea d011inante ccc.une aux coaun1cat1ona et aux contérencea littéra1rea: le caractàre d'obeoleecence du paradipe Jalcobaon1en. Peu d'&Méea avant, darti lee textee courante en Bspqne entre 1970 et 1980, lea ph1lol.oguee qu1 •'1ntireasa1ent à cee que■tiona taiaaient 1ppel - ne eerait-rle du 1angye. Parla: Hacbette. Ore1maa, AJ.&irdae J. (1984). .l!ntretlen réalhé par J. Pont&nllle. ~ Françalee 61: 121-128. Todo~veten {1§82). La congulte de l'AMr19ue. La gueetlon de l'autre, Parla: Seull., Welnrlcb, llarald (1982). Text«ramatlk der traM&lecben Sprache. Stuttgart: Klett. Wlenold, ~t& (1972). Se■iotlk der Llteratur. l'r&nlttl&rt: Atheni1111.

33

ANALYSXS OF THB RELIGXOUS PROCBSS 'l'HROUGH DXSCOURSB ANALYSXS Adrian s. Giaate-Welsh

O.- PREPACB

"Parca que noua aoaaea au aonde noua ao•••• condamnés au sens et nous ne pouvons rien taire ni rien dire qui ne prenne un no• dana l'bistoire" (J.c. Coquet et al, 1982:11). Xt ••-• pertinent to •• to begin thia coaaunication vith auch • reterence be0auae "it underliea the aeaantic diaenaion ot language 'and the relation ot the IINbject vith the vorld ancl vith biatory". Xt obviously has to do with the topic ot this paper. Thia is ao becawae the proble• ot sen•• goes beyond the linguistic systea. What interests me at this 1110111ent i• to plac• th• ••phasis on the relationabip that language ha• vith th• ■ubject and vith hi■tory. 'l'h• latter ••ana that •Y text ot analysia will r.ot be seen as a closed text, rather aa an open text in so tar as ve tale:• into account th• viev of tbe producer as vell •• that ot the receiver and tbe situation in which the text is generated. Why discourse analysis? Recalling Foucault'• point ot viev, the structuralist approaoh to th• text makes ot i t a "mounaent" instead ot a "document" or sign ot another thing; the interpreting eleaent vill not be present aa long •• it will not aearch the underlying diacourse. Thus, aubject and discourae abould be placed in vhat is Jcnown as aocial toraation, a concept that is divided into tvo lnatances: ldeological toraation (X.P.) and diacuraive toraation (D.F.). 1.

THBORB'l'XCAL FRAKBWORK.

1.1 Xdeology and Social Poraation. Within the aarxiat tradition ideology aeana "false conaciousneaa" but it alao aeans a "set ot beliate that are deterained by the aocial relationa ot production". Pro• the point ot viev ot social tunction, ideology is 1:Jle "■et ot beliefs that giv• coberenoe to th• ••lllben Qf a group or social ola••", wbether it is to exert pover upon the individuala or to perauade th••• AB a

302 syste■ it does not retlect ■ecbani~lly the intereata ot the class that produees it, rather, it disguiaes it. Tbua, the particular intereat beeo■e general. Ideology playa a legitiaating tunction ot thinga. Froa the althuaaerian point ot view, there ia general ideology (and the real idaologiea-ideological procesaes), To Althusser it ia not the aiaple world view but a coneeption ot the exiatential relationsbip ot aen with their world wbich in the end is deterained by the relationabipa ot production. Ita ■ateriality takea place in wbat be calla the Ideological State Apparatus (I,S,A.) or Ideological Inatancea (I.I,) and conatitutea the space in wbich ideology ia produced and reproduced. It is around tbe I.S,A, that the atruggle between classes is centered. Re also distinguiahea between doainant and do■inated ideologi••• Tbe expreasion ot the latter is given within the space deter■ iend by the do■inant ideology, a poaition wbich, aa we, Jtnow bas been retuted by other scholars. Ria point ot view ia ot intereat to •• becauae bis linea ot thought are present in apeech analyaia. Tbe atore■entioned com■enta point to two ■eanings. a) aa aupereatructure-poaitive ■eaning: (b) as talee conacienee or disguisinq ot reality -- a negative aenae. However, both ■eaninga ahould not be ■utually excluded but ■utually co■pl-entary. Suob co■ple■entarity i•pli•• a dyna■ic perapective -- it• biatorical beco■ing, Tbat ia, it will not be by detinition a tal•• conaciouaneaa. It can be detined aa a •view ot lite and ot the world, tal•• and true at the sa11e ti■e ■ore or lesa scientitic according to the biatorical beco■ing•. It conatitutea a reterence point tor social practice and not juat tor political practice. Inaotar aa ideology expresea itaelt in tera• ot ideaa, belieta, valuea, ay■bola and aigna, ideology i• a ayntheaia ot culture. Thia would be ita positive ■eaning -- the Weltanschauung. What I propose to study, then, is a ayntheaia ot culture in its regional aanitutation and particularly a special type -- the religious. It ■y reaaoning ia correct, ideology ia then a type ot code, a type ot language that per■ ita co■■unication a■ong the ■e■bera ot a claaa group and enhanc- their identitication aa a claaa ditterent tro■ other cl•••••• It thia ia correct, the ideologi~l proceaa ia a ae■iotic object. It:a atudy ~n be inseribed within ae■lotle studles but in a larger totality. Thus the study ot ideologi~l proceases could' be aeen aa a study ot cultural procesaaa. There are, without doubt, other develop■enta ot the

30)

eoncept of ideology such as thoee proposed by Graasci but this is not the place to develop them. What I want to underline at this ■o■ent is that tbe church -- the inetitution -- tunctiona as an ideological apparatwi, tor with ite practicea and ita diecourae toni not only ita prieats but alao ita pariahionera. A• auch, it i• not only an object but alao a placa where the struggle between classe• takea place. It i• an ideological instance in which the aubject ia interpellated as an ideological subject. I assume therefore that there will be ideological foniations (l:.P.) that are autually oppoaed and conaequently give rise to typea ot religioua diacourae tbat are alao oppoaed to each other. I take it, then, that a diacursive foraation (D.F.) will be the crystallization ot the confrontation between classes. 1.2 Ideological and Discursive Poraations. Aa ve know, the concept of diacuraive for■ation waa introduced by Poucault in relation to questiona of the hiatorical and diacuraive conditiona in whicb the syatema ot Jcnowledge are conatituted: subject, diacourse and ideology. Such a trlcbotoay aeema ideal because it is precisely ■y.purpose to atudy the poaition of the aubject via-a-visita discourse anc:l ita ideology. It is in thi• context tbat ve perceive the relationabip between lanquage -- aa a relatively autono■oua ayatem -and bistory. It i• in thia tra■eworlc that linquiatics and the theory of history are articulated, and, ■ore particularly, that linguistica and ideological processes are linlced. The ideological processes constitute the source of production ot the effecta ot ■eaning in discourse as an object that has its own apecificity; language, on tbe otber hand, conetitut- tbe ■aterial space in whicb ■enae ettects are .realized. 'l'hat ia, diacourae, i• doubly eonditioned: a)by the ideological tor■ations that relate auch discoUfs• toraationa; b) by the relative autonoay ot lanquage. This double eonditioning is easential in reference to the relationship betveen the linguistic, the idaological and the very ■ateriality of apeech. The aubject speaker■ in the aa■e hiatorical out aay coincide or diverge upon the ■eaning aasigned to the teraa; that i■, they ■ay spealc difterently infpite of the fact that they have the sa■• lin911iatic ba••. Th• difterential cut will therefore be in the conditioning ot the first level (I.F.) that is defined as the set of aptitudea and representations vhich are not universal or individual but are related to class positions, and that tace each other in a situation

304

ot contlict in a particular social tonaation, or in a particular ao11ent ot tlae. Ideological toraations do have a regional character, and they do have claaa poaitions. This explains vhy groupa aay apeak ot the aaae objecta -- liberty, deaocraoy, etc.-- froa antagoniatio ldeological toraationa. In the althuaaerian view, the IP and DP are related in the ideological inatance (I.!,) under the tona ot contradiction at the heart ot tbe ISA, It 1• in the II that the subjeot is interpellated 1n an ideological subject reproducing in this 11anner the exiating social relationa. It auat be aaid tbat the diacuraive toraationa are conditioned by the antagonistic ideological t0r11ati0ns and that the aubject ia interpellated by one or various DP. Nov, if ve agree vitb tbe negative detinition ot ideology, it can be accepted that the tunction ot tbe diacuraive tor11ation i• to hide the aeaning ot wbat gets conatituted within it, that is, the ideologioal toraation. In thi• reapect, ve auat recall the concept ot interdiacourse to whicb Pechewc aealgns a special place, tor in its interior the subject•s objects are fonaed in order to generate the objects ot bis ovn discourse. We are nov taced vith the problea ot bov to do discourse analysis. At thi• tiae I vish to recall tvo concepta proposed by J.J. courtlne (1980:22) :a) the preconstructed1 b) repetition, To these notions I auat add tbose of lnterdlacourae and intradiacourae whicb 11ust be related to the 1deolog1cai fonaatlon and interpellation ot the indivldual into the aubject ot his own diacourae. The tirst tvo concepts conaiat generally in the conatruotion ot equivalent diatributional ola•••• ot the harriaian type. They reter to the co-ocurrence in a discureive sequence ot vorda, syntag11a, etc. They refer to the presence of recurring invarianta in a corpus, identitied by tbe con11utation technique. The dietributional context is the toras of variance, constant and identical. Thus a variation regulated on th• level ot aa11en••• and repetition talla on the level ot the preconatructed. Por the extraction and aegaentation operation• ot eubeequencea, on• auet take into account wbat ia called the key toraa. The•• concepts are detinately related to tbe notion ot diacureive tor11ati0n andare central tor the organic articulation ot lan9Ua9e and discourae. Pirat, because, insotar aa it is detined aa that wbich conditions what can be aaid by a subject, th• DP regu-

30S

lates the relation ot the inter- and intradiacourae and allowa the individual to be interpellated by bi• own diacourae and becoae the aubjeot ot bi• own apeecb. Secondly, becau■e it in a certain aoaent allow• the apealdng aubjeota to coincide or diverge upon a aeaning aaaigned to a lin;uiatic aequence in apite ot the linguiatic invariable. At tbia point I vant to underline tbe iaportance ot interdi■courae, tor it i• the place ot the preconatructed. Th• etteot ot interdiacour■e giv•• ri•• to tbe intradi■courae anditi• tbe relation of interwith intradiacourae that peraita tbe speaker to be interpellated in the aubject ot hia own diacourae. The tranatoraation ot the aubject into an ideological aubject taltea place througb the identitication ot the epealter vith the univeraal aubject ot tbe diacuraive tonaation1 in otber worda, "wbat everybody knowa, aeea or underatand•"· In the analyaia ot tbe corpus it i• i11portant to con■ider tbe diacontinuity ot the diacuraive toraa that produce thoae tona wbich are repeated in the diacour■e. we auat conaider al■o the contradiction that aay rise in the discuraive proceaa and ita repetition in a ditterent ti•• and placa (the tbeaea and toraa). There are tvo kinda ot repetition: a) in extenaion and b) vertical. Th• latter deal vith the unlcnovn, tbat whicb auttera diaplaceaent or. di■placea aoaetbing elae; the toraer reter to tbe iaaginary identitication proce■a ot the aubject toni in the actual diacourae, the concrete aubject: I believe, etc. vith the univeraal aubject -- the enaeable ot hiatorical actora: the catholic (loa catolicoa), the poor · (loat pobrea), etc. If ve agre• tben tbat diacourae la a aaterial inatance ot ideology, and theretore ot religion, ve vill aee the ideological etticacy, not neceaaarily a• tbe interpellation-identitication proceaa but, aa a aore or lesa regulated repetition proceaa, an inatance that conditiona interdiacourae• . There are thertore two level• ot deacription. a) the enunoiation level vbich correaponda to tbe interlooutor -- the "I", "nov• and "bere" ot the diacourae1 b) the utterance level, which i• tbe interdiacourae, the toraa that are cited, repeated and parapbraaed and wbich are oppoaad to one another. It ia in thia space -- the •••ory space -- that tb• enunciator producu vhat i• uttered. Returning to the atudy ot the text that I aa nov going to underta>te, I vant to eaphaaize that religioua diacourae exhibita aodalitie• ot exiatance tbat are aiailar to politioal diacourae in •o tara• it reli••

306

heavily on the

■e■ory

apace.

2.- LBVBL OF AHALYSIS My corpu• tor thi• •tudy 1• the ••t ot •P••ch•• that were registered on aagnetic:: tape in February, 1983, in tvo pariab•• in ths City ot PUebla. In particular, I a■ reterring to the goapel "Blea8ed are the poor". 'l'he corpus, aside tro■ lar19Uage, shows three variables: l) the locutor; 2) the topica ot diacour••1 3) the production conditions, that 1s, the historical condition•. But auch apeech•• abould be •••n in the context ot the reception conditions. 'l'hi• i• vhy inaediately atter 11a88 I tried to get an opinion about the ••aning ot the goapel in order to co11pare the ditterent interpretations. A thesis that I sustain 1s that, in the church as an ideological apparatu8, you are bound to tind in its interior ■utually antagonistic ideological toraationa that condition the discuraive toraatione. In •o tar a• the corpus co•e• tro■ the •••• theae and it is produced in tbe sa•• period ot ti••• theae identiti•• constitute the invariable part ot speech. With reapect to the variablea, I vant to underline the role that the interlocutora develop, tor it presuppose& the existence ot the tvo coaaunicational actant•: the aender and the receiver. With thia we are placing the ••phasi• on the role that the interlocutee playa in the production ot apeech by the interlocutor. 'l'hia aeans that the ditterences that are aaniteated in the apeeches are deterined by the relations establiahed betveen theae tvo variablea. 2.1 Invariablea. Linguiatic invariable: "Blesed are the poor" Synchronic identity Gender identity: the teaching type 2.2 Variablea Interlocutors: ideological ~o■inant aubject and alternative aubject Interlocutee: doainant and d011inated cla••••• 'l'o proceed to the analysis, vill claasity the speeches in the tollowing way: l) apeech type I corresponda to th• parish La Paz, an exclu•ive upper ■ iddle clan reaidential area; 2) apeech type II repreaenta El Parral, a popular zone vith a aarlcet whoae inhabitanta earn no 11ore than the 11iniaua aalary.

:1117

2.3

Speech Type I

2.3.1 "Asi coao en •l Antiguo Testamento Moia4■ una vez bajo del aonte... y eapezd a expliearl•• a lo■ judioa çoao deberian euaplir lo■ diez aandaaiento■, a■1 una vez cuando el Sei'ior baj6 del aonte taabién ■e sienta a explicarlea los ejeaplos aas iaportantea de cristo que tue el de la Bienaventuran;a•"• 2.3.1 "Bienaventurados los pobres de espiritu porque ■uyo •• al reino de los cielo••• Y a■1 Cristo explica su■ oc:ho Bienaventuranzas. Tienen ■u explicaci6n y alguna■ de ella■ no la• podeaoa interpretar al pie de la latra. Quiaiera en eate aoaento expliearle■ la priaera Bienaventuran;a, eo110 no■otro■ debeaos interpretarla". 2.3.3 "Bienaventurado■ los que ahora tienen haJll:>re, lo■ que lloran porque al fin van a reir. No debemo■ entender por asta Bienaventuran;a a aquellaa peraonaa qua no tienen nada, a aquella■ per■ona■ qua no tienen biene■, qua no tienen eo■a• aateriale■, que no tienen dinero•. 2.3.4 1'Heaos . .cuc:hado eoao dijo el sei'lor "Bienaventu rado■ lo■ pobru", lo• pobre■ de e■piritu dice la Sagrada Bscritura•••son aquellos que sienten que por encima de todo sieapre deben bu■ear a Dio■1 porque habrit gente en nue■tro aundo qua•• pobre, qua no tiene nada, pero no tiene nece■ idad de Dio■• Y aquelloa qua•• intere■an por laa cosa■ de Dio■, por ■u palabra llevada a la practica, esos son loa verdaderos pobres de espiritu". 2.3.5 "Son aquello■ qua tienen neceaidad de Dio■• La palabra de Dio• significa eate doaingo que noaotroa trabajeao■ y hagaaos todo lo poaibl• porque en nuestro aundo no haya pobrea, porque no haya de■aaparado■•. 2.4

Speec:h

Type

II

2.4.1 "Bl Bvangelio deapierta interéa. Bl Bvangelio noa debe intere.ar. Bl Bvangelio •• una buana noticia para algunos, para otro■ •• •ala noticia. Bl Bvangelio •• buana b aala notioia dependiendo de quien la reciba". 2.4.2 "Bn la sociedad en la qua viviao■ veao■ que hay pobre■ y rico■• B■ un hec:ho que exi■ten pobre■• Los pobrea ■on una aayorfa de la poblacidn. Los pobrea se vuelven cada vez alla pobre■• La aayor:fa padece neceaidad de aliaentos. La aayoria tiene que alojarae en viviendaa inaundas•. 2.4.3 "En la sociedad en que viviaos v-o• ta11l:>i'11 que existen ricos auy ricos. Bxisten ricos qua viven en

308

palacios, Bxisten ricos que hacen sue coapras en Europa. Los rieos son una ainor!a que se vuelvan cada vez •'• ricos. Uno• se enriquecen a costa de otro•"• 2,4,4 "Veaos que la sociedad esta construida en pecado. Jeaucriato no querfa un aundo asi. Jeaucristo queria un aundo juato1 Jesucriato queria un aundo libre, Jeaucristo queria un aundo donde haya ~z. 2,4.!5 "Dice taabiè'n, Bienaventurados aia hermanos que estàn luohando en favor del reino de Dio111 Bienaventurados los qua se esfUarian y coaproaeten su vida para que nosotros podaaos vivir en un aundo aas feliz, ••• justo, •'• diqno." 2,4.6 "Pongaaoa nuestra confianza en el verdadero Dio• aunque noa peraigan, aunque nos expulsen de nuestra fuente de trabajo". Beginning with the idea that any text hae a etrueture that relate• "events" or •tact:s" and ean be inseribed in teaporal and spatial axes, I shall eoncern ayself, in the firat plaee, with these disjunetions. 2,!5

The Spatial Structure

If we take a look at paragraph 2,3.l the word •aonte" i• repeated a couple of tiaes, thue establiehing an opposition betwen phrases and the rest of the text. We aay have thus the following categorie•: [aonte) va. [no aonte) In the seeond epeech type, the word repeated "eociedad" strikes us iaaediately. Its appearance gives rise to the opposition with "Viviendaa• in the following phrasea [sociedad] va. (no soeiedad] (englobante] vs. [englobado) 2.6 The Teaporal Structure Looking once aore at speech I we distinguiah in the firat place in paragraph 2,3.l the following dietinetions. [paet) vs. [present) "Noiaéa bajd del aonte, al Sei\or bajd del aonte1 quisiera en eate aoaento" whioh i• oppoeed to paragraph 2,3.l and the reet. Notice that the opposition that i• eetabliehed between [ ■onte) ve. [no aonte] introduces the opposition [paet) ve. [present]. In other words, there is a correlation of elase figuree. Notiee also that in the first paragraph there i• an opposition

309

(paat) va. (present), the paat introducea the present. 'l'he paat is the present and thi• underlying idea i• reintorced by "Pablo noa habla de cristo reauaitado, no derrotado y auerto, un cristo que aigue el ritao de la hiatoria". In the aecond apeech type ve alao tind a teaporal aegaentation (paat) va. (present) •Jeaucriato no queria un aundo asi• va. "Bn la aociedad en la que viviaoa•. Hotice that the aegaentatin ot space introduce• a aocial aegaentation that i• quantitied and qualitied. (ricoa) va. (no ricoa) (ainoria) (aayoria) (palacioa) (viviendaa) (aala noticia) (buena noticia) we are nov in a poaition to aake aoae reaarka concerning the eloenta taken into conaideration. Pirat, one can diatinguiah tvo diacursive proceaaea in apeech type II1 a) a state proceea vhich ia aignaled by "El Bvangelio e• una buena noticia•, •21 Bvangelio •• algo nuevo•, phraaea which tunction aa preconatructa in the interdiacourae to generate the objecta vbich the aubject will utilize to generate hi• own diaourae in the intradiacuraive proceaa; b) a pertoraance state vbich reters to a perception procesa as ~n be seen by the phrasea "veaos que hay pobres y ricos•, "la aayoria padece necesldad de alimento•. Tbi• proceaa is directed to the deteralnation ot the object ot diacourae vhicb in thi• case 1• ■pobrea y ricoa•, •1oa pobrea aon una aayoria•. Second, one can diatinguiah by tbe phraae "Bl Evangelio ea buena o ■ala noticia dependiendo de quien la reciba• bov the aul>ject introduce• and articulates the deteraination ot the object -- "Bl Evangelio es una buena noticia" vithout saying yet wbat it i• and a perception proc••• vhich pointa to what tbe object i• in tera• ot the reception context -- the biatorical conditiona. 'l'he object ot deaire i• a vorld tbat i• •juat", •tree•, "where there i• peace•. 'l'hi• i• the Bienaventuran;a aa can be •••n in the laat linea ot speecb II. The conteaporary vorld i• not just, tor "veaos que hay pobres y ricoa", so that the tiret are a aajority andare housed in inaanitary houaes and the second are a ainority and live in palacea. Tbe sul>ject

310

builds his discourse and therefore his object on the basis of the two proc••••• aentioned above. Looking at vhat ha• been said fro■ another angle, the neces■ary ■uccession of the two procesaea in the syntagaatic axia turns out to be relavant to the speech and can thus be seen as a sequence P8 [state process) ---

Pp[pertor■ ance

process)

In other words, the recognition of state facts -- what ve all know, the reourrent ■echanis■o of ideological diacourse -- leading to a cognitive or aensorial proce■• ("Ve■os .•• ") closes with a state proce■s vhich can be seen graphically by

--...Pp

....._..

Pa

2. 7 Actor•• Structure A.a ve know, besides the te■poral and spatial structures, the actorialization structure is another discuraive coaponent and is based on the engageaent and diaengageaent operations. Thus, concerning the actor•s figures, in apeech I, Noisés and Jesus are the sUbjectaender as seen in 2.3.1, while in paragraphs 2.3,2 and 2,3,3, although "we" (noaotros) -- the collective aubject -- i• the graaaatical aubject, it is neverthele•• the receiver, phraaes in which vith the appearance of "debe■oa" we perceive a deontic type of apeech. That ia to aay the "I" of the utterance iaaediately transforas itselt into the aUbject •ve", The priest, who ia the sender, is at the sa■e tiae the receiver, as are the pariahioner■, as can be seen by "he■o• ucuchado...• -a ■ ituation that ia reinforced by paragraph 2,3.2 where it says 00■0 noaotroa debeaos interpretarla", Although a passive role is ■anifested, the phrase indicatea an active subject. Bere ve have a case where there is an identification proceas betveen the enunciation aubject and the utterance•s aUbject, that ia, the speaker'• vorld is identified with t.hat of the utterance. And not only that, but he alao persuade■ hi■ audience to think s:iJlilarly. In apeech II, "Bvangelio" i• the subject ot the state proceaa in paragraph 2,4,l, although in the totality ot the discourse it baco■es the object of speech and the receiver becoaes the "sociedad" which ia indeterainate. If we look at "Bl Bvangelio nos debe interesar", ve can see hov the subject-actor ie identitied with the receiver, the interlocutee. Again, we bave 11

a case where there i• an identification proc••• between the enuncication aubject and the utterance•• aubject and the audience, a aituation vhich manifeata itaelf throughout the entir• diacourae. In other worda, the purpoae i• not to point out the "I" and to identity it in the discourse butto identify vith the "I" to which the speech i• directed, that ia, the audience. This ia the kind ot binary relation vhose tunction ot recognizance has the tona t (x,y), according to Coquet, a aituation in which you bave a logical conjunction of the tvo actanta: X fl y

that is, the change of identity into another. The actor•s thematic role vhich e■erges fro■ the invariable "Bienaventuradoa loa pobrea• is a denouncement of a prevailing "injuatice• amongst the aajority ot people, aa can be seen by the recurring vorda: pobreza, injuaticia, etc. The interlocutor•s identification with the interlocutee 1• ratitied by what a parishioner haa to say:"En este templo se hace sentir a la gente realaente hwaanizada" -"En eata iglesia no se sigue la rutina de aplicar el Evangelio" -"Yo aie■pre le decia a ai esposa que auchas vecea el heoho de escuchar el Bvangelio si no es aplicado en una forma real a la época en que viviaos, co■o que no tiene la trascendencia que se pretende" -"Y pues le digo, aquino existe esa distancia que en muchoa temploa se baca sentir". -"Sino que aqu! nos senti■os auy integrados con nuestros sacerdote•". 3.

CONCLUSION

Theae laat phrases, in •Y opinion, ratity what has been said above, tor such utterancea exhibit the logical conjunctin between the two actanta, that is, the change fro■ one identity to another in the diacursive process and therefore in the ideological procesa. In this case, tbe enunciating subject aa a seaiotic actant is a collective actant: the poor, the exploited clu111e11. The object (of deaire) ia a •juat world". The aubject that eaergea ia an alternative ideological subject -- a collective actant wbich i• oppoaed to the traditional religious aubject which i• exeaplified by speecb type I. speech type II, the expreasion of a discureive foraation vbich i• deterained by an ideological foraation, gives

312

rise to new ideological tendenciea that atrive tor a placa at the heart ot the ideological apparatus whicb in tbis case is the churc:h. Filosofia y Letras Univereidad Autonoaa de PUebla Puebla, Mexico NOTBS. 1. Linguistic process tbat tunctiona aa a aediator batween conacience and reality1 bere, language tunctiona aa a linlc between the subject and the world. The aubject gete hold ot the world througb language and language tbrough tbe enunciation proceaa. 2. Material conditions upon which the discursive proceaaes develop or coae into being. REPBREKCBS

Benveniate, Baile (1981). Probleaaa de Linguistica General. Mexico: Siglo XXI Editor••· Coquet, J.C. (1979). Proleqoa4n•• a l'analyse •odale. Le au1et ,non~t. Parla: Groupe de Recherche suilollnguatique. Beole de Hautes Btudes en sciences sociale&. ---, Arrivé, H., Calaae, c., Chabrol, c., Delorae, J,, Floch, 11,M., Geoltrain, P., and Landowaki (1982), Sé•iotique. L'Bcole de Paria Paria: Claeelquee Hachette. courtine, J.J. (1980). Quel objet pour l'analyse du diecoura. In Haterialit•• Discuraivu, 22-33. Lilla: Presse unlversltalres de Lilla. Foucault, Nichel, (1982). Argueolog:ta del Saber, Mexico: siglo XXI Bditorea.

34 SOME REKARXS ON •usoPIAN COMMONICATION• l Ilf PILM

Wiee):aw Godzic

I intend to diacuas the consequences arising troa the exaaination ot a eeeaingly aarginal ieeue likely to be encountered by the eeaiotically oriented til• theoretician, naaely •Aeeopian coaaunication•. Coneiderations ot tbia ia■ue tocua on the rhetorical, coaaunicational and aeaiotical aapects and in this aense, by calling tor the deteraination ot relationa between tbeae aapecte, we aove the problea ot "Aeaopian coaaunication" troa the periphery ot modem tila theory into ite very center. X will concentrate on relatione between coaaunication and rhetorica, and between coaaunication and eignitication. The analy11ie ot the tir11t pair ot notion11 will help explicate the aeaninq I attach to the titular concept. A retlection on the alleqed diatinction between knowledqe about coaaunication and seaiotiea bringa to aind -- ae I believe -- tbe problea ot •coapleaentary aeaning" in fila. I intend to euggeet a certain conception ot underetanding the latter notion cloeely tied to Aeeopian coaaunication -- a notion requiring tbe evaluation ot the general aodel ot reception and receiver ot tila work aeaninga. It 1• iapoesible to equate coa11unication and rhetoric, and one ehould recognize the exietence ot ditterencee between thea pertaining to at leaet tour ieeuee (Thoapeon, 1970). Piretly, coaaunication ie concerned with tbe precieion ot tbe aeeeage, while rbetoric ie concerned witb ite ettectiveneee. Co1111unication 11ake11 use ot tbe denotative aapect ot language, avoida redundancy, witb the coMotative aepect reaaining imaateral (unleaa it conatitutea interterence in tbe proceea). Rhetoric, convereely, deliberately exploit• c oMotativity, and an exceea ot intor11ation becoaee ita etrength. Secondly, tbe contlict between 001111unication and rhetorio ie .analogoue to tbe dichotoay between the aeobanietic or exact and the buaanietic -- both ae regarde the point ot reterence (ditterent ecientitic attitudea) and the epecitically underatood aocial context. Rhetoric ia intereated in tbe coaaunication ot people in their aocial envirol\llents, whereaa tbe tbeory ot coaaunication concerna iteelt witb the act ot coaau-

314

nication aa euch in the inforaational and logical aapecta. Tbe third group of differencea •t••• tro• the vaat doaain• of both the diaciplinea. coaaunication eabrac.. all ••dia, whil• rbetoric i• baaically confined to vorda. The foraer di■ciplin• i• not intereated in, for exaaple, etbical deterainanta of th• ••••age, wbereaa the latter baa alwaya i■plied •ethical aelfconaciouan••••· More differencea aria• fro■ the degree of generality of the foraulated rulea and fro11 the broadly underatood uaefuln••• in explaining artiatic phenoaena. Having presented the ditferencea between the diaciplin. . (conaidered in iaolation) Tbo11paon augge•t• tbe possibility of cooperation between the two conaiating in autual interaingling, Th• openneas and progreaaiveneas of aethod characteriatic of the theory of coaaunication could revitalize the traditional and petrified rhetoric wbich, in ita turn, could contribute to the Wffuaanization• of th• quantitative aethod• of tbe general theory of inforaation and coaaunication. Such a coabination, referred to tbe apecific nature of fila coaaunication, appeara to •• aa aucb cloaer and in fact dovnrigbt unbreakable, I accept the aodel of fila coaaunication expounded by the Aaerican paycholinguiat Sol Wortb (1978) according to wboa there are two tundaaental kinda of aeaning: the interactional and the co■■unicational, conveyed by two kinda of atrategi•• -attribution and i•plication/inference, reapectively. Worth•a aodel aaauaea active aendera and receivera: tbe reception ot 11eaning ia a proceaa co11plementary to its creation and ia by no aeans a airror reflection ot 11eaning production. Th• viewer-receiver becoau the principal ■eaning-tor■ation agent, be extracta only some and only inco■plete •tranaaitted" 11eaninga and conatructa a ••tory organi••• ditterent tro■ tbe on• on the aender•• end. If we w■r• to proceed in the direction indicated by Worth'a aodel, then we could aay that the objecta ot the reaearcbar's atudy are not the concrete sender and the conditioning ot the concrete receiver but tbe aarJca they leave and the intentiona ot their rolea in tbe text -- tbe preaerved aeasage. The queation i• wbether on• ca.n diatinguiab in tbe fila ••••ag• the reapective rol•• ot tbe ■ender auggeating thinga to the receiver and perauading bi• to involve bi•••lf in th• aeaning-foraation procua, and ot a propoaed receiver endowed with auitabl• diapoaitiona to conatruct 11eaninga. I bave in aind bere a certain kind of knovledge about the film concept ot rbetoric strategy currently accepted and internalized by all coa11unication participanta. Tbia atrategy, generally apeaking, appeara aa the resultant ot two intentiona ot th!i

31S

sender: the desire to articulate and aanitest bis opinion, to declare biaaelt on the side ot aoae trutb, and the siaultaneow, viab to indirectly conatruct (througb the text) a receiver reacting to bi• viewa in a auitabl• aanner -- a receiver who i• to apontaneoualy agre• witb tbe aender•s opinion and to wboa it is necessary to otter irretutable, rational, univocal argw11ents. Not intrequently tbe sender createa in tbe text diapositions tor tbe eaergence ot a receiver-opponent, openly diaputing tbe aender•s views, reluctantly yielding to persuaaion. Tbe diveraity ot rhetorical atrategies in diachrony and in the aynchronoua cultural-political space, togetber with the tbe coneiderable ditticulties in clasaitication, discourage critica troa tacJtling this pbenoaenon and proapt tbea to apeak in tbis context ot the atyle, tbe •aanneraia" ot artista. In analyses ot tbe diverse tunctione pertoraed in various coaaunication aituations, tbe aost tundaaental one i• a• it oaitted. The fil• work i• a phyaical, aaterial trace ot a tranaaction ot two inatitutiona, two aocial rolea, naaely ot the aender and ot tbe receiver. 'l'h• toraer is the producer ot tbe phyaical fora ot tbe work aaking use in the courae ot this production ot aoae type ot rhetorical persuaaion directed at tbe receiver. Tbe latter is nota passive, •nonreactive" eleaent in tbis tranaaction. In bis reception ot tbe work the receiver aay eaploy a ditterent kind ot strategy (failing to underetand tbe sender•• atrategy or ignoring it) but he 11ay alao aeekly auccuab to tbe pressure (troia lazinesa, ignorane• or quite consciously with the intent ot deriving pleaaure troa this subaiasivene.ss). Tbe creative torce ot. the receiver ia an iaportant tactor in the aender-receiver gaae ot fila coaaunication. Rhetorical strategy appears to be an indispenaable eleaent ot coaaunication, and ita conacioua recognition -the tirst atep towarda a aore rewarding intercourae vitb a til11 work (et. Eco•• concept ot a "lector•, Beo 1979). Tbis strategy aay so11eti11es tunction as "Aesopian coaaunication•, by which I understand a specitic senderreceiver aituation wbereby, tor varioua reaaona, the direct presentation ot certain events, persona or vieva ia iaposaible or 11dangerows", and ia replaced by soaetbing else (it re11ainins poaaible, however, to recognize the intratextual signala wbich perait one to see tbe intended tbing in its aubatitute). 'l'wo iteaa •••• to be i11portant in tbia quaaidetinition ot aine. 'l'be tirst pertains to tbe "various reasons• in tbe situation. Tbeae are deterained at once by the concept ot cultural policy, the state ot artiatic and civil rigbta together with the related oharacter ot

316

control inatitutions, and also by the personality ot the artist iaplying the degree ot aubaiasiveneaa to preaaure groupa. 'l'he element generating auch a situation is 1110st otten the aotivity ot preventive censorahip and the acco■panying desire on the part ot the artiat to anticipate and avoid ita rigors (one should not, however, associate •Aeaopian co■aunication• solely with political aeaaagea). Tbe aecond iaaue in the detinition concerna the underatanding ot intratextual aignal• directing the receiver•• attention to concealed intentions. one ot the ■ore intereating examplea ot thia strategy i• provided by the coapariaon ot two fil•• by Andrzej Wajda - •Kan ot Karble" (1976) and "Kan ot Iron• (1981). The script ot the toraer was rewritten aeveral ti111ea, it toolt aore than a decade tor the fil ■ to enter production, and even the coapleted veraion was censored. Oitticultiea in diatribution, an effectivs weapon againat the recalcitrant in the banda ot the aponaorcliatributor, duly betell •Man ot Karbl•"• Recall that 1976 stand• out in the ■odern hiatory ot Poland aa the year ot a violent outbrealt of worlters' diaaatiataction that led to the culainative Auguat ot 1980. •Man ot Iron•, the title and subject ot which were born during the director•• aeeting with the strilting ahipyard worltera in Auguat 1980, waa ready in juat under one year. Thi• unprecedented te■po of produotion and the overall aenae contained in the fil■ reaulted fro111 an altogether ditterent political aituation: the liberalization ot cenaorship, wealtening ot state propaganda and the treedo■ ot expreaaion granted to non-govern111ental opinion and to culture-tor■ ing circlea. 'l'he plot organization ot •Man ot Marble" ia tor■ ed by a networlt ot aetaphorical tensione. 'l'here occur tour dlegetic ordera aignalled by the opposition color110nochro■atic:

a) blaclt-and-white aequence ahowing eventa trom the period 1949-1956, racreated by posing thea aa docu■entary ahota: b) blaclt-and-white Nquence, genuine newsreela tr0111 the yeara 1949-19561 e) color aequence preaenting tha baaic diegeai• -- the hiatory ot aalting a fila set in the 1970•1 d) color aequence preaenting tictitioua avente tro■ the 1950a. A aore detailed analyaia (presented by•• in 1983 during the Poliah-Kungarian sa111iotic conterence in Katowice, aee alao Godzic, 1982, 1984) confir■ that the connotation related to thia ayatea and aacribing the value ot •truth" to the blaclt-and-white aequencea, and

317

that ot •artiticial" narration to the color ones, is trequently disrupted. Al110 tha 11che■a conaiating in the ai■pla reveraal ot thia valuation, aatabliahed in the opening sbot ot the til■, is auapended. Tbe narration ot "Man ot Marble" abound■ in ele■ent■ ot ironie reveraala ot aenae, and ot incoherence wbich may be unitied only through a critical and watchtul appraiaal ot certain aaa■ingly iaportant piace• or intor■ation and, conaequently, the conatruction ot a dittarent order troia ele■enta beretotore uni■portant and tranaparent. Tha peruaal ot "Man of Marble" containa ■oaenta of illwaination deatroying the current outlook and creating a new underatanding tro■ the "old" ele■enta aeleeted according to a ditterent principle. An i■portant teature ot thia til■ ia the abaence of blatant opiniona, one-aided argumentation and categorically held viawa -- one ia trae to chooaa tro■ a■ ong opiniona. "Man ot Iron", on tha other band, paradoxically approache■ the formula it aet■ out to criticize. Bven the ■oat tavorable revievera ot thia til■ could not help noticing abuaea and talaiticationa. The courae ot eventa in the tinal Auguat daya, known to ■ illions ot viewers tro■ reality, vaa diarupted and rearranged to serve dra■atic purposea. The atructure of the hero atrikea one aa haokneyed and lacking diatinctnaaa1 they are either cryatal clear or totally negative. It would be futile to •••k co■plioated tenaiona betveen narration aequencea providing additional ■eaning. In taet the viewer required by aucb a taxt ia not an intellectual aubject deciphering perceptual puzzlea but rather a passive objeet ot aaaault and ■anipulation, a aubjact who ia expected to auapend hia intellectual judgaant and give in to e■otiona. One could deacribe thia aituation witb tha following ■ataphor: Aasop tha slave delivars hia talea before the not ao atupid king. So■• of tba tbe■aa do not atrika tbe tancy ot tba ruler but he allowa Aasop to procead, wearied by bia subject•a inaistenoe. Aesop•s talea are see■ingly within the li■its drawn by tbe kind of peraon who faila to notice the fact that the way in which tbe alava narrataa, wbat ha contrasta and what be co■binaa bar■onioualy ia aignificant. Tha king taila to notica thi• or ha doea not yat have to react (fora pragmatic agr-■ent of thia aort ■ay alao talee placa). Such ia tha caae of "Man of Marbla". Aaaop, fraed fro■ bia ahackles, torgeta bis akill and wants to aign the wrongs be had suffered, be is intoxicated with flinging in tha face of autbority hia own insulta end the insulta of thoae like hi■• I■par­ ceptibly be oaaaea to differ tro■ tha court poeta ha bataa ao ■ucb. Tbia in turn aae■a to be tha oaaa ot

318

"Man of Iron". But would this aean that tbe oppr•••ion end liaitation11 inherent in particular political 11y11tea11 beco11e paradoxical •ource• of bighly arti•tic works? I will point out bere, witb all due carefUln•••• one aapect ovelooked by the narator of "Kan of Iron" -the fact that "Aeaopian coaaunication" ia characteristic, coaplex in rec:eption and needing to be learned by the receiver, by no aeana impliea that tbat which i11 outside it ia uniaportant and eaaily graaped in the 11ending-receiving gaae. saying thinga openly i11 neither th• eaaieat nor the aoat eftectlve way of influenclng othera. - The above exaaple aay be uaed aa an illustration of different tbings. According to •• it supports the intuition of Christian Ketz (1975:3-55) that tbe fila aignifiant and aignitie are equally valid indicatore ot th• fil•'• bidden aeaninga, tbat "foria• tell• ua more about tbe actual 111eaning tban the •content•. contrary to Ketz, however, I believe that in political cine11a the signifiant is not always less involved in tbe i11agined (the reason tor thi• according to Ketz is tbe need to 11aintain a direct contact with tbe pUblic). In ay opinion tbe involve111ent in tbe iaagined aay al•o be cauaed by tbe tenaion between tbe variou11 •realitie11" in the preaented dieg••••• Th• above example alao aignala tbe probl•• of relationa between coamunication and •ignification. It ia not ay intention to judge whether one ahould agree with tbe opinion that se111iology of coaaunication is nota separate •••iology but only a saall part of se11iology tout court (Prieto, 1979:31) or whether one sbould ••brace tbe contrary view regarding co11111unication aa a broader doaain containing nuaeroue paraaeaiotic aapects (••• alao Bettetini, 1975:76-80). I a111 convinced that it ia iapoaaible to reconcile tbe two disciplines. If we a•aume that John doea not co1111unicate to Kary and neither does Kary to Jchn but that botb are engaged in com111unication, then tbe definition of co1111unication a11 the act of inforiaation conveyance beco••• leas iaportant. Kuch 11ore aUbatantial tben ia the integrating factor 11uch aa, tor exaaple, the suatenance of tbe ayate••• operation, control over tbe proceaa ot interaction, or the reference of partial ••••agea to the broader context. The two atrategiea diatinguished by Worth (attribution and i11plication interence) nov beco•• eaaentially co111ple11entary: the uncovering of ■aaning ia coupled with the aacribing of atereotype 11eaninga. Advancing here on•'• own propoaition ot

319

uncl•r•t4nding fila aeaning, one auat point out (in agree■ent vitb Worth and Ketz) the iaportance ot di•tingui•bing tbe diapo•ition• ot tbe viever toraed prior to the fil• •how end tbat vbicb be inaert• into tbe til ■ during or atter contact witb it. Aa a •ubject ot a fil■ vork I•• about to see, I a■ already diapoaed tovard• it and prepared. Por instance, I treat tbe •creen space aa ■eaningtul. I >cnov tbat the screen•• botto• ia "heavier" tban it• top, tbat tbe ahapea end dimensiona will depend on tbe background, tbat I regard certain apatial diacretion• end gradienta (ot light end linea) aa ■ore natural then otbera1 aor-ver, I do not teel cantral perspective to ba artiticial, tbe aequence ot eleaenta i• by no 11eans uni11portant, etc. I know all this but it doea not ■ean I a■ avare ot it; th• fila acreen betore projection ia tilled witb aeaninga. I agree to accept tbe pecul.iar cultural rol• ot "voluntary captive" in a darlcened roo■ end, equipped vitb all tbe contexts ot •Y own culture, ot tb• toreign culture and ot tbe peculiar fil• •ubculture, I proceed to watch •••• I search tor a na11e, a bagiMing. I >cnow tbat "what has a beginning exi•t••• I know tbat it can 11odel (prefigura, evolce) tbat wbich iato tollow. I thws obaerve tbat tbe aaMer end the aoment in whioh tbe film i• •naaed" aay be ■eaningtul. And so ve c::an bave ■attera •o that: - in tbe begiMing ot tbe til11, against an inaigniticant, dull baclcground ve are preaented witb the data on the film, - tbe eredita come alao in the begiMing but again•t a fil• acene vbich aay be continued atter tbe eredita are tiniBhed1 the lettering ■ay be at_ylized end th• background an ingeniowsly coapoaed arrenge■ent ot g-••trical tigures1 - the fil• eredita appear atter so•• ti••• atter the diegetic axpoaition1 - ve enter a til11 without a na••• vitbout titl• eredita, and only atter the end ot tbe "action• there appear the names ot the contributora1 - tinally, we get no intoraation whataoever that wbat ve are viewing i• a til■ 1 ve ■ay be intoraed about thi• tact by a oin••• po•t•r or by an announce■ent in tb• course ot the •how. I.et us ••e it the application ot each ot the above typea carriea with it bidden intoraation: in the case ot the tirat type aoaeone tells ■ e tbat I•• hereby •entering a difterent vorld, I•• paaaing the threshold bere and now•1 the tourth type tells ■e "I •• nov leading you out troa the world ot illuaion, vbat you bave just ••en va• fiction•. The interaediate

typ••

320

generate the sense ot illusion and at the sa•• time announce its presence. Not only do til• eredita •odel and inapire attitudu: the viewer knowa that the initial, opening ahota intora hia about the way in which that which i• to tollov will be recounted. Thi• ayate■ ot expectation■ a• to the kind of cutting, preterred ■eana ot expreasion and technical aethods ia created instantaneoualy but not, however, through static deacription. This syate■ aay be aodified and aay tall vieti• to interterence, but it vill alwaya be contronted with the initial one. such a hypothe■i• it possible to look ditterently at the proble■ ot connotation~ that which tor■• the ayste■ ot expectations prior to the tila and in the tirat •o■enta ot ita presentation is in tact a kind ot rhetorical ■trategy, and also, doubtleas, a connotation. It creates an •aura", it placea •• in a auitable context, intoraa •• about the rulea ot the genre, leada ■e to the recognition ot the applied kind ot persuaaion. Thi• type ot connotation precede• denotation (recognition ot the presented world) and model• it (I choo•• to watch objects, characters and their relations that are signiticant tor the strategy -the previoua connotation -- and contir■ it) and conditions a new type ot connotation, na■sly one superiapoaed on the recognized diegaaia, The "aecond" connotation consista in tilling "that vhich is presented• with aoae aelected ■atrix ot syabolic ■eaninga •taken tro■ the culture". 'l'he aost iaportant isaue bere aeema to be the tact that such an addition -tha auperi■poaition ot aymbolic relations -- takes place, it is iaportant that it occurs, and that there auat exiat inside the til• elementa which demanda unitying look tro• the outaide, an application ot a apecitic (or only ''blurred") pattern-tor■ula. It ia in these nodea that I locate the co•pleaentary ••aning: it i• toraed by thoae elaaenta ot the til• work which attract a certain peculiar type ot connotation in the aecond aenae and tila-specitic sequencea coamunicating auch event• or evaluations thereot which are not ahown or expresaed litarally. 'l'he peculiarity ot thia "connotation" li•• in the tact that it i• oreated excluaively by ayntagwatic syate■s, har■onie■ possible only in tila co•munication. The comple•entary ■eaning is preceded by a certain model traaework which co-createa rhetorical perauasion, whereas all aental operations tollowing it are already an interpratation. Characteristic ot the appearance ot co■ple•entary meanings in a single til• is it■ openn••• toward■ other ay■tem■ ot ••aning -- •ore or le•• coditied, ■ore or lesa external with re■pect to the world ot thi• concrete til• parole,

•ak••

321

The coapleaentary aeaning ie deterained by tour tundaaental tactora, the ••l•ction criteria ot which are the principal ■tructural teature■ ot the fila •••■age. Fir■t, coapleaentary aeaning app-ra between adjacent ahota. 'l'hi• type ot aeaning, overexplolted in tha hi ■tory ot the cinema and by nov largely given up, lo■ea ita ability to tora additional aeaning u a reault ot, aaong other thinge, the use ot intratraae cutting, tocua depth and the exten■ ion in tiae ot ahot-aequenc••• Paradoxically, hovever, it continuu to elude deacription: John Caroll (1980), vho atteapted to detenine the tundaaental rulea ot fila coaaunication according to the pattern ot generative graaaer in language coaaunication note• vith aatoniahllent that aucceaaively analyaed eainent tilaa tail to obey aoae lav, ditterent in every case. One could eay that film i• a non-language, that it ia not even a praotice ot coaaunication according to tixed rul••• but that it ie tirat ot all an individual aaniteatation ot parole. It that the atrategy ot Aeaopian coaaunication, being a aubtle procedure, avoida thia kind ot coabination. Secondly, the coapleaentary aeaning appears inaide the iaage, the ehot. Thie 111 a special kind ot ayntagaatic■, i.e. diachronic preaentation vithin on• ahot, one iaage. In Eiaen■tein•• fila "Th• Old and the Kev" (1927) a pea■ant woaan i• ■hovn again•t a Nona Li■a portrait hanging on the vall, thanka to vhich the pea■ant character ia intuaed vith connotation derived troa the portrait. It ia characteriatic that thia shocking coabination in a single traae vas received by viewera •• an actual claah ot tvo traaes (aoaething the director vaa alao avare ot). AII tila teohnology progreaaed and it becaae poaaible to apply tocus depth, tbi• ••thod becaae generally u■ed. Thirdly, •• a ■pecial ca•• ot the tirat 11.ethod, the coapleaentary aeaning aay appear betveen la~rs -betveen "that vhich is ahovn• and "that whl la given to be heard•. Probably troa ita very beginning, til• theory pointed out the eaa·e with which audible eleaenta render the aeaning ot the iaage uniaportant, amplity it or in■ert their own meanings into it. In their 1928 "Declaration• Bi■enatein, Pudovkin and Alekaandrov call tor developaent going in the direction ot "••parati~g the sound ot a aqueaking ahoe troa ite iaage•. Balaza and Arnheia, in their coditication ot the aeana ot expr•••ion ot ■ilent til■ ■ee a.n inexhauatible ■ource ot 11eanings in the act ot siaultaneoualy seeing and hearing. Present-day til■ doe• not ignore thi• natural and apecitic potency ot ■eaning. It ••••• that the oppoaition ot that whicb the viewer contributea tro• the

•••11•

322

outside ot hi• penonality (tro• the culture) and the viever•• natural preterences, usuaed by soae theoreticians, i• particularly aanitest in thi• in■tance.

Pourthly, coapleaentary aeaning i■ to:naed over the entire tiia worJc. Bxaapl•• here aay be both the •insignirimt", •tranaparent• •1-enta acquiring additional meaning in the context ot the 11hole fila, but also a peculiar organization ot the vork (tor exaaple ten■ions J:>etveen two diegetic orders in Alain Resnais•• "La Providenoe" or Wajda' ■ •Man of Marble")• It appears that the aost auitable kincl ot rhetorical strategy i• developed along th... linea, a atrategy which replac•• the iaaanent entertainaent quality ot cineaa by the joya ot the intellectual gaae ot arranginc; 11eanings. Xt is posaible that all X had to say on this subject 11ay be auaaarised by the detinition ot sign given by Jerzy Pelc (1980:124), ■ugge■ting that we regard as priaary the que■tion "vhat do we aean when ve ■ay that at time ~ ■omeone u■e■ ■oaething u a ■ign ot ■omething elae?" X regard thia to:naulation aa a bridge over the (adaittedly rather ahallow) ritt between ae■iotica and coaaunication. Xt al110 aak•• it poaaible to regard tilm a• one ot the 11ost se11iotic aessages deaanding not only to be conauaed •here and now• but also requiring the aotivation ot all poaaible contexts in order to be able to ■olve the puzzle-text and avoid coaaunication noi••• Thia ia proved by, aaong other■, the phenoaenon of "Aeaopian coa■unication• in tila. Chair ot Film and 'I!V Jaqieilonian university cracow 1 Poland NOTE l.

The tena "Aeaopian comaunication" is used, among othera, by Poliah literature theory analyaing the disquise ot political sense in Polish novels ot the Positivist type and in czech literature.

RBPERBNCBS

Bettetini, Gianfranco (1975). Produzione del senso e aeaaa in scena. Milano·: Bompiani. caroll, John (1980). Toward .! structural Paychology ot cinua. The Hague: Kouton PUbli■hers. (See chapter titled "Tranatonational Generative Cineu Graaaar".)

323

Eco, 'Ollberto (1979). Leetor in tabula. Milano: Boapiani. Godzic, Wie•Jav (1982). ~oaunikovanie tilaowe a retoryka (Fila co-unication v• rhetoric). In Pila: te>tat i kontekst (Fila: Text and Context), 61-76, Helaan and Godzie (ed•·>· xatovice: Sil-ian University PUJ>lishers. --- (1984). Fila i . .tatora. ie aetato v histori a sl t laove. and Ketaphor. Te Coneept ot Ketap or Fila Theory). xatowice: Sil••ian University Publishers. Metz, Christian (1975). La signitiant iaaginaire. co-unieationa 23:3-55. Paria: Seuil. Pele, Jerzy (1980). Anak (Sign). studia S8JDiotvezne 10: 123-154. warszava. Prieto, Louis (1979). Seaiologia, conoscenza, coaaunieazione. Rivista illustrata della eoaunicazione 0-1:26-31, Milano. Thoapson, W.K. (1970). Co..unication, Co..unication, Theory and Rhetoric. In Language Behavior. A Book ot Reading• in co-unlcationa, 78-95, Altin and othera (eda). The Hague, Paria: Kouton PUblishers. Worth, sol (1978). Man i• Kot a Bird. suiotica 23-1/2:

5-28 •

35 ANl'ONIO GALA'S AVIloRY: A SEMIOflC PERSPEX:TIVE 00 BIRD SIGNS IN EL CEMfNIERIO DE 1.()5 PAJAROS Dincla L. Gorl&

This paper 1s a by-product of my teaching translation at the University of Groningen, the Netherlands, during the spring term of 1983, and the net result of working on the llutch version of the contemporary Spaniah play El cementerio de los p61aros, by Antonio Gala. 'Dle latest Gala play to be procfuì:ed after his successful Petra Regalada (1980), El cementerio de los l!f~os opened in Madrid, at the Teatro de la Coiiiedla, on Septem&ir 71982, mder the direction of Manuel Coll&l!o, and both audience and critica received it with warmth and enthusiasm. According to Karo Tecglen's review (1982), the perfo1:111BnCes of Encama Paso as Martina and Irene Gutimez Caba in the leading role of Emilia received outstanding ovation, and the playwright himself received 'vitores y bravos.' Bom in 1936 in C6rdoba, Andalusia, Gala has vritten for theatre, television and film as well as for lllllg8Zines and nevspape.ra . Partly ailenced by frequent frictions with cenaorship during Franco'a i:eg:lme, Gala pined fame after the dictator's death in 1975. 1heaatically ateeped in the easence of Hiapanic history, culture and pi:esent-day sociopolitical situation, Gala's dramas are highly verbal; and, nierging realism and symbolism, they often eq,loy maor although they deal with such profOIRi tamwi valuea as love, freedOID, deaocracy and justice. As its title suggests, the play El cementerio de los p6~oa 'The Birds' Cemetery' establishes a canplex aystem of algna U ating to birds i conaequently, in l11'f paper, I approach Gala 1 8 ia.iltiplex bi.rd imagery and multifarious bi.rd 80\nl. frana aemiotic point of view, in order to elicit their semiosis, that is the process by which these signs generate aeaning . Pusing its poetic and political metaphors, El cenenterio de los p61aros, Gala's gripping, allegorical three-act play, concems the univeraal themes of the i . - condition: the freedom to mak.e choices about a meaningful existence; the anxiety of lonelineas and the queat for affection and love; the search for independence and pover, and the dilemna of sex; the meaningleasnesa of life and the chaos resulting fran lack of values, IIIC>ral corruption and soul-deatroying 11111terialisn; furtheniore, the injustice and ~ t y of a aociety controlled by coercion and mirder. 'Ihollgh with 1lliniml action and mch dialogue, the play focuses on seven grotesque characters-six characters and an illplied seventh-caua)lt in a flllllily imbroglio which severely triea their beliefa and morals and threatens to havoc their daily life. In fact, the enti.re plot revolvea around thll fnily of an old 1111111, the oneti.me epitome of power and preatige, vho 1a alovly

326

eicpiring offstage-a flllllily esseabled for the occasion but not ~ t together at a time of a etisia. 'D1e setting is the high-oeilinged, 8011bre hall of a poorly refurbillhed seventeenth-century Spanish mnsion. It is Saint John's Eve: the merry--n18tit that ia c:elebrated in the nearby village vith a vigil during which faliliea and frienda gather arles in drink. Both llliddle-aged couples look back in anger and frustration on their loveless, valueleas, vasted livea. Ironically, they sacrific:e freedan inasnJch 88 they surrender the1r dreaas end aspirations and act tak1ng into account materialistic emotions rather than moral principles. To be sure, after her grandfather's death, Laria, who is the daugJ!ter of Deogracias and Ellilia, plans to start a new life with Kiguel, the thirty-f~ve-year-old outsider wbo coincidentally happens to be of Afpr/o anc:estry, and who presenta hillself at the fmily gathering like a deus ex machina. But the young lovers awaiting the illlpending liberatioo do not succ:eed to break out of the fallily trap together or to embark upon the kind of life they vish to leacl. Olaracteristically, they never attain the purposeful exiatenc:e of love and fellowship they fant.a size about, because Miguel gets 110rtally wounded by 111111.icious Emilia who makes her fatal deciaion to :Immolate the jeopardizing rival in oz:der to protect her positioo of power 88 well 88 her vested interest in her father-in-law's estate. 'Dlough her insane conduct offends against any law, Flailia, the malcootent wanan turned sovereign ruler, claims vhat she covets. 1lle degree of freedom she professes 1s purely egotistic, and hazardOUB to her foes. I propose nov to exanina closely the visual and sonic biz:d signs that abound in the play end are pertinent to the characterizatioo and the dr1111&tic structure. 'llhen the curtain rises at the beginning of the first act, the audience confronta two showcases filled with ruiierous stuffed birds

327 As it tums out this IIIIICllb.re display of Mturaleza 1a1erta sickens Elllilia and Martina. Martina reveals ber dis&iiìfort in the following words : • ~ feisia> es el hijoputa' (Gala 14). Her annoyanoe eaw.atea Elailia' a anxiety and .revul.aion: 'No, esto no puede ser. La soledad, el polvo y estos p6jaroa apolillados •• • , ' end 'No puedo soportar mAa estos p6jaros auios' (Gala 13, 21). Elllilia delves into the paat and blailea her father-:lnlaw for the banlciuptcy of ber life; degraded, ahe employs all her energies to ga:ln self-detemdnation and to boost the familial morale . !ailia, the protagonist, prevails on the others to aaitder the bedridden family despot who persists to fr~ten, bewilder and oppress his f8111ily, because !ln!.lia conceives of his dmise as their 'hora de volar' (Gala 20). She deaperately attempta to emncipete herself and her associates: 'No podemos dejar pera cuando él se - r a ni el gusto de vivir, ni la esperanza. Porque, con él arriba, no hay maRana • • • • Seremos lib.res. Heredaremos y seremos Ubres' (Gala 22).' • Offstage, as if conspicuously warning aga:lnst flnilia's freedom declaration, buds start to twitter in the garden. ttart:lna calls them swallows, Deogracias-mfts. Elllilia ig,iores the petty controversy and rebul linguistics; Design.,..> discourse; Architecture - speech. · 1. 11 The h1story of language 1s descr1bed 1n synchron1c 111011ents; speech 1s a livlng phenoinenon, 1n constant evolut1on. 2. INITIAL PROPOSAL

2.01 ANhit•ctw. IDlY be considered as-the significant effect of a given type of analysis and a given type of language. 2.02 To achieve this, it is necessary to develop a·d1scipline organizlng 1n a coherent systeai tod.,'s set of slgns represent1ng arch.! tecture as chaos. 2.03 Ne hold the hiPothesis that this task can be achieved through what Prof. Cesar Jannello calls "The Theory of Design•. We proPose Charles SanJers Peirce's seiniotic analysls as a 110del to sltuatethe role of design as a language, specific to the structure of the architecton1c sign. 2.04 The problea 1s thus d1sp1aced fro11 aromuotMN, a rather alllb.! guous tenn, to duig,t, which 1111)' be r1gorously senant1c1zed, g1vlng

348

us the starttng po1nt fora systemat1c develOl)llent of the problem. Oesign thus becomes the spec1fic language of a discipline, and will show, as its final significant effect, what is architectonic in a building or in an architectural drawing. Z.06 This proposal, of providing rtgor and specificity to the concept of d•llign can be carrled out by organizing it according to lts sesniotic charactertstics: the slst.m, the tezt and the dlecolU'B•· Z.07 Concerning the elgn of tM lliet.m, Peirce's 1110del provides the episteaiological basis furnishing design wlth lts own space, in con trast to architecture's a110rphous and chaotic whole. 2.08 Considered as t dubitato di.""'' Awvate ubbidi.te Qf/Zi. .onlini..

to a nessuno.

di. /)'onte ai paz,go •••

Erallate gi.6. guaz,iti.. Lo ep11ttaoolo non era piaoiu-

•.

Dopo oJu, ebbe

808tato a 1,ungo

1.2.3. Eccezioni Perch4 ai dice: AVKR AYBR AVKR AYBR

dùwnti.oato, sbagt.i.ato, soff•l'to,

sognato, se questi verbi si riferiscono ad azioni volontarie?. Si pu6 (li'Ullti.f/,caH l'uso di AVERE ricorrendo alle teorie della psicoanalisi che non considerano veramente involon tario il lapsus e il sogno? Perch4 ei dice anche: AVBR sentito, AVBR udi.to, AVBR visto,

se queste azioni non sembrano voler indicare una parte-

cipazione volontaria del soggetto, specialmente quando sono contrapposte ad aecoZtai-6 e guaMIIZ'II? 1.3. Cambio di Significato e Interpretazione Incerta Uno stesso verbo pu6 cambiare di significato paaaando quindi da un gruppo ad un altro: A a-

Si, 80M

aaZtat-i addt>eso. 8 e- E' eaZtato sui ca11aUc. d- Ha 81%Ztato 'bffli81rimol

b- Ha aaZtato Z'OlltacoZo. A

a- HQ1W) uttO qusZ?a noti.ria. - (neni Abbiamo a ~ m,ppo. (Z4il Alllltla creduto ait11 sue paz,ot11?

(A - b)

(B - dJ (C - f)

Anche quando si riscontrano deviazioni dovute alla posizione anoX'IIIB.le dell'oggetto queste sembrano voler ri stabilire l'ordine naturale dell'enunciato richiamando l'oggetto al suo posto:

I

- Naoohl, LB ho asroatB

I

1

iricz

•

non NE ho troiiatB!I

2.2. Essere L'ausiliare ESSERE mantiene il soggetto gra11111aticale in posizione preminente. Nella forma passiva l'inversione della direzione 4 completa:

- qu.iza notiria I stata tetta da pochi. Negli altri casi si hanno deviazioni con ritorno verso sinistra:

A-a - f~I Ci -

tanto

anmrl....

. •

Le forme pronominali mantengono il soggetto in posizione di preminenza anche quando l'oggetto diretto 4 espresso e permettono al narratore, a volte, anche una scelta della direzione; ai possono riscontrare in tali casi perfino duo direzioni diverse in uno stesso enunciato:

•

- NtD-ta

sÉ NB I

OOffiPNtB

jc1ue ahiU,.

2.3. Direzione e Deviazioni La direzione con le sue possibili deviazioni ha un effetto semantico su tutto l'enunciato permettendo spesso di porre in special rilievo il soggetto, l'oggetto e, in certi casi; anche ambedue. 3. GLI AUSILIARI IN ALTRB LINGUE Uno studio comparativo meriterebbero gli ausiliari delle diverse lingue. Potremo qui solo accennare che: ESSERE produce, in generale, effetti semantici simili in varie lingue, dal SUM latino; AVERE invece ha acquistato significati ed importanza mol to diversi, dalla spagnolo HABBR usato in tutti i tempi composti (anche di SER) eccettuata solo la foJ:11111 passiva, al francese in cui gli effetti.prodotti da ttN e avoir sono variati e complessi come in italiano. Asociaci6n Dante Alighieri Tucumlln 1646 1050 Buenos Aires, Argentina

39

00MB SI L!GGONO GLI Al\TICOLI DI ARCBlTEl'IURA NBI GIOIUIALI

Gàbor B&JMC&i

In queeta reladone tratteN di alc1111i a.petti 4ella critica architettonica, Non ai tratta della critica vera e prcpria pubblicata nelle rivlate apec:lallzzate - di quel teat1 cbe og111 giorno c11~0l'll&l10 del coaplaento del nuovi edltici, della r1coatruz1one di un quartieN oppun della d•olisione di vecchie caae, eccetera. Ina- ai tratta di articoli d'~orau.ion• cbe d1rettuente non banno una 1'11nz1ono cr1t1ca. Abbl.&ao wluto e.nalizzare que1to tipo d1 pubbl1c:uione percb, 1) nao li diretto a tutti 1 lettori (doli non soltanto a un gruppo che e'1ntereua all'arcbltettura) e 2) à nruente letto da tutti, quindi 3) a1 p~ giungere a conclue1oni generali e.datte a caratterizzare 1l IMICcan1eao della etupa nel t o ~ l'opinione eull'arcllitettura. Tutto quello che ora 1ntend1uo dire larl 1111 ri&HWlto dei riaultati e delle concluaion1 41 .m'indagine r.11szata nell'Inat1tuto 41 Storia e Teoria dell'Architettura dell'Un1vere1tà Politecnica di BudapHt. Il alk> arg-to globale era la teoria e 11 aeccanieao della critica architettonica, e cocae t - n o particolare à atata preaa 1n cona1deraz1one quella tor-. della critica cbe viene traeNaaa dai aezd di c-unic:azione di -■aa. Dobbluo aub1to dichi&l'&l'e cbe le conclua1on1 ai 'buano au dati di tre anni ta rappreaentant1 problea1 cn 1n parte non ee1atono p1i:a. Per eeeap1o allora - COiie vedreao p1\l part1co~te - l'adone nel cupo dell'architettura era equlY&lente a una continua coatru&ione ex novo, e non ■1 rendeva C coetitulre wia vera opposizione tra gli eleaenti del due grvppi perch6 non v'à una coniapondenza tra di ea,i. B' da oeaervare 1nt1ne che mancano aeeolutaaente i tenilni e1tet1cl 11 che cl dlaoatra la panlalltà dalla de1crizlonl: la aencanza del tattori dell'ublente, delle proporzioni, delle dimenaioni - e e coal via, Dobblaao eaulnare pià partlcolarMnte 11 cuo delle -.rche neaat1ve nel tenitorio del nuovo. B' da coetatare subito che eHe aono in ■lnoranza rispetto a quelle positive. Oeae"ÙIIO pure cbe alCIIJle 41 eese vogliono ■inilllzzare 11 peso della dichiarazione: "!!!!...1!2'unltor■lzzato", ecc, Reata COIIWlque la tendenza alla nqatlvità che costringe a11•e- del probl- della critica.

VALORI NEGATIVI 0011B BLEMEHi'I DELLA CRITICA Abblaao vieto che le descrizioni contengono ln ■acaloranza delle connotazioni positive, creando cosi un'ideale abltadonenodello, Ora vedluo che rapporto c'à tra l 'ldeallzzazlone e le tendenze critiche. Nel testi contenenti ■arche negative nel territorio n110vo poeslaao distinguere due tlpl: 11 prl■o à quello che accanto alle marcbe po11t1ve contiene anche quelle ne&atlve, ■entre 11 aecondo contiene 1010 ■arche neaatlve cloà à 1erltto intera■ente con intenzione critica. Nell'articolo di tipo A la deacrlzlone positiva 11 integra con oeeervazionl critiche: cl sono ad e1emplo alCIIJl1 d1tett1 nel nuovo quartiere (non~ ancora tlnlta la costruzione della scuola ele■entare) oppure qualche attrezzatura non à atata bene realizzata. L'articolo di tipo B non tratta che eolo dei d1tett1 ed ano■al.le del nuovi ed1t1c1 di abitazione. In un tale testo ad eanplo ae ne trova un vaato elenco: le tlneatre non chiudono bene, coal 11 rl■caldaaento conau-. 41 plà, la va■ca da t>acno non e alatemata· bene à neanche 1 rubinetti funzionano, ecc. La -aior parte del difetti trattati da questi articoli deriva dalla cattiva qualità dell'opera degli e,ecutori. Coae 81 vede la critica non ba un ruolo signiticativo in quanto non eaiete una critica globale u eolo quella particolare. Vengono eapoatl del d1tett1 che perll non dieturbano le eentenze idealizzanti delle deecrizioni. B queste oeeervasioni critiche non giungono ai livelli pi~ profondi del tenOMnO de,critto. Mal •1 di1cute la gluatezsa del progetti, del elatema dei quartieri modeml, delle dh1ensioni, delle ■aue e delle proponloni. Per quanto riguarda dunque 11 rapporto tra tendenza di idealizzazione e critica eeao à di carattere eubordinato: queet'ultime. non critica le costatazioni tond&llentali della priaa. OONCWSIONE

Abbiello analizzato testi che contengono descrizioni dei quartieri e inaedia■enti di abitazione co,tru1t1 recenteeente.

369

Nelle dncr1zioni per aezw del eign1ticato connotatiTo decJ,1 elementi d0Cllllentath1 e, 1n to~ eapreHha, con Nn1 lincuiet1c1 da noi osservati (sono 1n ue&1oranza marche positive a111olute) e1 crea un'ia.g1ne irreale. S1 tratta di un 1nd1ecutibile tendenaa di idee.l1azaziona dell'oggetto che à 1n1'atti un Nszo operat1To nel procee•o della :ro~1ona dell'opinione. In questo proceaao poaeiaao di•tincUere 1 aeguent1 caap1 do•e e1 oaeerva auo 1n:f'lua•o· (l) L'1deal1naz1oue serve a rendere attrattivo 11 tenoaeno e cerca di persuadere ad accettarlo. (2) L'1dealizzaa1one esclude oppure alaeno aspira ad eltminare o dia1nu1re la critica contro 11 teno■eno. Le critiche poeeono toccare eolo ~ e particolari che ostacolano la corretta realizzazione delle concezioni e dei progetti. (3) L'1deal1zzaz1one ceree. anche di unitoraiz&are le opinioni to~tesi aul tenoaeno. Iet1tuto di Storia e Teoria dell'Architettura IJnivereitl Pol1t4H:n1ca Budapest, Ungheria

LE TEXTE SE"IOTJQUE.

L'OEIL, LA VOIX, LA SCENE.

André Helbo

La sé•iotique a longte■ps fait figure de •savoir ventriloque". La treillis de filiationa et d'appropriationa intarculturellaa juatifia paut-ltra catta paranté entra la tisaaga historiqua propra à notre discipline et calui da la linguistiqua, da la logiqua, da la biologia. Silea modèlea tutélairaa ae aont auccédé sana aa raaaa•bler, plus paraonne aujourd'hui n'héaite à définir l• aé■iotique an ter••• ~ropédeutiguea. "oina qu 1 un partage pédagogique, la sé■io ique propoae un aavoir-faire tranagreaait, una méthodologie coextanaive aux cha■pa da la connaiaaanca et dont le ■oindre ■érite n'eat paa de s'évaluer en ■Ime te■ps qu'elle juge la regard dea autrea. Pasaé la te■pa dea éclectia■es aveuglea ou dea oecuméniamea airupeux, la aémiologie s•ouvre aux voiea du comperetiame. Au travers d 1 approchea ■ultiplea, de métalangagea divera (organiaateura ou créataurs), . conacianta dea répercuaaiona qua lea lieux de parole imposent à la ■éthode, laa cherchaurs peuvent tentar la rancontre - d'écolas - dana la construction ■Ima da laur texte. La rapproche■ant sa tait plus partinent ancora loraqu'il tavoriaa le décloiaonna■ant de aémiotiques régionales. Noua plaidarona donc pour une approche réticulaire da la aé■ iologia; catta concaption, la racharcha l'a souvent suivie intuitivamant: l'hypothèse transphrastique, valide en narratologie, n•a-t-ella paa nourri l'étude dea sagmentetions au ciné■a? Capandant, la sé■iotiqua du théltre a pu déaontrer l'inanité de parail transfert dana aon propre champ: forcée da réinventer aa dé■archa, alle a aana doute nourri d 1 autre viatiquea (la ■odèla apectaculeire), pointé certains ailencaa de la aé■ioti­ que génerala (l'actant-obaarvataur) et ali■enté cetta dernière par ettet da ratour. La rétlexion qua nous propoaona s'inspira da ca typa da quastionneaant et réunit, - aoua torma da bilan critique -, las acquis da daux sémiotiquea •tarritorialas•, callaa de l'i■age et du théltre, qua nous contronterona dans le •paradig■e• visuel.

372

PROCES D'UNE RENCONTRE La comparaiaon entra l'image planaira (tableau ou diacoura mixta) et lae composantaa viauallaa du apactacla théltral na paut a 1 opérar sana la juatification théoriqua à laqualla nous comptons procédar. Lea argumanta da •bon sens" militant an faveur du rapprochement sont eussi nombreux qua las objactions; c•est pourquoi las réponses da la aémiologia pauvant tranchar an l'occurranca un dil8Jll■a que 1 1 ampiriame pourrait prolongar doulourauaamant. Sene douta, a priori, l'histoire fournit-alle da bonnaa raiaona ponctuallae pour concavoir una méthodologia communa; rrancastal a montré lea conaéquances de 1 1 invantion da la perspective en peinture: las misas en acène théltrales imitant les dispositifs picturaux sont contamporainas da cette perioda; l'i•portance du viaual ne tait paa da douta: du "quatrièaa mur" que le théltre naturalista aoulevait afin da aatiafaira le voyauriama du public, à l 1 accentuation pura et aimpla - chez Piacator - de supporta viauals (dies, imagas projatéas), à l'insartion da la vidéo. Citons auaai cas axpériancas da la limita au9géréas par cartainas parformancas d 1 obsarvation: Ben aa prasantant im•obila pendant daux hauraa au ragard dea apactataura da théltra da Nica et ■uni d'une affichatta portant l 1 inacription "Regardaz-aoi cala auffit" ou Yvaa Klain organiaant dea axpoaitiona da corps vivente ••• Pratiqua consumatoira qui ne raprésanta autra choaa qu'alla-mlma: paa d'oauvre autonoma hors de ca qui a liau momantanément, dans l'échange avac le ragard du spectateur. Ces examples sont évida••ant parcellairaa et privilégiant de aaniàre outranciàra la manifaatation viaualla; l 1 étuda da l 1 aapaca théitral par axampla aouligna, au contraira, l'axiatanca d'una multiplicité da traditions : prééminanca da la vision du apactataur dans la théltre à 1 1 italianne ou dsns certainas réalisationa contemporainea à scènes multiplaa, le public faisant partie du tableau at étsnt intéF,é au spactacla (Thé&tra du solail, Plan K à 1 1 0rangaria, mais auaai prédoainanca du aonora dana la théltra antiqua, éliaabathain ou dana cartainaa axpériancaa contamporainaa (Pater Brook aux Bouffaa du Nord, Théltre du cri). Inutile de la préciaer, laa composantas viauallea au théltre sont intégréaa dans un diacoura mixte dont les supporta de manifestation sont nombraux: corps at voix da 1 1 acteur, récit, lumiàra, auaique, etc. La montré a•aaaocie au noaaé at tout maaaaga est aoumia au jeu dea radondancaa ou dea focaliaationa: la répliqua da Tartuffe •cachez ca sein qua ja ne aauraia voir~ sa manifesta à la foia com•e meaaaga varbal et comma •1maga• répercutéa simultanémant par la corps da l'actrica et la

37)

gaatualla du comédian. Il est donc nécaaaaira da situar et da definir l'imaga au. théitra non sana faira émargar d 1 ambléa lea obataclaa à una talle tantativa opéréa aur la mode da la aémiotiqua "planair•"• (numérona qualquaa difficultés: - Paut-on idantitiar i•aga et co•posante visualle, écritura et nomination1 La variation terminologiqua doit, dana la maillaur dea cas, &tre étudiéa. - L'espaca scéniqua, lorsqu 1 il est détini, n•ast pss plat; il est tridimansionnal, a rapport au volume - la mise an scàne paut-ltra picturala mais auasi aculpturala, détinia par la corps, la mouvenient, la gastualle. - La viaion et la réception du spactateur sont-elles comparables? La spactataur da théltra sa trouva plongé dans un aspaca physiqua et copnitif dont la segmantation varie dans la durée. La lumiera peut plon9ar actaur et spactataur dans un ml•• énoncé; l'obscurita de la salla provoqua au c:ontraire un débrayaga qui axpulsa la spactateur de l'énoncé. Une tocalisation enalogue peut sa produira sur scèna. La jau de l'acteur (an hautaur ou è 1 1 horizontala) peut suscitar un découpage tout aussi aléatoira (Timon d 1 A.thènea aux 8ouffas du Nord séparant la balcon at la parterre). Le conteniplateur da la toila (imaga plana) part à la rancontre d'un regard énonciateur ( - peintra) auqual 11 a'idantitiare ou non (et. l'anamorphosa); il investire sa culture et sa langua aalon lea déterminations (sèmes, traits optiquas partinants) fixéas objactivemant dans l'instant. - La poste d 1 invastigat1on da l'obsarvataur diftère égalemant: on paut lira et ralire un tablaau à partir da aon énoncé mais la récaption du spactacla est éphémère, vécua collectivamant et imprévisibla (•préconstruita maia non préméditéa11 : Ubaratald) : les apecteteurs ne voiant pas laa mlmas choaea quella qua aoit la placa où ila sa trouvent at un fou rira de la salle paut défocalisar complètament la récaption. - Pour conclura, aoulignona la spécificité dea codea détarminant la visuel rapréaentable sur acàna (cf. Halbo, 1983a: 51) : hietoire da l'ar·c hitactura détarminant un moda hiatoriqua de fonctionnemant du ragard, modèlaa sociaux "i•ités• sur scèna, atructures i•aginairas; laa outila du scénographa sont tout aussi spécitiquea: coordonnéas da l'aapaca, matièra du décor, lumièra, musiqua, comédian, ate. Tallaa aont donc laa divargancas apparantea dont ne paut taira litiàre l'abord dea compoaantea viauallas théltralaa et planairaa; par-dalà catte quastion ponctualla s•évalue l'acquis da la sémiologia taca à la théoria da l'imsga. Qual est l'arsanal •éthodologiqua ottart par la sémiologia? Nous proposona un braf bilan

374

critique cantré aurtout aur le diacoura ■ ixta qui se■bla le plus propice è une co■paraison avac la apactacle (par son intrication de codea verbaux et non varbaux). SE"IOLOGIE OE L'I~AGE Le taxte inaugural de la sé■iologie da 1 1 i■age, Rhétorigua de l'image, détermine une partition illustre entra le ■eaaaga lln~uistigue, 1 1 1aage dénotee (meaaage iconique non coda,e al9nlfiant reflétant "photographiquement" un aignifié assimila au ■odàla référential), 1 1 iaaga connotéa (masaaga iconique cadé ou syabolique dont le cas axemplaira aarait la dessin). Au risqua d 1 anfoncar una porta ouvarte, soulignons è quel point la pertinence sémiologique de 1 1 i■age est ici définie par son caractère analogiqua, iconique; le caractère de aigne attribué à l'icona est réglé par avance: una oppoaition da natura entra le messaga linguiatique et l'imaga assura laur conatitution an objet sémio logique. Si j'ai rappelé la d1v1sion classique entra la ■ot et 1 1 image, c•est parca qua l'histoire de l'art interroga parfois calle-ci : antériorité da l'un ou de 1 1 autra, dépendancea respactives, voira aubveraion réciproque ou oa■oaa : lea échangaa furtifa (hiéroglyphaa, incunablea) se muant parfois an racharcha systétaatiqua sur le discours mixte (illustrés, banda das3inéa). On conna1t dea caa quasi expérimentaux d'écriture iconigue: les calligra■mes en forme de montra ou de eravate 1damaurant, certes, uprésentatifs d'un référent abaent ; cartainea recharchas de 8utor (8.610 1000 litraa eau par seconda) sont de vériteblaa composltions ryth■iquaa: maaaea typogrephiquea viaualiséaa comma un tablaau da ~ondrian en figuraa géométriques; "l'interprétant univarsal" du langaga (8anvanista) bascula du c&té de 1 1 iasge: on songe ausai aux lettras dassinéas de Ootramont. L'image écrita est tout eussi vivace dans la tradition: las toilaa dynamiques de Klee oriantant la lacture à l'aida da flèchaa, les lexèmas da Kandinaky évoquant une syntaxa; l'espaca narretif d'Alechinaki (margas, plagea juxtapoaéaa) rappella laa niveaux d'art1culat1on, la linéarité linguistiqua. Oe ■anière plus axplicita ancore, la banda dessinéa pratiqua dans ca discours mixta la contamination systématiqua: le figuratif panche vars 1 1 abstract1on tandis que le varbal (las onomatopéas) se réifia: las bellona 1ntégréa au deasin font imaga at aont aaiaia dana la déchifframant da la vignetta, lea lattraa aont dassinéaa, formea hybridas du pictogramma et da l'idéogram■ a, cartainea planches sont tabulaires et obligent à explorar toua lea posaiblas da la figuration narrative. Il est capandant una tradition asthétiqua qui sambla

37S

remettre en cause le définition barthésienne de l'imege: celle du mode afiguretif où tout repérage discursif fait défaut; on pourrait citar Dotre■ont mais surtout Butor aont certainea pagea n•ont d'autrea propoa qua de focaliaer un mouvement oculaire (cf. Halbo, 1975: 75); citant ouvartamant Jackaon Pollock, Butor équilibre lea ■asaea et lea lignea (Mobile) da manièra talla qua la saula dénotation liaible aolt la circularité ou l'obliqua. Plus question d'écriture cursive mais de mouvement dans l'espace, plus question d'image a2alogique mais de graphiS11e, de trace, d'acte performant. On a affaire à un aignifié de dénotation plaatiqua, abaent dana la théoria de Barthaa, et qui aubatituerait donc à l'oppoaition iconique-linguiatique, la clivaga iconiqua-plaatiqua. De plus, le concept d'image écrite conteste une définition analogique de l'i■age; cette critique est confiraée par lea recherches peirclennes sur l'iconicité (et par Berthea lui-mima dana La Chambra claire). Il n'y a paa da déjà-là de l'imaga (la raaaemblanca, !•analogie, oppoaéa à l'image codéa.ay■bolique per eaaence) corraapondant à un découpage du réel; il faut appréhender l'iconicité (la reaaemblance) co■ae une daa troia fonctiona théoriquea du measage (cf. Helbo, 1983b: 42), les deux autres étant l'indice (contiguité par rapport à l'objet, la photo d'Aldo Moro préaentée par laa Brigadas rougaa co11111e indice da aa mort) et la aymbole (codé ou tributaire d'un •intarprétant11 idéologiqua ou hiatorique occultant plus ou moina la diapoaitif d'énonciation, ate.). Il a•agit da conatructiona concaptuellea, en interaction, qua l'on peut privilégiar si la problè■a abordé l'axige mais l'irrédentisme ~ nature peratt contestebla. Tal plan du métro de Paris barré de l'inacription "Quel cirque cette via de con•pard aa valeur iconiqué premiàra (icone du réaeau ferré et indice de lieux et déplacementa) pour ae muar en hyéroglyphe aymbolique du chaoa: l'image légendéa par la pista, la cirqua, la déaordre vira à la métaphora codéa d'une exiatence inaenaée (exemple cité par rresnault-Oaruella). CONCLUSIONS 1. Rhétorigue da l'imaga ignora le aignifié •plast.iqua• 1 1lmage. 2. Lea "frontièrea• de l'imaga font problè■ a ai on laa définit per la aubatance de l'expreaaion; Metz: •ce n•eat paa parca qu'un meaaaga aat viaual qua tous aaa codaa le sont et ca n•ast pas parca qu•un coda se manifeste dans les meaaegas visuale qu'il ne ae manifeste jamaia aillaura. Da plus, un coda (mima viauel) n•aat jamaia viaibla car il consista an un réaaau da relations logiquea•. 3. L'oppoaition da natura maaaaga linguiatique-meaaaga iconique apparatt co-a un facteur da blocaga. de

376

SE"IOTIQUE VISUELLE L'étude da la communication viaualle tient compta da caa objactiona at tanta da dépaaaar la distinguo maaaaga linguiatiqua va meaaaga iconiqua. Dana La atructura abaente, u. Eco s'intéraaae aux codaa da i•lmage : aa démarcha ast double et concerne d'abord la perception du measage (le code dea codes étant paychologique) puia le fonctionne■ ent interne où aaraiant distingué• dea tropea et dea topoi (pré•iaaea et li-.JX argumentatifa). La thèae fait émargar l'idéa d'una logiqua propra at d'un fonctionnemant apécifiqua visualiaant das figures rhétoriquea. Réaliaation viauelle de tropea claaaiques (publicité par la litote en faveur de cigerettea: un nuage de ru■ée at la phraae •nous n'avona que cela à vendre"J plus ou moina univeraela (l'antonomaae: chaque unité repréaente le genra ou l'eapèca) mais aussi da tropea apécifiquea dérivéa da la métaphora (talle voitura repprochée d'un manoir médiéval bénéficie de l'aura de nobleaae; caa ultime: l'•iconogramme kitsch" : l'huile Dante, le aavon la Joconde, etc,). Talle affiche en faveur de VU (une minuacule coccinelle aur un vaste fond blanc, légendée par l 1 inacription "Ne voua leiaaaz paa effrayer par la modestia du prix•) aera interprétée co-• une viaualiaation d'un trope (l'enthymème) et le aupport d 1 argumenta logiquea (lea gadgata aont inutilaa, la voiture n•aat paa un ay•bola aocial, ate.). Catta analyae tandrait à illustrar l'exiatence de atructurea linguiatiquea ou rhétoriquea aoutarrainea è l'i•age. Une note du premier Barthaa aignala le caa da cette publicité vantent 1 1 ar8me d 1 un café •priaonnier" du produit an poudre et figurée per una bo1te da caré antourée d'una che1na et d 1 un cadanaa: la métaphore linguiatique (•priaonnier") a'y trouve priae à la lattra de 1 1 imaga. Matz préciae et généraliae ce qui chez Eco et Barthea concerne aurtout la publicité (diacoura mixte) en établiaaan~ un parallèle entra l 1 image et le r&ve : lea figuraa de rhétorique et le niveau topiqua relèveraient dea opérationa du riva; évoquant la rhétoriqua de l 1 inconaciant de 8enveniate 1 "•tz rapproche la linguiat¼que è l'oauvra dana 1 1 iconiqua, traduit par 1 1 iconique , dea opérationa fondamentale& du rive: la figurabilité (latant/manifesté), la condenaation, le déplacement, etc. Il y aurait un niveau pri•aire, une rhétorique commune, une prémanifeatation latente dont la paychenalyae devreit rendre compte et que l'icona manifeatarait. La doubla intalligibilité (linguiatique/imaginaire en mouvement) fait l'unanimité dana la critique picturale : liaibla/viaibla ("arin), jointure du dit/ perçu (Damiach), textaa implicitéa dana l'image (Schefer). Louia ~•rin parla d'un taxte figuratif dana lequel

m le viaible et le lisible se nouent; texte figuratif verbaliaant la repréaentation (on dit le tableau en le lieant) mais aignant auaai la figurabilité (l'inconacient ou le linguietique eoua-jacent au manifesta). Au point qua l 1 on •ne peut rien dire du tableau•, on •ne peut qua la dire•. La lactura, construction linguistiqua, raflàte un linguistique implicite at un iconique, les daux niveaux étant mllés. La aémiotiqua da la signification qui délaisse la aigna perçu (unité de communicatlon) au profit du taxte produit/du procàa d 1 analyaa (unité da diacoura réaultant da la combinatoira da pluaiaura atructuraa/codea, quale que soiant la support de manirestation ou le rérérant; image, aculptura, musique, bruit, parole peuvant &tre enalysés et construits à partir das ralations) raprand catta doubla perspectiva: proceasus primsiraa ralavant da la paychanalyaa et proceaaua aacondairas aaaumée soit par la logiqua narrato-diacuraiva (analyaa fonctionnalla, contanu) aoit par l 1 analyaa thématiqua (carré aémiotiqua ai la ■orphologie ne aert aucune ayntaxa). CONCLUSIONS Qua l 1on s'intéreaae au aigna parçu ou au taxta, l'articulation iconiqua-linguiatiqua prand place dane un aneambla complexa où l 1 on distingua da maniàre convergente: 1 - la matérialité plaatiqua, 2 - le linguiatiqua/la prémanifaaté à l'oauvre dans le figuré, 4 3 - la liaibla varbalisabla, la figuration nomméa , 4 - la viaibla codé à travars laa mythas, l'hiatoira, l'idéologie. LE TEXTE SPECTACULAIRE Notre détour théorique nous a donc livré quatra racteurs dea compoaantes visuallas; cetta définition de l'ima91 constitue-t-elle un adjuvant pour la séaiotique du theltre et dana quallea limitas? 1. La ■ atérialité plaatique. · Lea eupporta da maniraatation au théltra aont infinimant plus nombraux qua dana le caa da l'imaga planaira : récit, geatualle, corpa du comédian, parola, bruit, muaique, lumièra. Chaqua aupport s'impose dana aa ■atérialité et son opacité, la comédian, ■édia syncrétiqua, est la paintra et sa toila; il est à la foia productaur d'énonciation at produit énoncé: carpa et psraonnags; la priae an charga da la corpo:éité du comédian aat largamant asauméa par la critiqua; maia ai la matérialité pramière est inévitablamant raçue, alla sa trouva aimultanamant intégréa dans un travail da conatruction du sana. De toua les arte rigu-

371

ratifs, le théltre est donc le aeul à ae définir per une préaence phyaique (de l'acteur et aecondair ..ent du décor), par un réel (qui tait aigne) plut8t qua par sa repréaentation; maia en minia tempa cette matérialité est •artificiali•••" (Cercle de Pragua), perçue comma illuaoire, analogique, aymbolique. Signea matériel "plaatique" et iconique sont contemporains. 2. Sur le rapport prémanifesté-linguistique-iconiqua. a. Contrairement au discours viauel planaira qui peut préaentar parfois un caractère non narratif, la diacoura apactaculaire comprend par définition un caractère narratif. b. De plus, on a affaire à un diacoura mixte, raaaemblant, co11111a la bande deasinée, des messages verbaux et non verbaux; si cas massages sont an étroita corrélation dans la contemporenéité du apactacle '(talla répliqua ou tal objat viauel peuvent au mima titre conatituer l'icona d 1 un paraonnage, la baignoira da Marat chaz Uei••• lea aouliera chez Beckett), il para!t beaucoup plus difficile d'évoquar une antériorité du linguistiqua par rapport aux co■poaan­ tea visuelles da la représentation; sauf dans le cas du taxta de régie - et ancora - le texte phonique tait pertie du apectacla aux c&téa daa autras aystè■ea. c. Qu 1 en eat-il de la double intalligibilité dea proceaaua pri■eiraa et aacondairea au thé&tra? Le apectacle viaualiae-t-il un contenu latent? Le praticien oeuvra-til, à la maniàre du riva, à una conatruction d 1 imagaa dont la texte •déployé" par la apectataur et la ayntaxe relayée per les mota gerantiront l'émergence. La question est complexe: - le programme de départ (contenu letent) dea praticiena varie: texte écrit (idée), viaion •picturale" da la acàne (Strahler), écouta de la voix (Thomaa Bernhardt), rapport au corpa (Barba); - laa opérations de la représantation rappellant la figurabilité; aélection et tranafor■ation par condensation ou déplacemant: une mima image scénique (la fauase rénovation du décor dea Bouffea du Nord) renvoie à pluaieura univera da référenca (dea traditiona culturellea et théltrelea diveraes), le contra-emploi d'un comédien paut jouar le r&la da doubla métaphora, ate. - A la différenca de l'image planaira, la construction du spectacle s'établit à partir da signes aatérials (réels) perçus co■ma tela avant d 1 8tre insérés dans la fiction; ai l'hiatoire du théltre insiste perfoia aur le dévoileaant ou l'effacemant du référent ecénique et extraacénique (théltra comma inatrumant da la connaiaaance ou anclanchemant pur et aimple dea fantaamaa), il n'an da■eura paa moina qua la rapport anvisagé ici aaaocia un réel •mondain• et aa repréaentation/visualisation théltrale. - A tout moment, la logique (secondaire) impliquée par ce

379

doubla procès est calle du •ja sais bian aais quand ml•e•. La régima de croyance commun à la scène et è la sella est donc calui d'una adhésion sur la •oda da la vérité à una réalité qui n•ast pas parçue comma talla; le déni du jugement de vérité - la dénégation - concerna l'imaginaira, l'incarnation das fantasmas - un mlaa signa est montré à la foia comma réal (aatérial) et comma iconiqua (simulant un modèla axtrascéniqua auqual il ranvoia), à la fois ceame performance et co111111e rable, fiction, récit. C'est pourquoi toute la tradition théltrale a dévaloppé das rituals de transition qui séparant le monda natural du monda théatral: l'entrée, les troia coups, l'entracte (proportionnal à l'affort axigé par l 1 illusion). c•est la convention (la frontièra entra l'objet vu et l'objat réal) qui règla la bonne marche da la parrormanca (parrois la transgrassion par intrusion du monda natural brise l'illusion: ~uatte de Portici, Hernani, vlpras siciliannas). rrontièra cognitiva idantifiant 1 1 aller au théltra au faire du théltre. 3. Sur la varbalisation du figuré. a. Si la toila sa dit, la spactacla théltral paut sa varbalisar; mais il ne s'agit qua du départ d'un travail da construction sémantiqua; la spactataur transforma l'objet visuel en texte, il élabora sa réception mais il la construit dans l'instant; si la tableau peut &tra lu, ralu, no11111é da multiplas façons, il pardura 1 alors qua le apactacla théitral a•orfra par fragmanta a una cohéranca éphémèra. b. Da plus, la récaption ast à la foia linéaira at tabulaira, écartelée entra un lisibla et un visibla contamporains: succassivité d'imagas offartas par bribas et morcaaux à un spactataur qui fait latri et rassambla, mais nécassité contradictoira d'ammagasinar simultanémant dea maaaa9as ralavant da codaa hétérogènaa; à tout momant l'intarpratation échafauda son unité : da nouvaaux massagas la détruisant, défiant la pouvoir d'intégration. Il faut raconstruira un sans à chaqua signa et coaposar. c. La manièra dont ce travail s'opère ast détarminéa - par l'énonciataira: il sélectionna an fonction de sas attentaa, hiérarchisa salon sa cultura, - la récit et la gaatuelle contra la lumièra -, méaorisa salon l'idéologia ou la coréféranca qui lui parmat d 1 intégrar la nauf aux préaupposés antériaurs; - par 1 1 énonciataur qui assaiara da focalisar la compétanca réceptiva, da suscitar das ràglaa da lacture. Caci sa ratnarqua aussi dans cartaina tablaaux: l'asthétiqua da la parspactiva incita 1 1 énonciataira à adopter la point da vua fixé par 1 1 énonciateur; c•ast l'idantification, l'illuaion référantialla annulant la diatance entra 1 1 univara da 1 1 énoncé et calui da l'énonciation; mais au théltra cetta préconatruction aat toujoura aléatoira : alla na dura paa et la spactateur paut fort

380

bien défocaliser ce qui lui est donné à voir. 4. Sur lea codea. Certea, dea codea exiatent (hiatoire de la théatralité, ideologie, mémoire du apectateur) qui vont orienter la récsption. raculté de Philosophie st Lettras unlverslte libre de Bruxelles Bruxelles. Belgigue. NOTES 1. Encora que la réfèrence ouvre ici le sena; la calligramms référe aussi - tout coame Ben - à son propra procès de représentation métaphorique. 2. Le code aerait ici l'invention de relations significstivea au sein mima de la matière, de la substance de 1 1 expression: codes geométrique, psychologique perfois réintroduita de forca à la réception cependant. 3. rigurabilité : opération qui transforme la pensée du rive sn i mage. Sélection : transformation dea penaéea les rendant repréaentablea en images aurtout viauellea; la transformation en langage pictural, confondant lea veraua (plua proche de la rhétorique et donc de la communication, alors qua le riva n 1 éclaire paa noa fantaames) aerait comparable. Le récit da rive, laconique, s'oppose è son contenu latent. intelligible •aia refoulé; de talle aorte que chaque élément manifeste (maia opaque) ae trouve déterminé par dea aignifications sous-jacentea (lea penaéae oniriquea). L1 équivalent iconographique de cette atructure invita è concevoir 1 1 image co•me un rébus à décrire verbslement pour y déceler dea opérationa de condensation (de représantanta iconiquaa d'images verbales : raccourci dont la logique eat aétaphoriqua), déplacement (•étonymique, tranaformateur dana le contraire), converaion \aurdéterminatrice, connectrica d 1 iaotopiea). etc. Pour un exemple on se reportera au caa cité per J.M. Rey dana Sauaaure avec rreud; Holbein signant son tableau las Ambassadeurs rlgure au bas de la toile une forme blanche allongee qui. vue sous un cartain angle, représanta un crlnaamblème de son nom (os creux • cr&na). 4. A propoa de la nomination on se aouviendra de cette remarque metzienna diaqualifiant le apectacle phénoménologique adverae du sujet et de l'objet: "l• mot. le lexème (et aur l'autre fece du problème l'objet viauel une foia reconnu) ne sont qua dea produita terminaux, complexe da production culturelle au sein duquel le

381

r8le eentral est dévolu aux traits pertinents: traits d'identifieation visuelle d'un e8té (Eco), sèmes linguiatiquea de l'autre (Greimaa)". Christian ~atz, Esaaia aémiotiguaa, Paria, Klinekaieck, 1977. p. 140.

REfERENCES Helbo, André (1975). ~iehel Butor vera una littératura du signe. Bruxelles: Complexa. ---(1983a}. Lea mota et lea geatas. Lilla: Praases Univeraitalraa da Lilla. ---(1983b). Sémiologie daa mesaagas sociayx. Paria: Edilig.

41

THB POBTICITY 01" THB COMMONPLACB Michael Berzfeld

A POB'l'ICS 01" SOCIAL INTBRAC?ION:

Dil"l"BRENCB

TBB PURSOIT 01"

Thia paper ia intended aa a contribution to tvo, neceaaarily interdependent conceptual iaauea tor ae■ iotic approache• to anthropolOCJY. In the firat placa, it seeka to deaonatrate by ethnographic illuatration the advantages to be gained by an extension ot the Jakobsonian view ot poeticity beyond the purely linguistic use to which that aodel is ordinarily put. Secondly, it provides a coaparative study, thereby introducing into ••■iotic diacourse one of ita necesaary but too often ■iaaed coaponenta -- the co■parativia■ that ha• alwaya ■arked good aocial anthropolOCJY, and that tor semiotica must conatitute the beat eapirical source of difference, or of what E. Ardener (1971:xvii) haa called a •crltlcal lack of fit• (et. alao the Ruaaian l"ormaliat concept of defaailiarization [Havkes 1977:71-72)). I do not want to clai■ too auch theoretical import for the aggreaaively everyday exaapl•• ot idio■ that tollov 1 and the co■pasa ot a conterence presentation such aa this i• nacessarily a physically narrov one. On the other band, it is preciaely becauae aheer triviality so otten does •in little placa attesta aillion• that a ahort paper on an anecdotal theae aay elicit so■• revealing co■monalities -- and hence theoretical insights -- in the tropea through which ••■ber• ot different aocieti•• organize everyday experience. Jakobson•s poetio tunction i• •th• set (Binstellung) toward th• ••••aga aa such" (1960:356). In verse, to talee the aoat obvioua exaaple, it i• the extraordinarinesa and diagra■■atic properties of the verbal toni that conatitute the baaia of ita poetic "feel.• In Prague School terme, the fora of the ■easage i• foregrounded at the partial expenae ot a auppoaitioua content, with the reault that the content, through its converaion to a ■ore explicitly connotative ■ode, beco■es enriched a• well. In social lite, auch devices bave led to a conaideral>le eaphaaia on the ■ore ritualized aapecta of interaction, ■oat notal>ly in the worka ot Brving

3S4

Goffaan. But the eaphaais on •traaes" and the heavy use ot draaaturgical ■etaphors entails a risk ot reitication, leading eventually to the separation ot the present tluidity ot interaotional poetica into "performative" and •everydaytt aepeots. By reunitin9 theae diaeneion• in the fraaework of a single poetica of aocial interaction, we aay bope to capture in thia area what Jakobson realized tor language: that the ordinary and the set-apart are features ot a continuum, and that they are what they are in larga ■easure becauee they focue attention on their being what they are -- in other worde, througb a true •set toward tbe aesaage." ON THE ORDINARY, THE ORlfERY, ANO THB REGOLAR This is perhaps clearest in a reductio ad absurdua that ve in tact perfora all the tiae, and that repreaent■ an unretlexive tbeoretical perception eabedded in everyday apeech and action. Take, tor exaaple, teras like "regular guy" and "ornery bastard" in aodern Allerican slang, and retlect on what the reapective etyaologiea ot theae deaignationa iaply. A 11 regular guy" is re■arltable because be isso unreaarkable aa to deserve coaaent: to follow tbe rules (regulae) ot everyday eensibility to thie extent is aotually 'the exception ratber than tbe rule, • In theory, he aight be a ••regular sailor" or a *"regular portrait painter,• both ot which are deaignations that, if they exieted in everyday usage, would presuaably iaply a auch ■ore literal regularity -- a huadrua adherence, in tact, to protessional nona. No: tbe "regular guy" is good at being only one thing, a •guy," and he i• .!!2 good at it that bis perforaance is conaidered to de■erve co■aent. Note, too, tbat he is not a "regula.r peraon." The use ot the slang tera "guy" aodels in language the ordinarineaa of the social performance to which it alludes. Suhstituting a tor■al tera tor it subverts tbe inti■ations ot poeticity. The •ornery bastard," siailarly, is not literally a bastardi but the collocation has iaplications ot soclal paralleli•• not unlike the kind ot verbal paralleli•• on which Jakobson expatiated eo incisively, A bastard is aomeone, u■ually aale, vhose ancestry re■oves hi■ to the aargin■ ot ■ocial acceptability. In much the saae vay, •ornery" people places theaaelvea at odda with their tellow-citizena. Ketapbors of ■aX"9inality are a particularly rich source ot insight into the processes ot syabolic boundinq, since they play on the outer edges ot vhat appear to be a aociety•a conetitutive rules (et.

38$

oouglas, 1975:90-114, 249-318), Tbis applies witb particular aptness to tbe "ornery bastard," since tbe latter, like the "regular guy," is acknowledged as an e•bleaatic stereotype, a genuinely Aaerican product, as can be •••n fro• tbe frequency witb whicb be figures in Western& and apy thrillers. Ria •ornerin•••" ia indeed a fora of "ordinarin••••" It is, in fact, so ordinary that it excites coaaent. Rare, biatorical processes bave e11bedded into the language a clear use of distortion ("slang") in order to underscore tbe extraordinarineee, as it were, of tbis type of ordinariness. Such uaage■ all fit a larger group of tropea, in wbicb the 11etaphoricity of an utterance i• foregrounded by making an obvioualy apecious or exaggerated clai• for its literalness: 'tbis car is a real le11on, • •ve vere literally boiling with fury, • and ""io'""""on. A co•mon slang verslon of tbis in Britain is tbe use of tbe word •rigbt,• as in: 'Re's a rigbt fool.' (Tbere ia more tban a bint of irony bere too, bowever, aince tbe word "right• prepara• the liatener fora positive evaluation end tben abruptly abuts on a negative one lnateadl) Sucb tropea are not purely verbal, altbougb tbey are predictably 11ore accessible in verbal for•. When a certain kind of •ale speaker wisbes to express pleasure at soae experienced deligbt sucb as a good meal or a well designed sporta car, be ••Y aketcb a busty f••al• figure in tbe air, e•phasizing tbereby tbat the experience was virtually indistinguishable trom tbe ulti11ate joys of sex in tbe pleasure it gave. The advantage ot presenting a series ot sucb tropes aa a diatinctive claaa ia tbe e•phaaia tbat tbis procedure givea to tbeir cultural apecificity. It would be too eaay, at thi• juncture, to generalize about tbe nature of metaphor, or even about ita aocial uaea, witbout taking croaa-cultural compariaona into account, and indeed, authoritative •••iotic account• of tropological devices tend to tbrive in just sucb an empirical vacuum. In pursuing cultural comparisons, however, ve become •ucb 11ore acutely avare of the extent to wbich tbe atructuring principlea ot aocial poetica can only be realized througb the baaic tor11a available in a given culture and aociety. COMPARATIVE DATA:

GRBECI

In tuming tro11 Bnglisb-apeaking aocieties to

aodem Greece, tor exaaple, it ia true tbat not all tbe

atructuring principles of aocial interaction are entirely difterent, but they are otten ditterently uaed.

386

A• I bave tried to de11onstrate at length tor a particular village (Herzteld 1985), ■ale aocial interaetion is characterized by a ■ode ot "conventionalized ditterence." The key value is a concept ot eghoieaoe that, eepecially given it• ety■ological derlvation (i.e., < Class. Gk. ego, "I"), ■ight eaeily be gloeeed aa "individuali&■." In practice, the interactions ot Greek ■ale villagers are ■ore highly routinized than such an ideologically laden tena would lead ua to expect. In thia context, the 11an who de■onetrate• a greater degree ot flair (khoui) ■ay gain a corr. .pondingly greater degree ot acceptance or ad■ iration. The riske are high. He can easily become ridiculous: and in practice 11uch depende on his preexieting relationships with his co-villagers. It these are cordial, hie pertor■ance ie ipso tacto ■ore likely to succeed. Let us consider an exa■ple. In a Rhodian village, "Petko" (a pseudony11), characterized in the main by what tor Greece i• an unusual degree ot outward reserve and sobriety, one 11an i• known tor the tla11boyance ot his gesturea. Once, he entered his tavorite cottee-house, executing little dance ateps and playing to the hilt the tull range ot convention■ that required hi■ to look atraight at all the custo■ers already seated there. His greeting waa boisterou■, bis ••lt-pre■entation atrangely contrasted with the quiet ■ien ot the othere. Yet they accepted hi11, and did ■o despite the taot that bi■ hu11ble origine 11ight have led the11 to expect a still stitter code or selt-reatraint than they i■posed upon the11selves. The 11an was a suecesstul entrepreneur. As he had explained to •• in painstaking detail, he was probably the only tar11er in the village who had taken tull advantage ot govern■ent policies regaxding attore■tation and the redistribution ot land1 and, vben th• govern■ent ottered loans tor the i11prove11ent ot agricultural properties, he was the only inhabitant to 11ake an eftort to get so11e ot the ■oney, vhich he used to build up his irrigation syste11. Why, in a paper ostenaibly addreased to a proble11 in the anthropological ra■itications ot se■iotic theory, should I otter so 11uch ethnographic detail? Again ve resturn to the twotold thrust ot this paper. on the one hand, I want to stresa the neceaaity ot contextual knowledge i n ~ application or this theoretical tradition. on theother, the particular case illustrates a 11ajor theoretical point. This point concerna the use ot aooial poetica to model or reproduce an individual'• poaition in the

387

aocial nexus. The villager in queation vaa perfor11ing hi• right to be included in the co111pany ot hi• peer• -pertoraing, 11oreover, both in the theatrical •anse ot a deaon•tration of akill, and in Auatin•• (1962] •en•e of an action that baco11•• con•titutive ot ita aocial environ11ent. Hia dance atepa and boisteroua greeting vere baaed on the confident knowledge that, when it caae to co111paring degreea of induatriouaneaa (a para11ount virtue in thi• particular co11111unity), he could hold hia own with the beat. Indaed, other villagers vere uncharacteri•tically flattering about bi• hard work. Ki• 11anner thus did not so 111uch challenge the village order, a• hint that he was 11orally in a poaition to band the rulea. He waa de111onstrating a aocial co111petence that went beyond the reproduction ot mere conventions to the expression ot bis individual dietinctiveneaa within the larger aetting. 'l'he model tor this already existed, itself a convention ot sorta. There is in Greek a device wbereby the 111arginal individual can be politely excluded. The Greek-aepaking toreigner generally encounters it in the ton ot an oatensible co111pli111ent: 'You speak Greek better than we dol • The point of this reaark ia to exclude the outsider: obviou•ly tha atate11ent i• untrue1 and even in the •en•e that it could be true (that is, when the out•ider apeak• an urban or foraal variety of th• Greek language), it excludes the viaitor fro11 the taailiar circle of Nthoae vho talk like ua.• 'l'he fla11boyant villager seized on this convention and aade it hia own. Thia ia the 11ean11 vhereby Greek villagera more generally seea to recognize the creation or generation of aeaning -- tbat i•, in th• exploitation of a •uitable 110111ent, u•ually unpredictable, tor creating a apecial effect that foregrounda the actor•a role in generating it. This is the converse of the •regular guy" pheno111enon; instead of foregrounding an abnor11al noraalcy, it eapbaaizea an individuation that contoraa, in ita internal articulation, to aocial convention&. It ia alao tbe converse of tbe si1111elian (1908) •tranger, the out•ider who clai•• a 11easure of insiderbood and thereby beco••• a potential tbreat. 'l'h• Pefkiot in question overca11e bis sligbtly dubious social originato tb• point vbere be could (and did) pontificate about aocial 111orality, tbe i11portance of hard vork, and tbe rigbta and privilegea of tbe true Pefkiot. Hia aelf-preaentation 11odelled that achieveaent. By al11oat ironically prolonging bi• •tare around the roo11 a• be entered, tor exa11ple, be foregrounded th• •e•sage of aocial noraativen••• at tbe expenae of anotber

388

interpretation: that be vas perhaps just a little odd. Just ae he vas not guite an insider, but (since he bad lived in Pefko aost ot bis adult lite and vas in fact of Petkiot extraction) va• not clearly an outsider either, so too bis behavior va■ not guite nor■ative but yet waa autficiently cloae to the nor111 to co■■and acceptance. A poetic analysie of social interaction allovs tor the recognition of precisely thia sense of arroxi■ation and aabiguity, in a vay tbat ■ore positiviste analytical 11odes suppress. Such a viev of social interaction is, ■oreover, entirely consiatent with an action-oriented approach to bu■an •••ioais. Cohen (1975) haa auccinctly urged the extension of an essentially Auatinian perspective on language use to nonlinguistic codes as well. In the case of the Pefkiot entering the cottee-house, tor exaaple, ve can see enacted an appropriate diagram!l!!!!g (to borrow a.nother Jakobsonian coinage) ot the actor•s social relationships. To understand this ■ore fully, let us turn briefly to the social values that are in play in the scene in queation. The ethnographic literature on Greece contains extensive discussions ot the concept of filoti■o especially ca■pbell 1964; du Boulay 1974; Friedl 1962; Herzfeld 1980). The co■mon seaantic base ot the widely varied realizations ot this concept of "•ocial worth" see1111 to be a sense tbat the poaaessor of filoti■o behaves in accordance vith the expectations ot h!i coamunity. Thus, a pauper•a tilotiao doea not entail the aaaa laviah outlay of ganaroalty that a wealthier individual•s vould. There are also differences linked to sex, age, and degree of closeness ot the relationships involved; and the pattern also ••••• to vary considerably betveen regions and even between ■ore or lesa neighboring villag••• The Pefkiot wbose behavior ve bave been exa■ ining is an intrusive member of an alaost totally endogamoua co■aunity; he waa an adopted child, and aa auch a ae■ber ot a category that Pefkiots associate in cautionary tale• vith betrayal of parents (e.g., that ot the toster son vho volunteered to bang his stepfather when no other volunteer could be found) ; and he va■ initially poor. Bi• strenuoua (and often ingenious) efforts to overco■• bia poverty, bovever, preaaged a certain "tlair• in hia management of aelf. Hia ability to appear aildly eccentric, yet to do it in a way that aiaultaneoualy recalled aocially acceptable behavior by defor■ ing it to an inoffensive but etill noticeable degree, reproduced that saae flair. In other words, his actions for■ally modelled bis social standing, by presenting a virtual diagram of hi•

TB LAMD

Elizabeth Kennedy Hewitt

Literary cartographers havi11g chartered the vay through The Waate Land, I urge nov that ve should investigate the language which , unlike the intuition and personal experience underlying the allueiou, ie an eleaent ve do share vith the poet. I will eaphaaize in •Y diacuaeion bere one of the language feature.s, rhyae, which has so far not been •uch conaidared by atudents of the po•. Not technically a rhymed po• Tha Waata Land does, neverthelesa,contain a significant nuaber of linea which participate in a resaoMbly sustained rhyme pattern. Eliot has put it this way: There 1e no carapaign aaa1nst rhyae. But it is poseible that excesaive devotion to rhyae has thickened the modero ear ••.• Rhyae reaoved, the poet is at once held up to the standards of prose •• • • And this liberation from. rhyma ■ight be aa wall a libaration of rhyme. Fread frOII ita exacting task of aupporting lame verse, it could be applied with areatar effect where it is aoat needed. Thare ara often paesages in an unrhymed po• vhere rhyme ia vanted for aoae special effect, fora audden tiahtenina yp, for a cuaulative inaistence, or for an abrupt change of IIOOd . Altogether, there aeea to be three priJDary categories ioto which these rhytlmic rhyaes , in The Waate Land fall: ■illetic, linking and ■etaphoric. l ■uet content ■yself bere with representative examples of tha last two categoriea. In ita •ost unco■plicated function, ae linkage, rhyme aee■s to suggeet a connection between the ite■s participating in the rhy■e; and thia unifying function is, of course, all the more i■portant vhen the linea ■ight otherwiae aee■ a paatiche as in linea 193-202. The eeveral allueions to other sourcea and the seeaingly r&ndOII progreeeion of :laagee from naked bodiu, bonee, and rat'• feet through the sounds of spring and the ehining of tha ■oonlight to voicea of aiogi11g children ara all gathered up by their participation in a rather fini pattern of rhy,aa. But within thia unified whole thera are linea joined into aaller aeta, pri■arily by rhy■e. The reault 1a the welding of a seriea of disparata i■ages and the proviaion of continuous tranaitiona within the last of the eection vbich begina in line 182, ''By the waters of Le■an I sat down and wept •••• "

394

The rhyme pattern auggeats the following achme: two coupleta beginning in line l9S, a triplet, and a final unrhymed line: White bodiea naked on the low d.,.p ground Ancl bones cast in a little low dry garrett Rattled by the rat'a foot only, yeer to yeer But et •Y beck fro,a time to tille I hear The sound of horns and motora, which ahall bring Sweeney to Mra Porter in the spring. O the 110on shone bright on Mrs Porter And on her daughter They vash their feet in soda water Bt O cea voix d'enfanta 1 chantant dana · la coupolel (193-202) '11te fragment "Rattled by the rat '• foot only, year to year" 18 actually linked in ae.aning to the preceding linea, but by means of rhyme it is joined to Sveeney'a viait to Mra Porter vho, in turn, becomea, with her daughter, the subject of the triplet; and the entire pasaage is concluded with the unrhyaed, apparent nonaequitur, the children'a voicea. If the macabre bodlea and bonea are thua connected with the coucupiacent Sveeney'• visit to Hra Portar, then death and luat are joined but are also curioualy differentiated by the coordinating conjunction in Une 196 : "But at •Y back from time to time I bear." It ia thie "lut" which ie responaible for eatabliahing a relationship betveen the images of death and lust. '11tat is, the concept of death, which was firat preaented in thia stanza in tersa of akel.etona, now ia advanced more eubtly through the allueion to John Day'• linee which deel vith Actaeon'e met&JDOrphoeie and death ae a reault of hie meeting vith Diana. Instead of the ■ythological and tragic Actaeon, it la the neanderthal-like Sveeney who goea to Mra Portar, a woman far from devine aa the Auetralian song aakee clear. The protagonist, then, hears aoaething different from the rattling bonee; he heara "the eoulld of horna and motore," and 1t 1a spring, the time of re-birth, not vinter vhere, behind the gaahouae, the protagonist experlenced a vlslon of death . Lust ie not death, therefore, but can be seen ea a etep away from death or oothingn••• tovard love, the viaion of the children a1ng1ng. (Some authorlty for thla socewhat unconventlonal notion of luat being a poeitive good over deeth can be found in aomething !Uiot once aaid in reference to Baudelaire: "So far aa ve are huaan, vhat we do muat be either evil or good; so far as we do evil or good, ve are huun; and it is better, in a paradoxical way, to do evil than to do nothing; at least, we exiat. 11) 2 Thua the rhyee functions to suggest that the aemingly unrelated illages and allueioDB be conaidered by the reader as a unified set of linea, vhich are related in a specific, albeit complu, vay. And it ia only in euch a relationahip that the paaaage ha• ita aeaning.

39S

A eiailar use of rhyae to aark off linea ia exmplified by the longeat atretch of aurrealis11 in the po•: A voun drev bar long black hair out tight And fiddlad vhiaper auaic on thoae stringa And bete with baby facea in the violet ligbt Whiatlad, and beat their winga And crawled head downward down a blackened vall And upside down in air vere towers Tolling r•iniscent bella, that kept the houra And voicea ainging out of empty cisterna ud exbauatad wella. (378-38S) Thare are no rhyaea hera of the faaous Prufrock "icaa/criees" type; all but one of the rhyaed itema serve aa nouna ancl all ere monoayllàbic. Every line but on-384-ia i811bic, and the regularity produced from these various prosodie features 118kes a etrictly defined unit of thia upaide down, nightmarish vision vhich both brings to .a cliau and urica an end to the aurrealiatic :luga• vhich bagan in thia laet part, V, with tha inviaibla praHnca of a "third who valke alvay■ baaida you," and vhich, in addition, gathera iugea from aleevhere in tha poem. The gathering of :luges-ona of • nuabar of devicaa vhich concatenate the fiva parta--in this rhyaed, night..are aection ia accompliahed through a aeriea of correapondencea vith other sectiona in the poem. Lina 378, for inatanca, recalle the hair in fiery pointa. The muaic could be that vhich the typiat put on the graophone end vhich crept by the protagonist upon the vatera. It alao ia a vhiapar auaic and Phlabaa' booae vara picked in whiapera. The violat light of the typiat acane ie bere, falliog tovers appear in tha previoua stanza, and "the bella that kapt tha houre" bear an expUcit relationahip to Saint Kary Woolrioth. Fioally, "the voicee aioging out of empty cisterna" find a parallel not only with the · grass slnging in Une 387, but eleo vith the dry graes einging in Une 3SS, and the ainging ch1ldren "dana la coupola." Thue, iugaa previoualy praaented are gatherad togetber and offered aa • rhymed unit in thia eection end illogical relationahipa are uda eaotionally and aurally congruent by repatition of eiailar aounda. · But probably the 11oat iaportant thing about thie group of tightly rhyaed linee 1e that in bringing to a climax the "unreal" imagea and in collecting iugea froa each of tha othar aectiona of the poem, theae linea serve as a catharaia: The horror ilDplicit in the apparitiona ia diapelled vhen the phantOll8 are foraalizad in rhyaed verse. It ia fitting that the unvholeaoae lendacepe of the vaate land ahould beco■a a cauch-r of stranga aueic, bete, !U\cl invarted end deaerted tovora. A traMitional stanza follovs daacribing a chapel vhich, although •pty and ruinad, 1s nevarthelau the acana for "a flaab of lightning." Then a daap guat/Bringing rain." Froa thia point on in the po•,

396

there 1s reason to hope for the coaiog of a oev order to the arid plane. Io vhat 1s very poaaibly a ap1r1t of expectation, the protagoniat continue.a to fish aod cootemplatea aetting hia landa io order. 'Ibeae eight rl\yaed linea-che very laat rhyaes in the pos--prepare for the -r• poaitive end pragaatic eectiona vhich follov by bringing to a conclueion the unreal, uohealthy part of the journey. The two reaaining exaaples of the use of rhyme in The Waate Land are iotereating because it 1s aa rhyaes gua rhyae.a that they derive thJir iaportance. that ie, the rhyae iteelf becoaee a metaphor, a meane of defining an action io terme o! s011ething elae, and it ia a vehicle for the tenor Eliot is trying to coawoicate. Io both che boudoir eceue aod the eeduction of che typiet scene, the action hae occurred so aany tiloea aa to becoma tadioua ritual. Nothing unexpected happens. To take up the boudoir scene firat: In this particular aection beginoing "Hy nervu are bad tonight," there 18 conaiderable repet1t1oo bue only ooe rhyae before that io the closing quatrain: But O O O O that Shakeapherian RagIt '• so elegaot So iotelligent 1 What ahall I do now? What ahall I do?' 'With my hair down, so. llhat shall l do tOIIOrrow? 'What shal.l ve ever do?' 'Ibe hot water at ten. And if it raiDS, a closed car at four. And ve ahall play a game of cheaa, Pressing lidleaa eyea and waiting fora knock upon the door. (127-138) There are only two rhymea io the lese four linee, bue the high 1ncidence of aasonance, which incre.asea froc, line to line, supports the rhyae in holding theae linea together as a rhythmic unit. Thie ie especially true of the near-rhyae /~ea-pre.aiA/ which, although acoustic in that it does not uke a rhytlaic unit, nevertheleu providea an unexpected sound utch that sustaf.Ae the unity through tha long, trochaic laat lina. The rhyme, in effect, hiota to the reader that he 1111at expect theae aurpriaes in a largely unrhyaed poem, juat aa the protagonista theoaselves are on che gui vive, waiting. But what they expect is aa predictable as ia the word "door," both as a rhyme for "four, 'and in ite syntactic poaitioo after "vaiting for a k.oock upoo the _ . " The scheme io ite eiloplicity and predictability ie io accord vith the idea iaplicit io the contene; ve vill do juat vhat ve alvaye do; ve vill, that ie, continue che pattern. lo tbe typiet scene (216-248), the longest sequence of rhyaed linea io the poem, the rhyme acheme is not so atrict •• ve bave

397

eeen it in the previoue exaiaplea; end eucb toying vith tbe rhyttak propertiea of rh)'lle enablee the rhyae to function differently in thie epieode. That te, tbe more free the rh:,ae pettem, the aore free the rhyme for special effecte. In thia epieoda rhyme 1• iodeed being used for "•o•• epecial effect" vhich involvee eleo "c1111uletive inaistence. " Fourteen linee of interrupted rhyme begin vith line 23S, end in ite very inaietence there ie the idea that the rhyme 1s call1ng attention to itself •• rhy■e apert fro■ the context: The ti■e is ••• propirioua The 11eal 1a eoded • • • • • • ehe i• bored • • • Initially the rhy■e vorda are not alveya of the aa■e part of epeech. But as the action continuca, tbe rh)'lle aettlea dovo to a ach•• involving aonoayllabic nouna, and one euepecta that EUot ie deliberately 1ncorporating a kind of banality in tbe predictability of the itr._.tical function of the rb)'lle vorda. Tbat ie, rhy■e casta theae linee in traditional verae fora end tbua alevatea the sordidnu, of the young un'a a,aault on the apathetic typiat. Thia clevation thr ough rhyaa vork• ao■evhat the aue vay •• doe, the presence of Tiraaiaa; it raia•• the exparienca out of the particular into tha 11ythic-univarsal and, tharafore, the tilleleaa, the high degree of predictability of tha rhymaa being entirely suitable to a traditional (aythic) content. The reader doea not really even vitnesa the actual seduction; inatead be ie taken off by Tireeeaa' parenthetical r_.rka on hie ovn paet. The reader, then, goea directly fro■ the aaaault of the young un and the indifference of the typiat to tha "final patronizing kiH"; tho dota ila of the aaaault are ob scena. Thoro 1a the re■inder that all thia haa happened before, and vhat the reader dou obaerve 1a frued in aurpriaingly conventional verse fora, broken only to introduce' the charactera on tha scene. Here in the ■ost clearly draaatic scene in the entire poe■, 811ot haa exploited at leaet tvo poaaibilitiea available to the poet vho aeea that " tbia liberation fro■ rby■e ■ight bo•• vell H liberation ~ rhy■e . " Firat, the degree to vhich the pattern 1a regular aarves to ■ille the ection in that th• eing-aongy effect of the unrelieved rbyae b analogoua to the boredo■ attendent upon the unr-rkable event : the routine, predictebla seduction of the lackluater typist by the ordinary clerk. lut ■ore i■portently, tbe use of rhy■e 11 re1ponaible for reinforcing the irony in tbis dwab ahov, irony vhich ia eseential to an underatanding of whet ia•-end ie not--going on here. Specifically, the contreet betveen the nobility of the aythic hero Tireeiae and the eordidneea of the perfunctory ectivitiu of • young -n--ao ordioary •• to be distinguiehable only by hie carbuncle aad hi1 aeeurance-- 1• etrengthened by the dieperity betveen che fora end the contane, betveen the highly reguler end treclitiooal quetraina reminieceat

398

of older and more glortous daya and the atory thay tel1 of the vulgar pursuits of a mediocre pair of characters. Rhyae uaed in thia vay ia of couree aetaphoric rhyae. But thia relatio11Ship is not one of aimilarity, which ve uaually think of vhen ve apeak of aetaphor. Rere the vehicle-th• traditional, forul rhya-ia too grand for the tenor-the coarae, inelegant copulation-end tha diaparity ia ironie. fllia irony ia given a aore coaplex character when the shadow bahind Bliot in theae rl\yaea 1s recognized as that of Chaucer ("aa he gueases," for instance). We nov aove to the laat section of the pom in which ve note an important ahift 1a' fora, a ahift fr011 the use of rhyae to produce a disparity betwean the fora end contant (or batwean this content and that one) to ita atraightforward uae to aupport a cloae identification of fora and content. Such a use aa thia appeara in the very last set of rhyaed linH, thoae in vhich "A - n drev her long blaclt hair out tight." The aetaphoric relation betweeu the incantatory fora and its exorciaiug function la obvioualy not an ironie one, and unlilté previoua exaaplea (fr011 the boudoir, typiat, and Thaaea daughtera linea) the fora here ia related to the content in a direct and positive vay. From here on Eliot abaDdons the uae of rhyae, and the reaaiuing fifty linea are written vithout thia foraalizing feature. Becauae of the coMection Bliot has eatablbhed between rhyme end irony, it ia, I thinlc, poaaible to conclude froa this that the end of the uae of rl\yae in the poem urka the end of the use of irony. The bizarre imagea of vaterlesa vella and diaembodied voicea, presented cuaiulatively in the nighteare aection, no longer are a part of the protagonist's viaion of hia waatelend, Irony and the rhyae forma vbich frequently signalled ita presence have also been cast out, a raiaing prepared for by th• death (th• purification) of Phlebas. Vhen the protagoniat returna to the ahore to fiah, ve are no longer avare of the gaahouae and we hear no rattling bonea. We take aeriously and es a positive gesture his efforta to aet hia lands in order. Loolted at in this vay, it is iJDposaible to see any irony in the final reference to the peace which paaaeth underatanding. Butto aay that The Waste ~ incorporatea a degree of optimiam, that "Shantih Shantih Shantih" 1e not to be aeen in the light of the irony vhich is ao auch a part of moat of tho po•, 1• not to say anything new. What ia nev iato say that a atraightforward interpretation of the final linea--an interpretation vhich streases che exhortation to redem the tiae--derive. aupport froca, indeed is aignalled by, a fact coming not from the contene but fr- the structure of the poem. The aignificance of such a structural reading 1a that our ultillate 1dentif1cat1on of the prevailing eone in The Waste Land-deapair or hope--ia not eo dependent on whether wa aa ruder talte the shoring of frapents to be a poaitive or negative geature. Our concluaion•, inatead, are aore objective aince they are in pare based on objective structure rather than entirely on

399

subjective content. Departaent of Bllgliah State University of Hev York at Bioghaaton Bioghaaton, Hev York 13901 HOTBS

1,

"Reflections on Vera Libre." Hev State-n, viii (Harch 13, 1917), 519. 2. Selected Basays of T.S. Bliot (Hev York, 1965), p. 380. 3. Since the metaphoric uae of rhyme manatea froa the atructure a.ud not tha content, 1t 1a 11etaphoric in a special vay; it requirea-a.nd rece1.vea-eupport frOtl otber featuraa, botb atructural end eeaantic aa vell.

43

TOWARDS A SBMlOTIC TllEORY OF LlTERARY ntEMES

Andrli van Holk

I. lo a recent publication called RQJll and Bitty-Coat. A XAly to tira HediUrzoer of nominal and verbal clan featurea such as manifestecl by the root 110rphemes of (T'l'QfinJa and ~•t•ia, aod an aqual nUllbar of empty connectivee, euch •• 'nominative' and 'f-inine' (in g-r,afi.nja) and '3d peraon' and 'raflexive' (in ll1'tJll)a•taJa); va do not add any class features for 'transitivity', 'aspect' or 1 tenao', because those are not pertinent to the class of 'intransitive per1onal action' expreaaione. 3. To illustrata the way a literary th8M uy be representecl in teru of BC'• and their coabinations (CC'a) I aball briefly describe three BC'a in some detail; theae are labelled Collective, Inatnaental, and Bxperiential. The Collective covera aentencea arranged about a noun phrasa aa their co•on centra, vhich refers to a character in ita relation to a collective enviro-.-nt (people, compatriota, c011radea in an,y or party, etc.), vithout specifying the character'a professional or social statua . The nomi.mila under this BC divida into tvo subsets one referring to the individual hero, the other to his collective environaent; the relation between the referents is ro./7,«l:iw in the sénae that not only the hero i• a -'>ar of the group, but also uy ba judgad by it and foel hùuelf an outs ider or outcast . Thus ve are led to poait two antagoniatic relations betveen subject ancl predicate: on• pointing froa individual to group, tba other in the opposite direction (cf. Fillmore's 'double case lino', applying to the reflexive construction of ,lohn 1110ll6à or ,lohn thNtoJ hinrllslf frc,t, tM 't'OOf; Fillmore 1969, 116-117). I call this type of EC accentric (Plessner 1950, 45-47; Rokoszowa 1981, 37; Van Holk 1983, S6). Tbe construction of a aentence uncler the Collectivc alvaya features a aecondary predicate, vhich in the case at hand haa the statua of a nllll8rative adverbial (I) . Thia adverbial modifiea both the finite verb and the subject (vitneas the absurdity of expreasions like •TM boy pkzying togetM'l' in tlul gal'dBn; I l#nt tJul thNa of UB t:o toi.»i, etc.), so that the number of ùràiBpBna(Zbla conatitu.nta is to ba three; we assign an BC of this description to the thi'l'd la11Bt of cM'l'BIICB. The Collective EC is diagr--,1 in (I). (I)

•

a

(PRBD'I Atako

ws flBBing f,'Clll

1tia fat'tcw noblallffl

Legend:Aj ~ lexical feeturea; Sk • claaa feeturea; •i+ connectivea; PRBD' ♦ aecondary predicate. The Inatruaenta l covers sentencos arranged about a construction vhich nonaally consists of a.peraonal noun phraae as its agent and an

403

instnmental-frequentative verb phrase aa a predicate; the latter in turn contains a verb of 'hitting' or 'breaking' as its centre (cf . Filllaore 1970, 120-133), and further features a personal object, a aecond object of 'inalienable poeaession', and an inst..,_ntal pbrasa (2).

(2)

inalienable possession 11Pi'"e2..;;,;;--"-==;,;;a,,;'2 NPe1 Vlns ,iudith cut off Howfemes I hsad Legend: NPe i ➔ personal noun phrase.

PrepNP3Ins 111ith a sword

The instrwnental phrase, which makes explicit tbe instneental diathese of the central verb, usually cocobines with the verb and the subject (ths man hit ths d.og ..n.th a stick/ tJu, _, wi.th t/N stick hit th8 dog) or vith the • - verb in tvo distinct diatheaes (ths IIICl>I hit th8 dog I ths stick m,t tlul d.og) and alvays requires a second predicato (tJu, man m,t th8 d.og + tlul IIICl>I ••• [using] a stick; cf. Pillmore 1968); for this reason the lnstr.-ntal EC is assigned the tm,rd level of coherence (note the distributional correspondence betveen the 'plural' feature of the Collective and the 'frequentative/semelfactive' feature characteristic of instrl.Dental verbs: beating vs a singu hit; bNaxing into pisose, etc.). It IIBY be finally noted that the Inatrumental inclucles expressions like (at:riks a llt1!(, etc. This means, in torma of the present DOdel, that the predicate of an Instr1.Dental EC includes che class features of the 'personal a8ent' (which it shares with the Collective) and the features of 'location' and 'motion' (occurring as characteristic claas markers of the Locative and Vialis, respectively; cf . Van Holk 1980). We finally note that the function of a verb of 'hitting' (and its cognate,) i, to indicate the cau,ation of a change in the ,tate of its object (NPe1 kiZZs NPe2 • NPe1 's bshaviOUJ> NPe2 to dts), without apecifying the agent'• involv-nt in the event (cf. NPe1 ~ N d NPe2, which contains additional modal components; aee below, f S); the verl>-object relation therefore represents a sincle 'caae line'. AD IC of this deacription ia called concnatric (Van Holk 1983, 56). The Experiential ia tha typical vehicle of 110dality in th-tica. lt covera sentence, arranged about a conatruction coaaistiDf of a parsonal noun phraae aa ita aubjact end a predicata contain1ng a verb of 'experience' (feet, tlnnk, say, Zist-,i, ••• )ora 'modal' verb (want, ..nsh, may, 111Uat, ••• ) as its centra. The construction includas all modifier, specifying the diatbeae of the verb •• 'agentive' or 'transitive', but does not cccnprise aapectual and temporal modifiers. The characteristic function of a verb of 'experience' is to indicate an action or event in which a per,onal noun phra,a participatea both •• a gr-tical aubject an indirect object (interestee, experiencer, etc.), witnes, the exieteaca of tranefo..ations like R. on :r:t:> ku!a:ic .sa ogr,adoj• Na dylat utNn>ulj pxw:Z dssjati ~ - Izd, 4-oe. IV. Koakva, Izd. Nauka, 1977. S, Quotation, are from: Friedrich llcbbol, J'udith, Bins Traglfdu in ftlnf Aktsn. Stuttgart, Recla11, 1981.

REFERENCBS Blok, Anton (1982). Rom and Bi'Lly-Goat. A ~Il to the Hsditsl'Nnean COM of Honour •. Nijmqen, UP. Cook, W.A. ( 1970). 'case er-.r. FrOID Roles to Rules •, Georg.tcva llnivsl'sity lbpel'B in Ltmguag• and ~istics I, 14-19. Washington 1/F. Elam, Keir ( 1980) . 'lhs s.mlotioe of ThsatN and DNmcz. London, Hethuen. Fi lllllore, Charles J. (1968). 'The case for Case', in: Emmon llach & Robert T, Harma (Eds.), llnivRsal-8 in Linguisti-o 'lhsol'/1, 1-SS. Nev York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston. -(1969). 'Types of Lexical lnfonaation', in: F. Kiefer (l?d.), Sà,di•e in Synta:r and 5'1tnantice, 109-138. Dordrecht, Reidel. --(1970). 'The Gr_.r of HlTTING and IIRBAXING', in: R.A. Jacobt I P.S. Roaenba1.1111 (Eds.), Readings in Errgtish 'l'Nnsformatwnat ~ _.,., 120-133. Toronto-London. Holk, Andr, van (1980). 'Th• Open Keuage. On the Syntax of Envy in A.S. Puakin'a Noaaz>t and Satisl'i', Rusln

LA NAHIPULATIOH On parle eouvent de -ipulatlon dana le diecoure eoclal, partlcull~reaent à propose de la preeae et du dlecoun politlque; ce qu'on voudrait lei, c'eat poeer le probU11e en teraee e'9iot1quee: l) de débrayege actantiel - notemaent débreyage Enonclatif à tre.vera la proJection d'une preaiàre peraonne plus ou 110ine conTentionnelle, plus ou aolna f1ct1Te, et l'eaploi d'6nonc6a rapportée; 2) de manlpulation, au ■ena gre1...e1en, c'eet à dire l'utilleation, en amont de l'inetance de l'inonciatlon d'un deetinateur qui •prog~• et légitiM le dire du •uJet. On appelle unipulation, en e&liotique narrative, "une action de l'Mcae eur d'autree hoalee, vieant à leur falre edcuter un p ~ donn6" (Dictionnaire). Tranapoeé du plan dee ricita à celui dee pratiquee, et plus particw.i~t dee pratiquee eocialee, la unipulation (et la eé■iotique qu'elle appelle) ee conatitue à partir du parcre■ warunkowy w. aowie potocznej i logi■tyce. Ruch Pilozoticzny 14(1-3): l34a-l34b, ---(1956), Ilcrea warunkowy a iaplikacja aaterialna. In Jezyk i ilznanie. Toa 2, 248-265. warazawa 1965: PWK. (Part ally tran■iated by J. Giedyain aa: Conditional atat-ent and aaterial implication. In 'l'he Scientitic World-P•r•~otive and otber B■■ay■ (19311963) , J. Gedyaln (ed,), 222-238. Dordrecb.t and Boston 1970: D, Reidel,) Biegan■ki, W. (1903). PodziaJ ■adow. In Zaaady liliki og6lne1. 159-193. Warazawa: Kaaa J. M ano-kiego. ---(1912). Jl:onatruJtcje aadu dodatkowe. In Teoria logiki, 263-302. war■ zawa: B.Wende. BogU■jaw■ki, A, (1984), Analiza zdan warunlcowycb a probl- tunkcji ■Qiotycznych. Studia s . .iotyczn• (in presa), Borkow■kl, L, (1964), UWagi o olcreaie warunkowym oraz i11plikacji aaterialnej i sciaJej. In Roz ra l iczne bie a iatknowa ku czc roteaora ll:az erza A du ew cza, 11-22. war■zawa: PWK, Czerwin■ki, z. (1958), O paradok■ie iapliltacji, Studia Logica 7: 265-271, Grice, H,P. (1975), Logie and converaation. In Syntax and S■-antica, Vol. 3, Speecb. Acta, P. Cole (ed,), 41-58. New York: Acadealc Presa. Grodzi~ski, B. (1969). o niektorych poataciacb zdan zJozonych. Zdanie zJozone ekaten■jonalne a intenajonalne, In Jezyk, meta1ezyk, rzeczvviato,d, 36-70, 115-139, warazawa: PWN, Ingarden, R. (1936). Analiza zdania warunkowego. In z teorii 1ezyka 1 tilozoticznych podataw logiki, 260-210. wanzawa 1972: PWN. ---(1949). Tbe hypothetical propoaiton (translated by P, Kaut■ann). Philoaophy and Phenoaenological R. .earah l8(4)l 435-450, Jadackl, J . J. (1980) • On the aource■ ot contuporary Poliah logie (tranalated by R. Harandon). Dialectica and Hwlania■ 7(4): 163-183, ---(1981), Belng and exlatence. On the being ot what aeeaa not to be, Dialectica and eu■aniam 8(4): 131-139. ---(1982), On ao-called tbeoriea ot truth. Dialeotica and HU■ani. . 9(2)r 145-149,

480

Kllita, J, (1966), stwierdzanie a wyrazanie, studia Metodologiczne 2: 35-55, Kotarbihska, J, (1964), controversy on the applicability lillit• ot logical ■ethod•• Logigue et Anali•• 8(29): l-29, Kotarbinek, T, (1929). S)'llboli•• ot •entential calculua (tranalated by o.A. Wojta•iewicz), In Gnoaiology, 133-141. OXtord - Wroc~aw 1966: Perguon Presa - oasoline1111. Kraazewaki, z. (1972). zwiazki trekcio- w obrebie zdan proatych i zélait z~ozonych. In Metodologia tilozotii, 106-123, 1,ulta•l•wlcz, J. (1934), On th• hi•tory ot the logie ot propoaitiona (tran•lated by s. McCall). In Selected Worka, J, Borkovski (ed.), 191-211. AaaterdUI and warzava 1970: NorthHolland Publiahing Coapany - PWN. Nowak, L. (1970). o pojeciu wyrazania. studia s-iotyczne 2: 89-97. oaaowaka, M. (1928). La tonction du langage d'expriaer noa idiea. In Second Congr~a Polonais de Philoaophie. Varsovle 1927. Rapporta et Coaptes-Rendua, 134-136. varaovle 1930. • ---(1931). S~ova i ■yali, In o czlovieku 1 aoralno,ci i nauce, 183-225. Warazava 1983: PWN, Pale, J, (1981), Prolegoaena to a detinition ot the concept ot aign. In Zeichenkonatitution. Akten dea 2, s-iotiachen Kologuluaa. Regenaburg 1978. Band l, A. Lange-Seidl (ed.), 45-52. Berlin and Nev York: Walter de Gruyter. ---(1982), w~aanoaci aeaiotyczne znaku. In wateo do ae11io~ki, 227-233. Waraza-: wleétia Powazec a. (Partially tran•lated aa: Seaiotic and non-•uiotic aeaning. Aaerican Journal ot Seaiotics 1(4): 1-19.) ---(1984). condltlonal aentenc88 and intensionality. In Se11iotica: Critical Proceas and New Perapectlvea, H. Parret and H.-G. Ruprecht (eda) (in presa), Quine, w.v.o. (1940). Th• conditional. In Kathuatical Logie, 14-18. CUlbridge, Ma••• 1955: Harvard unlveraity ---(1953). Keaning and exiatential interence. In Pro• a Logical Point ot Viev. New York and Evanaton 1963: Harper and Row. Stanosz, B. (1976). Sta,e logiczne v jezyku naturalnym, In Logiczne podstavy jez~ka, B. Stanoaz and A. Novaczyk, 99-105, Wroc av:

Pr••••

481 o■■olineua.

---(1984). Problea el• Tar■ki, A. (1933). Th• concept of truth in toraalized language■ (tranalated by J. H. Woodger). In Logie, Seaantics 1 Metwtheaatics, 152-278. oxtord 1956: Clarendon Pres■ • Wolter, w. , Lipczyn■ka, M. (1973). Illplikacja, zdanie iJlplikacyjne (warunkowe) . In Bleaenty logiki, 92-105. War■ zawa and wroc:~aw 1980: PWN.

so PONDEMENTS POUR UIIE SQIIOTlQUB SCIENTIFIQUB DE LA OOIIPORHATION DELDIITAHTI! DES OBJBTS DU MONDE NATUREL

C6ear Jannello

THEORIE DI! LA Dl!LIMITATION L'Etude du dea1gn dea objata de l'expErlence quotidlenne du a>nde natural - co11poa6 i la fo11 de nature et de culture - eat un douine de conna1eeance qui co■prend plueieurs zones, dont chacune provient de donn&a d'ordre parcaptuel diff6rent:-Dan1 la zone de la perception visuella, nous diatinauona quatre "matUrea": la dEU■itation (ou "forme"), la couleur, la texture et la c&ie. La prellliire de cea raat1ires • EtE trad1tionnellement consldErEe c0le trom action• (Bentley, 1968). Elam•s strong definition of dramatic dialogue is historically anchored, pointing to the uniqueness ot 'dialogic exchange•, as distinct from the choru■ -narrative and lyric -- tro■ Aeschylus on. H• i• here draving on Honzl who ■ore than forty years ago vrote of 'the aupremacy ot dialogue over recitation• (Elam, p.139), (Aa I ltnow trom •Y own work, that means taking ar■a againat most Greek acholars, not to mention Nietzsche.) But, I bave no doUbt, Blaa•s main contribution to the atudy ot dialogue consista in the losely argued and syste11atic grounding ot all dialogue in both the situational context and the context-utterance: 'the relat1onab1p set up betveen the speaker, the 11stener, and discourae in the i■11ediate here-and-nov• (pp. 1378). 'l'h• dialogue is then seen to turn on deixis, eapecially on the I-You exchange, which ia defined aa 'tbe tounding semiotic unit ot dramatic representation at large• (pp. 139 tt.). I 11ight mention bere that •Y own book also takes the I-You exchange as the pivot ot interaction, in it• focus on tbe dialogue1 like ■any othera, I too a■ indebted to Ro■an Jakobaon tor teaching ua the crucial tunctiona ot deixis, which he called 'shifters•. Bven so, I shall have to ask whether these ahifting peraonal pronouna -- along with the de11onstratives, and spatial and te11poral adverbs -- are not asked to do too much vork in Elam•s analysis ot dramatic dialogue. But firat I want to recall so■e otber aspects ot Ela11•• atudy, which •••• to be both intrincically valuable and likely to prove truitful in any proper reading ot a dramatic text. Pirstly, vhat Blaa haa to say on the tlouting ot the so-called conversational maxims (Grice•s (1967) postulates ot quantity, quality, relation and ■anner) i• excellent. We can see at a glance how Hamlet•• non-interactive dialogue with Claudius and Poloniua, and lonesco•s anti-logical dialogu• in The Bald Priaadonna are generated alao Revzina and Revzin, 1975), Nhat I have elsewher• called typea ot parodie and ■aMerist dialogue (1979) can be aeen to be parasitically living ott the nona ot converaation. Purther, tbia tlouting of the norma dravs attention to the specitically dramatic uses of

cin to, yet ditterent tro11, other types of verbal exchanga, like conversation -- a distinction that is under-played by certain sociologically-ainded discourse analysts. Keabers ot a Wittgensteinian fa•ily aay well have faaily re•••blances without being idantical twina. A turther distinction ot Bla■ •s analysis is that rhetoric i• valued not tor it• figure• -- aa it ia by some literary scholars -- but tor the dyna■ic transactions they carry. Consider what is said on antithesia in draaatic dialogue (as distinct fro■ poetry): '(it) carriea the contlicting propositional, illocutionary, and ethical coaaitaents ot the speakers• (p. 177) (et. Xennady, 1983, eap. pp. 27-28 and 85-86). Thi• bringa •• to a cantral point: Blaa•s atteapt to find an alternative to literary-critical as well as narratological approachea. I think I have said enough to show that I a■ very auch in syapathy with this search. But at a certain point I lose Blaa (or he loses and the dra11atological approaob, which he otters as an alternative, tollowed by a hyper-detailed acore, aurely calla tor critical questioning. The initial trouble, as I••• it, can be aeen in the way Bla■ takes it tor granted (attar Serpieri, 1978) that a change in deictic orientation necessarily ■eans a change ot draaatic context, and that a aicor-seg11entation based on noting each and every change in deixis will n■c-sarily be illu■ inating. I tind so■ething odd in the preli■ inary, so11ewhat ex cathedra pronounce■ent: 'it ia clearly at thia (indexal) levai rather than that ot parloniance that auch an analyai• ■uat be conducted' (p. 145). Row clearly? And why ■uat? However, I would be happy to take on board the thaory ot aicro-seg11entation, aa a working hypothesia. Atter all, we live in a world ot subato■ic particlea. The queetion that really ■attera is: does it work, does it illuainate the study of draaatic dialogue? 'l'h• tirat exa■ple given by Bla• (the lesa allbitioua one) ia taken troa Beckett•s Bndqa••• a aequence fro■ one ot the duologues ot Ha■■ and Clov (Bla11 1980: pp. 144-147). Having pondered both Beckett•s and Blaa•a text tor a long ti■e, allow ■e to present •Y conclusione here very brietly. There appeara to be no justitication (d"spite El-•• follow-up c::o■aen­ tary) tor splitting ott the deictic:: c::hang•• troll the

••>

SIS

overall dramatic situation and, in particular, froa severing short speeches, and speaker froa speaker, in a coherent duologue. The opening linea ot the duologue, tor exaaple, are clearly intended aa a aequence, leading to the stage direction pau e -- placed with exquiaite auaical and logical tact, ust there. The coaic cliaax ot Clov•s reply to his aaater•s queation ( • why don•t you kill ae?• -- 'I don•t know the colDbination of the larder') is lost in the aicro-analysis. More importantt still, the text quoted shows no change in the I-You axis, which Blam elaewhere rightly considera so iaportant. I tind that the exceasiv• nuaber ot unita (e.g. Hama and Clov•a little debate over the survival of bicyclea: unita 6-15) tenda to obscure the peraonal torce ot the speech act is itself blurred, even thougb Blam explicitly commenta on Clov as a strong 'I'speaker. Thus the excessive focus on deixis comes dangerously near to defeating one of its purposes -aeeing the I-You axia at the centre ot dramatic exchange. What, further is gained by splitting Ha•••• coherent little final apeech into three unita (19, 20, 21)? Elam considera this speech a 'close to the aacrosequence• -- yes, but it is not all that macro, it aight bave served as a sequence tout court. The very auch aore -bitlous 'draaatological score• that Blaa later ottera -- tor a micro-sequential analysis ot the first 79 lines ot Ha■let (Blam 1980: 192) also suttera troa the probl•• juat outlined. But bere the vertical micro-segmentation -- folloving every new deictic orientation -- is complicated by no leaa than eighteen horizontal colW1ns, witb an elaborate terminology, abbreviations and pictorial symbols that I tor one would tind harder to aeaorise tor use than a choreography. Koreover, the notation tells us too aany things ve already know (that ia, all ve need ia a text ot Baalet before ua, or a good aemory): the namea ot the speakera, the tense, the channel, the topic/object, tor inatance. More iaportant, the notation does not deal illuainatingly enough with what I take to be ita aain intereat: the relation ot deixis to the apeech act. It would be impertinent tor me to auggest how Blaa might aodity thia •grid', but if I were to aake any use of hia analysia, I would group together all the categorie& ot the apeech act: illocutionary, performative, perlocutionary (columna 9, 10 and 11), with the coluans on iaplicature and modality (12 and 13), and probably also on anaphora and aetalanguage, and so on (14, 15 and 16). These features would be integrated in auch a way tbat the vhole apeecb act could be read froa tbe score, within ita proper dr-atic situation. Intoraation on

3

$16

the ae111antic and cultural coMotation of certain keywords (Blam•s colu•ns 17 and 18) a•ount to traditional literary contexta, and can be related to the speecb act as required. By required I 111ean: the need to read, de■cribe, or interpret intelligently or produce on the atage illu•inatingly. Let ma take just one example, the thirteen opening linea of Hamlet, whicb I would conaider a aignificant sub-scene: a saall-scale prologue to the larger prologue (scenes 1-3, or even 1-5) 1n tbe play. We bave one duologue between the two ■entrie■ (the I-You axi■ does not change) in a rapid exchange that seems botb ordinary and extraordinary. The •ilitary ritual and the colloquial language •ake it aou.nd ordinary, vhile tbere are other teaturea that abould alert the audience to aomething 01.lt-of-the-ordinary: l) 'Who'a there?' ia uttered by the juapy newly arrived aentry and not by the guard on duty; more important, 2) Francesco•s 'For this relief auch thanks, 'tie bitter cold,/And I aa sick at heart• converta the 111ilitary-colloquial ritual exchange into a audden per■onal confu■ion witb a universal reaonance. That auch every acboolboy/-girl should lcnow. Hy point ia that any analysia of thi ■ aequence -whetber furtber cut or not, tbougb I am content to see it as a unit -- sbould illuminate wbat is happening bere and not diminisb tbe dynamisa of interaction. Tbe style-ahitts and aood-abitts just noted are, in any case, at lea■t a■ intere■ting a■ the ahifta in deictic orientation. Blam would no doubt argue that Franceaco•a ahift to the contessional 'I' ('proximal deictic orientation towarda the speaker') governa all the other cbangea -- aoving, tor example, troa 1 at111oapbere 1 to 'psyche' in the score (collllln 8). A score should aia at being a visible and readable page abowing coMections and continutiu -- like a muaical ■core. In the byper-detailed score that Blam ottera it ia ditticult to aee 'what come• next•, ao that the interactive drive of the dialogue is again blurred. For instance, the score obscures rather than bighlights Bernardo'• very intersting 'changing the subject• ■trategy which greets Francesco•s •sick at heart• contession: Bernardo: Pranceaco:

Have you had quiet guard? Nota 110uae atirring.

Now, should nota semiotic analysis be interested in the quality ot the listener•s response within tbe dialogue excbange? -- bere, tor example, in Bernardo's evasive

$17

yet anxioue queetion (he aight have stepped out ot a Pinter play). And then Francesco•• colloquial/poetic anewer, bringing the eign ot the abaent mou■• into t:he verbal action -- ailencing t:he que■tioner, but raiaing queationa tor the audience. That anxioua que■tioning linka up with Boratio•s 'What, has thi• thing appeared again tonight?' (line 21), within a short reading and playing tiae, but separated by two pages ot notation in the ecore. To conc::lude, Ieee the need tor wor~ing with aignitic::ant aub■cenea1 coherent encountera between two or more charactera, held together by the topic::, the draaatie convention, and above all, the interaetive drive ot the dialogue it-lt. :rn any case, unita ahould be related to a unity ot eontext; and the I-You exchange should be tollowed as draaatic •eontour linea•. I aa aware that the internal ■e•iotie debate on the question ot ■egmentation ha• already thrown up •oclitieation■: in Poetica ToclJiX Serpieri (1981), Blaa, Paola Gulli PUgllattl a others bave turther detined and retined the eoncept and praetice ot a•CJll•ntation. A acene troa Macbeth (2.1), tor exa•ple, is segmented aueh nearer to the ilnea ot aeaantie and rhetorieal ehange in the text than our exemple tro• Hamlet, so we come nearer to what I •ight c::all, to adapt an Bngli■h proverb, c::utting the text aeeording to it■ cloth. Soaewhere along theae linea our approaehea to the atudy ot dialogue overlap and may coaple•ent eaeh other. 0eyert.ent ot English Un verslty ot Bergen Bergen 1 Horway REFERBHCES Auatin, John L, (1962). How to Do Thinga with Worda. oxtord: oxtord Universlty Presa. Bentley, Brie (1968) (ed). The Theory ot the Moclern stage. Haraondaworth: Penguln. Bogatyrev, Petr (1971). Le• signea du th,&tre. Poetigue 8: 517-530. (Tranalation ot 1938 artiele.) Burton, Deirdre (1980). Dialogue-and-Diacourae. London: Routledge. Eco, Ullberto (1977), seaioties ot Theatrieal Performance. The Dralla Review 21(1): 107-117.

Blaa, Reir (1980), Th• Semiotica ot Theatre and Draaa. Londoni Methuen. Grice, a.P. (1967, 1975), Logie and Conver■ation. :rn

518

syntax and seaantica 3: speech Acta, cole, P. and MoZ"9an, J.L. (eds). New YorJt. l'teMedy, Andrev (1979). Natural, Mannered and Parodie Dialogue. Yearbook of Bngli■h Studiea 9: 28-54, --- (1983). Drautic Dialogue - 'l'h• Duologue ot Per11onal Encounter. CUI.bridge: Callbridge University Presa. l'tovzan, Tadeusz (1970). Litt,rature et Spectacle. Tbe Hague: Mouton. MatejJta, Ladislav and Titunik, I.R. (eds) (1976). se11iotica ot Art, Prafcie School contrlbutions. caibr ge, Maaa.: M.I,T. Preaa, eap: Honzl, Jindrich (1940), "Dynuaica of the Sign in the 'l'heatre"; Veltruslcy, Jiri (1942), "Basic Peatures ot Drmtic Dialogue". Revzina, O.G. and Revzin, I. (1975), A Suiotic Experilllent on Stage: The Violation ot the Postulate of Normal Coaaunication as a Draaatio O.vice. Seaiotica, 14, 3, 245-268, Searle, John R. (1969). Speeeh Acta: An B1111ay in the Philosophy of Lanquaqe. Cambridge: cu>:>ridge unlverslty Presa. Serpieri, Allessandro (1978), Ipotesi teoretica di segmentazione del testo teatrale. In Serpieri et al. (1978) Coae co-unica 11 teatrodal te11to alla scena. Miia.n ii Formichiere. Serpieri, Alle1111andro et al. (1981), Tovard a Segmentation of the Druatic Text. Poetica Today 2(3): 163-200. Szondi, Pater (1956). Theorie dea modernen drms. Prankrurt: Suhrkaap. Por Pirandello'• L'azione parlata (1899) th• tranalation by P,Melano was used, In Theory of the Modem stage edited by Eric Bentley (1968). Tbi11 Pirandello es11ay was also diseussed by ae in 'Six Characters: Pirandello'• Last Tape•, Modem Draaa (May 1969), 1-9, and developed in ay lnaugural leeture to the British Pirandello Soeiety, Bristol 1980. The text ot Haalet ia quoted froa 'l'he New Shakeapeare, Caabridge, edited by John Dover Wilson ( 1934, 1969) •

54

ON REFERENCE IN PRAGMASEMIOTICS Boni Kirstein

The expression prariaseniiotics contatns elements of the Greek words ~ra!P!!!i~, 'to act and senie1on, 'sign ' . The discipline designatedhus concems itself, a~ong other things, with the fact that h111ans can act by means of word-signs, and it is specifically concerned with sign use in joint actton. BROHISLAW HALIHOIISKI The pioneer work with regard to sign use for joint action was done by B. Haltnowski (1923), this being a brief study of fishtng on the Trobriand lslands near New Guinea . This study also c0111prises a reference model for 'Speech in Action' consisting only of the base line of the semiotic triangle to whi ch the words 'ACTIYE SYHBOt. (Used to handle) REFERENT' have been added. RiTTn'owski's pra!J'llasemfotic model appears, however, to neglect not only the tntellectual effort made in referrtng, but, moreover, the help given by language tn the process. I have already (1984) sought to clarify what inttially seems to be Malinowski's REFERENCE WITHOUT THOUGHT; the way in which Hal inowski - and not only he overlooked the help given by language in the process of referring during cOIIIIIOII action is the main topic of the present paper. In generai, anthropologists like Malinowski and philosophers of l anguage like Wittgenstein who stress past experiences and present use for the detennination of the meaning of words tend to neglect the contribution that language as a system ■akes in the process of referring. There is, then, s0111e need fora clariftcation of the r6le of language as a systein in achieving the aims of Joint action. lt is mainly !exis, i.e. the repertoire of word-signs, that will be discussed here, in particular, how (much of) a word's meaning enters into its use for referring. To this end I shall turn to one of Malinowski's contemporartes whom he knew personally, with wholl he corresponded when near New Guinea, and with wl!Qn he shared opinions on inany theoretical pofnts: the Egyptologist Sir Alan Henderson Gardfner (1879 - 1963). GAROINER'S REFERENCE l«lDEL For both Gardiner and Halinowski the meaning of a word results from the previous experience a given speaker/hearer has had with that particular word. As regards their philosophies of language, both authors 11ake thefr ontologfcally 110st daring pronouncesnents tn

520

challenging the generally held opinion that the pr1nc1pa1 function of language is • ••. to express thought' (Gardiner, 1932: 22) or in cri ticfsing the view of the word as ' ••• containing its ineaning as a Soul-box contains the spiritual part of a person or thing' (Mali· nowski, 1923: 308). To combat such views Malin011ski, in a belliger• ent mood, forcefully fills in the hitherto dotted base of the semiotic triangle and leaves out altogether the conceptual superstructure so as to indicate that in reference the acting individual can reach out qufte dfrectly for the referent. Just as forcefully, Gardiner applies to purely intellectual matters his newly coined tem 'thing•meant' in order to dmonstrate that spiritual states of af· fairs can also be referred to as things. Although Gardiner, like Malinowski and Wittgenstein, holds a use-theoretical view of word meaning, he does not share with thea the neglect of language as a system. In his Theor* of Speech and Language he tries to correct Ha11nowski 's overslg toy presenffig a reference model of his own. To Gardfner the dichotomy Language vs. Speech is of prfmary importance; consequently this dichotcnlY doai1· nates his IIOdel. lt corresponds to Saussure's (1916) dichotomy langue vs. paSole but is much 'fufther developed' by Gardiner as far as parole(• ~eech) is concerned. Saussure was in effect under• tak,ng a seneo ogy of language whereas Gardiner fs in effect undertakfng a seniotic of speech by discussing extensively what hawens to words when app11ed i n speech. Unlike Ma11nowsk1, Gardiner does not deal with the use of word-signs in a context of joint action and therefore he is, strictly speaking, nota pra911semiotician. But what he writes concerning reference 1s of relevance to pra911asemiotics because Gardiner is aware of the phenomenon that fora gi ven speaker and fora given hearer the tie between a word-sign and what it actual ly refers to can be quite closely knit. This is the very phenOf'llenon Malinowski observed in groups of 1nd1v1duals acting Jointly to accompl ish some task. But, unlike Halinowski, Gar· di ner keeps an eye on language. Before dealing with Gardiner's reference model in detail a rough sketch of his theoretical position is now offered. Gardiner likes to set up his operational basi~ between traditional opposites . This is most clear from his insertion of

svJ1 between

Language

and hfs insertion of the between

&

Reality

~t

word-sign

f&r~

&

thing.

Bearing in mind the te111s used in the above diagram we see that by taking the more advanced stance of Gardiner opens up s011e vistas on Realitf other than those vis e r011 the standpoint of Language. In try ng to reach out directly for Rea11ty fnim Language one has a hard time avoiding ontological p1tfalls. in contrast, by

S21

studying the application of word-signs not to things butto thingsmeant Gard1ner evades the pitfall of s1mply equating things linguistic with things non-linguistic. For in ontologically critical cases it can be claimed that the referring is done not so much to realworld things but rather to things as meant by the speaker. In such cases Gardiner' s insertion turns out to be quite practical in that he does not draw a sharp dividing line betlleen things and things ■eant . lf one could learn to ha~le this fuzziness one could even derive theoret1ca1 profit from i t . Extensive Areas of Meaning as Fields3 A well-established method of investigation i nto referential is the setting up of ~emantic fields' (cf. Trier, 1931, 1932, 1934). Gardiner (1932, 1951: 36) does not indeed clai■ to be the first to plot out word-aieaning so as to forma field but the extent to which he has word use enter into his field-theory is new. lf ' ••• the meaning of a word is a c011plex area of often quite heterogeneous potential applications', these are potentialities resulting essentially from ' ••• past experiences of its use' (1951: 136). These experiences derived from cOllbined verbal and situational contexts and not only from reading, for example. By noticing and re• merabering how the word-signs were being used, and in what contexts, a person has in the past bui lt up a sign-repertory or l exicon which is now part of that person's laàuage. Out of these observed ' ••• possibilit1es of varied applica on (abcde) ' the meaning (m) of a given word-sign has gradually been bul'Ttiip (1951: 149). Tlius the meaning of a word results from the use that has hitherto been made ~f it, ~ainly in_Sptech and 4not in language, even though that ■ean1ng res1des now 1n anguage. As a side-effect of the acquisition ·of words by observing the ~peech of others h01110phones tend to be subsuined under one sound9 This makes for rather large areas of meaning in s0111e cases. Gardiner (1951: 36 - 37) remarks: ■eaning

We can perhaps best picture to ourselves the ■eaning of a word such as horse by considering it as a territory or area over which the variòiis""possibilities of correct application are mapped out ••• But within the legitimate range of the word-■eaning horse the various thin9s meant will be differently grouped, some ri'tlier near the borderline, and others distinctly central ••• Doubtless for 110st of us live horses of one kind and another are pretty central. A slight strain is felt when horse is applied to toy horses, a greater strain when it is applied toffii gy11nasium horse, and a still greater strain when it is app11ed to a towel-horse. In §erms of our map, these applications grow 1ncreas1ngly peripheral • This is the type of case which Gardiner ( 21951: 150 - 151) summarizes by the fol'lllula: abcde (G m) w1th abcde as 'the fielcforpossf61e applications belonging to a

522

LANGUAGE

I

r•.s~

I

f

SPEECH rrea e .... -l

FX

erl,cde (=m)

I

FX I'

f

RAIN

lhe raln f'

f

FX

ab e J e elonging to words are ultimately and fund~enully fol'llal characters belonging to the things •eant by them. The diagra•s (I.e. Flg. ~ - 8. K.) explalned In t~g last sectlon have, lt ls hoped, helped to reveal this truth. • lf this were the case, ft could be clalmed that word-fom 1s a function of the formal (or Ge-

530

ili.!!-) character of the thing meant: 19

ffff • f(Fc) But in Linguistics oneginerally prefers to take Languase (rather than things meantJ as point of departure and, accord,ngly, F has to stand for something 11ke fom-attributing word-function 1lecause, depending on what kind of"llortart ls 6e,ng used ,n referring, a somewhat different fom or Gestalt is attrlbuted to the thin9 meant and referred to. So there ls, according to Gardiner 1149), • ••• the specific capacity in whlch the word functions (FJ as attril>Utor of form', (my ea,phasis - B. K.). For example, wheii I hear the exclaiìitloiiì.ook at the rain! or even si~ply l!ain! (instead of Look how it ,s raìiifiiijTJT":".. ~ay also havea'Ol111 consciousnesr;-aemecrtrom the fact of a noun being used, that the thing-meant is to be viewed as a tning' (rather than as an actionJ, Gardiner (77, ftn.J. On thls view, ' ••• word-fom must be conceived of as casting Jets of light upon the thing as intended by the speaker, revealing lts true character(sJ asso intended or meant,' Gardiner (149). FIG. 6, 0IAGRAM 2: Patriae i n ~ Patriae 20 'In patriae the capacity (F) in which the word funct1ons is that of a genitive, but ••• only a special tract of the genitivearea, namely the tract where dwell ali objective genit1ves ('(), comes into play,' Gardiner (149 &152). Although patriae specifically has the outer word-fom (cf. p. 5 above) of a genitive, the capacity (F) in which the word functions, namely the GENITIVE CASE, is to be tiken less in a mol'l)hological sense and ,vre 1n a se111antic sense. With t°betng a further specification of F, this comes very close, indeed, to a 0eep Case à la Fillmore (1908) and would have to be s ituated somewhere betwein7"0SSESS0R and PATJENT, as becoaies apparent in its projection from the meaning-side to the side of the thing (-meant): 'The formai character of the thlng meant by patriae 1s the be1ng presented as a th,ng towards whlch is d\rected another thing, to wit, an action presented as a thing denoted by the word amor,' Gardiner (152). In other words, the projection casts light Oni thing (~~tri;J which undergoes an action (amare) also viewed as a thing and ere ore expressed by a noun (ainorr.Taken together, this amount! 2to the formai (or Gestalt-) chiricter (Fc) of the thing-meant • From the specification of F as 'tit also results that, by way of c0111par1son, the correspondeiice between F, 'a specific \word-) form ••• •, and Fc, the Gestalt of the thlng-iiieant, is by no means as far-reaching as in 0iagra111 I, where f • (ffff) • F, practically the whOle area of word-fom corresponding, tsee p. 8 -above). In 0iagram 2 the correspondence holds, strictly speaklng, only between 't' and Fc. With ffff be1ng narrowed down tot; the relationship now reads roughly--Ufollows: ffff > 't =Fc Because of the highly complex--rc; there is, at flrst, not total con-

531

gruence (ffff • F), •••• but the congruence of function is of aspecial type"rejiresinted by 'f,• \149). Viewed 11athenatical ly, Y-is obtained by cutting off fr011 the larger area of word fonn ffff that which is not congruent with Fc and, by ineans of this curliì'Tment, ' •.. '1! again have correct and congruent application,' Gardiner ( 149) • FIG. 6, DIAGRAH 3: Boy in The Boy King On this noun phrase Gardiner (161 & 152) writes: Let us suppose two schoolgirls to b~ debating their preferences in Engllsh history. One of them says, ! prefer _lli B6Y king, stressing both I and bih· And 1ndeed, e k1ng here designated was a boy at his acce ssion - I c111 tninking of King Edward VI • as 1s well brought out 1f we paraphrue the words !!!.!. boy king by the king who fil! boy w~ ~ ll:. cended the throne. There is little doubt that, fora native speaker of English, tn the above noun phrase the word ry ' ••• is acceptably and correctly applied' (148). Yet this is a e ear case of what Gardiner calls incongruent word-function, because the word is, by its intrins1c wordfom, a noun but it here functions 11ke an attributive adjective. Gardiner (160) writes: A second incongruent instance would be the then king, for the word then is, as an adverb, not naturally entiiliif'to serve as attribute toa noun. Nevertheless, when placed between t he article and a noun, it has attributive force conferred upon it in the same way as ~ in .!,!!! boy king. AlthOugh the word bof cannot exercise its full word-formai potential as a noun, for wh eh reason F has been put in round brackets, the word is still, to Sfte extent, felt as a noun notwithstand• ing its attributive &unctfon , and for this reuon ffff, word-fom, and F, word-fonn function, have not been erased • Biitaotted lines are only enaanating fro1 the 11edi1111 11ne of stem-nieaning and not fr011 the thin line of fonnal word-nieaning, So, as far as the worcf-Tona of ~ is concerned, little (or no) light is cast upon the thing-meant. llilfle the noun-fonn character of v1ewed-as-a-th1tg is not really projected onto the thin9-11eant, T, w\th any-grea success, the radical 11eaning character X of designating-a-i,y is projected successfully onto T as C in being a boy. Ste11-11i'iin ng always does its work in pointing to things ■eant7 Because of the close connection between things-caeant and real· world things Gardiner has, in Diagrain 3, characterized T simply as a toJ and not, 11ore precfsely, as ~ing Edward VI. The thing-meant is no ust any odd boy but rather a oy who 1s a"lt'ing after his accession to the throne. lf there were, in Diagrani 3, no hidden connection to ! boy being a king, there would be no incongn,ence and, con-

S32

sequently, no need for the additional meaning area S, Beside the thing-meant, boyhood, here glven, there ls another thing-meant, klnghood, lurking in the background, and Oiagram 3 is about the cha2oes that have to be made for the combined expression of the two • These changes have to be raade on the word-fonn area of the word bol{ because tlle speaker' ••• intended to present the thing meant y the word, not as a thing, but as an attribute of the thing meant by k~ng, and in this intention he succeeded. Whence came that success?' ai'diner (152). The lexlcal noun ~{ ls reclasslfied as an adjective by functioning as a modifier w hin the structure of the noun phrase we have been discussing. This structure is largely based on constituent order, in this case (1) Determiner, (2) Hodifier, (3) Head Houn. Such a2Jignificant unit of syntactic cocnbination can be called a taxeme • As Gardiner (160) puts it: 'The word-order (1) definite art1cte, (2) attrlbute-word, (3) noun is, lndeed, the source from which the thlng denoted by boy in the boy king obtained its attrib• utive power, and thls is the particular syntactic form which is deplcted in cylindrical shape (S)in the lowermost diagram of Fig, 6. ' And Gardiner (152-153) writes: ' ••• so I have deplcted the attrib· ute-character (Fc) of the thing meant by ry as proceeding from a linguistic form (S) outside the area of te word The capacity (F') in which the-said form acts or functions is at of conferring on the thing meant by a glven word the value of an attrlbute ••• '. The cylindrical shape S is drawn wlth the thin line of wordfonn ffff to indicate the connection, yet the shape is not rectangular toTiidicate the difference of domains: lexlcon vs. syntax. However, we are still dealing with formal ~eaning - presently with the meaning of a syntactic fonn, Det. • Hodif. • Head, and the attribute-value it confers upon a noun appearing in the Hodifier position. That attribute-value originating in the said taxeine is, by referring to Edward VI in the stated Nnner, projected onto the thing-111eant, T, as Fc, an 'attribute-character'. A fol"llal characteristic of linguistic origin is projected onto some-thlng verbally ~eant but nonlinguistic at heart. For it is the thidg meant by the word boy that has the value of an attribute conferre upon it. More specifically, the projection of the linguistic attributecharacter onto the thing meant is achieved b~g111eans of S, 'the Syntactic Form', functioning in the capacity F' • Formulateci by analogy with word-function F (cf. Gardiner, 141), word-order-function F' is the work which a spoken sequence of words has to perfom in order to present the thing meant by the speaker in the fol'l'llal character in which he 111USt be supposed to have intended the listener to see lt. And, in the present case, the speaker intended the thing meant by boy to be seen as an attribute to the thing •eant by ~inJI, i.e. he wanted to endow Edward VI with the Gestalt-characteristic" of being a boy. On occasion, Gardiner likes to project the other way round,i.e. from non-linguistic things to things linguistic, (cf. p. 11 above). So, if one takes up one"s posltion on the side of the thinglmeant) T and 1f one takes a s011ewhat mathesaatical view of the matter, the

w•

S33

fonnal of Gestalt-characteristic Fc of being-an-attribute or of ~-attr1bute-value can no longer be mappeCronto the area of woi"ir-form ffff of tne word and for this reason the frame has to be expandecl'"Dy the addition o the cylindrical meaning area S of relative syntactic position of that word. Such a progression-from the side of the thing (meant) to the extensive areas of meaning as flelds c011ple111ents the over-all picture and hints at the impact of real-world features on the process of verbal reference. Thls impact holds not only for lexis but also for syntax: 'Every relation between words rests genetically upon a relation of non-verbal fact,• Gardiner (1S4).

bof•

CONCLUSI ON In dealing with reference within the framework of a semiotic prag111atics, one can start by discussing the close link between (ACTIVE) SYHSOL and lEFERENT dlscovered by 8. Halinowski (1923). The close link holds specifically in situational contexts of joint action. Although not studying language use in comnon actlon like Malinowski, Sir A. H. Gardiner has filled a gap left by the latter and by L. Wittgenstein in their use-theoretical approaches to defining word-meaning. The gap concerns the role of Language in referring and the contribution of the meaning areas of words in particular. As to the close link between SYHBOL and REFERENT, Gardiner views it as resulting froa, the (mistaken) i dentiflcation of a character(istic feature) 'X. in the meaning of the word employed with a character(1sticJ C in the thing referred to (subjectively) by the speaker. Ontological problems createci by direct verbal reference to real-world things as described by Halinowski (1923) can be dealt with in a much less problematic way in tenns of Gardiner's newly coined t~ingmeant. Although Gardiner gives more ro011 to real-world tnings an wisliitherto customary in Linguistics, the special twist he gives to Pragmasesniotics resldes in hls studylng the applicatlon of wordsigns not to things butto thlngs meant. Gardiner•s thing-meant is a c011bination of a real-world core with the speaker's view of the thing and with that person's intention in referring to the thing. Add to this the listener's reconstruction. The concept of thingmeant is most useful for Pragmaseiniotics because this is just what is needed over and above Ha11nowsk1's mere baseline of the semiotic triangle. Gardiner's claim concemlng the iconiclty of the parts of speech or Wortarten, upon whfch clai• inuch of his arg1m1ent as to word-fom and word-function rests, needs to be re-evaluated because, as it happens, the English language wfth its ~§Y instances of conversion is nota very convincing case in point • Fachbereich Sprachen Fachhochscfiule Kiieln Mainzer Str. S o-SODO 110eln i, W-Gemany

$34

NOTES

1. Gardiner (1932, ~1951: 328) 2. The lesson to be learned from Gardiner is to move freely within tnose ill-d!fined doinains that have hitnerto fallen victim to such strongly polarizing concepts as Languafe vs. Reality or i!.9.1!. vs.dthi g. Fora successful handi1ng o such a fuzzy concii>t as as enieinte, i.e. the thing meant, cf. Th. Heraann (1981) 3. Gardiner (1951: 257) 4. L. Wittgenstein's formula is: 'The meaning of a word is its use in the language". 8ut use in Speech is something rather different in Gardiner's view. 5. Gardiner (1951: 136): 'When a speaker says horse he leaves it to the listener to infer froa the context (or s1tuation - B. K.) whether a live race-horse, a gyinnasium horse, or a towel-horse is meant.' Cf. p. 35 for ball; (38): 'Hence every word without exception is a class-name;ìii uttering it the speaker is virtually saying, "Here 1s a class, and the thing I 11ean you to understand belongs to that class•. The class is known to the listener by his previous experiences, the word having been applied by others or by h1mself to 11any other things falling under the same class. lhe thing now meant inay or iway not have been a110ng the previous experiencisassociated with the lfOrd . If it has been, the listener identifies ft by sheer memory; if not, he recognfzes it by its rese11blance to s011e of those previous experiences.' (43): 'The only real dffficulty about viewing words as class-names is that we usually think of classes as asseinblages of individual things which are a11 alike in some particular. But the meaning of words often covers applications between which it is impossible to discover any point of resemblance. Thus the word file is applied both to the stiff, pointed wires on which documents are run for keeping and also to front-rank men fo11owed by other men in a 11ne straight behind thn. The rese11blance comes into view only when it is realized that file is derived from Latin filooi "a thread". We must, therefore, expand the stateraent niade at the beginning ••• by adding that the utterance of a word is equivalent to saying to the listener: "Here is a name representing something like A, like B, like C, or like D", where A, 8, e, and Dare the various types or subclasses of thing covered by the suie comprehensive word or class-name.' (77): 'The sound of Rain! is very ambiguous, embracing a11 the possibi11ties of ralii'aiia' reln and ~ph For the 11stener there are, at the monient'o1 audlTiori, no ones. In speech, though not in language, words which sound alike, are, in effect, a single word. But Hary does not doubt that rain has been meant. To the generality of EnglishltOnlen rain is a 110re frequent topic than reins or a reign ••• ' Cf. also pp. 144-145 for rain. (120): 'The unreflecting user of language niakes no difference between hOIIIOphones, ~t least so long as they are written alike.' 6. For this reason the two outel"IIIOst dotted lines, indicating appli-

6

S3S

7. 8.

9.

10.

11.

cation of a word and eraanating fron the medium•line of 'root• meaning', in al l three cases go, without slant, straight over to the horizontal lines of the thing•meant lT). That boy s are here presented as a t h in g is to be expla1ned by Gardiner's (1951: 22-33) "Ordinary Language Philosophy of the Thin9• and lt is an artefact of this philosophy, (cf. 24, note 1) Gardiner (1951: 153-154): ' ••• i nner word-form was found to conslst in qualiti es of words penaanently attaching to them, which were simply pro~ecies of certain characters in the things meant !!l the wo s, whenever the latter shoulabe correctly or 'èongruently"usèèr,"" leaphasis mine - 8. K.) As to relative thickness of lines, the C-C line is the thickest on the right-hand side while on the s1de of the meaning-area the mediun line of radical meaning is the thickest. 8ut 1f there were to be a correspondence between these lines, it would 1110st probably have to be between C·C and 'X-'X., i.e. the protruding part of the medium line on the left•hand side. Note that the two outennost dotted lines emanating froni the medium line of root-meaning join the e-e line at its ends. Word-stem meaning is here ass111ed to comprise just the set of seraantic features needed to pinpoint the class to which the th1ng in question belongs. To Gardiner, steai-meaning is liable to refer because secnantic informat1on due to flexion is absent from it. Through inclusi on of the sign-user in his analyses A. H. Gardiner is pragnatiç in the sense of Charles W. Horris (1938): The relation between the sign and its user can here be put as a question "What is the speaker's attitude to the sign feature

X.?".

12. In IIOdern linguistic us~ge to ' ••• referto part of the meaning of that word' could easily be taken for metalanguage; but this is not what is mean! here. 13. Cf. also Gardiner ( 1951: 77) in the descr1ption of a simple act of speech the indication ' ••• that he was referring to s011e obvious thing pnysically present in the i11111ediate environment.' 14. Although originally non-linguistic, the character C of the thing meant may by now be verbal ly meant, i.e. it nay not be possible to think of a characteristic in a given object or state of affairs other than in the tenns of Lanfua~e. 1S. I a111 here combinlng quotes fl'Olll Gardiner19 1: 149 and 256). The book, according to Gardiner's own admiss1on, having been written mainly during vacation time over several years, it inay very well be that Gardiner's position changed in-between. 16. The notion of Kon~enz is taken over fraa Philipp Wegener (1885) to wh011 Ga 1ner (1932) gives credit on many occasions. Cf. also 8. Kirstein (1985a) "Ph. Wegeners grammatische Kate• gorien." 17. To the thin line of word-fonn f s fonnal word-nieaning is added. 18. Tt appears that, on Gardiner•s-account, word-fonn or fonnal word-meaning can, in last analys1s, be traced back to the

S36

things or actions, for the handling of which or for the dealing with which certain verbal tools have, in the (distant) past, been developed by man. In this develof)llent of verbal tools, the things, actions, and relations to be referred to have exerted a certain formative influence upon word-fonn. After the fonaative stage, certain words have then traditionally been used for certain items. Also, word-fonn, once established, i111>oses some limitations upon possible applications of the words. This is why in the diagrams of Fig. 6 the thin line of word-form or formai word-meaning encloses not only 'ffff s the area of wordfonn' but, in addition, 'abcde • the fiel'aof possible applications belonging to a woro.'""lii some abstract manner the referential meaning of word-fonn (functioning like a category) limits the range of real-world things, of states of affairs, actions, relations etc. to which a verbal iten in question can, at present, congruently be applied. On the other hand it has also to be taken into account that the referential 111eanin9 of word-fora, which tends to limit the referential use of a given word to semantically and syntactically congruent uses, is not much more than the ultiinate outcome of all previous applications (abcde) of that very word. As I wrote before (p. 8 above), word-fonn also cooes about through use. Because previous uses and past experiences with such uses have yielded an outline for tne referential meaning of word-fon11 which takes shape in the thin line of fornaal word-11eaning. Past applications abcde ••• were carried over into f. These past experiences witliprivious uses of the word took piace in conjunctlon w1th the fonnal (or Gestalt-) characteristics (Fc) of the things meant and referred to ,n those instances. Jt may, however, become necessary to referto new things wlth s0111ewhat different formai characteristics (Fc):-Then it becomes apparent that neither word-fonn or fonnal word-meaning nor congruence are last words in natters of referrlng. When new referential needs occur, as, for example, in the case of the third diagram of Fig. 6, word-fom as well as congruence will be disregarded . Thus new referential u~es of a word riay call for an additional area of formai meaning, such as Sin diagram 3 of Fig. 6, or - since the actual applications Tabcde) of a word in one way or another all nelp to shape its wonr-lonn - may be conceived of as either shifting or e,cpanding ffff, their area of word-fonn. Although the thin 1ine of word-tonn encloses, 'abcde ~ the fleld of possible applications of a word', new and uii'co'nvential uses, even though 1ncongruent, can eventually expand thls enclosure; and when th\s expansion has happened, the pre• viously unconventional use has bec011e con9.ruent. 19. In E!_g. 6 the letter c011bination FX. or (F,X is n o t to be reaér'is function! The letters hive simply been juxtaposed, F pertaining the thin line of word-form or fol"lllill word-meaning,'X. pertaining to the meditn line of word-stem-meaning. More specific~lly, only those sections of the respective line pro-

a

5)7

trudfng fr0111 the respectfve bfg rectangle are marked by either or X. (It may prove useful to referto those sma11er rectan• gular protrusions as "the panhandle (of, as it were, a waffleiron)"). 20. Sfnce In Gardfner's Theoq of Speech and Language we always have to do with a liv~tH anguage, we""'fiive to 1magine the phrase amor patriae e er as c0111ing out of the mouth of an an• cfent Roiian or as a Latin quotatlon fncluded in SOfle presentday patriotic speech given by a Henlber of Parliament, for example. In efther case it ls to be regarded as part of live speech. Gardiner probably had to resort to a Latin example because, as far as outer word-fonn (cf. p. 7 above) is concerned, there are hardly ii\y"real cases in [nglish. He probably also needed the aRlbiguity of eatriae, befng either a yenitivus objectivus or a 'enf tivus subJect1vus, to make his po nt. 21.he fact thaCGirdiner uses the Greek letter t'for further specifying F, word-form function, could create confus\on because another Greek letter, 'X., has hitherto been used for spec· ifying stem-•eaning. There could be a reason for this. Hy hunch is that Gardiner wanted to continue the series abcde •• f •• t'and indicate thereby that use shapes forTMl word-meaiiing even when the latter is very special. 22. Cf. Gardfner (1951: 152): 'The fomal character (fc) of the thing here meant is awkward to express in words, and this fs the reason why the grannarfan chooses the easier course of fndfcating ft in terms of the word's functional capacity' (i.e. as genltivus objectlvus - B. K.) But stating the matter In tenns of surface cases is no substi• tute fora stateaient in terms of deep cases. Gardiner himself has dodged such a statement in exact tems because he has not first subjected a1110r to his type of analysis separately and, thereupon, stateallie (deep-case) relatlonship to e;te;l~ • •• • fatherland as a lovable entity, i.e. almost person, 1 (152). Hfs dodgfng shows in his writing 'patrfae fn amor patriae' In· stead of wr1tfng • ~ in ••• '. In order to g'risp the tonnal character Fc of thetliìng meant by ~atriae, it has to be understood why it is not verbally presen ed as "fria. To this end it has to be made expl icit (a) where the ac on comes fr011 'the fatherland' is an object of (by naming the AGENT) and (b) in What manner it is subjected to that action (namely as a PATIENT). 23. Oiagram 2 fs mainly about (outer &inner) word•fonn (function) in fts relation to Fc. e is not characterlzed separately, but concernlng 'X., the specfffed stea-meanlng, Gardiner (1951: 152) writes that ' ••• the tract of the •eaning-area applicable in the ~resent instance is only a spec\al tract in the entire area of the word's meaning (fatherland as a lovable entity, i.e. al• most personified) ••• • 24. Cf. Gardiner (19S1: 191-192): 'Thus the word a noun, carr1es with it a feel i ng that the thtng stgn ed by it ls

f

~f•

S38

substantival, is to be taken as a thing.' 25. Gardiner (1951: 153): 'To lllèlke the lowenaost diagran cOllplete, sor1e device ought to have been discovered for showing a faint stream of light proceeding frOll F, the functional capacity of the word~. towards the thing iiieant by the word. For although the speaker did not priaarily intend the thing-nieant to be regarded as a thing, yet he is unable to prevent the word chosen by him from exert i ng soae of 1ts innate power. The word has been correctly applied, and if we look at the thing meant by it, we note that i n a secondary way the thing is indeed presented as a thing •••• That Edward VI was a boy when he ame to the throne is adnitted, and in all events the speaker did not intend the fact to be disguised. In choosing the noun bo{ he 11ay even have raeant to imply this fact; but if so, he mean it less than he meant the attributive function of the word.' 26. Cf. A. H. Gardiner (1951: 155): 'From the ~ kihg arises a certa1n feeling of two persons being iden'fil'i w1 one another, not merely of one person being provided with an attribute.· 27. Cf. R. A. Hall, Jr. (1967: 192} 28. [.' • Fom-Attributing Taxeme-Function 29. Historically speaking, the change frOll one part of speech to another (frOll noun to verb or vise versa, for exa.ple} has been called conversion; cf. E. Leisi 1964 Das heutige En,lisch p. 92 ff. Such changes stili occur frequently to-day. Wth regard to f!9.,_ 6, Dlagram 3, it could, therefore, be objected that in Engllsniiiany nouns can be used attributively as, for example, in gorn watch, ice cream, !treet ~ etc. Yet boy king is, never eless, a somewhat unusuai coiiofnation. Gardiner's example of conversion or 'incongruent wonl-function', as he puts it, is pra!Jll4semiotically interesting because, in contexts of joint action it happens quite often that people, when rushed, call things by names of si~ilar things and use words somewhat incorrectly. Yet they are perfectly understood. The meanings of these words are autolnatically •converted" to the right ones by the1 r hearers. REFERENCES Fill110re, Charles J. (1968). The case for case. In Universals in Linguistic Theo1, unon Bach and Robert T. Hams (eds. ), 1-88. New York : Ròit, inehart a2d Winston. Gardiner, Sir Alan H. (1932, 1951). The Theory of Speech and Lan~ - Oxford : Clarendon Halr,Robert A. Jr. (1964, Z1967}. Introductory Linguistics. Philadelphia: Chilton. Hernnann, Theo (1981). serechen und Situation. Berlin: Springer. Kirstein, Soni (1984). bìe ontolo91sclìe Problmatik von Bronislaw Malinowskis Referenzmodell fUr si::;ch in Action. In Zeichen und Realit~t, Akten des 3. seniotisc en KolToguiums, Haltbureu1!181, kiaus Oehler (ed.), voi. 1, 111-130, TUbingen: Stauffen rg. ---(1985a). Philipp Wegeners grannatische Kategorien. In Graaaia-

539

- Funktion und Geschichte, Akten der 7. Fachia~u==n;-;;;e=r~;,;.,:=: hen Geselischah, Berhn 1983, Bernfr1ed e erat • , • ---(198Sb). Seniotik vs. Seneologie. In Seiniotische Berichte 9, (1,2): 36-47. Vienna: Usterreichische Geselischaft fur Semiotik. ---(forthc011ing). Der Sprechakt als Zeichen. In Semiotik lnterdisziplin~r. vol. S of Applied Seniotics Series, Vienna/Baden 6.A. J. Bernard (ed.), 381 pp. Letst, Ernst (195S, 1964). Das heutige Englisch, Hetdelberg: Winter. Halinowski, Brontslaw (1923, 81946). The problen of meantng in p~imitive languages. In The Heaning of Meaning, Ogden, C. K. and R1chards, I.A., N.Y.: Harcourt. Morris, Charles W. (1938). Foundations of the Theory of Signs, Chicago: llniv. of Chicago Press. Saussure, Ferdinand de (1916). Cours de linguistique g&n&rale, Paris-Lausanne: Payot. Trler, Jost (1931). Der deutsche Wortschatz im Slnnbeztrk des Verstandes, Heidelberg: A1nter. ---(19JZ). Sprachliche Felder. In Zeitschrift fur deutsche Bildung 8: 417-427. ---(1934). Das sprachliche Feld. Eine Auseinandersetzung. In Neue Jahrbucher fur Wissenschaft und Jugendblldung IO: 428-449.-Wegener, Ph1lipp (1885). Ontersuchungen Ober die Grundfragen des Sprachlebens, Halle: Ntemeyer. Wltlgenstein, ludwlg (1953). Phllosophical Investigations, Oxford: 81ackwe11.

ss STRUCTURE DU SIGNE ICONIQUE

Jean-Marie Klinkenberg

O. INTRODUCTION 0.1. La sémiotique visuelle, en dépit des efforts deque! ques chercheurs parmi lesquels nous dis~inguerons surtout J.-M. Floch, est loin de constituer un ensemble dedoctri ne. On peut évidenvnent discuterà l'envi sur les blocages épistémologiques qui hypothèquent le développement de cette discipline. on verrait ainsi que les liens org~ niques qu'elle a noués avec le critique d'art l ' ont fréquenvnent rend.u incapable d'9nvisager autre chose que des énoncés particuliers, pour lesquels elle necesse d'élaborer des concepts ad hoc . on verrait également que l'im perialisme du modèle linguistique a, au-delà d'une phase historique pendant laquelle s'est opérée une transposition spécieuse de terminologie ("articulation, syntaxe, sème" >, entrainé un re jet de ce raod,Ue qui a empeché la sémi.otique visuelle de bénéficier de l 'apport d'autres savoirs com me la physioloqie de la vision et la psychologie de la perception. Car un certain purisme théorique constitue, lui aussi, un frein au développement de notre discipline. Parmi ces positions puristes, détachons celle qui consiste à exclure du propos sémiotique le fait d'iconismP. lui-mème, et celle qui disqualifie c011111e impertinente la prise en considération du canal visuel. U. Eco(l967) avait manifesté son désarroi devantles apories auxquelles menait la définition morrisieMé de l'iconicité, en précisant que le signe iconique n•avait pas les propriétés de ses denotata, mais construisait un modèle de relations spatiales homologue au modèle de relations perceptives que nous construisons en connaissant l'objet. C'était marcher dans le droit chemin duperoept! visme et cela assignait à la sémiotique visuelle - entre autres t&ches - l'étude de· ces procédures d'homologation Mais certains ont voulu aller plas loin et, jetant le~

S42

bé avec l'eau du bain, dénier toute pertinence au con cept d'homologation: 'Reconnaltre que la sémiotique v! suelle ( ••• ) est une inlnense analogie du monde naturel, c'est se perdre dans le labyrinthe des présuE posés positivistes, avouer qu'on sait ce qu'est la 'réalité', qu'on connalt les 'siqnes naturels' dont l'imitation produirait talle ou talle sémiotique, etc' ( ••• ) de sorte qua le concept d'iconisme relève exclusivement du discours socialement codé, et que 'l'iconicité, tout en étant enoendrée par un esefflble de procédures sémiotiques, susceptibles d' itre formulées, n' est pas CO!l stitutive de la sémiotique, ne relève pas, COIM\e dirait Hjelmslev, de la sémiotique 'dénotati ve', elle trouveson fondement dans le systèJDe des connotations sociales qui sont sous-jacentes à l'ensemble des sémiotiques'(Greimas et courtès, 1979: 178). Mais on sait ce qu'on perd à vo~ loir éliminer les difficultés en les repoussant dans le gouffre de la connotation: on s'interdit de voir c011111ent les contraintes culturelles, qui pèsent sur la percei;tio~ pèsent aussi sur les techniques utilisées pour si9nifier graphiquement les produits de la perception. Lié à ce r~ fus, il y a aussi celui de la prise en compte du lienque les signes entretiennent avec le référent: on enfreindrait 'le principe d'autonomie (ou d'i11111anencel des or9anisations sémiotiques établi déjà par F. de saussure' (Greimas et Courtès 1979 : 3411, OUtre que l'on sait maintenant que le " référent" est déjà sémiotisé, il y a là un raisonnement circulaire: si l ' immanence est un postulat', alors il ne peut évidenraent exister de sémiotique en dehors des systèoes arbi traires ( ••• J • La deuxième attitude puriste consiste à disqualifier la prise en con sidération de la substance de l'expression, sous prétexte qu•une sémiotique est en premier lieu une forme. Mais c'est oublier, un peu vite, que la substance impose pour une part certaines contraintes à la fornie. La liné~ rité, constitutive des formes linguistiques, est évidemment liée à la nature des canaux vocal et auditif . Impe~ tinente en soi , la prise en considération du canal peut donc, dans le première phase de l'élaboration d'un savoir sémiotique, permettre d'élaborer dea hypothèses utiles sur les formes essentielles du système . C'est à une telle reprise de la sémiotique visuelle

543

que nous entendons contribuer en proposant ici les grandes liqnes de la structuration du siqne iconique (eipr s'0'1 qu • il faudra entendre corrrne synonyme de "signe iconique visuel": nous n'ignorons pas qu'il peut exister un icon!_ sme auditif ou olfactif), Grandes lignes seulement, car les présentes propositions prennent place dans un projet de rhétorique qénérale, recherche collective qui a comraencé, il y a une quinzaine d'années,par une reformulation linguistique de la partie de la rhétorique ancienne qui constituait t•ttocuuon. Déjà dès cette étape, nous pQ rAes qénéraliser les rèqles mises au jour, en les appliquant à des énoncés complexes, tout en posant la questicn de l'application des niodèles rhétoriques à d'autre sémi2 tiques . Mais l'élaboration d'une rhétorique des messages visuels (token) passe donc par l'élaboration de modèles explicatifs généraux - encore inexistants - de ces meSS! ges (types). C'est à une telle élaboration que nouserrte!! dons contribuer dans un ouvrage à venir, qui ne fera pas l'économie de considérations sur "la réalité" et "les s!_ gnes naturels". 0.2. On ne parlera ici que du signe iconique. Rappelons en effet que nous avons distingué dans le message visuel global - qui n'est rien qu'une réalité toute empirique deux entités théoriques distinctes: le··signe·icaiique etle signe pla&tique (Groupe~, 1979),Grosso niodo, le siqne icon!. que est de l'ordre de l'analogique: il renvoie mimétique ment à un objet de la réalité; le siqne plastique relèv~ quant à lui, du systéme des lignes et des couleurs indépendaiment eh.I renvoi mimétique. Ces deux systèmes posent des problèmes 4CU geue-\U tels que deux sémiotiques distinctes (et par conséquent deux rhétoriques) doivent étres préwes. Les deux siqnes se manifestent bien sar dans un m6me ensemble de stillluli physiques, de sorte que une analyse d'énoncés particuliers devra réunir synthét!. quement les résultats obtenus dans les dewc domaines de recherche. Mais sur le plan de la modélisation, m6mè les siqnifiants des dewc systèmes ne peuvent etre structurés de la mime manière: les signifiants iconiques sontconst! tués d"unités discrètes, alors que les plastiques coma!§. sent théoriquement des variations continue& qui les érigent tout au plus en "graduats". Nous dirons donc que les dewc types de signifiant ont la m6me matière, mais des aubstanoes différentes, parce que leurs formes sont diffé rentes. -

S44

TYPE

stabilisation / conformité I

REPERENT

\

.__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __.,SIGNIFIANT

-

transforniations

1.

reconnaissanee \ conformi té

-

STRUCTURES DES SIGNES ICONIOUES

1,1, Trois éléments Le signe iconique peut etre défini COlll'lle étant le prochlit d'une triple relation entre trois éléments. L'originalité de ce système est de faire éclater la relation binaire hypothétique entre un "siqnifiant" et un "signifié", qui a posé des problèmes insurmontés à ce jo..i:-. Ces trois éléments, distingués grice à des critères élaborés dans une recherche antérieure (Groupe là , 1979), sont le sign.!, fiant iconique (distinct en droit du siqnifiant plastiq~i le type, et le référent. c•est la distinction·de cesdeux · dernières entités le plus souvent confondues dans le con. cept de "siqnifié iconique", qui permet de lever, COlfflle on le verra, les diffieultés soulignées . 1.1.1. Le it~«tllt dont il est ici question est un duigl!Ji .tun, et non un dt11otatuni, par définition extérieur à la sémiose. En d'autres terraes, e'est "l'objet" entendu non comme "rèalité" SOl'Mle inorganisée de stimuli, L'existence de cette classe d'objets est validée par ce! le du type.Type et réferent restentoependantdist\ncts: le référent est singulier, et possède des earactéristiques spatiales (au sens large, ce qui inclut les caractéristA

S4S

ques chromatiques). Le type, pour sa part, est une clas• se, et a des caractéristiques conceptuelles. Par exempl~ le référent du signe iconique vacht est un objet singulier, dont je puis avoir l'expérience visuelle, mais en tant que cet objet peut etre associé à une catégorie per manente: l' etre-vache. 1.1.2. Le 4-ig~rtt est un ensemble modélisé de stimuli visuels correspondant à un type stable, identifié grace à des traits de ce signifiant, et qui peut etre associé à un référent reconnu, lui aussi, corrme hypostase du type, référent avec lequel il entretientdesrelations de transformation 11.2.1.). De méme que le référent est déjà un modèle visuel, produit d'une élaboration perceptive codée, le signifiant est COl!llle dans tout système sémiotique, non une réalité physique, mai s un modèle théorique (ici aussi élaboré par un code perceptif) rendant compte des stimuli physiques. 1.1.3. Le typt est une représentation mentale, constitué par un'processus d'intégration qui peut etre ontogénétiquement décrit. Dans l e processus diachronique, on peut postuler la priorité de l'axe référent-type. C'est le r! férent qui produit le type. ou, dit avec plus de préci~ion, les expériences répétées de stimuli (qui seront rt putéesprovenir d'un référent une fois que la sémiose ay ra confécé ce statut à la source des stimuli) se stabili sent dans un type élaboré. Le type a par conséquent un · statut historique et anthropologique et n'est stable que en tant qu'il constitue un modèle; ce n'est pas une idée platonicienne. Desurcroit,11 n'est pas possible d'envis!, ger l' axe référent-type en un seul sens: 1.1 faut bien Pl!! tot prendre en considération une relation dialectique en tre type (élaboré ou en voie d'él.aboration) et expériences du référent. La fonction du type est de garantir l'équivalence, ou identité transformée, du référent et du signifian~ Ces deux dernières entités sont donc entre elles dansure relation de co-typ,ie.Coffffle il a été signalé, le type n'a pas de caractères proprement spatiaux: 11 peut etre décrit par une série de marques conceptuelles, dont quelques-unes peuvent correspondre à des caractéristiques S@ tiales du référent, d'autres ne correspondant pas à de telles caractéristiques. ces traits constituent un pro-

$46

duit de paradigmes dont les termes sont dans une relatxln de sOl'lllle logique (par exemple le type "vache" comporte le paradigme de la couleur - ou noir, ou brun, etc. - et celui de la position, et ••• etc.) 1.2. Trois relations (doubles) Entre les trois élements se nouent des relations qui pe~ vent étre décrites génétiquement (dans le processus de formation des signes) ou synchroniquement (dans le fonctionnement du message iconique, que celui-ci soit émis ou reçu). Nous nous contenterons ici d'aborder le· plan synchronique. 1.2.1. Axe signifiant - référent on notera que cet axe réunit innédiatement les deux termes, ce qui nous éloigne du modèle linguistique. Cesdeux termes, ayant tous deux des caractéristiques spatiales, sont coramensura~les. Les relations sur lesquelles se fou dent cette c011111ensurabilité peuvent 6tre appel~es · tA.alt· 160NllCl.tioM,

une première description de quelques-unes de ces tramf(!'; mations a été donnée par Ugo Volli (1972), qui tente d'ae préhender la notion de A10tivation à travers des concepts géométriques. Ces transformations géométriques ont cependant un rendement quelque peu fruste: elles peuvent bien expliquer que le format réduit d'une icone par rapport· au r! férent n'empéche pas la reconnaissance de son type, ou rendre c0111pte de la production d'icones bidimensionnelles pour des référents tridimensionnels, mais elles restent impuissantes à expliquer la production d'icones 1112 nochromes, les rétrécissements de champ de netteté, le jeu de contrastes, ou les équivalences entre peinture et photographie, photo et croquis d'architecte, croquis et plan. Il faut ainsi ajouter aux transformations géométriques des transformations analytiques (au sens mathématique du terme), algébriques (car elles se fondent sur la variation 'de grandeurs) et optiques (prenant en considération les positions respectives de l'émetteur ou du spectateur d'wle part, du produit élaboré ou du stimulus d'autre part). Nous ne décrirons pas ici par le menu les diverses opérations, mais nous contenterons de les ordo!l ner dans le tableau-dessous:

S47

transformations géométriques analytiques algébriques optiques opération adjonction

hORIOthéties positives

suppression

homothéties négatives

substitution

projections, transformations topologiques translations, rotations, déplacements, congruences

permutation

filtra9es positifs (adjonction de couleurs) indifférenciations, continuisations filtrages négatifs (suppr.de couleurs), différenciations discrétisations filtrages substitutifs

accentuations de contrastes dilation de pro-fondeur, approfondissement du champ de netteté atténuation de contrastes, contraction de profondeur, rétrécissement du champ de netteté

intégrations, anamorphosés

Tableau 1. Systématique de transformations 1.2.2. Axe référent-type Il existe sur cet axe une relation de 4tabiti44tionet d'intégration. Le éléments pertinents extraits du contact actif avec le référent sont additioMés dans les paradig111es ocnstj,_ tuant le type. Dans l 'autre sens (cl.l type au référent),oo peut isoler une opération c:onstituée par une épreuve de, conform!, té, dcnt les nécan1sres sc:nt 1dent1ques à oeux de la ~ mlaticl', 1.2.3 . Axe-signifiant Le type étant un ensemble de parad191Qes, les stimuli vi-

S48

suels peuvent ètre objet d'une épreuve de co~o-'UIUt, qui tera ou non de ces manifestations sensorielles des hypostases du type. A l' inverse (axe dans le sens signifiant-type) on par l~ rade reconnaissance du type. L"epreuvd de conformité consiste à confronter un objet (singulier) à·un ·modèle (pluri:el, . par définition). Le raodèle étant structuré sous la forme de paradigmes, beaucoup d'objets peuvent correspondre à un type unique (à titre de signifiant ou de r! férent). Les critères de la recoMaissance sont de nature quantitative et qualitative: si le nombre des traits autorisant la recoMaissance joue un r6le certain, la n~ ture de ces traits n •est pas moina importante. Il n•y a pas un produit nécessaire de traits d'identification, mais nécessité d'atteindre un taux d'identification minimal, taux atteint par l'association en principe libre d'éléments dont l~s types sont en norubre limité. 1.3.En résumé, l'emission de signes iconiques peut se d! finir cOl'lllle la production sur le canal visuel, de simul~ cres du référent, grace à des transtormations appliquées de telle manière que leur résultat soit conforme au mod! le proposé par le type correspondant au référent (co-tx, pie). La réception de signes iconiques, quant à elle,est l'identification d'un;stimulus:visuel,comme procédant d'· un référent qui lui corresponde moyennant des transforffl!_· tions adéquates, ces éléments pouvant etre dits correspondants parce qu'ils sont tous deux confomes à un type qui rende c0111pte de l'organisation particulière de leurs caractéristiques spatiales. 2.

MOTIVATION ET SEMIOTICITÉ

Ce résumé laisse de c6te des problèmes importants. Il en est au moins deux qui ne peuvent étre passés sous silence ici. Le premier pour son importance p~éjudicielle - c'est celui de la sémioticité ou de la non-sémioticité des stimuli visuels-, le second pour l'importance que le discours de la sémiotique iconique lui confère traditio~ nellement: celui de la notivation. 2.1. La "motivation" et ses deux axes. une conséquence,peut-etre scandaleuse,d'une structuratioo ternaire du signe iconique est d'invalider le concept de

S49

motivation tel qu'il a animé de longs débats (signés des noms de Peirce, Morris, Eco, e,tc. I. Cette notion véhicule une ambigutté irritante, qui provient de ce qu'on a voulu l'enfermer dans une définition unitaire. En fait, il importe de distinguer sa réalisation sur l'axe signifiant-référent d'une part, sur l'axe signifiant-typed•a~ tre part . Par motivation, on entend en effet fréquenment et une identité physique partielle du signifiant avec le référent et une conformité au type. Nous pouvons donc r~ formuler comme suit le concept de motivation:(a) parra~ port au référent, un signifiant peut étre dit motivé lorsqu •on peut lui appliquer des .t.wl~JtMUoM permettant de restituer la structure du référent, dans des conditions qui vont étre décrites ci-après; (bi par rapport au type, un signifiant peut-ètre dit motivé lorsqu'il est CO>ll>Ollllle au type, dont il autorise la reconnaissance. Ces deux modalités ne sont pas indépendantes. La~ mière est subordonnée à la seconde. Car pour que l'on puisse parlar de motiv~tion sur le premier axe, 11 est nécessaire que les transformations soient appliquées de manière telle que transformé et transformat restent conformes au mème type. Nous prévenons ainsi une objection qui pourrait se formuler de la sorte: étant donné que n'importe quelle séquence de transformations peut étre appliquée à une configuration spatiale, n'importe quel objet peut itre dit motivé par rapport à un autre (devant le dessin d'une vache, on pourrait dès lors affirmer:"ceci est une pipe":il suffit d'appliquer les règles analytiques de discrétisation et de filtrage, une règle géométrique d'homothétie, etc. Les transformations doivent garantir la condition de co-typie:conserver au si9nifiant une structure telle que celui-ci reste identifiable conwne hypostase du type dont le référent est aussi une hypostase. 2.2. Quant un fait visuel est-il icòne? Il reste un dernier problème: quant un spectacle visuel constitue-t-11 un signe? ou, en temes plus précis: qu'est-ce qui, étant donnée une série de stimuli visuels, provoque le processus d'association à ces stimuli d'un référent et d'un type? Question rarement posée, et cepe~ dant capitale. Car jamais une telle association n'est n! cessaire 4 p,uo,c..i. Si je rencontre une vache, je ne me dis pas: "voici une icone de la photographie d •une vache'!

sso

Et cependant, cette proposition est possible: un corps hwnain peut étre un signe (dans le Body Mtl, un objet s2 cialement classé conrne signe peut étre le référent d'un autre signe. on aura d'ailleurs aperçu que les règles de transformation dont nous avons parlé rendaient compte autant des relations s'instituant entre les signifiants de deux icones (la photo aérienne et la carte, la photo et le sehéma, la peinture et le dessin au trait,eet.) que de celles qui s'établissent entre les modéles du référent et du signifiant. ce n'est donc pas le fait l!M!me de la transformation qui erée la relation sémiotique. La réponse à ce problème est sans doute de nature pragrnatique. on peut avancer qu'il existe dans certains énoncés une indication notificative absentedans d'autres. Dans nombre de cas, l'indication est claire, car explicitée par un code soeial: le "cadre", au sens très large du terme (valant autant pour le théitre et le graffiti que pour "l'oeuvre encadrée"J. ce cadre est to!! jours de l'ordre de l'indice (socles, lieux particulien;, modes d'exécution particuliers, indications linquistiquesJ. La notification n'est cependant pas toujours aussi explicite que dans le cas du cadre. Il faut dès lors généraliser l'hypothèse explicative: toutstimulus estsounis à un test de sémiose,dont le résultat est influeneé par des considérations pragmatiques. Par exemple, le verre de bière de l'affiche, qui comporte une série de traits appartenant à l'objet, peut bien me faire saliver, mais certains de ses caractères m' indiquent l' impossibilité qu' il y a à le soumettre à un des nsages 'il0Ciaux auio;uels oo scwnet les verres de bière et dès lors me démontrent sa sémioticité. 3. ARTICULATIONS DU TYPE ET DU SIGNIFIAN'l' 3.1. Structure du siqnifiant 3 .1.1. Déterminants et sous-déterminants Le type se manifeste en signifiants artieulables en unités d'un rang inférieur. Les premières sont celles qui correspondent à leur tour à un type donné: ce sont les dttewi11411Ù. Les secondes ne correspondent à aucun type: nous les nonrnerons .ao1U•dttellni11anù. Le déterrainant d'un signifiant déterrainé correspond ainsi à un référent, intégrable à un autre référent correspondant à un type. Soit le signifiant /tite/. Il est articulé de telle manière que /oeil/ et/nez/ déterminent ce signifiant etnl!l

SSI

voient à des référents intégrables au référent tète, étant conforme à des traits constituant le type "tète". 3.1.2. Oéterminants et déterminés Il va de soi que les statuts de déterminants etde déterm! nés ne sont jamais fixes. Dans tel message, ou dans telle description de ce message, - appellons-le contexte 1~ tel élément sera désigné ccxm,e déterminé, et dès lors les éléments qui lui sont subordonnés dans cecontexte,serait dècrits oamedes déterminants soit le dessin d • une téte, où /tfte/ est déterminé, et /yeux/,/bal.che/déterminats. Oans tel autre contexte (contexte 2), un signifiant renvoyant à l'objet subordonné dans le contexte l pourra ètre le déterminé, et s"articulera à son tour en déterminants (soit un gros plan sur un oeil, où /oeil/ est déterminé et /cil/, ,'pupille/, etc. déterminants. Oans un autre 0C!l texte encore (contexte 31 le signifiant qui était déterminé dans le contexte 1 aura un statut subordoMé, et de viendra dès lors déterminant. (Exemple: la tète, une silhouette). Les statuts respectifs des déterminants etdes déterminés sont fixés, on le voit, par une première · instance qui est l'organisation particulière d'un message iconique. Mais une seconde instance intervient, qui sont les contraintes pesant sur la typothèque. Car si,en principe, la labilité de l'articulation en déterminés et déterminants ne connait de limites ni en amont ni en aval, dans les faits, le processus est freiné par l'organisation méme du réservoir de types dans une culture don née. Labile, la relation entre déterminant et déterminé est encore dialectique. Tel déterminé peut étre identifi!: en cette qualité parce qu'il y a d'abord eu identification des types correspondant à ses déterminants, tel déterminant peut étre ainsi identifié parce qu' 11 y a eu lde!l tification du déterminé. Joue ainsi entre déterminé et déterrainants une sémantisation réciproque descriptible en termes de redondance. 3.1.3. Déterminants et sous-déterminants L'articulation du signifiant déterminé en déterminants aboutit, conne on l'a vu, à une limite. Au-delà de cet• te lilllite, les signifiants correspondant à des types ce~ sent de s'articuler en signifiants subordoMés correspon dant à des types. Il est cependant possible de les décr!. re conme le résultat de l'articulation de manifestations

SS2

visuelles complexes. Nous n011111erons ces manifestations ~ou.6-dttwninanù. L' opposition entre déterminants et sousdéterminants suggère évide11111ent un rapprochement avec la distinction ling\tistique entre unités de première et de seconde articulation: aux déterminants correspondent des types (ou plus précisément, par définition, des sous•types), les sous-déterminants n•ayant qu'une fonction di· stinctive. Il faut toutefois prendre garde à ceci: l'an~ lyse en sous-déterminants ne succède pas nécessairement à une analyse en déterminants. Elle peut, au contraire, etre appliquée simultanément. Bn d'autres temes, onpeut toujours faire l'économie d'une analyse du signifiant en déterminants,les déterminés pouvant toujours directement etre analysés en sous-déterminants. Ceux-ci sont doncdes stimuli visuels descriptibles indépenda1m1ent de leuréven tuelle intégration à un signifiant iconique, . 'maisocnc:xllr rent à l'identification le-t-il, la apEcificitE dea sEmiothEories qui, toutefois, reste il dEfinir en foaction du confl it dea interprl!tationa et dea aporie a dea objeu de connaiuance, et par rapport a leur caracdre inter-thEorique, mEta-thEoriqua et trana-tbforique. Tel est l 'objet de ma recherche. Je vaia essayer de mettre au jour les termes du conflit des interprEtations en prenant c.,_ terrain d'exploration quelques cas particuliers où s'affrontent les thEoriea du signe et du sens et où affleurent les aporie• dea objets cognitifs. Dana le ch&Dp sfmiothEorique, je vois un premier foyer conflictuel entre le achEID& binaire du signe aauasurien, dont on parie au singulier, et le achEma dynamique du signe, dont on parle au pluriel procis expaasif et discursif. Le signe saussurien fige la aEmiologie et/ou la aEmiotique dans le va-et-vieat du signifiant et du signifiE. Le discours, la parole sont porteurs de signes sEparables en chatnes de signifiants et de signifiEs. Les signes se dEploient en dEvoilant leur dualitE structurale que rfsorbe la perception. Dans le cas du signe pensE au pluriel et co- procis, on passe du 110t au discoura. D'oil le conflit du interprEtationa entr• l 'automatiame du signe sauaaurien et le dynamiame du aigne hjelmalevien. Et Creimas le for.ale bien en observant que pour Hjelaslev, 'la dimenaion dea unitfa de manifestation n'est pas pertinente pour la dffinition du aigne, autrement dit (. •• ]a c8tE dea signes minimaux qui sont les cmotst, on peut aussi parler des signes-fnoncEs ou des signes-discours' (Greimaa et Courtis, 1979: 350). Je mentionnerai deux autres foyera conflictuels. Tout d'abord le conflit entre la postulation philosophico-logique du signe a la Peirce et l 'interprEtation axiologico-idEologique du aigne l la Bakhtine. Dan1 le premier caa il a'agit d'un jeu rigoureux classificatoire et taxino11ique, La portEe aE11iotique du signe, pour Peirce, c'est son potentiel claasificatoire et sa mobilitE le long des taxinomiea. La sfmiosis illimitfe n'est paa si illimitfe que ça. Elle est propulsfe par la classification des signes. Umberto Eco plaide pour une sEmiotique co11111e pratique et pour les signee ols and the Self. New York : cambridge University Press. Ouncan, Jaus s. (1973). Landscape taste as a symbol of group identi~: a Westchester country village,' Geograph1ca1 Review, Vol. 63, No.3, 334-355. New York. Ouncan, Jantes s. and Ouncan, Hancy G. (1980). Res1dent1a1 landscape and socia! worlds: a case study in 11Yderabad, Andhr~ Pradesh. In An Ex loration of India Geo ra hical Pers ctives on Societ~ an u ture, David E. per ed, 271-286. lthaca: Cornel • Krebs, Stephanie (1975). The film elic1tation technique; with cOIIWll!nt. In Princi~es of Visual Connunication, Paul Hock1n~s (ed), 283- 2. Chicago: kouton. Kron, Joan (1983). Home- Psych: The Socia! Psychol oqy of Holne and Oecoration. New York: Clarkson N. Potter, !ne. Lac.mann, Edward O. and House, JU1es S. (1970). Liv1ng room styles and social attributes: the patterning of 111aterial artifacts in a modem urban c0111111nity. In The ~ic of Social Hierarchies, E.O. Lat11111nn, P.H. Siegel, a R.W. Hodge (eds), 189-203, Chicago: Harkham.

600

Mead, George H. (1934). Hind, setf, and SOciety. Chicago: Universi ty of Chicago Press. Hichelson, Will:a~ (1977). Environmental Clloice, Huaian 8ehavior, and Residential satisfactlon . New York: Oxford Oniversity Press. Pratt, Gerry (1981). The house as an expression of social worlds. In Housing and !denti~: Cross-cultural Perspectives, James S. ~ncan (ed), 135-1 • London: Croom-Helm. SOntag, Susan (1973). On Photography. New York : Farrar, Straus, Aroux. Rapoport, Allos (1981). ldentity and environment: a cross-cultural perspective. In Housin and !denti Cross-cultural Pers ec~ . James S. Duncan e on on: Crooai-

62

MARXISH, SEMIOTICS, AND URBAH SPACE: TYPOLOGY OF IJRBAN TEXTS

n!E SOCIAL SEMIOTIC

Alexandros Ph. Lagopoulos THE EPISTEHOLOGICAL PROBLEHS RAISEO BV URBAN SEMIOTICS Urban semfotfcs fs a new ffeld of se111fotics, whose foundation date could be traced back to 1965, when Choay's L'urbanfsme: Utop1es et réalft!s appeared. lt had been preceded by arch1tectural seni1otics and up to a pofnt shaped by archttects, as fs the case wlth archftectural semfotfcs. Both the latter and urban senlotfcs dfd not arrive to such a niaturity as to present any coherent school or schools, and at present they are rather an amorphous domain presenting different and differing partial views. Urban and architectural semiotics study the signification of space. Whfle this kind of approach could undoubtedly be a 1110st 1m• portant contr1but1on to spatfal studtes, the present format1on of the two f1elds suffers from a serfes of drawbacks: epistemologica! mfsunderstand1ngs, fdealfst slfdes, fsolatfon from related sclentific fields, detachlllent from the socfal scfences. I shall concentrate fn the followfng on these problems and try to show that, if we are to redress urban senatotfcs fn particular and semiotics in general, we have to turn to social semiotics, that 1s a socfolog1ca11y sensitive se1111otfcs, specifically to a marxist versfon of socfal sen1ottcs, and to rethfnk the 1fm1tattons of the rule of pertfnence. I shall inttfally concentrate on the work of three authors, A. -J.Grefmas, F.Choay, and P.Boudon, In order to make apparent SOflle of the mafn problems in urban senifotfcs, whfch can easfly be extrapolated for the whole of the semiotic domain. Grei111as (1974) fomulates a theoretical framework for the study of the (socio-) senaiotfc production of urban space. 'Urban semiot1cs' is for hfm a provisional branch of topological setniotics. The producer of space, the enunciator, has the conipetence of 'being able', 'wanting', and 'knowfng' 'to do'. He is a collective actant, composed by a set of actors, among #hom the urban planner ffnds hts posit1on. The analysfs of the 'dofng' of the actant leads, for Grefaias, to socfosemfotfcs-read: a narrow socfolog1ca1 sem1otics-, ie. to an analysfs of a soc1ol og1ca1 rea11ty, s1tuation, which stays wfthfn the semiot1c pertinence. From the functfon of the actant, an 1deologica1 1110del of space results, ie. a semantic deep 1110del of the spatial language. The level of the form of the expression of this language, the 'phonologfcal' level, 1s relat1vely auton0110us and C01'111)rises the spatial forms as surface realizatfons. A generative gral11llèlr underlfes

the production of space. Greimas accepts that his grannar is able to fully explain urban form, leaving no room for any processes producing urban space otner than the semiotic one to which thi s grannar corresponds. This approach is totally in line with ~is attitude towards the referent and reality, which he considers as positivist metaphysical concepts. Greiaas (1974) completes this frame'40rl: with the study of the consumption of space. This time he i s interested In the signification for the spectator of 'doing' and In his readlng of (society through ) space. Thi s spectator is the user of space, and the typology of the users leads to sociosemiotics, in my opinion agaln from a narro~ viewpoint. His reading of the spatial message of the producer can be different fl'Oll the signiflcation the message has for the producer. The form of the content of the conception of space of the user refers partial ly to the semantic representation of the mode of living i n the settlement. Thls representation c~rises the 'utterances of state ' , which are isotopies corresponding to the formalized relations of the user with the sensible qualities of obj ects, and 1t ls i nfluenced by the 'utterances of dolng', whlch lead to the production and transformation of the states through the action exercised on the objects by users having 'syntaxic' roles, culturally valorized. On the other hand, the fonn of the content of tne conception of space i s completed by the conception of the 'imaglnary' absent city. The conception of space is ruled by a text grainar, and the typology of the conception of space corresponds to the typology of the users. Referring to the urban space of the post-Renaissance Western societles since the industriai era, Choay states that it derlves from the technological and economlcal aspects of a new system of production. She 1dentlfles the logie of the social functioning of th i s system, which is, according to her, efficiency, with thesocial signification ascribed to urban space and linked to its production (Choay, 1970: 34-36). In her study of urban discourses on spatial production, Choa,y classlfles thetn lnto 'connotative' (connotateurs) and 'instaurative' (1nstaurateurs) dl scourses. The former underly the space of societies before the Renaissance andare not specifically spati al , while the latter concern the European societies frotn the Renaissance on andare specificall y spatial. Choay proceeds to a further classification of ' instaurative' discourses, based on the analysls of the discourses as such (Choay, 1974) . For Boudon finally, the spatial gramnar of the settlement belongs to a wider 'topic ' grannar, whi ch bel ongs in tum to a grannar of pl aces. He follows Greimas in believing that the spatial organizat1on of the settlement is composed of three dlfferent levels const1tuting the surface structures. But he d1stances himsel f from Gre1mas when he thinks that the deep structures underlying them are also spatial, and he i nverses Greimas's vlews when he states that the construction of a spatlal 9ra11111ar is prior to its relation to cul tural gran-..ars (see Boudon, 1977 and 1978). Boudon thus tries to analyze the production of urban space, but he isolates space

603

frocn society and seeks for purely spati al laws. He bypasses the urban secniotic models of the social subjects and attempts to analyze urban space scientifically, ie. metalinguistically. I fully recognize that the first two of t he above authors made an important contribution to urban semiotics. On the other hand, I cannot but di sagree with them and with Boudon on a number of important points. By definition, semiotics studies the universe of si gns, and I would restrict this domain by excluding the study of scientific metalanguages. I shall label the semiotic approach 'subjectivism'. Greimas' soclosetniotics do not leave this universe, on the contrary Greimas believes that this is the only universe to which we can refer. When Choay refers to the technological and economical aspects of the new industriai system of production, she identifies it wi th the same universe. In this way, Greimas tries to account for urban form through so111e kind of gra1111ar of this univ~rse, and Choay encloses herself in urban discourses. From this attitude a fundarDental eplste110logical questlon arises. This question has to do wlth the episte1110logical fidellty of the assumption that we can operate solely wi thin a universe of si gn~ This assumption is by no means a novelty, since in philosophy it has been known for many centuries as idealism, a philosophical paradiga, asserting that knowledge depends solely on the human mind. But it is not possible to accept uncritical ly this assumptlon, when philosophy itself provides us also wlth a group of opposlte paradigms, empiricism, positivlsm and logica! posltivism malntalning on the contrary that slgns derive from an objectlvely existlng exterior world; and when historlcal materlalism achleves a welghted synthesis of these two unidlmensional, opposite and polari zed paradigms. Here 1s not the piace either to attempt a refutation of the idealist paradigm orto discuss its present socio~olitical connection with a bourgeoi s conservative, to say the least, ideology. Thus, I shall limit no'Self to refusing the idealist paradigm, adopting the historical materialist paradigm and tracing the lmpl ications of thls adoption down to the field of urban semlotics. The fundamental lmpllcatlon is that a second unlverse, .a materlal one, is postulated beyond that of slgns, that the relation of the two universes is looked for and that it 1s found in the primacy of the material over the sign universe, ie. in the production of the latter by the former. lf we consider urban space, this space is not produced exclusively by the universe of signs, ie. ideology and the semiotic process, but also by 111aterial, social, economie, and political processes. Not only can the semlotic process not account for the whole of the production of urban space, but it ls not even primary for this production. Thus, urban space cannot be studied only sem1ot1cally. Once the ex1stence of the materiai dimenslon of society ls postulated, a long serles of new and lmportant questions can then be asked: Why does Grelmas' actant of production have the fomi it has, and what are the social processes whi ch structured him and hls ideological model? Slmilarly, how and why did Choay's model s originate? ls Greinas' typology of the users of urban space,

ro4

lffiich is semiotically pert1nent, also sociologically pert1nent, and, if not, how is ft possible to solve this contradiction? How can we account for differences, frequently striking, between the ideological 110dels and the discredited reality? setn1otics and soc1osetniotics are unable to ask these and similar questions. lf we pass now to the work of Boudon, we observe that it is indicative of a general approach dear to architects influenced by sem1otics and structuralism (see alsof.ex. Castex and Panerai, 1974; Hillier and Leaman, 1975) . The main characteristics of this approach are two. The first is a misunderstanding of sen1tot1cs, since semiotics is used in an analogical manner for the construct1on off a scientific 111etalanguage on the 110rphology of space and not for the study of the sign universe of the social subjects . Even Peircian semiotics is not an excuse for such an atteaipt, since for Peirce semiotics is logie, ie. the raetalanguage of scientific metalanguages , and not itself a scientific raetalanguage. The second characteristic is the isolation of space from its underlytng processes. Though lt mtght seem acce)table to conslder the 'arch1tectural' approaci1 as legitimate by considertng t t as simply structural and not as semiotic, in fact this cannot be done, due to the ir,possibility of separating the spatial-and the te111poral-di11ension from their underlying processes. lndeed, the positivist isolation of space has been vividly attacked in what is called hualan geography, and the dependence of space on social processes is established both for thi s domalo and the contemporary epistemological paradigms, including positivism. I shall briefly referto Sack's neopositivist refutation of 'spatlal separat1sm', le. the tsolation of space, in hua,an geography and the social sciences in general. According to Sack, non-logical sclentlfic concepts can be classlfied into three categories: the category of phusical georoetrical concepts, the category of temporal concepts, and that of substance concepts. Every observable fact relates to all three categories. The approaches to physical space are of two different klnds. The one focuses on geonietrical, absolute space and fonnulates laws of physical geometry, and the other focuses on the relation between space and substance and fonnulates geonietr1ca1 and non-geometrical (substance) laws. The second approach i s based on a relational concept of physical space, and it is the only one suitable for human geography and the social sciences in general. Thus, human geography can not be restricted to geometrical analysis, excluding the nature of the underlying events and time (Sack, 1973 and 1974). The fundamental 1ssue raised by the preceding discussion is undoubtedly the existence of a materiai universe, and since I dld not prove its existence, both the acceptance of the latter and the d1scussion mlght be consldered as followlng from some dogmatic marxist credo. That this 1s not the case will be clear in the next section, where I shall briefly present the approaches to urban and regional space in human ecology and human geography.

SPACE IN HUMAN GEOGRAPHY ANO HUMAN ECOLOGV There are three major directions in h11111an geography in respect to the episteniological nature of the object of geography. The first studies the relation between man and nature, the second the spatial organizat1on of soc1ety on the surface of the earth, and the third the conceptualtzat1on of geographtcal space. The f1rst two directtons have a radically different object from semiotics: they study the material universe and not the sign universe, and for this reason I shall cali them 'objectivist' . In my opinion, the epistemological status of this approach is the study of the niater1a1 uni • verse through operations on the s1gn universe, which, due to thi s fact, constrain to a greater or lesser degree our knowledge of the naaterial unlverse. The thtrd approach in human geography, cognitive or behavioral geography, is subjectlvlst (see f.ex. Gregory, 1978: 28-32, 89-90, 123-146). No unlfied theoretical fraaework has brought these two dt rect1ons together in geography. For one of the approaches of the first objectivist direction, hlllliln geography studies regions and landscapes, and their variability over the earth's surface, and for the one aa,ong t he two tendencies inside this approach human geography is l imited to t he study of the static empi ri ca! a,orphology of the l andscape. On the other hand, the second objectivlst direction studies the observable spa• tial organization of society, and is oriented towards the fon!lllatton of morphological as opposed to process laws. For thi s direct1on, materlal soclal space ts separateci from the underlying processes, and the latter are considered as fal l ing within the jurisdictlon of the ('syste11111tic') social sclences. In this way, space is considered or treatecl as an independent eq>lrical entity. The tendency in the objectlvist approach I referredto and the second objectivist direction both fall into spatlal separati sm, In t!lat they both focus on the Isolateci analysls of space , consldered as the property of a processor even lndependently of lt. On the other hand, subjectlvlst geography 1s tnterested In envlron111ental conceptton. The sealottc space studied, on the one hand, can be related to ideology in general and, on the other, to the materiai. This last relation can be twofold. lt can concern the practi ces in and the interaction wlth the urban enviroruaent, and hence the influence of the materiai spatial or9anization (f.ex. physical space or the social organization in space), or it can concem other, non-spatial, aiatertal factors (f.ex. the integration tnto speciflc soclal groups). We can also flnd an lnterest In the ldeologlcal productlon of space, startlng from the spatial lnaage, passing to its influence on behavior and practices, and endtng wlth thelr influence on niaterlal space. In thls case, ideological space is considered as one of the coinponents underly1ng the production of naatertal space, or as the only one in the extreme case (see f.ex. Pocock and Hudson, 1978; Downs and Stea, 1977) . A kind of spatial separatism appears also in cognitive geography, with the study of the pure geoa,etrical properties of the urban image.

E06

In so-called hu11111n ecology, we agai n find the same d1rect1ons wfth the ones we found in hu111cJn geography. The objectivist direction, called 'materialistic' by Theodorson, focuses on the relation of materiai components of society with space, and is founded on pos1tivism. The subjectivist direction is called 'sociocultural' by the same author and focuses, on the contrary, on the fnfluence of the 1deologfcal c011190nent on space. There have been attempts to bring the two dfrections together, without however the appearance of any unif1ed theoret1cal framework (see also Theodorson, 1961: 3-7 , 129-134, 325-330). The approaches in the first dlrect1on cover a series of (sub-)approaches, among which we retain the study of the material production and organization of space. The subjectivist di rection, on the other hand, emphasizes the ideological cocnponent in respect to spatial production or stability. This ideological cocnponent fs consfdered as coexfsting with a material component. I presented in this section human geography and human ecology 1n order to remlnd the reader that there exlst scientlflc domalns whlch study the materiai universe and 1110re specffically 11aterial space. The latter fs also studied a1110ng others by urban and regional economics, and by urban sociology, to remain in the realm of the bourgeois sciences. The two dt at synthesfs, is, on the other hand, indicative of the partialfty of urban semiotfcs, whfch encloses ftself in subjectfvfsm and the semfotfc, and dfsmlsses objectlvis~ and the materiai. I have no doubt that secifotlcs fs the most powerful approach at our dfsposal for the study of ideologies, even ff ft can be enriched with quantitati ve techniques elaborated in the other fields referred to above. In spite of the episternological problems urban semiotics presents, it is far more pertinent for the study of the conception of urban space than cognitive geography, which, with its psychological background, is focused on perception rather than coneption and constrained by an individuallstlc epistemology, missing the social dimensfon of semiosis. But, as we saw, urban semfotfcs, as semfotics in general, is a subjectivist approach detached fl'OII objectivfsa; it focuses exclusively on ideology and ~isses the underlying social processes; it is thus only descriptive and has no explanatary power, being unable to account for the social production of semiosis. The surpassing of these fundamental epistemological weaknesses wlll not be possible if semiotics does not abandon the posftivist cult of the rule of pertfnence in order to articulate wlth a wider soclologlcal framework covering all social processes. This 1110vement from pertinence to globality corresponds to the surpasslng of urban semlotlcs and soclosemiotics, and to the constitution of social se•iotics.

FOONOATIONS OF A MARXIST SOCIAL SEMIOTICS I shall begin this section with three authors, 11.castells, H. lefebvre, and R.ledNt, whose work can be consldered as ?ioneering for urban semlotlcs. According to Castells, who follows Althusser on thls polnt, every ll'IO&ually associated with pleasure and tran1for11 it into one of di1pleaeure. Thi• waa achieved through the faahion1n9 and poaitionin9 of synbolic obataclea. On the other hand, 9roup (bl'• objective waa to create aomethin9 unique, a novel object. At tM be9innin9 of the experience the leader followed the criteria of (b). Then ahe waa accorded the role of coordinating the work . Group Cbl merely accepted the fact that she had decided to place a series of obatacles. Uaers. The users did not "correctly• interpret tM hi9hly-coded ~ 9 e the leader intended to aend by way of the ayabolic objecta. In apite of thia fact durin9 the aymbolic recouperation sta9e the leader•s intention waa both favourably and unfavourably evaluated. Generally, a situation of negation prevailed concernin9 the ayri>olic obstacles. The users kept makin9 reference to A3 but in 9lbal ter111S the pleasant effects of the experience witft the course were eaphasized. Userall)eatroyers. They interpreted the course aa an exu,ple of Atlantic Coast indigenous architecture. Hoo,ever, the only part of the course they could •see• was the support atructure,fashioned out of baaboo ( aee symbolic consumption ·phase %) • The interaction of the other user• vith the course clarified the •error• tMy had COlllllitted, althou9h it was never explicitly stated in this way. The l eader co;aunicated this 11eesa9è by way of 9estures . This tranamitted their •real• meaning.

Interpretation/Producera/Uaers/Plane of the Signified(PSd). A, Al, A2, Al, B beCOCDe equal to andare subatituted by a single sign fieolic conauq,tion stage ia repeated with a alight increase(9~). Interpretation/Users/Plane of Si9nifier(PSr). The sa• characteristlc if inco-erehension is again encountered in period II of the symbolic consWlll)tion stage. No reference to A is made in this case. 3 Interpretation/Users/Destroyers/Plane of SignifiedCPSd). The second period(II) of the phyaical conaWll)tion stage ia further clarified. The beginning, ending and phyaical obatacle of the courae are all negated while A •A 2 andare subatituted by a single signified (Z) 1 which i& conaidereél aa an affront. Interpretation/Uaers/Destroyers/Plane of Signifier(PSr). A; A1: A 2: A]: B are equal to one another and then becoae equal to (Z) end flnally are all subatituted by (Z). If this stage i• nov related to the hypotheticel set of relationa, the folloving i• obtained: Producen/usera. ~ A through B becoae egual end A substituted by T :. CONCOROANCE PSr A through B become equal end A aubatituted by T • The operation of aubatitution ia thua verified end on both planea. However, it ahould be noted that there will be few referencea made to the PSr. Leader/Producer/Uaers. The leader believea that her fellov participants put her in charge of placing aymbolic obatacles which are in·· tended to produce a pleasant but ironical effect as in the folloving operation:

PSr

Female aymbolic element to be croaaed !. CONCORI>IINCE Iconic replica of fe11&le eleMnt However, the leader tranafonned the above into the following: Obli9&tion to produce diapleaaure. Symbolic negative act by taking adPSr vantage of elementa which uaually are asaociated with pleaaw:e l!, RBJECTION PSd Iconic repreaentation of feule 'I eleMnts. Undoubtedly it waa thia •••age which waa received by all of the uaora. Froa the atart, the leader only considered point A1 end

PSd

-

640

point A • No displace111ent ever oecurred for her. Therefore time did not2exist, a situation si■ilar to that of the rest of the participants. UNrs.

~ Coun•'• aubatitution in (X) but (X)

PARTIAL • Incaaprehenaion I' CONCO~l\llCE The u&ers with exception in a fluctuation in the perception of point A , ■aintain their opinions. PSr

3

usera/Destroyers. PSd On both planes an operation of ..t,__ REJEICTION PSr •oppoaitH" is produced. ,; The ata9es are predoaiMted by two operations and one effect: Hegation, substitution and the effect of ti■olessness (which 1s produced by the absence of displace. .nt). The firet two reduce the planes to a ain9la one and the ob•tacle• to one or two. Thll be9inning and andin9 of the couru diuppear to becoaa aub•tituted by" mere poaaibility. But if thi• raading, an apparently ti■o­ lessness one, la located at the roles leve1, then the proceas ,,ill recouperate its temporality in the develop■ent of the ■eDOry. This will be only possible through a cross readin9 ( roles' course, symbolic recouperation stage - SRS- see Figure 6). However, this course takes on its ""'aning in function of another courM which -rges frOID the preceding ata9ea (PS) . Thia will involV9 the • - r y or auperi■position of both, thus allowin9 for an unclerstanding of a tightly interrelated proceas. Thi• covar• tha extre■es of the couru'a definition in hypothetical terma to its substitution and ne9ation, the negation of the producers and the users which ends up bringing them closer together. The leader's ■esaage &ent to all the participants which is negated, substituted a1"1 fiMlly received by only four people. CONCLUSIONS In thia way an upparently amorphous object, although hi9hly characterized by the participanta, waa able to atimulate a coaplex interaction of the producera' and uaera' value ayatems which in turn interacted with each other. The experience was thus &ble to cause a no longer purely visual interaction with its ratioMl consequence but also a corporal one in which the irrational and rational could be used as an instr.-nt that can provide a certain type of knowledge which is different froca cOIIDOn representationa, even the ■ost sophisticated kinds, or froa the apparent fluid interrelations betwean producer •nd user .

Institute of SOcial Rasearch (IIS) University of Costa Rica San Jose, Costa Rica ·

66

ANAl YS( NARAATOlOGIQUC ET THEKATIQUE OC L'AUBERGE OC GUY DE HAUPASSANT

Jeep Lintvelt

La littérature réaliate du XIXe siècle a souvent rait l'objet d'étudea sur l'ouverture rocaneaque. Duboia aignale que, dona l'ouverture, 'le texte réaliste rencontra deux exigencea dirficilement conciliablea. D'un caté, il se doit de mettra la fiction en train, d'en instaurar l'appareil (aujet, peraonnages, décor, inatanca narrative ••• ). De l'autre, il viae à produire les garsnties de l'J!.!!thenticité de son dlre, en faisant rérérenca à un hyrs- texte et en masquant le caractère fictif de son geste initial . ' Nous no~s proposons d'analyaer, dans cette optique, l'ouverture de l'Auberge de Guy de Naupassant, en rattachant cette analyse à la théalatique du récit: la connunication, le piège et l'&tre huo,ain préaenté co- ani111al. L'Aubarge préaente, outra son réaliaaa, dea traita typiquaa, a'inspirant du conte rantastiqua. A l'aide d'une analyae narratologique, nous enviaageons de montrer ensuite que L'Auberge ne ressortit pourtant pas à la littérature fantaatique, telle que l'o définie Todorov . le récit commence en automne dans l'auberge de Sci-renbach, refuge ■ontagnard au passage de la ea-i en Suisse. La f1111i lle Hauser deacend au village, laisaant la garde de l'auberge ou vieux guide Gaapard Hari, au jeune guide Ulrich Kunai et au chien Sa■• Un jour d'hiver, Gaapard ne rentre paa de la chaaae. Hanté par dea visiona, Ulrich croit entendre un cri, provanant de l'Anie de Gsspard et il pensa qu'un fant&ne r&de autour de l'aubarge. Une nuit, Ulrich ne se rend pas ~ t e que Sa• est sorti de l'auberge et il prend les gémisseeents de l'ani11al pour les plaintes d'un fantine . Au printecnps, la f8111ille Hauaer retn0nte à l'auberge, trouve Sa,a, dépecé par les aiglea, et Ulrich, abruti et en proie à la folie.

I. LIENS ENTRE L'OOVERTURE ET LE HORS-TEXTE L'ouverture peut &tra envisagée come la seuil entra le 1110nde) réel du hors- tP.xte et l'univars fictionnel de l'oeuvre littéraire. Pour créer l'lllusion du vrai,~la texte résliate se réfère souvent à une topographia authentique. C'est ainsi que l'action de L'Auberge se déroula en Suisaa dona un décor réaliata: la villaga thennal de Loèche, l'auberge au paaaaga de la Genmi, lea Àlpes barnoiaes et valaisannaa. La phraae initiale fait an outre appel au aavoir cul-

642

turel~ du lecteur, par l'enploi de 'Pareille à' et du déaionstratif conniuence:'Pareille à toutes les h6telleries de bois plantées dana les Hautes-Alpes, au pied des glaciers, dans ces couloirs rocheux et nus qui coupent les sO"'lllets blencs dea noontagnes, l'auberge de Schwarenbach aert de refuge aux uoyageura qui auiuent le paaaage de la Ce,-i'(784). Le roman réaliste s'ouvre souvent sur l'indicetion tenporelle6 d'une date, qui manque dana l'Auberqe, où ce n'eat pas le l8'11)s hiatorique qui imporle , mais le temps cyclique de la nature et des saisons. Au printe111>s et en été, l'aubarge est habitée par la fa11ille Hauser, durant l'auton,ne et l'hiver, la tnaison est gardée par Cespard, Ulrich et Sa■, le chien de montagne. de

2. LIENS ENTRE L'OUVERTURE ET L'AVANT-TEXTE l. ' ouuerture du texte réaliate auggère souuent qua l ' action a déjà c011111encé avant le début ■atériel du livre, dans l'avant-texte. 7 Bien que l'avant- texte soit flctionnel, les éuéna,ents littéraires produits dans l'auant-texte selllblent s'ftre déroulés dens le horstexte réel et contribuent ainsi à créer l'illusion de réallsme. Oans L'Auberge, les trois prearfait ('C'était le jour où la f&11ille Hauser allait retourner à Loèche') fol'IIIB la transition entra l'avanttexte (iq>liquant les préparatirs du uoyage) et la descente au ~illage, racontée ensuite su passé sin,ple, dans un récit singulatif. l'Auberqe llénage ainsi par l'interfllédieire de l'auant-texte une tranaition progreaaive du hors-texte au texte. }. TOl'OI

Ly rhétorique de l 'ouverture est souvent caractérisée par des topoI, 0 que nous analyserons en rapport avac la th~atique du récit. 11 L'Auber9$ s'ouvre sur le topoy2d•une description au présent, qui est liée a l'enselllble textuel. L'auberge, qui'aert de refuge' en été, devient une 'priaon' en hiuer: Lea deux honrnes et la b&te deineurent juaqu'au printen,pa dana cette prison de neige, n'ayant devant las yeux que la pente innenae et blanche du Balmhorn, entourés de scxnata plles et luisants, enferinés, bloquéa, ensevelio sous la neige qui ■onte autour d'eux, enveloppe, étrei nt, écrase la petite maison, s'a.-icelle sur le toit, atteint les fenatres et mure la porte (784). Le topoa de la lU11ière13 provoque la deacription du décor: 'Une averse de aoleil tolllbait sur ce déaert blanc éclatant et glacé,

64)

l'alll.ft8it d'une flllllllll! aveuglante et froide; aucune vie n'apparaissait dans cet océan des a,onts; aucun -.v-nt dans cette solitude défflesurée; eucun bruit n'en troublait le profond silence'(785). Lea élétoenta descriptifs de l'auberge et du payaage CDOntagnard se rattachent au thèine du piège, étudié par Hicheline 8esnard-Courso~ 14 l'ouverture de l'Aubarga est raarquée par le topos de la 11arche 5 de la fa,nille Hauser, qui descend à Loèche en autOlll'le ,pour reronter à l'auberge au printeq,s, dans la cl&ture du récit . l'ouverture littéraire sert en général à la présentation des personnagee. Dana l ' Auberge, les acteurs sont présentés conne 'le vieux guide Caspard Hari, le jeune guide Ulrich Kunsi, et 5am le gros chien de 111ontagne'(784). Au début du récit, 'les deux hoaoes et la b&te' (784) sont dea etrea diatincta, alora que dana la cJotura Ulrich apparait CCMMle une brute qui ne se distingue plus de l'ani~al. Pour Ulrich Kunsi 'c'était la pretnière foiy qu'il restait làhaut'(785). 11 est question dy7 topos du novice, 6 souvent cori>iné avec le topos dc la renc:ontre qui permet d'analyser les rapports que Ulrich entretient avec les autres acteurs. Oans cette analyse, nous ferona ressortir la thématique de la coaaunication, du ili!J! et de l'ètre h~ain-ani1111l. Ulrich, le novice, pourrait ètre initié à la vie montagnarde par Hine Hauaar, qui 'se mit à lui parler, én...érant avac des détails infinis toutes lea r~ndationa de l'hivernage'(78S). Cependant Ulrich, tout à son a1110Ur pour Louise Hauser, ne capte pas le aessage. la c:ocmiunication verbale dans l'Auberge est rare et primitive: 'Ulrich Kunsi écoutait, sans avoir l'air de co,nprendre, et rcgardait sans cesse la jeune fille. Oe tea,ps en te,nps il répondait: 'Oui, raada111e Houser.' Haia aa pansée scmblait loin et sa figure calM detneurait impsssibla'(78S). Gaspard Hari, guide forroé par une longue axpérience, essaie également de renseigner Ulrich, mais celui-ci a le tite ailleurs: Puis Gaspard Hari se ~it à raconter sa vie de l'autre hiver. Il était d-uré avec Nichel Canol, trop Agé 11aintenant pour recoa,encer; car un accident peut arriver pendont cette longue solitude. lls ne a'étaient pas ennuyéa, d'ailleura; le tout était d'en prendre son parti dès le premier jour; et on finissait par se créer dee distractiona, dea jeux, beaucoup de passe-te,ops. Ulrich Kunsi l'écoutait, les yeux baiaséa, suivant en penaée ceux qui descendeìent vera le villege par toua les festone de la Cemoni (786). Plutat que par le parole, Ulrich et Casperd c_,,uniquent par un échsnge de gestes dans une partie de cartes, de dés ou de dominos (787,788). le con,unicetion verbela ~ntre Ulrich et Louise se limite à un échenge de quelquee paroleo voil,ea. Ulrich 'murmura dana l'oreille de louiae: 'N'oubliez point ceux d'en haut.• Elle répondit 'non' sì bes qu'il devina sana \'entendre'(786). Ulrich setnble cherchcr une connunication tactile par l 'interaédiaire du inulet qui porte louise:

644

'Quand 11 eut rejoint la bfte qui la portait, il posa la 1111in sur la crc,ype et ralentit le pas'(78S). Ila pratiquent surtout l'échange visuel. louise 'senblait l'appeler d'un oeil triste'(78S) et le Jour apres qu'elle était descendue à loèche, Ulrich 'sortit dsn8 l'sprès~idi, et refaiaant le trajet de la veilla, il charchait aur le sol las tracea dea aabots du mulet qui svait porté lea deux f-s. Puis quand il fut au col de la ee-i, il se couc:he aur le ventre au bord da l'abtine, et regarda loi!che' (787). Il a'établit un contraate entra Ulrich et Gaspard. 'le vieux Gaspard passait ses après-aidi è guetter les aigles et les rares oiseaux qui s'av..,..turent sur ces - t s glacés, tandis que Ulrich retournait rég,,\ièra-,t au col de la Cenni pour contempler le village' (787). Gaspard se mat à chasser dea chamia (788), alors que Ulrich recherche son amour, en suivant 'les traces des 8abots du mulet'(787), qui a porté louise. Caspard est pris au pièqe dea iaontagnea paraonnifiéea ('la haute et redoutable pyramide du Carvin, ce tueur d'ho.es, et la Oent-Blanche, celte 110nstrueuae coquette' 78S). Ulrich est pris au piège de 1'8ffl0Ur. Tandis que Gaspard, 'touJours ardent et 11&tinal' part è la chasse, Ulrich reve de son aaour: Ulrich, delaeuré seul, resta couché Juaqu'à dix heures. Il ét~it d'un natural dormaur; meia il n'eùt point osé a'abandonner ainai à aon penchant en présence du vieux guide toujours ardent et metinal. Il déjeuna lenteftlBflt avec Saa, qui pasaait aussi ses Jours et ses nuita à dor■ir devant la feu (788). A mesure que se déroule le récit, Ulrich et Sa■ vont se NS&etlbler de plus en plus. Après avoir cherché en vain Gaspard, Ulrich et Seao 'se couchèrent l'un contra l'autre,l''- et la bile, chauffant leura corps l'un à l'autre et gelés jusqu'aux moelles cependant'(79l). Croyant avoir entendu une voix é■iae par l'i■e de Caspard, Ulrich s'enferme dana l'auberge, où il croit etra aaaailli par un ravenant. le comporte■ent de Ulrich et de Seao est identique: 'Kunsi, éperdu, a'était levé et, tenant par un pied aa chaise, il cria: 'N'entra pas, n'entre pas, n'er,tra pas, ou Je te tue.' le chien, excité par celte inenace, aboyait avec fureur contre l'invisible enne«ai que défiait le voix de son 11111ttre'(793). Ensuite, Ulrich se soOle • e - une brute'(794) et S11111 sealble 'davenir fou cocrae son maitre'(794), qui marche dana l'~rge 'ainsi qu 'une b&te en cage'(794). Ne e'étant pes aperçu que Se,n est sorti de l'auberge, Ulrich se croit assiégé et ae co■porte à l'intérieur, tout COtla& le chien dehors: Hais celui du dehors poossait meintenant de grande ~iaaements lugubres auxquels le Jeune . . _ se mit è répondre par des gt!cnisse■ents pareils. (t dee joura et des nuits pasaèrent aans qu'ils cessallSent de hurler l'un et l'autre. l'un tournait sana ceaae autour de le maiaon et fouillait la muraille de aea ongles avec tant de force ~•il se■blsit

64S

vouloir la dét10lir; l 'autre, au-dedans, suivait tous ses 110uvecaents, courbé, l'oreille collée contre la pierre, et il répondit à tous ses appels par d'épouvantables cria (79S). Au

printeq>a, la faeille Hauser, remontée à l'auberge, entend

'un cri, qu'on aut dit poussé par une b6te'(796) et retrouve Ulrich:

11s ne le reconnaissaient point, n,ais louise Hauser, s'écria:'C'est Ulrich, lll8lllan.' Et la rlère constata que c'était Ulrieh, bien que ses cheveux fusaent blanca. Il lea laiaaa venir; il se laissa toueher; uis il ne répondit point aux queationa qu'on lui posa; et il fallut la conduire à Loeche où lea tnédecina conatatèrent qu'il était fou (796). Oans l'ouverture, Louiaa eat dicrite conte 'une patite paysanne blonde, dont les Joues laitauses et les chaveux piles paraissaient décolorés par les longs séjours au milieu des glaces'(78S). Oans la clature, les Cheveux de Ulrich sont égaleaient blanchis aprè~ l'hivernage. 11 edolet la c:oaaunication tactile et se laisse toucher conn,e un aniMl, sala il ne répond plus par la parole, typiqu-nt h..aine. 4. ANALYSE NARRATCl.OCIQUEIS

Dana l'ouverture de L'Auberge, le narrateur sert da centre d'orientation au lecteur, de sorte qu'il s'agit du type narratif auctoriel. Au plan perceptif-psychique du récit, le narrateur oriente la perspective narrative, c - observateur distant. Ly9descente de la faeille Hauaer eat décrite en focaliaation externe. Au plan teeporel, le narrateur C011111enca par une deacription ateq,oralla du •¼l,• géographique de l'auberge. Ensuite, il préaenta rétrospectiv-nt par qui l'auberge est habitée au cours dea saiaons et finaleaent il relate les événefflellts qui se déroulent au IM)lll8nt fllhle de l'action. Au plan spatial, le narrateur occupe d'abord la position d'un 2'/servateur diatant, en fourniaaant une présentation à vol d'oiseau de l'auberge, pour se rapprocher enauite dea persoMBges. Au plen verbal, le narrateur s'abatient d'utiliser la i~eaière personne, qui reste iq,licite, mais il s'adreeae au lecteur, dont il attira l'attention, en faisant appel à son savoir cultura!. Adoptant d'abord le cantre d'oriantation du narrateur, le lacteur entra prograssivement dans l'univars du rkit et ae rapproche dea personnagea, qui vont, à leur tour, servir de centre d'orientation. La technique narrative dans l'ouverture de l'Auberge facilite ainsi pour le lecteur la transition iuginaire du 110nde réel au 110nde fictionnel du récit. Dana la cl6ture, le narrateur reprend la posture de l'observateur distant, au plan perceptif-paychique c - au plan spetial. 11 réaUMe l'action, au plan temporel, dana une aorte d'épilogue: 'Et personne ne aut J-i• ce qu•,tait devenu son coapagnon. La patite Hauser faillit t10urir cet ,té-là, d'une 11aladie de langueur qu'on attribua au froid de la IIIOlltagne'(796). Au plan verbal, le narrateur s'abstient de nouveau d'eaployer

646

la preaiière personne, mais il se manifeste néanonoins nettement, tant par le délnonatratif 'cet-éte-là' (référé par rapport au --.ent de la narration) que par la reaoarque ironique sur le unque de coq:,réhenaion de personnagea qui attribuent au froid de la 1110ntac;,,e la langueur amoureuse de Louise. L'auteur ebatrait, iinplicite, - et sana doute l'auteur concret Heupasaan~}- parait intervenir dans la cloture conne pour signer le récit. La strat41qie narrative de la cl&ture prépare ainsi la tranaition imaginaire du ,nonde fictionnel au IIIOnde réel, auquel le lecteur retourne après sa lecture. Unè partic du texte, indiquée typographiqueaient par une ligne pointillée (795-796) rapporte les perceptiona de la famille Hausar, 1110ntée à l'auberge au printeaps. Ila aperçoivent un 'ani.lllal dépecé par les aiglea,' qui doit 6tre Sn. Ila entendent 'un cri aigu, qu'on eut dit pouaaé par une b&te' et aperçoivent 'un h-,• ciana lequal Louise, juste111ent, reconnait Ulrich. Oans la plus grande parlie du récit, le type narratif auctoriel est carbiné avcc le type narratif actoriel, ayant Ulrich coo.e centre d'orientation. loreque Gaspard ne revient pas de la chasse, Ulrich Kunai est pris au piège de la solitude, de la peur et enfin de la folie: 'Il lui aenibla que le silence, le froid, la solitude, la 110rt hivernale de cea nionta entraient ffl lui, allaient arreter et gelar son aeng, raidir aes membrea, feire de lui un fitre innobile et glacé' (789). Par l'emploi du type narratif actoriel, le lecteur connalt les perceptions, les pensées et les sentinients (for•ulés au discours indirect libre) de Ulrich, qui croit Mtendre une voix surnaturelle: Mais soudein, une voix, un cri, un non: 'Ulrich', secoue son engourdiss-nt profond et le fit se dreaaer. Aveit-il revé? Eteit-ce un de ces eppels bizerres qui traveraent lea rivea dea iniea inquiètes? Non, il l'entendait encore, ce cri vibrant, entré ciana son oreillr. et reaté dens sa cheir jusqu'eu bout de ses doigts nerveux. Certes, on evait crié; on evait appelé: 'Ulrich!' Quelqu'un était là, près de la uison (791-792). Ulrich s'enfernie l ui-NII& , pensant qu'il eat hanté par 'cette iale sena voix'(79Z) de Gaspard, qui r6de c - un 'fant&.e'(79Z) au-

tour de l'auberge. loraqu ' il entend de nouveau ce 'cri striden~•

il veut repoueeer .' le revenant' ( 79}) •

l'Auberge présente ainsi quelques élémenta typiquea du conte fantastique. Cependsnt, une snalyse narratologique permet de 110ntrer que le récit ne ressortit pas au genre fantastique, tel qu'il est défini par Todorov. La preinière condition du fantastique est, selon lui, 'que le texte oblige le lecteur à considérer le monde dea personnages ca.ne un nionde de persomes vivantea età hésiter entre une explicat¼!!" neturf!lle et une explication surnaturelle dea événeaents évoquée. le texte fantaetique suppose une h6aitation du lect!~r entra le réel r.t l 'illuaoire ou entra le réel et l'in,aginaire. Oans L'Auberge, les interventions auctorielles du narrateur excluent ce doute. Alors que Ulric:h croit &tre assi41qé par un reve-

647

nant, le lecteur sait qu'il s'agit de Sam: Il re~t en plein vieage un souffle d'air froid qui le gla~e jusqu' eux oe et il referma le bettant et pousee l es verrous, sans reNrguer gue Setn s'était 6lancé dehora. Puis, rrémiaaant, il j ata du boia eu feu, et a'essit devant pour se cheuffer; • ie soudain il treeeeillit, ~"lqu'un grattait l e inur en pleurant . Il cria éperdu: 'va-t-en.' Une plainte lui répondit, longue et douloureuse. Alors toot ce qui lui reatait de raison fut e1 une négation appuyée d'un arg\llD8nt, mais qui a'interprètent cc-e une réfutation propreMnt dite (c 'eet-àdire COCIID8 une n'9atior1 de la thèse). Considérons, par exe,ople, les énonc:és suivanu, dont la structure est "non p puisque non q• ,

e-

4) a) ce fila n'eet pas génial (non p) puisqu'il n'a ét6 prilllé nulle part (non q) b) Il n'a pas cess6 de fllller (non p) puiegu'il n'a j - h fuaé (non q) . Il est poaaible de soutenir que cea "1on~a réaliaent un acte dérivé ,narqu6 de r.Hutation: la justification au 1DOyen d'un argument (non q) indique une dissociation entre le locuteur et l 'énonciateur 21 de l •assertior1 (p) • Cependant deux condition• •upplémentaire• ■ont réunies dans ces 6noncé■ qui per:oettent une lecture différente. D'abord, ce• exelllf>l•• peuvent etre préaentéa en contrapo•ition. De plus, le locuteur procède à partir d'une généraliaation, ce qui entrarne une IDOdification dans la diatribution des reaponsabilit6s énonciativee. La fome contrapoa6e se lira coame euit, l!n

général, loraqu'on adlDet (p), on admet égale11A1nt (q).

Aux énoncéa (4) (a) et (b) correapondont (4') (a) et (b), 4') a) Loraqu•un fila est génial, il a de bonne• chance• d'etra pria quelque part. b) Ceaeer de fuaer préeuppoae qu'on f1.Dait auparavant. Si l'assertion préalable (q) est présente dans la propoaition (non q), à qui en attribuer la responaabilité "1onciative?

D'abord quelques r-rques sur "puisque•. o. D\lcrot (1980, p. 48 aq) décrit cette conjonction au 110Yen de la notion de préaupposition: en introduiaant un énoncé par "puiaque•, le locuteur fait • •e,cpda,er un énonciateur dont il se cléclare distinct, il présente cet énoncé ~ cléjà adlaia 011 cléjà c:cnnu par l 'allocutaire. Dana le cu qui nous occupo, le fait auquel ae réfèra le locuteur en assertant (non q) , est aclais, en vertu cle la générallsation sous-jacente (p q), dont l'énonciateur sera un tiera et qui fait autorité, l'avis unanime. La réfutation peut se réaliser au niveau des énoncés, elle se rialise égal-nt au niveau dea concluaions cléduetibles des énoncéa, aoit stance, Sourieu oppose une vision forn,aliséc du ~héAtre: lea situationa dre■otiques sont les combinaisons identiques d'un nombrc indéfini da fonctions. [t c'est dans ces tcrmcs, nous le sovons, qu'agiront Propp, Lévi-Streuss et Grcimas, Où la culture ro■antiquc pensait à une rigide taxino■ie de caractères unlversels dans le tenps et dans l'espace, lcs analyses 110rphologiques, structuralistes et sé■iotiques sous-tendent une conviction ~isté110logique de fond, propre à tout notre siècle: la rort du sujet fece à lo primauté du langage (Miceli, 1982: l9-8S). la préé■inonce ottribuée aux actiona par ropport ou caractère, au fairc par rapport à l'etre, encore préscntc chcz lcs auteurs de Co-.iications 8 (1966), a été confirmée ré); le lecteur infère avec

713

ses synthèses llé•oriales une sorte d'effet-personnage (Ha1110n, 1981: 110-117), une construction sylllbolique plus ou •oins riche d'i~lications idéologiques et/ou lyrico-sentinientales, produite par la répétition anaphovique d'un,_ propre auquel se juxtaposent des attributa et des 110dalités de coq>orte•ent (lodorov, 1969; Barthes, 1970; Ho1110n, 1977; Greimaa, 197,). Le personnage, cela a été observé par des auteurs éloignés les uns des autres coaie Lévi-Strauss, Lotlll8n, Creimas ou Genette, résulte de la coq,osition structurale d'un paquet d'élé•ents dlffércntiels: les instr-nts séiaiotiques qui coopèrent • sa réalisation peuvent avoir des origines très différentcs et, souvent, qui ne lui sont pas spécifiques. Et, si la conipréhension unitaire du héros est possible seuleeent • la dernière page du taxte, le paradigma qui l'institue co- affet-de-réel est, au fond, le structure ~ de l'aeuvre en tant qu'Clluvra d'art. Le sens, aieait à répéter Barthes, ne se trouve pes • la fin del' aeuvre 111&is il la traverse; et le héros, dans ces ternies, est hors du texte, 11&is il trouve dans le texte !es moyens pour sa construction séaliotique, Ha1110n (1977: 128) précise en outre que, à la répétition età l'accumulation, il faut égaleeent ajouter la question du rapport entre le personnage et lea autres agente du récit: le syatèae des persomoges soutient, tout au 110ins dans le récit classique, l'économic shnantique du texte, et tout personnage acquiert sa va leur sur la base des rapports de différence et d'opposltion avec les tres éléeents du systènle; l'esprit de Saussure regie le jeu (Avalle, 197,). L'analyse des traits consti~utifs constitutifs et des élémenls différentiels d'un persomage s'entrecroise avec l'analyse des autres parsonnages du récit et avec celle d'autrcs personnages répondant • dea caractéristiquca enalogues (Hamon, 1977: 128-1,2), sur la base, égaleaent, des ropports poasibles de transtextualité, Il faut retrouver !es méconisaes de coMtruction, conflgurat ion et production de 'quelque chose COIM'8 un sujet' , d'un personnage co- effet de texte, de celte unité (appar-nt) statique dont se plaint lynjanov (lodorov éd,, l96S) et qui peraettait à la critique psychologique positiviste de considérer les personnages • e - s'ils étaient des personnes vivantes• . le héros, disait Voléry, est •sentrailles', tout de aots et des papiar. Il a'agit, plus particulièrenient, d'exaeiner qualquea acquis da la théorie greiaasianne; dans celte dernièra, le parsonnage en tant qu'entité hul>aine figurée se disaout dans une série de catégories de plus vaste appllcation et per~ toute spécificité auton0111e. L'acteur se pose c - une disanthropomorphisation du persomage et rend conipte d'élénients narratifs qui se configurent de différentea façona, au-delà aussi des textes littéraires. Et, si dans la S~aanti;ft structurale (Greiaas, 1966), conjugant Propp et Souriau avec lesni re, la dichotoaie ectent/acteur reeeent ancore d'une sch6•atiaation excessive, où l' acteur est seuletnent sujet du faire, l'introduction successive de concepts daventage articulés, ~ les r6lea (Crei111&s, 1970), les configuratiotlS (Creieas, 1973), etc., enrichit la recherche de nouvelles perspectives et rend possible des applications d'une portée plus vaste (Crei~as, 1976b; Entrevernes, 1977). La dialectique coa-

714

pétcnce/perfor•ance introduit la question de la 1110dalité dans l'étude des struc:tures narratives et doMe lieu oux rOles actantiels en tant qu'investissements modaux de l'actant sojet dans un progra11111e narratif (Crci■as , 1973: 1611-16S). Oe la ■effle aanière, ciana le donl8 inc des structures discursives, les concepts de configuration et dc parcours figuratif fondent les rOles thécnatiques, entendus c ces parcours actualisés par un acteur au cours du récit (Creiaas, 197}: 169- 17$). L'acteur, alors, est recoMaissable dans l'intersection des structures narratives avec les structures discursives. (t le sujct d' état acquiert son importance dans la dialectique des conjonctions et dea di!!jonctions avec l'objetde valeur (Creimaa, 19760: l}). Au-delà des critiqucs possibles à une tclle aéthodologie sémiotique (Segre, 1974: 60-68; Suvin, 1981: 90-94; Marchese, 198}: }4- 46), ici trop brèvc,ncnt exposée, il apparatt clairement quc, encorc une foia, c'est le systèaie ,n,!a,e des personnages qui reste en dehors de toute analyse: 'La structure actorielle apparalt dès lors eo111111c une structure topologiquc: tout en relevant à la fois des structures narratives et des structures discursives, el le n' est que le lieu de leur manifestation,n'eppartenant en propre ni à l'une ni à l'autre' (Creimas, 1973 : 176) . Considérons La clé de Junichiro Tanizachi. lei lea différents niveaux dc atructurat1on séll&ntique dea personnsges, du nivesu 1118nifeste du héros à cel ul 1-nent des sctants, sont immédiateinent reeonnaissables: au niveau superficiel des acteurs (le protagoniste, lkuko, Klaura, Toshiko) Il y a une caractérisation des acteurs mé111es qui se co-.>lète et se pcrfectionne tout au long de la didgàse, Jusqu ' oux révélations finales de lkuko. Cettc caractérisation a une incidence fondamentale oseot. Pou r le reste, les rOles sont rcspectés dane toute la prévisibilité de leursmanifestations, y c~ris la possibilité - ici actualisée de leur outo-négation. Les positlons actanticlles sont évidentes dès le début et, ne corrcspondant pas aux personnages sinon dans de

7IS

brefs se9ments diégétiques, elles se transforment plusieurs fois la suite des conjonctions et des disjonctions avec l'objel dc valeur (changeant lui aussi); de telle sorte que, co._ l ' aff i rine Greimas, entre actants et acteurs il n'y a aucune correspondance for"'8lle définilive. Au début, le couple sujet/objet (oxe du désir) est le rapport ll!me entrc les deux conjoints; l'adjvvont et l'opposant (axe du pouvoir) sont Klaura et Toshlko; le destinateur et le destlnatalre sont les conjoints llléffles dans l'acle de l'écrilure de leur journal (axe de la coamunicatlon). Avec l'expérience de l'écriture s'affirae l'apprentissage sexuel des personnages et l 'hlstoire va vers son final tragique, en changeant les axes actontiels et en laiasant inaltéréa les rOles: lkuko d'objet destinataire se fai t aujet destinateur, Ki,nura davient l'objat, Toshiko l ' adjuvant, etc. Co qui est exclu, dans une analysc cxclusiveaent dc typo greimaaien , c'est justcinent celte déterminotion textuelle du pcrsonnage qui, nous le savons, peut rendrc coq>te des prévlsions sur son co1111ortement possible; c'est-à-dire de quelle façon sont codifiées les motivations de son faire, au-delà des rOles narratifs et des configurations diseursivcs. Il nous sell'lble possiblc, molntcnant, d'indiquer parmi las motifs théoriques qui provoquent ce lypc d'i•passes méthodologiques le manque de considération pragmaliquc de ces rOles et de ces configurations. Le problèine de la coapétcnce de l'acteur, de la motivation de ses actions, peul probsblement étre résolu à l'intérieur d'une théorie textuclle de 'seconde généralion', dans le sens qu'Uniberto Eco a donné à ce ter111e (1979: 1)-15). Suivons à ce propos quelque3 m0n1ents de l'analyse de paraboles de l'Evangile proposée par le Groupe d'Entrevernes (1977). I l csl probable que le sena manifeste de l'histoirc du 'bon somorilainc' échappe à l'analyse du groupc (1977: lS-52) à cause d'un manque de considération de la coo,pétencc encyclopédique de lecteur ou du récepteur modèle de ce texte. Seule■ent à partir de l'encyclopédie d' un juif de l'époque, lecteur attentif des Saintes Ecritures connaissant blen la distinction enlre Judée, Galilée et Saurie et tout ce que cette distinction COll'f)orle du point de vue religl~ux et culturel, le récit de Jésus au juriste sera lisible et interprétable: le récit eet construit dans l'opposition entre les rOles théoaatiquee du prètre et du lévite d'une pert et celui du semaritain de l'outre; ce que lea pra•ières ne font pes, tout en percourent le méme chemin de Jérusale~ à J6rlcho, le second le fera bicn gu'il soit (pour le culture hébraique du tetlll)s) un individu socialeaent exclu. La parabole du 'bon samaritain' s'inscrit dansuncontexte encyclopédique et seuleinent à la lU111ière du texte sacre elle peut trouver son moyen définitif de clarification. Ce oue le Groupe d'Enlrevernes ne foit pas, an laissant inexpliqué le ~écanisme interprétatif de coopération du texte: la sélection d'un parcours figuratif à partir d'une configuration discuraive, le passaga du niveou i..,.nant au nivaeu manifeste, come cela se produit fréqueml8nt dona le discours greimasien, n'est pas expliqué dans son caractère dyna~ique de fond. Hais cet obstacle était déJà présent dans la théorie de Greimas qui, s'il autorise à considerer le personnage dans le lieu inental de la mé■orisation,d'autre parten exclut l'enalyse tcxtuelle

716

sémiotique cn tant que caté9rie psychologique: 'A cette n>émorisation, phénotnène d'ordre psychologique, peul étre substituéc lo description analytique du lexte (=sa iecturc au sens du fa i rc sétniotique) • (Grciaas, 1973: 174). Nous nouatr001ons ainsi face à un choix de fond - qui, ovcc le t~s, seinble dcvenir loujours plus obligotoire-: dictionno i re 1! encyclopédie, avec tout cc que cc choix c~orte sur le plan dessolulions pratiqucs de la théorie; c'est sur ce choix de fond que Eco a insisté ces dernières années (198~: 46-86). A l'intéricur d' une vision encyclopédique du sena, qui tieme c~tc des sélections contcxtuclles et circonstencielles, la llléalorisot ion du lecteur est de droit une catégorie séaiotiquc. le lecteur modèle, en tant que stratll9ie textuclle inserite dans le texte, rBfld coq>te des sélections des parcours du sena et des niveuax des isotopies, et, par conséquent, oussi du problèae ogenticl . A la 11aresse constitutionclle du texte partlciperait olors égale111ent le personnage en tant qu'objct poétlquc ou configuration théll8tique qui n 'est rendue possible qu 'à travcrs une pratique de la lecture localisoble dans l ' interstice entre le texte et sa ouverture pragaatiquc. En suivant la perspectivc de Eco, lo séaantique se conjugueavec une pregmatique, et le peroonnoge se définit dans scs rapportsavec lisni. ---(1984). Semiotica end the Philosophy of lanquage. London: Hc Hillian. Entrevernea, Croupe d' (1977). Signea st paraboles. Paris: Seuil. Cenette, Cérard (1983). Nouveau discours du récit . Paris: Seuil. Croi111&s, Algirdas J. (1966). Sé111ntigue structurale. Paria: Larouase. ---(1970). Du sena. Paris: Scuil. ---(1973). Les Actants, les ~cteurs, les figures. Dans Séflliotigue narrative et textuelle, Chabrol C. ed., Paris: Larousse. - - - (1976a). Les acquis et les projets. Préface è Courtés, Joseph, lntroduction è la sémiotigue narrative et discursive. Psris: Hacllctte. ---(1976b). Haupasssnt. Ls sl!miotigue du texte: exerciaes prstigues. Paria: Seuil. Crelmas, A.J. et Courtés J. (1979). Sétoiotlgue. Oictlonnaire raiaonné de ls théorie du langsgc. Paria: Hacllette. HallOll, Phillppe (1977). Pour un atatut sémlologlque de la notion de personnage. Dans Poétigue du récit , 8arthes, R. et al. Paris: Scuil (lère éd. 1972). ---(1981 ). lntroduction è l'analyse du descriptif. Paria: Hachette. Marchese, Angelo {1983). L'officina del racconto. Milano: Hondadori. Marrone, Gianfranco (1982). L'eroe: letture,interpretazioni e valutazioni. Obna L'eroe nel testo, Harrone,C. et 8azan E. Quaderni del Circolo Semiologico Siciliano 19. Miceli, Silvana (1982). In no11e del segno. Paleraoo: Sellerio. Polli, Ceorges (1899). Les trente-six situationa draaatigues. Paris: Hercure de france. ---(1930). L'art d'inventer les personna9es. Paria: Hercure de france. Prince, Cerald (1982). Narratology. lhe Hague: Houton. Raatier, rrançois (1972) . Un concept dana le discours dea études litléraires. Littérsture 7. Robbe-Crillet';' Alain (1963). Pour un nouveau ro111n. Paria: Callimard. Segre, Cesare (1974). Le strutture e il tenpo. Torino:Einaudi. ---(1978). Discorso. Oans Enciclopedia, vol. IV. Torino:Einaudi. ---(1980). Narrazione/narratività. Dans (nciclopedia, vol. IX. Torino: Einaudi.

719

Scholes, Robert et Kellog, Robert (1966). The Nature of Narrative. New York: Oxford U.P. Souriau, (tienne (19SO). Lea 200.000 aituationa dramatigues. Paria: Fla•arion. Suvin, Oarko (1981). Per una teoria dell'analisi agenziale. VS JO. Todorov, Tzvetan (ed) (196S). Théorie de la littérature. Paris: Seuil. Todorov,Tzvetan (1969). Cra1M1&ire du Oécallléron. Paris: Seuil. ---(1971) . Poétigue de la prose. Paris: Seuil. ---(197S). La lecture cow construction. Poétigue 24.

73 Il NEUTRO E LA NEUTRALIZZAZIONE IN HUSSERL Francesco Harsciani Sarl forse necessario qualche chlari11ento preliminare relativo al senso del mio intervento. 11 suo titolo pu6 far pensare a un'indagine più filosofica che semiotica. In realtl, le ragioni di una lettura di Husserl nella chiave che si chiarir& in seguito, le do...ande fatte alla fenomenologia, l'ottica adottata e le riflessioni compiute sul testo vengono nel IIIOdo più diretto da una serie di que·stionl che un lavoro semiotico in senso stretto pone al ricercatore, o che quanto meno ha posto a me nel corso di una serie di indagini se111iotiche concrete. 11 problenia é presentabile sotto questa forna: esistono le condizioni, gli strumenti, l'apparato teorico, al limite le idee, per una descrizione soddisfacente di alcuni fenomeni critici nella pro• duzlone, trasmissione e riconoscimento del senso nel discorso? Ho detto 'fenomeni critici', 1111 Intendo qualcosa di tutt'altro che raro: si tratta di quei casi estrenia111ente frequenti in cui la produzi one df enunciati lascia in sospeso, dicta110 subito 'neutralizza', la determinazione signi ficativa di alcune differenze categoriali, in cui le posizioni e le opposizioni non sono date o proposte dall'enu~clatore, 111a 11 cui rtconosctaento si rende necessario per la soluzione delle ambiguità, per eset1pio, o per la risoluzione di tensioni eniozi onali o passional i iq,11cate dal, nel, o intorno al di scorso. Figure passionali come l'indifferenza, enunclazionali COile 11 silenzio, gestuali COiie l'inespresslvltl mimica, ecc., pongono, spesso esplicitamente 11 proble.a del neutro, delle procedure di neutralizzazione e, di conseguenza, 11 prob1811111 della loro trattazione, si a essa descrittiva o esplicativa. Evidentemente 11 proble1111 non i nuovo: non fosse altro che nel· l 'al'lbito della letteratura strettamente se■iot1ca, i temi della d1samb1guaz1one, della scelta det percorsi di lettura, della st111stlca della pagina bianca o del grado zero della scrittura, della produzione di effetti di attesa, le questioni i ■p11cite nel la riflessione sull'abduzione, ricoprono a ■io parere una problenat1ca per ■olti aspetti o■ogenea e 1dent1f1cab11e a quella che propongo qui sotto 11 titolo d1 'neutro'. Una prima difficoltl consiste nel collocare la questione al suo giusto livello di pertinenza. Parl are di 'neutro' e di 'procedu· re di neutralizzazione' non a, evidentemente, la stessa cosa. Sevo-

722

gliUIO riferirci, ad esempio a uno sche11a del tipo del Percorso Generativo di Greimas, si vede lanedlataniente che I due problet1I rilevano di due livelli ben diversi tra loro: quello del 'neutro' si colloca, come uno del più difficili e per ora lll!no chiariti, fra quelli costitutivi della coerenza logico-semiotica della struttura elementare della significazione (del quadrato set1iotico, per intenderci): quello delle procedure di neutralizzazione, al contrarlo, trova 11 suo posto fra le procedure discorsive, a loro volta più o meno superficiali, determinanti per la realizzazione di svariate strategie enunciazionali (manipolative, persuasive o altro). Ma se è vero che, secondo quella teoria le strutture discorsive sono realizzate negli enunciati grazie ad una istanza produttrice capace dt sfruttare uno stock di possibilità previste al livello più astratto e universale rappresentato dalle strutture semio-narrative nel loro Insieme, allora si pone 11 problema di sapere quale tipo di relazione lega fra loro una procedure discorsiva quale la 'neutralizzazione' eun temine del quadrato semiotico, il temine neutro, che, in sé e per sé, non è che un luogo vuoto prodotto generativU1ente da un certo gruppo di necessità morfologiche e topologiche (ge011etriche), la cui esistenza è quella propria di una oggettività teorica e della cut effettività quale dato dell'esperienza è plO che legittimo dubitare. 11 problema non ha solo questa forma; esso coinvolge direttilllN!nte altri due aspetti, in qualche IIOdo divergenti ma per i quali vorrei ipotizzare un'unica matrice: 1) quale ruolo gioca 11 termine neutro (che senso ha supporlo o porlo) al livello della struttura elementare della significazione e 2) come st rende possibile che 11 discorso, nel suo realizzarsi, mostri talvolta, COiie attraverso degli squarci, le proprie condizioni di possibilità, come si rende possibile che esso le sveli. Lungi dal pensare di essemt per quanto poco avvicinato a una soluzione del proble11a, è cOllllnque con quest'ottica che vorrei giustificare la lettura dei testi di Husserl. Per quale ragione? Perché Husserl è fra coloro che più hanno pensato la neutralizzazione, in particolare nelle ldeen . •• , vol.1, la cui edi· zione italiana costituirà 11 testo di riferimento per le brevi note che seguono. Non si tratterà naturalmente di esegesi filosofica del testo di Husserl, 111a di un rapido sguardo su ci6 che vi è stato detto a proposito del neutro e della neutralizzazione, nella speranza che l'articolazione semiotica di tali nozioni ne possa trarre beneficio. Si legge alla fine del cap.111, sez.11: L'essenziale per noi è non soltanto la facil111ente attingibile evidenza del fato che la riduzione fen011enologica, con la neutralizzazione dell'atteggiamento naturale (e della sua tesi generale), si

723

rfvelf possfbfle ma anche che altrettanto evidente risulti c0111e, dopo 11 suo compf111ento, rimanga quale residuo l"assoluta coscienza tra-

scendentalmente pura, alla quale è assurdo attribuire un carattere di realti. E, nelle righe lllllledlatamente successive, cfoè all'fnlzlo del cap.JV: 'La neutralfzzazfone della tesi del 1110ndo, della natura, è stata per nof un mezzo metodico per rendere possibile 11 dirigersi del nostro sguardo sulla coscienza trascendentale. ' Le evidenze di cui parla Husserl, e cfoè quella della possibilità della riduzione fen0111enologica e quella di un fo trascendentale puro che resta quale residuo di tale riduzione, sono In realtà I prodotti di un lavoro c~luto dall'autore nel corso dei capitoli precedenti e al centro del quale 11 niezzo metodico più importante era proprio la neutralizzazione della tesi del mondo. Tale neutralizzazione ha caratteristiche che le sono proprie e oggetti sui quali porta. Rispetto a questi ultimi, Husserl è molto esplicito nel dire che non esistono limitazioni di principio, che tutto cfò che partecipa del reale è passibile di neutralizzazione, ffno all'incontro con l'fo puro trascendentale, meta delle riduzioni e costitutivo df una regione dell'essere molto particolare; per usare le sue parole: 'una specie singolarissima di trascendenza in un certo senso non costituita - una trascendenza nell'lnnanenza' (§ 57, cap.lV, sez.11). Quanto a clO che caratterizza la neutralizzazione COile procedura, come atto della coscienza e per la coscienza, esso merita di attirare In 1110do particolare l'attenzione del semiologo perché quf si fanno pfù frequenti e suggestivi gli echi e le analogie. La neutralizzazione consiste tn un tipo particolare di 110dtflcazfone. Notiamo dapprl~a una differenza ter111nolog1ca df estremo rflfevo: per giungere alla regione della coscienza pura, prll!lil dunque di aver raggiu~to 11 terreno su cui cominciare a Indagare le sue strutture con 111etodo fen0111enologlco, Husserl parla di •neutralizzazione'; In seguito, nella sez.111, e precisamente ta dove l'analisi porta sulle strutture noetico-noematiche della coscienza pura, l'autore Introduce fra le modificazione della credenza quella che eg11 chiama la '1110dl ficazlone di neutralit&•.1 I due monientl sono acco111Unatl dalle stesse caratteristiche: si tratta qui t 14 ~1 'neutralizzare', ~a la differenza tennlnolog1ca mette In rilievo 11 fatto che non c1 troviamo più allo stesso livello, COiie dlceva1110 prllllil, di pertinenza. 'Neutralizzare' è un fare di un soggetto discorsivo, 'modificare secondo neutral i tà' è 'iiiia,!!!!tenzlalltA strutturale della coscienza, è un suo collocarsi, o pre-

724

sentarsi, in quel luogo, neutro, che partecipa di una struttura co· stitutiva. Pratica di una coscienza empirica dunque nel primo caso (pratica del filosofo, del fencnenologo), possi bil ità inaanente di una coscienza trascendentale (coscienza dell'io puro) nel secondo. Eppure fra le due non sussiste differenza visibi le. Leggiamo alcuni coannti di Husserl rispetto alla prima: Non si tratta di una trasfomazione della tesi nel l'antitesi, della posizione nella negazione; e neaneno si tratta di trasfor■are la te• si in supposizione, in indecisione, in dubbio (preso in qualunque senso) ( ...] E tuttavia si verifica una IIIOdlficazlone, In quanto, mentre la tesi rimane in sé quella che è, noi per cosi dire la 111ett i a110 'fuori azione', la 'neutralizziam', la 111ettiamo 'in parente· si'. Essa sussiste setnpre, cene ciò che è stato messo in parentesi sussiste ancora dentro le parentesi, o corae ci6 che è stato neutralizzato sussiste ancora fuori del rapporto di neutralizzazione .•. Riguardo ad ogni tesi noi possia1110 esercitare in piena libertà que· sta caratteristica cnox~,una certa sospensione di giudizio, che è coq,atibile con l'indiscussa, o magari indiscutibile e evidente, convinzi one della verità. (Husserl, 1976: 62). E vedi am ora c011e l'autore definisce la 110dificazione di neu· tralit&: Si tratta ora di una 1110dificazione che In certa guisa annulla e svigorisce radicalmente ogni IIOdalità dossica a cui venga riferita· ma in un senso totalmente diverso dalla negazione che, coine vedenno, nell'elemento negato ha il suo prodotto positivo, un non-essere che è esso stesso essere. Essa non cancella, non 'produce' nulla, è il contrapposto coscienziale di ogni produrre: la sua neutralizzazione [ ••. ) 11 carattere posizionale è diventato impotente. La credenza non è più seriallente una credenza, il supporre non è più un seriamente supporre, il negare non è più un seriamente negare, ecc. Sono un credere, un supporre, un negare, ecc., 'neutralizzati'. (Husserl, 1976: 240-241). Si tratta, COllle si vede, di uno stesso 1110vimento, eppure di due inoaienti separati fra loro da un abisso. E' che l a '110dificazio• ne di neutralità' si converte nella ' neutralizzazione' c0111e, In se• miotica, una struttura profonda si converte in struttura discorsiva, investendosi In un tetaa che, nel caso del percorso segui to dalla fen0111enologia husserl iana, era il tema della tesi del 1110ndo, della sua esistenza, della sua 'realt6'. Oiscorso filosofico che attraver-

72$

sa, coaie nella migliore delle tradizioni, la teoria della conoscenza, del sapere razionale, dell'apprensione del 110ndo come oggetto epistemico; ma che potrebbe anche, e Husserl se lo augurava, passare attraverso lnvestiftll!nti emozionali, volitivi, pratici, ecc. Ciò che è di estremo Interesse per noi è 11 IIIOdo in cui i due IIIOfllenti si rispecchiano, o forse si si11Ulano l'un l'altro, e contefll• poraneamente 11 circuito che si stabilisce fra 1 due, un circuito che ha i tratti della necessiti. La modificazione di neutralltl, con quanto vi è In essa di accentuativo nei riguardi di una struttu• ra paradigmatica delle modalitl di coscienza, costituisce la condizione lmnanente e universale - quella 'singolarissi11a trascendenza nell'iananenza' di cui diceva1110 più sopra - per le procedure superficiali, ma è meglio dire discorsive e investite nelle relazioni fra soggetto e mondo etnpirici, di neutralizzazione, e nello stesso tempo queste ulti111e sono Indispensabili perché le pri111e si mostrino, perché appaiano nell'evidenza di un'intuizione pura della cui descrizione, nelle forme dell'articolazione e della generazione che le sono imnanenti, la fenomenologia intende farsi carico. Detto in altri termini, la coscienza pura è 11 luogo di una generativltl di strutture Il cui riconosclnento passa necessarla111ente attraverso la messa In atto di una procedura (la neutralizzazione) che trova le proprie condizioni di possibilità nella modificazione di neutralitl, struttura profonda quanto quelle da scoprire, anche se speciale. Ora, la sua specificltl consiste nel fatto di costituire la chiave per quello che è, in definitiva, un percorso a ritroso verso le strutture fondamentali. Qui c'è tutto l'Interesse per noi del pensiero husserliano sulla neutralizzazione: quella che non è che una fra le tante modtlitl della coscienza pura, risulta in realtl la modalità che consente, Investita nel discorso, l'intuizione di quella trascendenza che lo rende possibile. E', c0111e dicevo nelle considerazioni iniziali, lo stesso 110vi• 111ento che fa probleiaa, di volta in volta, nel corso dell'analisi semiotica di testi in cui si producono effetti di senso di un tipo particolare e che sollecitano 11 ricercatore a riprendere in considerazione la probleiaatica, volentieri accantonata per un certo periodo in Seflliotica, della simbolizzazione. Una delle ipotesi che mi ~iono più proaiettenti al 111011ento è proprio quella di affrontare questa problematica a partire da una discussione, tutta da pro111Uo· vere, sullo statuto nient'affatto chiarito del termine neutro all'interno della struttura elementare della significazione. La sua 'vacuità', la sua 'vischiosità narrativa', la sua 'improduttività' ne fanno un luogo estrema11ente delicato dal punto di vista teorico.

726

Esso si oppone ad ogni poslzionalita, proprio c0111e la niodlflcazlone di neutralità in Husserl, e co111e per quest'ultl•a ogni predlcablllta diventa i•possiblle. Anche se nell'allibito ristretto della probleiwatica che sta trattando, cioè quella delle IIIOdalit6 dossiche, Husserl è esplicito al riguardo: Le posizioni pure e semplici, le posizioni non neutralizzate, hanno come correlati delle proposizioni, che nell'insieme sono caratterizzate coaie 'esistenti'. L..] Le posizioni neutralizzate si differenziano essenzialmente In quanto I loro correlati non contengono nulla di possibile, nulla di realmente predicabile. La coscienza neutrale nei riguardi del suo consaputo non ha sotto nessun aspetto la funzione di una 'credenza" . (Husserl, 1976: 241-242). Eppure occorre attraversare 11 neutro perchè 11 valore posizionale, come possibilità del senso, si mostri. Sul quadrato semiotico, ad es~pio, occorre i ncontrare il neutro perchè la categoria che lo contiene come momento della sua articolazione elementare possa essere riconosciuta e den0111inata. G.R.s.1. - EHESS; Parls NOTE 1.

Noi cltla110 dal testo Italiano del le ldeen ••• , vol. I, (traduzione di Giulio Alllney, Einaudi 1950), N la differenza termi nologica è ancor più sensibile nel testo tedesco. In realtà Husserl usa 11 radicale neutr- soltanto riferendosi a ciò che abbl61110 Indicato come •~lflcazl one di neutralità ' (neutralltitsmodi flkatlon). Per quanto riguarda quella che chiu,la110, seguendo l'edi zione italiana, 'neutralizzazione', Husserl adopera parasinonimi e parafrasi e non usa mi il radicale neutr-. I suol termini sono: Ausschaltung (eli•lnazione, esclusi one); Anderung (cambiamento, rettifica); Elnklaaaerung (nessa fra parentesi); Aufhebung (soppressione); Enthaltung (astensione) In Urtei lsenthaltung (sospensione di giudizio).

RIFERIMENTI BIBLIOGRAFICI Greinias , A.J . e Courtés, J., (1979). Sénllotigue. Dictlonnaire raisonné de l a théorie du langage, Paris:Hachette. Husserl, Ed~nd (1976). Idee per una fenomenologia pura e per una

727

filosofia fenoroenologlca. Libro pri110: Introduzione generale alla fen0111enologla pura, (a cura di E. Filippini), Torino:Einaudl (pri~a edizione Italiana nel 1950 sull'edizione tedesca ldeen zu einer reinen Phino11enologie •.• , Den Haag: Martinus Nijhoff 1950).

74 CHAMPS O' INTERPRE'l'ANT

W HOOELE FORMALI SE DE LA SEMIOSIS

Robert Marty

ce travail s'inscrit dans le projet plus ambitieux de construire, essentielle111ent à partir de l'oeuvre considérable de Charlos Peirce, un nodèle satisfaisant du fonctionnement des signes dans la vie sociale . Il vise à élaborer un cadre conceptuel rigoureux permettant une description précise de la semiosis considérée comme processus d'établissement du sens . Il se place donc dans la perspective de l'interprétation. Avant toute chose il convient de bien préciser la conception du s i gne que nous dégageons des multiples définitions qu ' il en a lui m~e données afin d'en retenir les caractéristiques essentielles. SIGNE oaSERVABLE ET SIGNE THEORlQUE

L'étude de ces détinitions et les rétlexions qu'il nous livre nous permettent de dégager les caractéristiques suivantes : - Peirce réserve le mot signe plutOt à la définition des observables : 'par signe )'entends tout ce qui communique une notion définie d'un objet de quelque taçon que ce soit, étant donné que ces comraunications de pensée nous sont familières' (Peirce C.P., 1- 540). - Par contre le mot representamen se rapporte plutOt a l'objet théorique et doit se comprendre comme un élément du modèle fornel au moyen duquel il tente de rendre compte du fonctionnemont des signes dans la vie sociale. 'Partant de cette idée familière, je fais la meilleure analyse que je peux de ce qui est essentiel à un Bigne et je définis un representamen c011111e étant tout ce à quol.cette analyse s'applique' (Peirce, C. P.,p.540). Bien qu'il ait décidé en 1905 d'abandonner cet 'horrible mot long' (Peirce, 1977 : 193) considérant que l'emploi du not signe dans la vie sociale était très proche du sens exact de la définition scientifique nous continuerons à l'utiliser pour le distinguer du signe observabl e.

730

Compte tenu de ce que l'observation r~vèle cOlfflle essentiel les étapes successives de la construction du modèle seront les suivantes et distinguent : - Les relations triadigues qui sont des relations conjointes de trois éléments exprimables chacune par un prédicat à trois places. - Les guasi-signes qui sont des relations triadiques telle que l'un des trois éléments déteI'llline l'un des autres et est lui-m@me déterminé par le troisième. C'est cet élément que nous appellerons 'representamen' et que nous noterons R, celui qu'il détermine sera l'interprétant et sera noté I tandis que celui qui le détermine sera appelé l'objet et notf O. Les quasi-signes modélisent le fonctionnement des systèmes de régulation automatique, des métiers jacquart, des systèmes cybernétiques par exemple. - Les signes qui sont des quasi-signes dont l'interprétant est 'l'acte de connattre d'un esprit' (Peirce, c.P., 2-242). Il s'agit donc là de l'objet théorigue au moyen duquel nous allons tenter de modéliser le fonctionnement des observables . Son caractère théorique est souligné par la désignation de ses éléments par les mots 'representamen, objet et interprétant ' et nous respecterons la décision de Peirce en désignant aussi pour le m@me mot 'signe' le jeu de ces trois instances. tloyennant cette convention la définition suivante qu'il donne du signe en 1908, recouvre exactement notre propos: 'Je définis un signe comme étant quel~ue chose qui est si déterminé par quelque chose d'autre, appelé son objet, et qui Far conséquent détermine un effet sur une personne, lequel effet s'appelle son interprétant, que ce dernier est par là m@me médiatement déterminé par le premier. J'ai ajouté sur une personne cornme pour jeter un glteau à Cerbère, parce que je désespère de faire comprendre ma propre conception qui est plus large'. (Peirce, 1977 : 80-81). Enfin le representamen 'détermine son interprétant à entretenir la mlme relation triadique avec le m~e ob-

jet pour quelque interprétant' (Peirce, c.P.,1-541) c'est à dire qu'il devient A son tour representamen donc détermine un autre interprétant, et ainsi de suite adinfinitum. Voici donc ce qui apparatt essentiel à un signe Récapitulons :

731

Un aigne est une reZation triadique entre troia 4l4ments not4a R, O, I v4rifiant Zea conditione auivantes : - L'AZ4ment O d4termine R de façon que R d4terfflineI - L'4Z4ment I eat un effet mentaL aur un intcrpr~te ou acte de connattre d'un esprit. - L'4Z4ment I m4diatement d4termin4 par O d4tcr~ine son propre interpr4tant et ainsi de suite ad-infinitum. LB CHAHP SEMIO-CULTUREL Cet ensemble d'éléments f~rmels nous paratt rassembler suffisamment d'éléments caractéristiques évoqués par Peirce pour pouvoir constituer l'objet final de notre étude qui est la semiosis c'est à dire l'étude de la dynamique qui aboutit à la constitution d'un tel signe. Mettons cette définition formelle en rapport avec l'analyse phénoménologique : quelque chose R est présent à l'esprit déterminant celui-ci à se mettre dans un certain état I . Et voici qu'autre chose o est présent A l'esprit. On dit alors qu'on a un signe, c'est à dire une relation conjointe de troia phénomènes : - R et I qui sont innédiatement présents dans le chanip de l'expérience, hic et nunc (car l'état d'un esprit est nécessairement présent à cet esprit) - o qui est médiatement présent . Cette tricoexistence de trois phénomènes fait de la phénoménologie du signe une sorte de phénornénologie de seconde intention. La définition à laquelle nous nous sownes arretés n'explique pas connent o, absent du cha111p de l'expérien~.e directe de l'interprète, fait irruption dans ce champ. Le problème posé est donc celui de l'incorporation de l'objet O dans la dyade R, I et donc l'apparition de latriade constitutive du signe. La s&lliosis c'est donc l'histoire de l'incorporation de O, l'histoire de la transformation d 'une dyade en triade. Nous proposons donc d'assurer la prise en charge formelle de ce fait. Auparavant remarquons que si O peut entrer dans le champ de l'expérience c'est qu'il est déjà connecté à l'un dea élélnents de ce champ et cet élément ne peut Gtre que R puisque c'est sa connexion à R qui assure sa connexion à I . Cette connexion est le support de la détermination de R par o. Nous avons alors deux possibilités et seulement 2 vis à vis de I :

732

- Ou bien la relation entre R et o est indépendante de l'interprétant (et elle peut donc Gtre une réalitél. L'interprétant est alors réductible à un effet de reconnaissance. - Ou bien la relation entre R et o est une création de l'interprétant qui étant de la nature de la pensée, à ce pouvoir médiateur qui consiste à établir une connexion entre R et O par mise en rapport de certains caractères de R avec des caractères identiques de o. Dans le premier cas la relation de R à o s ' impose à l'interprète, c'est un déjà-là qui peut itre une relation existentielle (et le signe est alors un indice) ou une association d'idées générales réactivée (et le signe est alors un symbolel. Dans le deuxième cas l'interprète a le pouvoir de renvoyer à n'importe quel objet pourvu qu'il possède au moins un des caractères de R et on sait que le signe est une icone. L'objet est donc incorpori dans la triade parce qu'il est en relation avec le représentamen. Cette relation est - actualisée dans le cas de symbole. - constatée dans le cas de l'indice - créée (par réalisation d'une possibilité objectivc) dans le cas de l'ic6ne. L'interprétant est donc l'effet réel du representamen sur un interprète mais cet effet consi~te précisément à incorporer l'objet dans une relation triadique incorporant par là m&le les deux relations dyadiques de détermination (de R par o, de I par Rl et créant la relation dyadique entre O et I. Plus précisément cet effet s'analyse comme particularité d'un universel pré-requis pour que le signe soit signe. Cet universel est déterminé par la classe des relations objectivables.que le representamen entretient, avant d'agir sur un interprète, avec une certaine classe d'objets réels. Le signe obserbable est manifestation concrète de cet universel : c'est par l'opération d'un signe que cette classe se manifeste comme telle.C'est en ce sens que Peirce déclare'jeter un gateau à Cerbère• en écrivant 'effet sur une personne' car la personne n'est que le support, le lieu des déterminations potentielles ou préétablies entre une chose présente R et une classe d'objets absents du champ de

733

l'expérience . c•est l'ètre social qui est visé ici et en ce sens la soiotique percienne est, d'esablée une sociosémiotique. Elle n'a pRs besoin de préfixe pour élargir son champ. Ces considérations débouchent naturellement sur la notion de champ semio-culturel: Si l'cn d4signe par~ la classe des cbjets ruels, cn appellera champ semic- culturel tcute sous classe du prcduit cart4sien ~ ~~ autrement dit une classe de ccuples d ' cbjets r4els. En d'autres mots le champ semio culturel est l'institué d'une culture une encyclopédie déjà là. A tout objet réel, representamen possible, on peut donc associer la classe CR de tous les objets qui sont en relation avec lui dans le champ semio-culturel à savoir : • Ceux qui sont potentiellement liés à R parcequ'ils ont au moina un caractère commun avec R. • Ceux qui sont liés à R parce qu'ils sont en relati on existentielle avec lui . • Ceux qui sont liés a R par une loi ou une convention sociale. Ce consensus social s'établit évidemment dans la pratique sociale. Ces derr.ières se déroulent en effet dans un espace socio-économique déjà organisé qui exerce sur tous l es acteurs sociaux ce que Bourdieu et Passeron (1970: 19) appellent la violence s~lique qui consiste en l'imposition de slgnlllcatlonsc est I dire d'associations forcées entre objets réels. L'iconicit6 traduirait alors la marge de liberté laissée aux 1naividus. Les conditions de vie étant modifiées,les pratiques sociales {et privées) le sont aussi, ces modifications se cristallisent dans l'apparition de nouveaux concepts {co111111e classes d'équivalence de nouvelles pratiques) ou transfomation du contenu des concepts existants, d'oO la dérivée dans le temps du champ semio-culturel. Le cadre est maintenant fixé pour saisir la semiosis à la fois comnie un phén0111ène logique,sociologique et psychologique. LES ETAPES DE LA SEMIOSIS Nous pouvons procéder à une partition du chlllllp semio-culturel à partir de la division des interprétants en irmnédiat, dynamique et final donnée par Peirce (1977: 111)

734

'L'interprétant immédiat est une abstraction co~sistant en une possibilité, l'interprétant dynamique est un simple événement actuel. L'interprétant final est ce vers quoi l'actuel tend' D'ob le champ des interprétants innédiats qui est: t'ensembl• dee couples d'obj•t• r4ete du champ ••mi o-culturel dont t'un ••t un• possibilit4 qualitative positive. Au niveau de la conscience 11 y a feeling ou Primisen,~ qui .est conscience de Priméité. L'interprétant apparait aonc co11111e le point de contact obligé de la catégorie de Priméité qui définit l'Univers des objets qui.ont leur &tre en eux ml!me d'une part,et de la conscience d'autre part. Ensuite le champ des inte~rétants dynamiques qui est: l'ensembl• des oouptss d'oJets rJefe du champ ••miocutturet dont l'un est un E~istant ou un fait. Il y a nécessa1rement chez l'interprète,que Pe1rce un DIOde de consc1ence à deux c'est à dire consc1ence de R

conscience de secondéité appelle Altersense. C'est faces (Peirce C.P, 7-551) et de o.

Comme 11 y a deux types de secondé1té (authentique ~t dégénérée) on pourra subd1viser ce champ en deux. Au n1veau des modes de conscience 11 y aura so1t sensat1on, so1t vol1tion. Enf1n le champ des interprétant f1nals est : t'ensembL• des couptes d'obJets rJets du champ s4miocuZtureZ dont l'un est un N4ceseitant, c'est à dire tout ce qui de quelque façon que ce so1t s ' impose à l'esprit, tout ce qui est nécessa1reiaent, logiquement ou phys1quement ; ou qui appara1t COlllffle tel pour n' avoir pas été dément1 par une expérience. C'est une régular1té du futur indéf1n1ipour l'interprète, une croyance. Il y a trois sortes de Nécessitants qui correspondent aux catégories de tiercéité authentique, dégénérée au premier degré, dégénérée au deuxième degré et qui sont respectivement: - L'na.1>itus qui est la croyance collective que dans des conditions données, une act1on donnée produira un genre donné de résultat. - Ls lo1 qui est la croyance que,toutes choses égales d'ailleurs,la mbe cause produira les memes effets. - Ouelgue chose d'exprimable dans une proeos1t1on universelle qui est la croyance que tous les objets réels gouvernés par un concept se conformeront à la relat1on

73S

no!Mlée par le prédicat de la proposition . Au niveau de la conscience il y a conscience de Tiercéité ou Médisense dont les trois modes sont respectivement: Association, Suggestion et Abstraction. on obtient donc une tripartition du champ des interprétants fi"'\als. Le champsémi~ulturel est donc maintenant divise en 6 sous-classes correspondant aux catégories phanéroscopiques avec leurs fomes dégénérées. Avant d'aborder la dynamique du signe il faut encore se rappeler que les catégories phanéroscopiques sont hiérarchisées et notamment que la Tiércéité a pour rOle de gouverner la Secondéité et qu'elle est à l'instar des catégories kantiennes l'union de deux autres. Dans notre modèle ceci se traduira dans une stratification des parties : les tiércéités organisent ou plutOt informent les secondéités; par exemple les lois de la physique informent certains phénomènes naturels, des régions du réel sont organisées structurées de sorte que des ensembles d'objets réels dOl'lt ren sarebbe possibile perché definiendum e detlniens si equivalgono (Grelmas, 1970, tr.lt.: 302). A noi pare tuttavia che la situazione Ipotizzata da Grelmas "où toute culture sémantlque est absente", sia una pura fiction da laboratorio. E se nella vita di tutti i giorni non ci comportiamo cosl. non si vede perché dovremmo farlo nella elabora:tlone di una nozione semantica.

743

Il cruclverbista che daUa ( l) volesse ottenere la ( 2), saprebbe certamente di essere sottoposto ad un messaggio enigmistico e modulerebbe le proprie risposte sulla base del tipo particolare di comunicazione cui sta partecipando. In ogni caso anche il solutore più candido saprebbe di doversi attenere ad una regola di genere (Eco, 198411: 275) del tipo 'trova una parola che dia una denominazione alla definizione corrispondente, In maniera tale che la denominazione possa cooccorrere nella griglia reticolare con le altre denominazioni'. Il che non è come comporre un puzzle, ma non è nemmeno come sostituire la cartuccia scarica di una biro. Il lettore di cruciverba é chiamato ad avanzare Ipotesi, a scommettere che le sue capacità Inferenziali sono più spiccate di quelle dell'autore. La sua presenza come lettore è in qualche misura prevista dal cruciverba stesso, almeno come pura potenzialità di riscrittura del senso. Ma C?Ome fa il nostro Solutore Modello a capire quale definizione pub andar bene, senza la verifica empirica sulla griglia grafematica? Col buon senso comune, diremmo. Per ogni definizione egli dovrà effettuare una Inferenza contestuale, Immaginando un codice sconosciuto che dia senso alla definizione. Anche le scrittura cruciverbista (Eco. 1984a, lo ha dimostrato per la crittografia) comporta perclb un movimento abduttivo, attraverso la finzione di una serie di Ipotesi che consentano quella che Pelrce chiamerebbe la sostituzione dl un predicato complesso con uno semplice. Il che, anche se ad un livello elementare, è sempre un processo di Interpretazione. La selezione dell'isotopia corretta non è che qualche volta frutto di casualità: più spesso essa è resa possibile o agevolata da una serie di convenzioni enigmistiche (sulle quali cf. Eco, 1984a:276) In forma di luoghi comuni, sceneggiature, etc. Risolvere un cruciverba non è fare un dizionario, ma verificare il proprio grado di possesso dell'enciclopedia. Il lavoro ordinarlo del solutore è un lavoro In estensione, attraverso una serie di Ipotesi azzardate su porzioni ( spesso distanti) dell'enciclopedia, 'richiamate' dalle occorrenze sememiche contenute nelle definizioni. Che poi queste definizioni assomiglino ad un regesto è altra faccenda: resta il fatto che quando trovo la definizione 'In mezzo al limone'. a meno di non possedere una certa competenza di genere, la prima cosa che faccio è di Immaginare ~ qualche parte un limone e di cercarvi dentro qualcosa. Solo dopo questo lavoro In estensione (credeteci, l'abbiamo fatto con amici) mi renderò conto -ma solo grazie ad una modesta competenza enigmistica- che si tratta di una supposltlo materialls, In cui Il discorso va assunto !!! dleto e non de re: 'In mezzo al limone' = 'mo'. In sostanza, se definizioni come quella sopracitata resultano enigmatiche è perché ordinariamente il cruciverblsta è chiamato a la-

--

---

744

VOl'are In estensione. Pertanto li l'lconoseimento di una Isotopia presuppone Il l'lconoselmento (a livello di Ipotesi) di una pel'tlnenza o di una l'idondanza l'ispetto alla pol'zlone di testo esaminata; coso che l'ichiede una opzione del lcttol'C circa il tipo e le dimensioni dell'enciclopedia da usare. In ogni caso è solo pcl'Ché Il lettore restringe U fol'mato della enciclopedia che è possibile Il giudizio di pertinenza: senza un t11lc Investimento provvisorio di senso non ha senso stabilire cosa è Isotopo e l'lspetto a cosa. Abbiamo visto come il riconoscimento di una isotopia semantica richieda alcune operazioni che travalicano il contenuto linguistico del messaggi . Tuttavia non sembra ancora possibile dlsancoral'C l'Isotopia dalla struttura superficiale di un testo. Per Greimas anzi il riconoscimento di una isotopia è reso possibile grazie all11 ricorrenzn di una categoria o di un fascio di categorie linguistiche nel corso del suo svolgimento. Ora si danno casi In cui tnle ricorrenza di categorie linguistiche non c'è. come, ad esempio, In questo pnsso da !! ~ della ~ di Umberto Eco: Guglielrao da Ueskcrvillc e l'Abete stanno confrontandosi cll'Ca 1•etteggiamcnto da tenere nei riguardi degli eretici e circa la stessa possibilità di distinguere trn eretici ed eretici. "Guglielmo abbassi> gli occhi e stette alquanto In silenzio. Poi disse: "La città di Bézlers fu presa e I nostri non guardarono né a dignità né a sesso né a età e quasi ventimila uomini morirono di spada. Fatta cosi la strage. la città fu saccheg;rlnta e arsa." "Anche una guerl'a santa è una guerl'a." "Anche una guerl'a santa è unn guerra." "(Eco. 1980: lSB). I due ultimi enunciati sono linguisticamente ldonlici. oppure qualunque lettore pul> rendersi conto che i due personaggi non dicono la stessa cosa: secondo quale Isotopia va letto Il lemma /GUERRA/ ? Nessuna categol'la linguistica manifestata è in grado di orientare la nostra selezione. Cii> che muta nello scambio di battute è l'atteggiamento proposizionale dei due locutori: ciascuno di essi opel'o una riduzione del lemma enciclopedico /GUERRA/ mngnificnndo nleune marehe e nal'COlizzandone altl'C, onde poter agire sull'altro. Neppure In questo caso Il codice cl provvede di strumenti cnpacl di render conto della strategia semantica messa in atto dagli attori della comunicazione: cd anche in questo caso la selezione della Isotopia corretta è vincolata ad una ipotesi sul contenuto generale della interazione ve!'bale esaminata. Ma qui slamo già nel campo degli speech !=!!. Una Isotopia è sempre tale pcl' qualcuno. è sempre il frutto di una riduzione dello spettro semantico convenzionale ad uno spettro situaiionalo(cf.Eco, 1984a: 65).

74S

L'Isotopia crea contesti Isotopi, ovvero organizza, a un dato livello, piil elementi in classi coerenti. Essa è una subquantità testuale: non esaurisce tutta la significazione del testo, ma ne organizza solo una parte ponendo il resto sotto narcosi. Si offre a questo punto la posslbllltà di studiare i contesti anisotopi come quelle porzioni testuali che sono di volta In volta scartate dalle Isotopie instaurate nel testo. 1 contesti anisotopl (statutarlamente differenti dalle allotopie analizzate del Groupe Mu, 1976) sarebbero degli scarti infratestuali, necessari alla costruzione del senso, me lasciati deliberatamente fuori pertinenza una volta operate le selezioni Isotopiche. In tal senso somigliano a quelle che Eco ( 1979) chiamava proprietà narcotizzate dei vari scmemi. Uno studio di tal genere rappresenterebbe lo stadio microsemantlco di quei fenomeni che altrove(La M-"\tina, 1982) abbiamo definito come 'semiotica della esclusione': lo studio, cioè, di tutte le operazioni necessarie ad un gruppo di locutori per costruire uno spazio, esterno alla cultura data, nel quale confinare un gruppo di altri parltmtl.

In conclusione, l'Isotopia è un problema posto dalla semantica grelmeslana ma che potrà essere univocamente definito c risotto solo col ricorso agli strumenti della pragmatica . Cl ren:llamo conto che l'operazione va ben oltre la semplice integrazione di un metodo (di per se! esaustivo) con concetti mutuati da altri metodi. La definizione del nostro oggetto tocca i presupposti stessi delle due semiotiche confrontate, ed In gioco non è tanto l'lsotoplaoppure la possibilità di tradurre in termini estensionali una problematica nata In funzione di una semantica chiaramente inlonsionale: cib che è in gioco è 11 volto della semiotica prossima ventura. Facoltà di Lettere Università di Palermo Palermo, Italia RIFERIMEN1'1 BIBLIOGRAFICI Arrivo, Miche! (1973) . Pour une théorle des textos poly-lsotoplques. Lanpgee 31 : 53-63. Derendonner, A. (1976). De quelques aspects logiques de I 'isotopie. Llngulstlque !! sémlologle I: 117-135. Eco, Umberto (1979). Lector in fabula. Milano: B0111plani. ---(1980). li nome della roaa. Milano: Bomplanl. ---( 1984a). Semiotica! filosofia del linguaggio. Torino: Einaudi. ---(1984b). Semlotlcs end the Phllosophy of Language. London: MacMUlan.

746

Grelmas , Alglrdas Jullen (1966a). Sémantlgue structurale. Paris: Larousse. - --(1966b) . Pour une théoric de l'lnterpritation du ricit mythlque. Communications 8: 28-59. - --(1970). ~ ~ - Parls: Seuil. Tr.lt.(1974) . Del Senso. Milano: Bomplanl. ---(1976). Maupassant . La Sémiotlgue du texte: exerclces pratigues. Paris: Scuil. Greimas , A.J. et Courtés J. (1979). Sémiotigue. Dictionnaire raisonné de la théorie du langage. Parls: Hachette. Groupe d'Entrevernes (1977). Signes et paraboles. Sèmiotlgue et texte évangéligue. Paris: Seull. Groupe Mu (1976). Isotopie et allotopie: le fonctionnement rhètorique du texte. Versus 14/2: 41-65. Kerbrat-Orecehionl, Caterina ( 1976ì. Problématlque de !'Isotopie. Llngulstigue et sémlologle I: 11-33. Klinkenberg, Jean-Marie (1976). Le concept d'isotopie en sémantique et on s4miotique littéreire. Le Franc;ais moderne 41(3): 285-290. La ~latina, Marcello (1982). Donne In Aristofane. Appunti per una semiotica della esclusione. In Donna e società. Atti del IV Congresso Internazionale di Studi Antropologici Siciliani (Palermo. 25-27 novembre 1982). in corso di stampo. Rastier , Franc;ois (19728) . Systématique dea isotopies. In Essais de sémlotlque poétlque, Grelmas, A .J . (ed) . 86-94. Parls: Larousse. ---(1972b). Jdéologie et théorie des slgnes. La Hayo : Mouton . ---(1974). Essals de s4miotigue discursive. Tours: Mame. ---(1981). Le développement du c:onc:ept d'isotopie. Parls: Centre Natlonal de la Recherche Sclentl(lque (Actes sémlotlques - Doc:uments 29). Strawlnsky , Igor (1952), Poétlque musicalo. Parls: Plon. Violi , Patrizia (1982) . Du ~é du lecteur. Versus 31- 32: ~34.

76 LA DEMANDE CLINIQUB ET SON INTBRPRETATION

Genaine Matoas1an

Tout.e parole procWe d'une d-,ide 1ssue de la faille du suJet, de la barre qu'elle tente de coebler, et se eout1ent a1ns1 d'et1bl6e par une redondance, un etfet te■porel et epat1al, un euperflu touJoure d6e1tu6 où nous eouiee tenue d'adven1r. Le lang94e nous uetgne a résidence, 11 se fa1t notre deaeure, le Sophron1eter1on ou l'hòte nous tend, dana le miro1r, le retlet de notre redreaee11ent touJours 1nachevé qui néceee1te notre hospitaliaat1on, la gratitude inf1nie envera l'autre-hòte, et, par là • e , le pouvoir ill1■1té de celu1-c1. Le lan8a,ie, interprétant la demande qui émerge du corps, d'un corpa touJoura déJà couch6, au lit, pr1v1leg1e le rapport du .alade au lllédecin, du suJet qui doMe son corps en otfrande pour accéder enf1n au déchiffreinent de soi, cherchant, dans le regard cl1n1c1en, 1'1~• certifiée conforme d'un ■oi un1f1é, 1naltérable et i111110rtel. Qu'en eat-il de ce corps qui se doMe à vo1r, à lire, à tranapercer, à d~couper, à entendre! Pourquoi le corpa tait-il eigne, et aurtout pourquo1 se laisee- t - il énoncer/dénoncer par un discours de pouvoir l'acculant au aympt&me v1a1ble et lia1bleT Le l.:lngage et le édicament entretieMent d'6troitee relat1ona, 11• se convoquent mutuelle■ent. L'un~ l'autre s'avo.le, r.e digàre, ee von,it, circule dana le corpe, a'y installe, y ls1sae des tracea, le viole, s'y incorpora. Le .édicNlent assume et reprend en quelque aorte la fonct1on du langage. Il dispose d'une porttt extrapha.--cologique qui lui penaet de cr6er dea frangea d'interférence y the "queatlon/answer• type of apaach act; of coursa, in tha are of tha whola linguistic macroact we can tind 11oat aubtle ahadea ot illocution and perlocution; !ù_ routinized ~ ritual moves !!! ~ openinq/clostnq1 El_ "evocative", in that each participant la required to subatantiate hia talk conatantly by iaagining the other. In ahort, knowing how to ■anage a telephone conversation depends on~ specific dialoqic subco■petence, as ia also witnessed by the bewllderment 11any elderly people are assailed with when obliged to use such a 11eana of comaunication at a diatance (I remember, for example, •Y father who was only able to repeat •yes• or, ao11eti11ea, •no•-, at nearly regular intervala, when ha tirat had to usa tha phone to call ma) and, theretora, I waa deter11ined to reaearch into the making of thia dialogic aubcoapetence. I bave considered it on the developmental level and tro11 a psychoae■ iotic polnt ot vlew. Thia consista in settlng the analysis of co11municative acta in a trame ot reterence marked at the same tiae by syntactic, se11antic and pragmatic cues. 3uch an approach, discuaaed in detail elaewhere (et. Mininni 1982), haa been theoretically juatifiad not only by aignificant idaaa both by great name in psychology (tro11 BWller to Piaget, trom Mead to Vygotaky) and by the "tounding tathers" ot 11odern semiotics (tro11 Peirce to Morris, from Jakobson to Sebeok), but it indicate& also a possible pattern of convergence tor the most recent trenda ot reaearch in the scianca ot language. Nowadays attention ia frequently paid to tha context, the deteraination ot which ia held to be tha key to explaining many linguiatic phenomena. But the idea ot "context" requires a clear psychosemiotic thematization, tor, on the one

155

hand, the identification of texta alwaya calla for the exiatence of aubjecta involved in acta of communication and, on the other, the formation of individuala alwaya dependa on the 'framing of texte• in autual interaction. This view is not only theoretically faacinating, because it closely links the idea of man with the sign syste11s that ha is able to 11aster, but also ia aupported by empirical evidence produced in many apherea. In 11y opinion it appeara to be corroborateci alao by thie reaearch which, even though through a very apecific topic, tackle• the baaic queation concerning the internalization of contextual data. How have welearned to turn •explicit context• into 'implicit context•, when the com11unication allows references only to the latter? Telephone interaction may be eeen as an effective training of a child'• symbolic capaciti•• directed to recognizing the personal ■ark of utterances. The child aoon learna to build up an iaage of another person aa an utterer, to feel the conversation texture as an interlacing of voices, to 11entally envisage an •ego" on hearing the latter•s voice alone. 2.

METHODS ANO PROCEDURE OF ANALYSIS

The subjects of thia reaearch are five children: 11y daughter Alba Nicoletta (A,N.1 12-28 aonths), her cousin Michele (24-36) and her frien\• Marcella (28-36), Luigi (32-42) and Francesca (42-50). All the children belong to middle class families and live in the same town (except Luigi'e faaily), so they can eatabliah varioua relationa among theaaelvea, even if with a different frequency. Though their parenta were reputed by the writer as being efficient collaboratora, the reaearch was preaented to them aa having a more neutral purpose, namely ai■ing at ascertaining the degree of phonological differentiation in language acquistion. The research was planned and carried out so that it ia centered on A.N. and Francesca, not only becauae they represent both the start and finiah reapectively, on the level of cbronological diatance envisaged, but chiefly because they symbolize the two types - longitudinal and transversal - of procedures used. As I spent so many of 11y days with A,N., I could proceed by the method of "participant observation" and so follow (longitudinally) the developmental stages of her relation with the telepbone, beginning froa the sensoaotory level of the handling of the object up to the actual performance of tbe firat - very si11ple - real dialoguea. The recording on aicrocassettea (Sanyo, Model no. TRC

7S6

5750) of •verbal games with the telephone" and taking notes of contextual data have allowed •e to control a possible course of sbaping such dialogic subcom.petence. Th• presence of double telephone in the other children•• hou••• permitted one of their parente to carry out analogous recordings of their interactions. At least twice a month I recorded my telephone conversations with each of the children in the "control group". Their chronological arrange•ent per111its the coverage of the whole period of time envisaged, na111ely the aecond biennium of child's life, so we ■ay put forward a guess as to the evolution 111odalities of A.H. •• "telephone co111petence". I will consider as "data" to be analysed: ~) all A,H. •s telephone interactions (marked ~); B) a corpus of at least 16 telephone conversations (111arked !) involving each of the tour children of the "control group", which have been differentiated in this way: !a: 4 conversatione under gaae conditione during the 1nitial atagee of recording !b: 4 conversations with me; ~: 4 conversations with other people; !d_: 4 conversations under ga■e conditions during the final stages of recording. By "game conditions" I m.ean the use of a telephonetoy (present in every house) or the use of the telephone aa a toy in~ atmoaphere of fiction. Tbe analyais of data atte111pts to glve an answer to the following queetion: which m.odifications intervene in the child's linguistic performance and in his psychological world when s/be changee from the conditions ot "playing with the telephone• to those of actual interaction at a distane•? 3, ANALYSIS AHD IHTBRPRETATIOH OF DATA

The firat observations concering A,H. •s interest in the telephone date back to the aga of 13 111onths: when she hears the words "telephone" or "Hallo", she brings her right hand, with bent fingeres, to her right ear. This 111ovem.ent, accom.panied by so■e vocalizations ("eh-eh"), become• the eign which na••• the situation and it ie used in order to demand the toy, when she cannot reach it. When she is 15 m.ontha old, ahe begina by uttering the sound [gou) (which we interpret aa "Hallo") as she bringa the receiver of her toy to her ear. FUrthermore, she has fixed this behavioural sequence: to lift the receiver, to draw the receiver (occasionally the wrong way round) towards her ear, to turn the dial and to push

7S7

is pro111oted by previous training on the syllbolic game level, 'Playing with the telephone• conatitutes tro111 one•s earliest years a powertul, routinized procedure ot language learning, through which the child aesi111ilatee interaction etrategies, checks i ntonation pattern&, consolidates his knowledge ot the world (encyclopedia) with an increasing lexical propriety and shapea hia first syntactic etructuree. For all theee reaeons it ie a source ot usetul data concerning dialogue in children and with adulte. At the sa111e ti111e, however, according to the aaturing ot hie e1110-cognitive and interactional structures, the child assiailates the •telephone subcompetence•, as he pragmatically controls his consciousness of turn-taking and the resonance ot a voice difterent tro111 his own. The two conditions ot symbol ic game and ot real exchange seem to be in a chiaetic relation aleo tro111 two to tour yeare, that ie why an initial tondness tor the game situation - where the child hae full liberty ot giving voice to h i e interlocutor, although he seems to be addressing only hi111eelt - ie replaced by a practice ot actual interactione, which gradually get richer and richer on the diecouree level. The linee ot this chiae111ue could sustain an initial explanation according to tne theoretical tramework which was set up by the renowned discussion between Piaget and Vygotslcy on the nature and li111its ot egocentric language. The obaervation that at the beginning the iaagined interlocutorie preterred to the real one (aleo by children with remarkable linguistic 1 co111petence') ie a tact which might prove that both are right, For, it on one hand it corroborates Piaget•e intuition about egocentric language, on the other it supporta Vygotslcy•e statement about an original socio-co111111unicative function ot language, which leads the child to internalize his/her egocentric pertormances, Such an interpretation, however, ■ight be integrated with a 'dynamic-contextual approach' (et. Slaaacazacu 1968), which tenda to deaonstrate the process ot consolidation ot eone ehared aodalities ot categorization in actual developaental sequences. At the beginning the •possible absentee•, who111 the child addresses in hi• telephone play, is blended with the context in which s/he tinds him/herselt and theretore it is equally •real'; on the contrary, the existence ot a •real abeentee• cauees trouble and it tends to lock the child into aonosyllabic utterances ('Yee•, 'No', 'Hallo', etc.), becauee thie person is an unreal voice, which breaks the experiential unity ot the context interiorized by

1$8

the child up to that point. The child masters the dialogic subcompetence required by the telephone medium where s/he is able (at least to a saall degree) to reter to an implicit context, namely when s/he can evoke within him/heraelt the iaage ot other people as speech producers. For this end s/h• bas tirst ot all to tit tbe •topicalization dyna■ ics• (et. Winskowski 1977) into the counsciousness ot the teatures peculiar to telepbone interaction. Tbe cbild begins by paying attention to typical moves ot opening and closing the conversation, then a/ha realizes the need of speech ti••• alternating with silence times1 later on a/be notices the frequency ot assenting expressions with phatic tunction ( 1yea ••• yes') and tinally s/he takes account of standardized tormat which organize the topicalizatino dynaaics according to the procedural rules ot the 'adjacent pair' (cf. Sacks 1972) and ot 'dialogic syntax• (et. Slama-cazacu 1981): e.g. "well, when shall we meet? Let's meet •••//Tomorrow". The most iaportant presupposition ot telephone interaction i• of a pragaatic nature, in that it concerna the acceptance ot others as co-producers of sanse, thou9hlacking ma~y contextual eiies. Th• consoITdatlon ot symbolic pract ces - througb the retining ot imitative techniques, the enrichllent ot linguistic torms, more and more complex games, etc. - allows the •possible absentee• to begin to break away trom his ego and tend more and more to coincide with the •real absentee•, to whom a tull contextual existence is progressively recognized. The cbild's context widens out, indeed, in the sanse that it takes tor real a voice (an •ego') beyond his perceptive setting, to the point ot completely sharing a speech topic with another represented only by image. During the tirst tbree years tbe •telephone game• is an eng\ging symbolic activity, even though - as my corpus shows - the speech focus wbicb the child trias to sbare with an imaginary •you• is often shifted by non-connected elements drawn from situational contexts s/he is still strictly sticking to. Nevertheless, througb tbese •voice gaaes• the cbild has the possibility of testing the adequacy ot soae telephone interaction routinee (e.g. 'ahi•, •yea, Y••', 1hold the line, pleasel ', •yes, ha'•···', 'I'• sorry•, 'I was torgetting to tel1 you ••• •, 'Now her•'• granny ••• '). As aoon aR the child has tested - just through the •voice games• - the possibility ot an invisible interlocutor, namely, as s/he has inwardly built the interactional presuppositions tixinq ! voice ~ !:h! other person•s lmaqe, s/he is ready to actually speak

159

over the telephone. S/he will begin taking the cues troa grown-up people and very eoon will graep the 'intor 111ational' logie vhich supporta the •queetion-anewer dialogues• (~t. carleon 1983) peculiar to telephone interactiona, where a/he will end by increasingly tilling the tirat role aa it fro111 the tollowing example ot 111y corpus (~2): Francesca (F: 45,8) rings Aunt Paola (P) up. P.: 'Hallo••• who is speaking? • F.: 'When are you coming over? How naughty you are and a bit silly too to bave put ott co111ing over•.

•••rg••

(

... 'And have you got to go to achool to111orrow?• )

P.: F.:

(

...

'I don•t know• (she addresses ber aother, calling out: •MU-y, have I gotto goto school to111orrow?•, her 111other i• overheard replying: •we 111ust vait and •••• dear, if you are batter, you can, it you•ve got earache, we shall have to goto the doctor•a1 then F. repeata thia making a tew changea:) •we must wait and see, it you ~ batter, you ~ ; if I've got ear-ache, we shall bave to goto the doctor•s•.

)

Actual interaction over the telephone present• the child with (at least) two particular problema: 1) How canone overco111e the e111barrassment ot opening and closing the talk? 2) How canone fit apeech modalities according to the subject, the interlocutor and his interactional role? As a mattar ot tact the child has to weigh up when and how to employ the toraulas vhich s/he hae already assi111ilated1 at tirst it aay happen that s/he bringa the subject up directly, without exhibiting his identity or without greeting or, on the other hand, that s/he hastens to say••bye bye• when the interlocutor is still speaking or, also, that s/he reaains silent even though the other has tinished his turn. The second problea particularly is ot a linguistic nature, tor it points out the child's capability ot titting the speech theaatic organization according to the role ot another aerely •evoked' by image. The telephone interaction often leads the child into a aaze characterized by a blending together ot direct, free and indirect apeech. The exaaple above cited shows that at the torking between reporting and reported speech the child wanders and gets bewildered (et. also Hiller 1981). 'l'bis happens l>ecause speaking on the telephone

760

otten exposes the 'given-new contract• (et. Clark and Haviland 1977) to heavy strain, so the child does not always succeed in mastering the distinction between topic and comment or in orientating the theaatic structure of conversation with respect to the connection between the exactness of referential inforaation and the noraative patterns (on the syntactic, seaantic and pragmatic levels) of speech texture. All this would require well developed aetalinguistic and metacognitive abilities in the child. 4.

CONCLUSION

In the contemporary world coaaunicative competence and encyclopedia acquisition on behalf of the child includes, in aost cases, the internalization of a very specific behavioural and relational pattern, which qualifies hi• to talk with another without sharing his situational setting. Later on the child will be able to further i11prove hia skills, but already through the firat tour yeara of symbolic ga11es he managea to build an i11age ot other people aa partners in an interaction which has its co11111unicative peculiarities. The assigning of an ego to an absent voice and the retining ot speech modalities are, trom a paychosemiotic ~nt ot view, among the more promin8nt diaenslons of e awiriiiiis that human coamunication aay hang by a thread ••or a wirel Facolta di Lingue e Letterature straniere Universita degli studi di Bari B.\ri, Italia NOTE l,

The nUllbera in brackets indicate the period of observation and of recordings I referto here. More details on this work in progress are available in Mininni, G. (in presa).

RBFBRENCES Carlson, Lauri (1983) Dialogue Games. Dordrecht: Reidel. Clark, H.H. and Haviland, s.E. (1977) Comprehension and the Given-new Contract. In Discourse Production !n,!! comprehension, Freedle, R, (ed.). Norwood (N.J.): Ablex, 1-40. Killer, George A. (1981). LangUage ~ speech.

761

San Francisco: w. H. Freeun. Kininni, Giuseppe (1982). Psicosemiotica. Bari: Adriatica. --- (in 2reaa). "Pronto, È!! parla?. !!!! ap2roccio 2iicoaeii!otico all'ontogenesi della •competenza tele tonica• • Sacks, H. (1972). on the Analyzability ot Stores by Child.ren. In Directions in sociolinquistics, Gullperz and Hymes (eds.).-Ne York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Scheglott, E.A. (1968). Sequencing in converaational Openinga. American Anthropologist, 70: 10751095.

Slaaa-cazacu, Tatiana (1973). Introduction to Psrcholinquistics. The Hague: Kouton (t rst published in 1968). (1981). Interpersonal relations and dialogue structuring: on 'dialogic syntax•. International Journal 2! Psycholinquistics 8-4 (24):

57-103.

Winakowski, Chriatine (1977). Topicalization work in telephone conversations. International Journal ot Psycholinguistics, 4-1 (7): 77-93.

78 SCIBlfCE BT stM1orIQUB DAHS L8 ROMAN-SAVOIR, NOII-SAVOIR SJ' TRANSPORMATION DANS L'Alf'l'IPHONAIRB DB HUBBRT AQUIN Plerre-Yvee Mocquale

IN'l'IIODUCl'ION Au polnt de d~part de notre réflexlon ee trouvent deux observatlona . Pre■làreaent tenter d~g9&er dea éléttent• de réponae à certainea questiona poaéea par l'oeuvre ro■aneeque de l ' écrlvaln quéWcols HIibert Aquln et, plus generaletaent, par toute oeuvre ro,oaneaque qui intàgre une connaleaance encyclopfdlque telle qu'un savoir scientifique. Relativement au aecteur particulier dea connaisaances du ■onde qu'est le savolr sclentiflque, l'oeuvre ro■aneaque aoulàve en ettet troia queetlona: celle dea rapporta qu'entretl eMent ce aavoir extérieur au texte et le dlacoura ro■aneaque; celle aubaéquente dea conditlona de tranator■atlon ro■aneaque de ce aavoir; celle entln du etatut et du r&le de ce aavolr dana l'oeuvre roaaneaque. La seconde obaervatlon à la baae de notre réflexion eat le caractàre flou et controvem de toute th6or1e de la rérérentlallaation qul n'auralt pour obJet que le seul contexte altuatloMel, ■e■e al l'exaaen dea procédurea de l'lllualon rétérentlelle a'appuyant aur une a&iiotique du ■onde naturel préeente touJoura une certaine utiliti, C'est la raiaon pour laquelle, au-dela d'une théorie de la réf6rentlal ieation dont l'obJet excluaif aerait l'extralinguistlque, nou, nous eocnea etforcia de Nchercher certaina pal'aMtrea plua ayatéutiquea relevant quant à eux du contexte lingui11tique. l!n conaéquence, en étudlant lea condltlons particullàres qui préaident à la tranafol'lll&tlon du aavolr sclentltique exteriéur au texte dans la aé■iosia spécitique au roaan, nous aerons a■enéa, apràe un certain not1bre de ~ u e , n6ce11aires portant 1ur l'extralingulatique, à nous intéreaeer plu• partlculiàre■ent à certains ph6n011àne1 dlacurslts relevant du lingulstlque.

L'AlfTIPHONAIRB DB HUBBRT AQUIN Putsque c'est l'oeuvre ro■aneaque de Hubert Aquin qul est à l'origine de notre réflexlon, voyons rapideaent coaaent se pr6aente l'exe■ple sur le~uel nous travailleron,: le trolsiàae ro■an d'Aquln, l'Antiphonalre. Le cboix de l'Antiphooaire s'l■poaait en eftet. Trou de INiaoire intàgre - et ciana une la.rge Maure encode -- tout un ayatàae de r4férencea à la acénographle baroque

764

italieMe, à l'art de l'anamorphose età l'alchi■ie, He1ge Ho1re se prbente c->Me un 11cémir10 de fil.li et incorpore d'une part dee r4férencee précioee à lll tregédie llaalet d'autre part tout un réreau intertextuel mythcloglque. Seul l'Ant1phonaire intègre un eavo1r sclentifique. Troia élé■ent~ caractéri1ent l'Antiphonaire: deux 1netancee énonc1Atives et un cor.texte extrelif1'111Stique précis. Ces deux instances enonciatives eor.t produites par un nke narra~ appelé Chrl.atine Foreatier. A :u: premier n1veau, Chr1st1ne ~1ge un Jcurr.al autcblographique ciana lequel elle raconte see débo1res à la •~ite dee abue que lu1 a fa1t subir Jean-W1ll1u, son mari ép1lept1que, ainsi que sa fulte de Callfornie vere Montréal pour échapper aux lnatlncts IM!urtrlers de Jean-Wllllu. A un deuxil■e niveau, Chriatlne ra~onte lea pér6grinat1on, d'un manuscrit et de• personnea entre les aaalna deaquelle& 11 passe aucce,s1ve■ ent. L'aetion de ce réclt ~ecor.d se passe en Italie, en Suisse et en rra.~ce, au XVIe siècle à l'époque de la Ré!orme. Le manuacrit qu1 est l'oeuvre d'un cer"-in Jules-Céear Beauaanc, ■édecin de son état, s • inti tule le "TnS«es .

79 ECRITUIIB ET LECTURB l'ILMIQUES, PROLl!OOMBMES A UNE TIIBORIB DE L'lll'l'EIIMEDIALITI!! A L'l!!Xl'J!PLE Dl!!S 'LIAISON$ DANGl!!REUSBS' DB CHODERLOS DE LACLOS• Jurgen E, Hiiller

l,

Jamaia Je n'eua tant de plaiair en voua 6c:rivant; J1111&ia Je ne reaentia, dana cette occupation, une &otion ai douce et cependant ai vive. Tout ae■ble aUgJDenter ■e• tranaporta: l'air que Je respire eet plein de volupW; la table ■hie sur laquelle Je voua 6c:ris, conaAcrée pour la pret111àre foia à cet uaage, devient pour noo1 l'autel aacré de l'eaour; co■b1en elle va a'e■bellir à mea yeux! J'aura1 tracé eur elle le aer■ent de voua ai■er touJoure. ( Lettre du Yico■te de Vahont à la Prbidente de Tourvel) (Lacloa, 1972: 133 - Lettre XLVIII) Une nouvelle fola un vico~te uoureux e'adreaae à une r-e déairée et adorée. Avec ea repréaentation outranciàre d'un ré~ertoire de créancea (cf. Grivel, 1984a, 1984b) et de aymbolea traditionnela, l'expéditeur veut convaincre la deatinataire de la force extraordinalre de aea senti■ente, de l'ardeur i■pétueuae de aa paaeion et du caractàre unique que prend l'acte d'écrire en cet 1natar.t. L'état quaai-or411amique dea •tranaporta", cet "air plein de volupté" aont à la fois aurtaita et légiti~• par la fonctionnalieation 1ntertextuelle de aymbolea rel1g1eux. La i6tichieat1on, voire la aacral1aation d'une table comae preuve l!Xaltée d'un uour fou? llllcore un ,:eu(-atandard) outrancler dana la traditlon écraaante de la repréaentation littéraire de l'uour? Oui mais ••• : ce d&but d'interpr6tation d'une c6làbre lettre dea Liaison• dangereuaes ne correspond aans doute paa à l'expcfrience faite par le lecteur de notre rocan épiatolaire: elle !ndique ~lutat quelquea ■odalitéa plauaiblea de se. réception par !be de Tourvel, dana le Monde fictif du texte. Alors, pourquoi notre pretii~re approche prl!te-t-elle à diacuaaion! l!!lle pr@te à diacuaaion, parca que nous ne l'avona paa encore aitufe dana le coura de la atructure narrative du ro■an. Arrivé Ì ce polnt de la n.,rration dont le frapent est extrait, le lecteur eat déJà inatruit (pré-infor■é) de la a1tuat1on part1cula1re dana laquelle ae trouve Valmont loraqu'il écrit (ou a 6c:r1t) cea lignea. Ce aavoir aé:11menté (cr. Schut:r. et Luckllann, 1975: 216 tt., Berger et Luck■ann, 1971) est devenue le cadre et le fond de la lecture de cette lettre. Dana aa p~édente lettre, adreHée à aa confidente lhe de Nerteull, Valllont donnalt une deacriptlon bien dlttérente du ~ acte d'écritu.re. Il 1nfo~1t Mile de Merteuil qu'en écrivant, une coquette lui aervait de:

pupitre pour écrire à 11111 belle Devote, à qui J'ai trouvé plai8ant d'envoyer une Lettre ferite du lit et preaque d'entre lea bras d ••.ine fil le, interrompue ■&e pour une intidéll té coaplete, et dana laquelle Je lui renda un c00tpte exact de o,a aituation et de• ~onduite, Em1lie, qui a lu l'Epttre, en ari coae une folle, et J'eapère qilo voua en rire~ au1ei, (Lacloa, 1972: 131 - lettre XLVI!) Il ex1ate un autre cadre2 dana lequel vient s'inerire la "conduite" d~ Valmont, un cadre qui, dirigeant l'activité , conatituante de la conacience du lecteur, pr~rganiae la fonction dea aignea et dea aynabolea arrangéa dana notre extrait de la lettre XLVIII. L'actual1aat1on 'ad6quate' du sena de notre première citation et lea réactlona du lecteur qui peuvent en r6aulter (plaiair provensnt de la aituation piquanto, de 1'1ron1e, le redou'bleMnt de la lecture, 1'1nd1gnat1on, la conaternation, la Jouiasance que suecite la perveraité de Val.mont ••• ) préeuppoeent le savoir dea diff&rente cadres d'une N@■e aituation repréaentée et dea diffirentee ■odalitie d'inte rltationa dea mimee crtì.ncea e1tuat1vea 1 ■ot1on', "la table", "l"air' ••• cf, illler, 1984) par lee protagoniatee, Ce proceaeua implique 4gale■ent le savoir que cea créancea aont fonctionnaliaéea par ValJlont dana le but de tromper. Ce aont la mise en perapective et le dou'ble■ent - ou si l'on veut, le triple■ent - dea procédures du cadrage d'une~ action et de sea iNplications qui csuaent l'effet coneidérable produit par notre paragraphe. Le succès énorme dea Liaiaona dangereu•~• peut auesi &tre expliqué par ce Jeu bien calculi avec dea criancee, c'eat-à-dire avec dea élé■enta du aavoir aocial qui 3ont tenua pour dee véritéa et qui auggèrent tout d'abord qu'une h1ato1re d'anour va c0111Mncer, 111&18 dont la fonct1on eat auaa1tat euApendue dana le réperto1re (cf, Ieer, 1976) du texte et dana la conat1tution de la narration. La série dea ~75 lettrea du roaan conatitue une chaine narrative de situationa dana leaquellea se auccèder.t troo,perie, aéduction, déception et déailluaion (cf. KUUer, 1981,). Dana notre aitWltion, "l'infidelité coaplète• et 'l'aveu de l'uour profond' 1nterfèrent en penu.nence. Le aavoir concernant la a1tuat1on piquante dana laquelle Valmont a écrit la lettro à Male de Tourvel falt partie intégrante du proceeeua de lecture du ro,nan par le lecteur: ce dernier partage ce eavotr avec le protagonieto -- 'puiaqu'il va de aoi que la repréaentation de l'amour n'eat qu'une feinte' - ■aie le lecteur •1nfère • de surcrott, en prolongeant le chulp perceptif de aa lecti:re par dea protenalona aur l'avenlr du cadre de la réceptlon par MIiie de Tourvel, Ayant dana son hor1&on dea ritentions (cr. Merleau-Ponty, 1945: ,16) le a111Ulacre de 1'1dent1t~ de cette protagoniste, 11 va Jusqu'à 'suppoaer' qua cette r - prend &u eér1eux les lignea qu'elle parcourt. Et c'eat &1nai que dane la narratlon du texte l1ttéra1re, noa deux c1tat1ons f1nissent par évoquer une s1tuat1on de "troaperle fondallentale".

77S

Me tournant vera la question dea relationa 1nterm6dlalea, Je penae qu'll est pertinent d'aborder le problne en reconatruiaant ce qu'une certaine transtoraation filaique tait de cette situation de tNlmperie au niveau de la structure narrative que noua venona de décrint en partie.

2. Dana son fil.a Lea liahona dangereuaea, Charlea Brabant6 a de toute évidence esaayE de rester proche du texte littéraire; preaque tou11 les clialoguea et comoentairea parUa aont identlques au 11od~e textuel du ro«aan de Laclos. En ce qui conceme la structure du répertolre du fil.li, la seule diN'érence maJeure par rapport à la Mrrn>,ion du texte eet le fRlt que Brabant introdult une aérie diaperaée de ecànea contraetivea, ciana leequellea le citoyen Choderloa de Laclos-dans l'atmosphàre opp~easante d'une cellule de la Prlaon de Plcpua (11 y attend la mort) - eat contronté à une fenne construeuae au visace ravagé (le ai11ulacre de Mlle de Merteuil); cea acènes aont inté&réea à la repréaentation du DOnde rartin~ et libertin de l'ariatocratie à la veille de la révolutlon. Ma18, coame 11 est nalheureusement néceaaalre de reatreindre la c011plexité de notre tiche autant que faire se peut, la démarche utllleée lei pRr le réaliaateur - al lntéreesante eoit-elle -- ne peut taire l'obJet de cet article. Il convient aeuleraent de aavoir coment l'univei• du diacours, tel qu'il est établl dans le roaian épiatolaire du 18 aiecle, est transton,& par le biaia d'un autre média qui - telle ae aemble etre l'intention du réalisateur -- veut rendre transparent un procesaus de coamunication qui est fondé sur le Mdia textuel, sur dea lettres, aane 11ettre en acène lee chatnea narratlvee de toutea les lettrea qui eont au noebre de 175. En revenant à notre aituation paradigmatique, la "situation de troa,perie tondallentale", Je Vllis souligner quelquea aspecta de la tranepoeition d'une reprdeentation textuelle en une repr4sentation tilaique 1 partir de la mise en acène par Charles Brabant, Cette analyae qui préauppoae l'auton011ie dN deux veraiona édiatiquea, va se baa~r sur les principea de la t~rie et de la ■éthode phéno■énologiques, c'eat-à-dire qu'elle va tenter - per detinitionea -- de reconstruire lee principale• fonies d'activité illaf:inative du N!cepwur par rapport aux atructurea dea deux repN!aentation• de la aitURtion. Cette procédure 'deecriptive' n'a paa pour but de conatituer une théorie déJà finie de l'inter■édialité qui eat encore A développer, maia elle va percettre la mise au point de quelquea aspecta et de quelques questiona déciaita d'une telle théorie. Notre altuation est ~isée en troia prlsea de vue. La pre11ière est un gros plan aur Va.lAont qui dit le texte de sa lettre à Mlle de Tourvel. La dewciètae priee de vue, un groa plan également, nous ■ontre la r - en traln de lire; aa tason de lire (la volx de Val.aont en hora cha■p acco■pagn• la pNeiàre phaae de

176

l& leetllN) 1Mlque qu'elle Ht trà faue; elle pleure, elle croit l l'a11tbent1c1te et aux 1apllcatlone du pesal°""'• rinaleaent, dana l.a trobihe priee de ,,ue, la penpectlve de la ceaéra •'flarglt et le epect.ateur appread, ciane quellea clJ'conat.ancea, dane quelle e1tuat1on Valaont icrlt aa lettre. "L'autel•, •1a table", c'Ht◄-dlre lea teeaee d'BIIWe deviennnt vlaiblee, Dane notre analyae del& venia, filalque, nous alloa• tenlr coapte du aontege efquentlel dee troie prl••• de vue; noua alloru1 eaaa7er de d"8ger dea fl.enta de l'acti•lt.4 11entale de 1pectateur/audlteur 'nait' (Je 111ppoee que le ricepteur n'a pu encore lu le texte litt&-aire) 8 qu1 pourra1ent !tre ~enc41 par 1 •arranaeaeat fU.aique . Ce que le fila 'noue tau.•9, .. ftre contronté au proceHee de reception du texte littéraire, tel que nou.a l'a•ona en parti• NCODetruit p ~ t .

-eec•

Nous nous rappelons que le lecteur de notre paracraphe dea L1a1sons de.ngereuses sait d'avance dana quelles cond1t1ons Yalaont a Ecrit sa lettre 'd'aaour'. Cela vaut- 11 ausai pour le spectateur du fila? 1 M8M s'11 réfàre le premier shot l sa concrét1sat1on O dea traita pr1nc1paux du carac"re du protagoniste (sa perverdt, notawnt), l ce po1nt de la narration filaique, le apectateur ne connatt pas (encore) lea cir«>natancea délicates de la production de ce texte. A ce ■o.ent-la, la version fillDique ne peut lui suuérer 1'1dt!e que le V1coaate est occupé l autre èiiose qu' la rt!dfttion d'une lettre. Les signes verbaux, non-verbaux, prosodiques et paral1nguist1quea (sa voix qui aouligne l'enivruent tiré de cette action), repréaent&f1dana le cadre du plan i■pliquent la conatitution du the■e au1vant: une nouvelle foia, Valeont veut conva1ncre MIiie de Tourvel de son a■our (taux). Du c8té du apectateur, la l1111tat1on de l'eapace fil111que (IIO\IS ne voyons que la tete et les dpaulea de valmont aur un fond clair) produit et néeesftite une expans1on de son activ1té ■entale (y coepris affect1ve). Sena pouvo1r le voir, il va 'sentir' et acquér1r la 'cert1tude' que le protagoniste est en train d'écrire une lettre. Le seul indice que cet acte de production pourra1t 8tre différent dea actes précédenta est le fait qu'1c1, pour la pruiiàre foia, Valaont ne po::-te plus sa perruque; l'absence d'un signe attendu indique l'éventU&lité qu'un statut extraord1na1re Ht contéré l l'ftcte d'écriture, Mais ciana la métlloire du spectateur, lea ■otits de Valaont sont déJl connua. L'absence d'un accessoire, d'un signe nol'ft&l.et11ent visible ne g!ne donc paa de toute ta~on la 111se en référence quasi-auto■atique d'une sc~ne et d'une act1on attendues par rapport au l\8Voir du spectateur, car son savoir i11pliq1te q1te lea protagoniatea s'écr1vent.

i•

778

MM de Tourvel et la lettnr rén4chtn dan• le ■1ro1r, le(a) v1.,..e(a) et le(e) papter(e) 6clair61 eur un rond 1o■bnr rocaltaat1on du regard a\lJ' la lettre et doubl-,it d'une lect\lJ'e doubl6e dan• le■ yeux d'-1 epectateur. La voix de Valllont dane le hons chulp dee pre■Ull"ff eeeondes du plan ratte.elle l 'acte de Frocluction l l'acte de réc:eptton. Le principe du ■ontage euggàre la coneomation 1-'diate d'une écritUN non-acco■plle, la r6c~tion eet 1n"gr6e l la eituatlon de productlon et vice verea; il y a une lecture en eeeret d'un obJet ctiargé de d611nre dont la product1on eet devenue co-prieente, un proceeeus qui est eltu6 l l'horiion de la conecience dli epectateur conetttuant l a • • ~ de la lect~. Par rapport au pre■1er ehot de notre eltuatton, la Np~eentation de la lect\lft de la let.tt"e ronctlonne . •t1aeb1'orvard• (une etrllcture r1i.1que aeeei ran, •1• qui -ble bien valable lei). Bral>ant a con~u une anticipatlon - cela veut di:r-e aueei ,me r6Jl('l1ee - lune lettre dont le proceeaue de production n'eet pu encore achev6. Dana notro cae exe■pla1re, le rtl.11 en t:u,t que ■6d1a &Ctualie6 une ■odlù.1te ep6ctr1que et

m 1ntéreasante de l '1nteméd1al1té. 12 La 't1lmat1sat1on• d'un Jeu namtif de deux ou troia lettres du roman ép1stola1re peraet d'1ntégrer lea réactions de la dest1nata1re ciana l'acte de product1on. Ce qui iaporte n 'eat pas le fait que MIiie de Tourvel soit en tra1n de lire, mais aa taçon de lire, aon ea1eieeeaient, ••• pleure, sa réponae à haute voix qui eat d'a1lleure un extrait de la lettre qu'elle écr1t en réponae à Vallllont dana le roman épistolaire, la représentation de aes éaaot1ons, de aea croyancea, de son cadrage de la lettre. Le apectateur en conclut quaaiautoaatiquement que la lettre dont 11 a conatitué l'acte de production (11 n'a pae vu Vallllont en train d'écriret) a été envoyée et qu'elle eet arrivée ectateur du t1l11 recadre le llhe proceaau9. ~ r é cette dittb.nce conaidérable de iioa deux verslons d'une a1tuat1on paradig■atique, le• rkepteure peuvent Jouir du repriaenté d'une 111111ilre COlllp&J'&ble. Le pla1a1r, lea 4motlons, le a&ialseeeent, la Joulaeance (rétroepective) de la perver11ité de Valeont, •• du •P!ct&teur ne aeront pu trop éloignéa de ceux du lecteur, ■&le al, au niveau dee eystàeee de signee et du ■ontage, lea activitfa eentalea correapondantes des r6cepteurs des deux textea eédiatiques aont dittfrentes. Pour qu'il solt poeelble que l'écran nous trane■ette une expérlence ei■ilaire à celle de la lecture (peut-8tre Brabant pen•a-t-11 à un tel ettetf), la traneposition tilelque doit aussi changer la structure t•porelle du texte littéralre. Naia n'eat-11 pu néceaa&lre de dégager cette procédure pou~ rendre poseible dee exp6riencee ei■llaire, du Nfcepteur par rapport l nos deux textes "'41atiqueaf [,e platair de la lecture du texte 11tt6ra1re repoae aur l& procédure et l'act1v1t6 nientale• et laaginative• qui•• reprlrent dane le lecteur sous la torme d'un Jeu et de la lllise en r6térence dea C&dNll; le aavoir sédieent6 dea conditlone de l'écriture de la lettre de Val■ont ne •gene• paa, au contraire, il est nécesaalre pour Jouir du doubleioent/tripl-nt de son sena. La réception de 1 •écri t par Mr.e de Tourvel eet c:>-préaente. Ce plaieir ne peut paa etre produit de ■anilre aatiataisante par la veraion til■igue qui, ai elle veut théaatiaer le fait qu'on échange dea iettrea, dolt ré-preaenter un procesaua de ccanmication, c'est-à-dire ~u•eue Mate

782

doit lier l'acte de réception à l'acte de production et doit aussi -- in6vitableaent -- représenter le 1110nde de réception; lei, il n'y a plus beaucoup d'espace, de urge, late,&e 1 l'activité ill98inative de la conecience du apectateur. Pour eviter que le fil.li devienne 'ennuye-.uc' et pour garantir une activité imaginative avec son réaultat d'émotlone, Brabant a, avec le• ■oyen, filllliquee de la repré,entation et du 1110ntage, constitué une diaension du plaisir qui attire et leurre le spectateur et qui est au,,1 -- mais d'une raçon differente - un Jeu avec la production iaiaginative de aa con,cience. Ce Jeu est déclenché par la etupéfaction du spectateur au ao■ent o~ il volt la tro1s1ne priee de vue. oan. cette perapective, le re-cadrage du film et le pré-cadrage du texte littéraire ne eeraient que deux procéduree qui aboutieeent à ce que la vereion fil■ique produiae eur nous un effet qui ne soit pae trop éloigné de celui que le texte produit eur un lecteur 'naif'.

3. Arrivé à la fin de notre analyee de deux vereiona ■édiatiquea d'une aituation paradig111atique dea Liaison, gereuae,, nous voudrone revenir aur la notion d'un concept de "l'inter■édialité". En ce qui concerne la tranapoa1t1on filaique du 1'0111&11 épistolaire de L&clos, ya-t-11 encore d'autres etructurea dont nous n'avons pae ancore parlé? Nous avona reconstruit pluaieura ■odalitée de tran,position à des niveaux différenta: a) l'organiaation teoiporelle dea expériencea du lecteur et du apectateur, b) lea proceaaua du préet recadrage, c) lA production d'é■otion, (la Jouiaaance de la perveraité de Val■ont ••• ) par dea procédurea dea deux 'textea', d) l'actualiaation de ' ■odalitéa profonde•' de la narration et de l'acte de lecture du texte littéraire dana la veraion fil■ique, e) l'uaage des ■oyene epécifiquea du fil.lii (le a10ntage, la représentation de, signe, iconiquea ••• ) pour atteindre un effet cOIIJ)&rable à celui de la lecture. Je penee qu'il faut ■entionner lei encore un autre aapect dea relation, interaédiales qui devient visible daM le fil.lii de Brabant: la repréaentation filaique qui est ba86e aur la reprfaentation textuelle d'un autre procea,u, de cooaunication, d'un échange fictif de iettrea qui Joue avec ce 'diecour• priuire' du texte littéraire. Dana beaucoup de acines du fil.li, la 'force' c04lllunicative et significative dea lettres est c:on11tituée par une oscillation (dans le syst~e dea signe, du ■édia et aussi dans l'activité mentale du apectateur); lea représentations fil■iques aituent les lettrea en aarge et au centre d'une me.e situation et auasi d'une 1118M pri,e de vue7"" Lea lettrea sont à la foia l'obJet du dédr dea prot4«oniatH (focalieé par un plan détaillé de la cuéra) et véhicule indiapenaable et banal d'un proceseua de co■■ unication qui ne peut avoir lieu - - néceasai~ent que aoue cette forme indirecte et l'lédlatiefe. Cet univera du diacours sert à préparer la 'comunication' la plus directe et la plus intime,

783

l'\ll11on seX\leUe, la s6duction de li.Ile de Tourvel par Valaont; et déJà le rond du texte littéraire nous renvoie à la ronction stratqique de cette c11111unication ind1recte qui est - encore plus clail"fflent -- repréeentée de.ne le fil•· Le lecteur et le apectateur 'eavent' que 1'6liaa&it l& distinct1on entre lea plana énonc1atita de l'h1sto1re et du dlscours, notlONI encore ecployéea auJourd'hul auee1 b1en dana un trait• de c1niutograph1e que dana la cr1t1que d'une expoaltion d'aquarellea. Mais, 11&lgré le euccàa, le texte de Benveniate auac1te tell-t de ditticultéa que eea propositiona - de la 11&11iàre dont elles aont tor11ulées - deviennent non-v1ablea technique et pratique11ent. Le couple h1atoire/diacouns est incoep&t1ble avec un grand noebre de pos1ttons l1ngu1st1ques que Benveniste détend dana d'autree art1cle• t&nt antér1eure que poatérieurs à celu1 de 1959. Cea contradictlona proviennent en p&rtie d'une diat1nct1on du diecours du po1nt de vue de l'énonclation quand celle de l'histoire a'eat f<e au po1nt de vue de la narration, Cette circonatance est parall~le à l'hés1tat1on del& d1chotoa1e entre son c&r&cùre fonael et a& nature aéll&llt1que. Il est vra1 que l'uphibologie de l'expo,J1t1on de Benveniste t1n1t par ae décanter vera l ' easence foniielle de la distinction, aa1a 11 ne aeable moine évident que c'eat l'ub1gu1té entre l'énoncé et l'énonc1at1on la reapona&ble d'une tràs longue sér1e de aalentendua d&na les tn.vaux qui ae aont occupéa de la queation. La contua1on entre narration et énonciation, entre narrateur et énonciateur et entra lea sltuations de l'un et de l'autre est le centre névra.161que de l'évolut1on de la prol1t1que d1chotoe1e du dlacoun tace à l'h1atoire. Certains 11nguistes ont eaployé les concepts de a1tuat1on d'énonc1at1on et d'énoncé pour illustrer la d1chotollie de Benvenhte; ll&is cee notiona me ae•blent insutt1santes, d'abord parce quel& aituat1on d'ér.onciation a une iaportance tràa relative ciane la construction de l'énoncé, et ensuite, parce que la a1tuation de l'énoncé est un concept problématique. Q\lalla eat la aituation de l'énoncé! Je prétàre parler de aituation de la narration et de a1tuat1on du narré, en plus de 11&intenir la notion de eituation d'énonciation, une aituation qui est peu pertinente ciana la e&iot1que textuelle, quoiqu'elle soit ronclallent&le ciana une aacrosniot1que du ■onde naturel. S1 l'énoncé est la narration plu• la narrf, c'eat la altuation de narration qul pe.-t d'édifiar

790

l'énoncé, et de là sa transcendance, t~s souvent, sinon touJoure, ignorée. Il pourralt se distiniuer auasi une situation d'énonci&tion aimulée, baaée aur la altuation de narratlon, c'e•t-à-dlre, le prodult de l'llluslon énonciatlve: un rétérent, tictlr ou non, conatruit l partir dea élementa textuela qui déaignent la narrataur, qui, da catta raçon, apparatt C (JB) ------> JB

text.uel monde textuel monde naturel 1llus1on énonciative 1ntera&1ot1c1te Pour Gre1M8 on aurait: ■onde

J!/NON...JE - - - - - - -->

:!!

monde textuel

monde textuel

!llbrayye énoncit

non-,Je/NOH...JE - - - -

--> (JB) ------> JB

textuel monde textuel IIOllde naturel illusion énonciative interaé■ioticité (toraelle■ ent énoncive séllantiqueeent énonc1at1ve) Pour Greimas on auralt: ■onde

non-,Je/NON...JE - - - - •-> monde textuel

:!!

■onde textuel Sane tenir coapte de la deuxiàme personne - pour ai■plitier, co■■e ci-deaaus lea dlttéNnces entre la nonflction et la fiction pourraient ae reprieenter alnai:

798

Oibrayye non-tictit JB HOII-JB/J! NON-JE - - - - - - -:> HOII-JB/non-Je I C I - - - - - - - -:> NON-JB/ici NON-ICI-------:> NOH-JE/non-ici MAilfl'ENAffl' - - - - - > NOII-JE/utntenant NON-MAINTl!NANT - - - - > NOH-JB/non--tntenant 06brayye tlcttt (un exeaple dee pouiblH) JE > NOfl-JB/J.! NON-JB - - - - - - - > NON-JB/non-Je ICI NOII-JB/ic1 NON-ICI ~ NON-JE/non-1c1 MAill'l'EHANT NON-JB/aa1ntenant NOII-MAINTEIIANT - - - - > NON..JB/non-uintenant

=>

----->

8./F. du Couvemeaent Baague Dep. dea L1tt6raturea G.R.S.L. Univerait6 Laval E.H.s.s.s. Qu6bec 1 nOept.ioo of f\UlCtions (M.lka?ovsky) •

Whenever we try to apply this model, we generate the same dualistic thinking that led to the attitude we tent a clarification of what the concepts of 'co11111Unication' and 'experiinenting' actually presuppose; in this way, under kantian auspices, Apel's basic categories would be open to questioning again. Seeking an epistemologica! basis for our ab111t,y to use signs would indeed mean - in full view of the contemporary, mainly Qufnean, verdfct against aprlorfty - to ask Kant's questions again as untransfomed as possible (Nagl, H., 1984; Nagl, L., 1984) - and to defend most of Kant's answers against opposing views. Such an attefl1>t, whatever its outcome may be, seems to be worth trying: in this way it even could happen that pragmatics gains respectability and for the first time gets 'out of the wastebasket'. lnstftut fUr Philosophie lfnivers1Uìt W1en W1en, osterre1ch REFERENCES Apel, K.O. (1975). Der seniiotische Pra914tisnius von Ch.S. Peirce und die 'abstractive fallacy' in den Grundlagen der Kantischen Erkenntnistheorfe und der Carnapschen Wissenschaftslogik. Bewu6t sein. Festschrift fUr G. Funke, Bonn. ---(~). D1e Erkl~ren-Verstehen Kontroverse in transzendentalpragmat1 scher STc'fi't':" 'Fra~fiirt:SUlirkaq,. Aust1n, J.t. (1961). Perfol"llative Utterances. Philosophical Papers.:. Oxford: University Press. Bar-Hillel , Y. (1971). Out of the pragmatic wastebasket. Linquistic I~uiry 2.

Berns m, R. (1·ler, Parker (1947), Chaplin, Last of the clowns. New York I The Vanguard Press.

8S

'l'HB APOPHANTIC FUNC'l'ION OF NARRATIVE DBIXIS

Aatoe Ojala

Narratology, as the aodern science ot the narrative is nowadaye called, has created, with the developaent ot foraalistic, structuralist and eeaiotic aethods, aucb analytic terainology, by aeane ot which narrative diecourse and structures can be so explicitly described that they can be distinguished better than ever before troa other typee of discourse. In tact there are only two types of theee: narrative and non-narrative discourse, the latter being, e.g., lyrical and acientific diacourae. In aany languages the narrative (here ueed ae a generic tera to cover the whole area of the narrative art) is related to repeating (réciti Brzllhlung, perhaps also the Greek di~esis and the Eng ish 'story1 too, as etyaologically derv!ng froa the tera 'hiatory'). What is narrated or repeated in a story is an event or a hiatory, wbich, when repeated, becoaea a story. Fro111 this point of view all history writing as a science of the paet 1• an endlese narrative variously repeating the saae events of the past. To such sventa also belong talk and conversation. The well-known speech researcher Brving Goffaan considera that talk is just about the aost iaportant activity we ever engage in -- next to breathing, sleeping or eating. Without talk our lives vould fall apart (1981). Yet, eince Propp, narratology registers only actions, those ot love and of hatred, of aid and of fraud, and strives to abstract thea into systeas of categorie& ordinarily on the basis of buman relations, the aodel of which is found in the syntactic structure ot language itaelf (parta of a sentence, etc.). In tbia connection let us aention only gossip. It is a poverful agent in huaan relations as appears froa intrigue plays and novels. Yet talk ia ha.rdly counted aa an event at all, ai111ply becauee it i• not easily repeated due to lack of •-orabl• evidence. Bietory as a science of the past records talk only if it haa docuaents available -- situations, in the traaework of wbich historically iaportant talk takee place, uaually end in a coaauniqué, whicb of course, i• reported or

830

reterred to by a h1ator1an. Instead, h1stor1eal plays and novels are eager to 1nvent talk, to reeonatruet it in a 11anner that eorresponds to the historical cireumatancea in which talk goea on. The narrative and the draaa thus aeem to ahare talk, the dialogue in their diacouraea. Yet talk in these discouraes ia not tha saae thing. This appears troa what the narrative and the dra■a have in coa11on. This is the plot (the Aristotelian 11 thoa)--not the persona, which in a dra■a are dramat a personae, nor the actiona, the dialogue included, tor In a play they are viaually or auditorily dra11atized actions and locutiona with all the se11iotic 11eans available connected with these sanse channels. As is well known, Ruasian tormalism already made a distinction between the concepts ot tabla and ot sujet, the tormer being the story itselt as a 'hiatory•, as a contingent ehain ot avente, and tha latter being the narration, the way in which tbe event is reported. The plot, as a strategy ot su1 t , is perbaps its ■ost i11portant coaponent. Tbe Prene structuraliats spoke ot the teras l'histoire and le discours narratit or roaaneaque respectlvely. In linguistlcs an analogous distlnctlon was 11ade by E. Benveniste with the coneepts or l'enoncé and or l 'enonciation. It i• the latter ter11s wbich have a special signiticance in the narrative tro■ the deictic point ot view. The plot 111ay be qui te identical in a narrative and in a play. However, other components ot l'enonciation (aujet) are ditterent as regards the deictic aeaiotlca ot both genres. As I bave mentioned in a paper ot 11ine (1983:25), in 1ta 1 deicticia11 1 tbe narrative ditters trom tbe drama insotar as linguistic deictic ■eans are replaceable in tbe latter by other se11iotie ■eans, 11ore proper to it, aucb aa by the setting, by the acting itselt, tbe dialogue ot course included. Tbe narrative baa to create by purely verbal 11eans its •apopbanais', to use an Ariatotelian ter111, bere rougbly aeaning tbe inaide context ot a narrative. Tbe narrative is a peculiar discourse also in the reapect that it contains, or aay eontain, its own enonciation as an act ot telling or, nowadays, ot wrlting (ot wbicb, incidentally, the Frencb nouveau roaan generally speaks). The Greek rbarsodos had his audience and its presence created an ep e at11ospbere that was not tbe aa11e aa that prevailing between the 11imoa and bis spectators. The story teller bas always bad the ability to gatber around hi11selt people wbo are eager to ba anticed away tro11 their everyday lite to a journey ot magi e and ot excite11ent.

1

6

831

To return to the concept ot apophansi•, in Ariatotelian logie it waa the tera uaed tor predicative judg■ents. 'Apophantic analysia', a• Huaaerl called it (by the way, Peirce•s ten for phenoaenology was 1 phaneroscopy1 ) , undertakes to elucidate the various categories ot s1gn1ticat1on (concepts, propositions, subject tor111s, predicate tor■s, etc.) on the three levels on which they are located: on that of jud911ent in general insofar as it avoids nonsense1 on the level of the logie ot noncontradiction; and, thirdly, on the level ot the logie of truth or ot clear judgaent, 'in which the tonaal laws ot posaible truth are tixed'. Dutrenne (who is here quoted, 1963:55) contests the claia that apophansis had soaething to do with Bedeutunq as involving a reference to an extrinsic content (in distinction troa Sinn). Apophantic categories are significationa rathir than have thea, tor they ari auch as to abatract troa every ob)ect, Aa a theory ot predicative judgment, apophansis ha• an ontological diaension, tor it seeka to be 'the acience of the possible categorical tor■ s in which any object that aight serve as a substrate aust be able to exist, if it is to exist with truth' (Bachelard 1957:150; quoted in Dufrenne 1963: 66) . The concept of apophan•i• i• applicable to the theory ot the narrati-. It is not identical, with the concept ot context a• reterring to the outaide reality. Marxiat aeatheticians of reception atrive to reduce the interpretation ot a literary work to the faailiarity with its historical context or, to put it 11ore radically, to the experience ot its original reader as if it did not have its inside context, it• apophansis cr-ted by narrative deixis, Thus Hans Robert Jauss speaka ot it• Koa■entarbedGurftitc•it: the work of art is explainable out ot lta hlator eai context and beyond this no turther interpretation is required (Gerigk 1975:186). This holds good to a certain degree: it is a siailar prerequisite of the interpretation as is the explication du texte ot the philologist, 8ut this is not enough, lt the literary work i• under•tood to be a kind ot apophan•i•, the context ot its own, i.e., if it presenta inside objects and relationa in auch a way that it override• all contexts outside ot it. The narrative ia an especially •apophantic' genre. No wonder that it is called 'fiction•. However, thia ter111 leaves out the ontological diaension of apophansis, i.e., the question ot ita existence •with truth', In this aense the apophantic is the oppoaite ot the seaantic: ve ■ove in the world ot being, not in that of aeaning, as is the case in other types of diacourae -- a

332

certein ellowance auat be mede for dreme •• e 'fictionel' genre. The creation of a •narrative reality• that is aoaehow analogous to our pheno•enological or, aore deteri•inately, existential aituation demanda many deictic reaources. The technical difficulty liea in the relationship between the characters, especially in their aituations of speech, so thet they were edequete to the relationahip, groteaque or idyllic, in which we find ouraelves in our exiatenee. The narrative ia an exiatential apophanaia, fully equal, often superTor to the apophanaia aa we experienee it in our livea Ifa particular situetion, in which we actually happen to find ourselves, were to be nerrated, •any kinds of indiees would be required. 'Here,• •on the left hend,' •et present,• 1 thua,• •quickly' ere aelfevident to us in ectuel aituationa, but nerration hes to reaort to deixia, uaually to Peircean indice■, if it wanta to stage its apophensis, i.e., its loeality, temporelity, modality, ita eaotional ataosphere, Heidegger•s stiaaung. Kuch of eourse aust be left out, but whet is ehosen decides vhether the narrative is a work of art or only a •aere fiction,• Verbal deietic aeans refer direetly to innuaerable cauael or, to put it more generally, dynaaic r~lationa of the apophansis ot the narative. Thia explaina, in contrast to Greenlee (19773:85), why, e.g., the denotetive relation ot a deaonstrative pronoun is (dynaaically) deictic rather than 'clearly symbolical' in the •••iotics ot Peiree. The creation of a dynaaic spatio-teaporel apophansis is not the only narrative task of the indices: they alao funetion as aeans of deteraination, and thia is of some iaportance fro• the point of view of apophanaia as e theory of predicative judgaent. When ve predicate aomething about aomething, ve have to know vhat the specific soaething is about vhich the predication is aade; otherwise we eamot judge its pertinence. As designations of speeific individuala, proper nemea are indicea, in the languege of love, often a concrete end very dyneaic pert of the beloved. To aention a reverae exaaple froa a noval by P.E, Sillanpaa: 'Bruniua i• not the naae of a •an, but only that of a specific coneept.• All such pronouns and adverbs by aeans of whicb co•mon nouns receive their clear and distinct address, stand in the service of deixis too. There are soae writers who ruthleasly operate in thia vay. The texta by Antti Hyry, e aodern Fimish noveliat, would lend theaselvea to an idexicel anelyaia of thia ltind, •• the following excerpt shova: •well, you goto thet boet, he aeid to the fathar-in-lav. There are the tools, ha

SJ3

thought, and arranged the goods beaide the front seat and around the ahelter of the 111otor• (eaphaia added). 'l'he dra111a a.nd fil11 could oait everything except the persona and the goodsi talk and even inner 111onologue could be replaced by geaturea, that ia, by non-verbal deictic 11eans. one of the 11ost interesting notions of aodern narratology is that of narrata ire (in Engliah I narratee'), probably originating in the Tel-Quel group. It 111ay be conceived of as being a kind of 1 :thapaodic• cooperating audience, the voice of wbich the narratori• eager to listen to. The A11erican acholar Gerald Prince haa analysed it in detail in one of his papera (1973:196). He co11111ents that the narratee is an iaportant relay between the narrator and the reader, helping to define the fraaework of the narative, bringing out ita central the111ea, advancing the plot and eventually becoaing the aoral narratee of the narrative itaelf. In fact, it ia a kind of deictic background of the narrator and his audience. A sort of dialogue taltea place between the narrator and the narratee which is not the one going on between the characters. This dialogue opens a te11poral diaension that distinguiahea the narrative froa detemporalized (formalized) discourses. It permits a shaping of the plot and its free aoveaent in tiae. Plot belongs to narration, not to the atory aa an hiatoire, aa waa already aentioned above. Aa the strategy of the aujet, it is a kind of •auperindex, 1 which, aa the sua totiI of causal, dynaaic, paychological and logical relations to the narrative apophansis, gives sanse to the contingency of happening. Departllent of Literature JYVBskvla onlversity Jyvllskvli, Pinland RBFBRBNCES

DufreMe, Mikel. (1963) ~aga & PhilosophY. Bloo11ington: Indiana un versity Presa. Geriglt, Kana-J\lrgen. (1975). Bntwurf einer Theorie des literarischen Gebildes. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Goffaan, Brvi.ng. (1981). Poraa of Talk. Oxford: Blacltwell. Greenlee, Douglas. (1973). Peirce•a Conc:ept of sign. The Hague: Mouton. Ojala, Aatos. (1983), Kertoaua tekstityyppinL In Ki allisuudentutlti ain aeuran vuoailti a. Hels nit: SltS (Bngl ah •1J111Mry).

834

Prince, Gerald. (1973). Introduction a l'étude du narratair••• Poétique

1,.

86 POUR UNE SYNTAXE-S!HAMTIQUE DBS SYST!KES DB SIQIIFICATIOII

Cidlllar Teodoro Paia

1. Pltl!LIHINAIRES

Dans la docuiae dea aciencea dite• hwoainea, la complexité eroi!, sante dea queation• conceméea par lei études sémiotiques et linguiatiques, aiaai que la multiplication dea théories et dea recharchea interdiaciplinaira1 et ailtidiaciplinairea provoquent aouvent cbez les non initiéa un aentiaent de perplexité. En outre, allea im posent aux chercheurs eux-memes des riflexions épistémologiques con tinuelles, daos la meaure où l'on veut conduire sea recherches d'u"= ne manière productive, sana gliaser vera le chemin facile, uis aus ai sterile, de l'application imDédiatiate , en prés ervant simultanement la fonction critique de la ,.;;tbode acientifique et la reaponsa bilité sociale de l'inveatigateur aciantifique . Certea, il s'agit d'un enseml>la da probleme1 fort difficiles . Nous ne ,ouhaitons i.si que faire l'ébauche d'une diacuaaion aur quelquea aspecta qui nous ont touj oura préoccupé. Tout d'abord, la construction de lllita-modiùs i partir de la proposition de l'iaomor phisme du plan du contenu et du plan de l'expresaion - aelon la l~c ture qu ' en fait Greiua, c ' eat-i-dire, que le pl an du contenu et le plan de L8expreaaion aont susceptiblea d'etra décrita par le aième métalangage - contribua notablement, aussi bien ea sémiotique qu' en linguistiqua, i la réali1ation d'un aaut qualitatif tria importane, voire i une rupture épi1témologique vi1-i-vis du structuralisme dit 'claaaique'. Au - n t mima où la aémiotique prenait sa place panai lea scie~ ces h11111&ines , en tant que projet de science, vera la fia des années soixante, une nouvelle discipline était créée en linguistique: la syntaxe-sémantique. On s'eat vite aperçu que les daux thiories en constructioa étaiaat néceasair-nt coaplementairas at convergentaa . l bien d'égards, on a pu conaidirer la aéauotiqua comma une ayntaxa-eemantique tranephraatique, puieque certaina modèles da la aimiotique et do la syntaxe-aémantique invitaient i établir une cer taine hoaologation. La rupture épistemologique, préwe par Althllsaer - l'abandon d' une conception s tatique de ayatème et s tructure, dénominateur c0ataun i tous lea courants structuralistea atrictc 86118U et aon rempla cement par uae concaption dynaiqua ou dialectique de s7stème et de atructure -, conatltue un repère, peut-itre le plus iaportant, pour distinguer clairnent antre la sémiotique et la aémiologia etruc turaliate . De.,.... , elle parmet de faira nett-.it le depart entre la syntaxe et la aimantique atructuraliatea, la ayntaxe geaérative et transformationnelle standard, d'un còté, et la ayntaxe-aémsntiqua,

836

de l'autre, celle-ci se developpant au-déli du structuraliame, i partir d'une réflexion critique sur les discipline& mentionnées. Une prémière étape étant depaaaée, celle où les contributions épiatémologiques et méthodologiquea de la linguiatique i la eemioti que aemblaient ■e faire en ■ena unique, le■ rapporta et lea contri'= butions 111Utuelles entre les deux eciencee n'ont fait qu'aupenter, pendant les années soixante-dix, de telle aorte qu'il est légitime de proposer, aujourd'hui, que la linguistique devient rapidement, dans la pruis scientifique effective, une branche de la séaiotique, aelon l'ancien reve de Sauaaure: en effet, la aémiotique a'occupe dea syatèaes de signification en général - et de leurs diacoura -, alors que la linguistique a la tache de decrire et expliqllAlr les ay■ tèmea aémiotique■ particuliera que ■ont lea languea naturelles, et lea discours qui en meme temps conatituent la manifeatation de ces syetèmes et sont i l'origine de leur chang-nt. D'autre part, l'effort que l'on constate depuia un certain tapa, d'elaboration d'une conception dynaaique de systeae et struc ture amène, il le faut bien, i enviaager lea ayatèmea aéaiotiques et leurs diacours, considérés dans leur enseable et dane leur interaction, c.,_e dea procaes"" da p.roduction: a) production de aignification ou, ai l'on veut, production de grandaun-s~ et de fonctions mit, 1980). ~ et c:ulture,objets de l '1ntez:venti0n an:hitecturale et plana d'interactiaul qui re11dt11t. posslbl-e une OOl'IIIUÙC8tim sociale (Pellegrino et al. ,1983). Il\t:errogee dans scn langage OCll'IIIII\, la culturante oourante est tautologique quant à la not1a\ d 'espaoe. Le dictia\nai:e (RJbert,1976) dj'.he Kant pose l'espaoa et le tertp;. Il définit: "l'espace n'est pas m ocnoept aipiriqua qui ait ét:a6 ~ d'expérl.enoes externaa •• ", "l 'espace est IDle repr68entati0n '\basai re a priori .. ", "fome de tous les phl!aicaènes dies sena extérJ.eurs•,•ocnd.1t1m subjec:tiw de la BalelblJl+.6 80UII laquelle seule nous est [X)SSlblJe une intuitia\ ext&ieur:e •• ", "l'espaoe n'est pas une foD!lt des àlcsaa,fome cp1 leur serait propxe en quelque sorte en soi •• •, "lea objets ne nous 8Cllt paa du tout OCl1nll8 en 8WMl"i!l!es". L'eepaoe est ici man1ère de saisir la rGal.itié,maniàxe

87$

qui serait le pr;op:re de l'esprit tuna1n et qui serait a priori dans le sens oo elle serait la oondition llèle de l' app.:et1e11sion de ce qui nous est extér1eur. A priori ne veut pas dire 1nné n1 figé et si nous "ne poul,Q\S parler de ]'espeoe,de l'ét:re étendu, •. ,qu'au point de vue de l'lxlrme" (l(ant,1781) ,c'est que cet a priori est oonstruit,struct:uré par me histoire h\rnaine.

ay analyse oe Pl'OCleSSUS: "Pcur p0U11Qir servir,l 'espaoe ocnstruit doit 6tre littéralen'ent assexvi, tl:clnsfotm6 au dew< titns de prool!s que sont des proàls de x6cb::ticn, d'lh! part,et d'ooc:q,etioo,d'autxe part•. La x6cb::ticn l)l'6sent.e l son tour dew< aspects: "l'un qualltatif,1 'autxe quantitatif1 le8 dew< n' étarlt pas ~ t sinultanés" (a.:>ay,1972). Elle oppose a oe pa:qx,s Alllert1 et Le C:Orbasler,l '1.11 tieuvant le sans de la c:réation "dans le d6vel.0PPiiitent,l 'extalSia1,la 0ClllqUllta d'I.Vl espaoe indlfJ.ninent ~ a l'act.icm",l'autre quallfiant oetta extens1a'I 0Clffl'e •une eorte de

880

mal/ldlctia\" • Le 0:ltbus1er ocn&lme la v1lle ccntellt)oraine came • .,_ tenclle,xamifiée,~lée dllns le vide ~ • ; 11 aat en cause l'extension urba1ne a l ' infini dans un vide ~.oe1u1 que la sodologie quallfie d'état d'anarde,dans un 001\texte pewre,cxq,1! de tcute tradit10n suffiselallen~ stable pour powoir Ie0e\'01r projets et dAs1rs et les intlli9%er dans une 00nt1nuité cx:me IIQ18\ts d'une nèie h1.sto1ze ooctale. \\,Ul qui éclaire de nan1ère étalnllnte les thAses er- Jesc,w>Jles Zev1 définit le •tait an:t11tectauque• par le •vide inbeXne": "une oonstructial n 'est pas la sarae des lClllgl.lE!UrS,des J.axgeurs et des hauteurs de ses diwrs éléments,elle est l 'enseable des ~ w vide, de l ' e,p110e tnterne dans l equel les h:mres ne.rdlent et vivent• (zevi, 1976) . A la dffinition de l 'architecture o::mie espnoe tnteme,oet auteur assoc1e un ensent,J,e,oelui des mesures du vide. e.i 00llprend ainsi mieux la peur d'une non dél.1m1taUon,d'une e,cpans10n infinie,chH te Oorbusier,lorsqu.'11 affùne: •1e detors est toujours un auae dedans" (le 0:>rtlusier,1929)1 il s 'agit 1A de la lll19e en ocingruenoe de deux

touts,le deh:>rs et le dedans se df:Umltant ~ t et se pxetant l'un a l 'autre la ml!rre mité de pdnctpe. eette unit:é de prlnc:1.pe étAit,ll 1 •age classt~,iresude par une éga].e symi§trie: •oette distrillution se fait 8Clll1J:er lor'Sque l 'ardlitecte a pris soin de J:6A'dr la ~ des dehors et oelle des decians" (B]cn:1el,1n1) . Lim1ter une ét:enclle,e'est lui d0nner une oerta1ne 6chelle11awi:o-cher par la ressenb1.anoe des f o ~ inllttenr:bls,e'est ajuster des _!e: s)'t)es d'échelles de pert1nenoe différente; falder,par 1 1 un1té de 1eur ~ , les rapports des parties entra elles et au tciut,e'est 1nsc:rue leur IY!oesstté dans u n ~ (Pellegrino,1984) ,de talle sorte cpa les part:ies et leurs rapporta solent ~ salai un usage sensé pour le destinataire,ll une oarta1ne édlelle. N::\18 p0UValS ainsi d6c:r1re un SàlEffll de la •, 111• ,si t1on en architecture: Mn•• e t ,-.c.o

_.. uc-.h:ecc •.,.,..

••• · ,•nlul,•uio

__ J ,...... ,.,,,,..,,. a.t.

ISPACC AaotlftC"IW,AI.

-......- --

,..,tio./1.. ,

, , ....,. euhlNre

.. ..

~,,._.... ,.,

-

'! .....1. . . .. ,....,t..

,-.u ,n

••PN"

Hclt,i tec11n""'

Figure 3.

I I

.......,..

I ._,,,..

I

-

-

I

°"""ht fto.Mtht

f.ntln I

fflU

•j•Htr

--

&u•• a ..,., ...

lCm.41$

I

- !lr.::,:...,

-.. I OHUttl~Utt I N11Mt•ti,.. IICIIDCt IClt

~ de la ooa(X)SitJ.on uàdtecturale dllns un pzocessus de OClmlln1catJ.on

-

881

Le parocurs que la s&niotique nous a ai.dli l faue entre azt::hi.tec~ prend des lors tout son sens de rotat1on épistélologique. M:Jus retienons ici ce 9,11 limi.te et feplll'ISial l l 'infini,c:' est i:6duixe, "apprivoiser les fot0es qui nous entour:ent• (Matoi:6,1976), lll!lis l a ~ t:xowe ses px0pres limiteS l cette nesure que d!finit l '6::helle,la taille d'IB'I tout ~ t de son unité de nesuni, ici l'tome; a di'llerSEIS 4l!dlelles sp11ttaJes '10ne&p01.èlent. divw:ses pertinences 90claJe,àlaqua gi:cupe fixant sor, propn, syst!ae d'6::helles1 par 001\Séquent,dans le IIQ'lde moèlernP,pliscplll 801lt dl!lilultipli& et se ~ • les groupes 8lllqU8ls nous appartanons,entre les différents espaoes-. la vie quot1d1enne les :relations ne 801lt pasque d'entottsrent ou d'exclusion,nais allSsi de supexposit1on et d'intersec:ti0n1 la dialectique d'8llPilllsicln et de x6lucti0n txouYe a.tnsi rai seui-t sa pert1nence dans la xep""S e ,t.ation cpe par l 'espac,a l 'hc:rme se fait de lui-flfae,aais aussi son ò§pessemen►•• Si dans me arc:hitec:ture le dadans n,oc;apose le dehors,U le xepr68ente en ~ o n , oette dduct:ial oaldense dans la oomexité cie qu'elle d6ooupe,ell,.. appe]Je par l' 6c:helle sca harologue resté virtuel et nous pemat da OtllceVOir lea parti.es d'\DI e11p110e 8111\8 8IIOir pour chacune a réinterpxéter la totalides phA,,oaèues projat:és,mis &elÙelle\t A l e s ~ et a les ajustm" en dea figuzes.

*

hrase lors qu'elle vient investir dea 4nonc4s ayant une valeur illocutoire autre qu'assertive(/Bravo, je te f'liciteJ /te presse pas surtout/). L'inversion peut également toucher une presupposition: /on y va/ (presuppose "c'est l'heure") la réponse /déjà?/ (presuppose "ce n'est pas l'heure " ). Ce cas correspond à la définition de Berrendonner de l 'ironie c:oaune contradiction de valeurs argumentatives, eonne 4nonc4 qui peut @tre utilisé co1m1e argument en faveur d'une eonclusion. et d'une autre contraire (1982). J. Je ne partage pas avec Ducrot (1980b, 30) et avec Berrendonner (1982) la eonception de ?4nonciation. *L'4nonciation n'est autre pour 1110i, que la gesticulation locutoire par laque.lle on profére un énoncé* (Berrendonner 1982,205). Le propre Berrendonner se pose le problème d'identifier le resposable del' énonciation a propos de la négation, par exemple (1982,202), Evidenient, il ne s'agit pas ici de la responsabilité de l'enmision phisigue. REFERBNCES Bajtin, M.M. (1977) "Il problema del testo", 1n V.V. Ivanov et al., Michail Bachtin. Semiotica, teoria della letteratura e marxismo, Bari, Dedalo. Bange, M.P. (1975) 11 L 1 ironie. Essai d'analyse pragmatique", Linguistigue et Semiologie, 2.

ffl

Berrendonner (1982) Eléments de pragmatigue, Paris, Minuit. Ducrot, O.( 1978) "Preupposés et sous-entendus•, ,:n Strat,gies discursives, Lyon, Presses Universitaires""'ci'e" Lyon. --- (1980a) "J\nalyse de textes et linguistique de 1'4nonciation", 1n Ducxot,o. et al. Lea mota du diacours Paris, Minuit. --- (1980b) "J\nalysea pragmatiques•, ColDlllunications, 32. Grice, H.P. (1979) "Logique et conversatlon•, coznmunications, 30. Kaufer, o.s. (1981) "Understanding ironie communication•, Journal of Pra matics, s. Kerbrat-Orecchlon , c. (1975) "Probl~1118s de l'ironia", Lin;uiatigue et aemiologie,2. --- Cl 80) •L 1 1ron1e com11& trope•, Poetigue, 41. Lozano, J.,Pena- Mar!n,c. Abril,G. (l982) An&lisia del discurso, Madrid, C4tedra. Myers Roy, A. (1981) "The function of irony in discourse", Text, 1 (4) Récanati;r:-"(1979) "Insinuation ey aoua-entendu", Collllllunications, 30. Sperber, D., Wilson, D. (1978) "Lea ironies comme mantions", Poétigue, 36 .

1

91 'l'IIE SUN ANO 'nlE Cin: SYMBOWGICAL l\SPE:TS OF Cl'lY CN4PI\NELLA' S 11IOPIA

~

IN

Massimo Pesaresi

INmOOOCTIQI

~ l a ' s 1!!_ città del sole is at a crossroad of different literary, plùlosqihical, and religious trllditioos, ranging fran the biblical and millenarian trend (with a special reference to iredieval authors, such as St. catherine, St. Bridget, and Joachim of Fiore) to classica! remi.nisoenoes (Plato, in the first place ) , fran astxological and esoterica! doctrines ( the Neoplatonic and lleXmc!tic revival in the Renaissanoel to the fabulous travel reports, and, last but not least, the recent utopian literature ( 'l'haMs More and, in Italy, Anton Francesco Doni and Fraucesco Patrizi.) 'lbe aspect of city pl.aming nay be taken as an apt metaphor for the intricate syid:)olism of the whole work • I will atterpt at tracing its geroealogy issuing in the striking icon of plaming the City of the SUn in a st:ar- li.ke shape. ftNJ'ATIVE GmF.I\LOOY OF A llrOPIA

'lbe myth of the SUn is a coma, place in n-any utc7,>ian reveries, fran ancient ~ to the ITOdem era. In the late Hellenistic period, Iantxlulos wrote a travel l'lClllel on the diSOCJllerY of the islands of the Sun in the Southem Ooean. A short smmuy of the work is provided by Diodorus Siculus at the end of the seoooo book of his Bibliotheke : with regaro to the custans of the inhabitants of the islands, he says that the SUn is venerated above all the other deities, and is eponymous of the islands and of the people thEmselves: ' ••• ton halion hoi taa te kai heautous prosagoreuousi. ' (Diodorus Sicwus, bk.II,chap.49). 'lbe notioo of a city of the SUn, hcwever, can be found alre&dy in the Bible. In the bcck of Isaiah, and precisely in the vision of Egypt, we read : ' ••• In die illa erunt quinque civitates in terra l\egypt.i, loquentes lingua canaan et jurantes per ~ n l l l l exercituun: Civitas Solis YOCabitur wia' (Isai.ah,lCIX, 18). 'lbe land of ~ and, in particular, the city of Heliopolis deeply inpressed the lleranetic traditiai of the Renai~- In a bllsic text of astral rragic and talismans, Picatrix ,a wonderful city of Eastem Egypt is descri.bed: Adcoentyn, 'lihiàl is said to have been built by Hermes. Sare similarities beb,eeri ~ l l a ' s

nescus

894

City of the Sun and Adocentyn (the foor gates, the ilrages engraved on the walls with a pedagogical purpose, etc. I have oonvinoed Franl«r11 è dunque: ccme

~

fatta

w,a

ipotesi. Cioè

cscenza, quel nxxlulo che p,b entnue In esa e pub agire CCIIIC prograntlll per esa. L'Ipotesi non ~ un mcd.o generale,cl~ una categoria logica lnpressa,perch~ la si Intende utilizzabile nelle sltuazia1I part tcolarl ,quindi ~ una mescolanza di dati di esperienza rllerlbl li alla realtà e di mcd.i Interpretativi generali ,5lntattlc~ logici. E' appw,to questa att lvltà di carparteclpazione che chlandanio Induzione, atta a costrul re lo st ruunto Interpretativo che chiamiamo Ipotesi. Secondo questa ottica, l'Ipotesi pub essere chlanata anche categoria artificiale. Dunque, Il lettore ipotetico della realtà, o lettore llffUIO, e&lste alla Interfaccia di due domini. VI ~ un dcminio esterno di entità che gll si prcpengono già senlotlzzate, In termini di linguaggio. Esse sono sanlotlzzate non solo perch~ entrano nel giro della C(IDJl'llcazlone rm perch~ occupano un loro posto nella realtà. Il loro uso linguistico non le eaurisce caoe preseiza, rm cert lllca la loro natura di "cose acceulbl li alla interpretazione". lnlat ti la loro stgnlllcazlone (o natura semlotlca per Il lettore) sussiste in quanto su di loro (wl loro peso e&terno) si ~ tornato li loro uso carunicatlvo, e più in geierale la stesa carpeteiza geietlca al linguaggio. ~indi ll significato mediato cai il quale si allacciano alla conoscenza, sussiste in quanto esse lo hamo determinato. La convenzlcnalltà della semlosl nel l l ~ l o ~ garanzia di esistenza di un "esterno" ncn convenzlcnale, ed lapne un punto di vl&ta realistico. Tale dominio esterno di cose seniot lzzate carprende anche li linguaggio cane presenza 1111teriale, e operazioni lpotet I che possono dunque essere carplute, nel la stessa ottica realistica, usando il linguaggio aaterlale, costruendo Ipotesi solo llngulGtlche. C' ~ da sottolineare che li panoraira esterno della realtà seidotlzzata carprende anche le ffll!flti di quanti haMo condotto la salliosl, ci~ la loro continua azione logico-linguistica. ~esto dcminlo ~ dunque esterno per Il singolo che vi si trova affacciato, rm ~ interno a lui se si ccn11tdera il carattere culturale-lntersmedlata, anche se preclsisslna, na è collocazlooe dell' esterno di un panoraa11 lloaulstlco. XIV. ~esta mediazione, che passa attraverso la ricchezza dei n11teriali linguistici e dei dal i di fatto, ha luogo J!!!!!tualruente quando 11 singolo al ~ t o t1 si pone di frcnte alla realtà r (sia degli qigettl che del suol depositi, sia dall 'lntemo J.e dall 'estemo). Dunque li lettore deve percor rere tutti i suoi depositi, apri re tutti i euoi amadi e cO:

94S

s tnilre I.W'lo schena lnterpretatlvo adatto alla circostanza. Deve cl~ frontqiglare la realtà ccn una ipotesi. 1 naterlall &«10 tutti a prlorl, cl~ egli ll ha a dlsposlzlcne glà dati, come materiali seniotlci e cane caq>etenza llngulstlca. E' la loro scelta e ll loro asseablagglo c:he sato ora In esame, perc:hè essi debbcno essere I più adattl alla sltuazic,ne t1 r 1 , e rappresentano la cc,ntinultà della vita ccnosclt Iva. Nella contingenza t 1 e r 1 ll lettore rlccnosce glà un mcndo interpretabile e in qualche modo faml llare, aa pub essere che l l suo intento sia di interpretarlo megl lo, cl~ non solo di caq>renderlo attraverso schemi e depositi linguistici già esistenti (ln certo modo classlflcarlo) na dl elaborare a suo riguardo altrl schemi e altri depositi linguistici, facendo avanzare li linguaggio dl lnterpretazlcne alla realtà. Un modo per configurare questo rocroento erti lco di conglunzlcne tra realtà puntuale e il già esistente a priori potrebbe essere senplic-te quello dl una rapldisslRB attlvltà canbinatorla di tutti l aaterlall esistenti, e un confronto di inazione risultante ccn la situazione da interpretare. A parte la verosladgllanza dl tale mec:canlsno, esso è da escludere perc:hè lnt~ce un memento del lutto eterrende nateriall a priori, e anche la loro organizzazlC11e è basata su statl dt fatto a priori, la realtà funziaiando solo ca-ae imeaco e veri fica del processo, ci~ al l' inizio e al la flne della vita dell'ipotesi. CC11cepi ta in questa sua fun:tlClle di "intenlledio categoriale" o di categoria CClltenporanea, o di mcdulo organizzativo, o ca-ae si voglia, la ipotesi è un cC11tln11wu della funziClle mentale. Essa nCII è riservata a canpi &peclfici (ad uaq,io nC11 è intesa cane ipotesi sclentlflca, la quale sarà una speciflcaziC11e, in cClldiziC11i restrittive, della modalità generale). Ne deriva che sC110 ipotet I che anche nolte modalità della conoscenm lmlM che dcf i ni rei», a prina vi sta, autarat i che,

XY. Alla base dcli • ipotesi vi è quindi una sci eziClle di naterlall. Scartata la possibi lltà di ccnbinaziC11i casuali e del la loro falslficaziC11e a postcriori, è possibllc pensare a una certa attività di orientamento nella scelta di nateriall costltutlvi, L' lpotesl è llllrata, anche se rappresenta un momento dl sospenslC11e della verifica, e si cC11clude poi CCII la verifica, La eventualità che possa venir falslficata è una delle tante possibll ltà di ritenerla o nCII ritenerla adeguata. 1 naterlali della ipotesi seno realtà &en1iotlzzata, assunta cane nanl o cane proposizicni linguistiche: è f ~ t o della interpretazione che, in quanto tal i, essi ccntengano anche opcrazioni precedenti sia logicc>-dedutt ive che di corrispc:,ndenza &E111iotlca. Ciò è forse plil chiaro in una ipotesi scientifica , na anche la ipotesi ordinaria ha tale statuto. Per elettrone intendiamo quella realtà che è stata deflnlta cosi e cosi (attraverso procedimentl loglco-sperlroentall, includendo le mlsurazionl, le esperienze, i datl dlrett i, eccetera), quindi li tem1ine è a&$Wlto in tutta la larghezza lingul$t ica. Ml corrispalde, e corrl&pCllderà &eq>re plù, ad uno atato naturale esterno, più o DISIO intultivu,ente rappresentabile, na reale. VI sC110 cffett i e conseguenze che si 111111lfestano CCII costanza, In tutte le sltuazlC11I In cui •• •• Ml per l 'oggctto "albero" la sltuaziC11e è diversa.

947

R ltl ettendo sul fagloll dl Plerce, essl precedCIIO la mente e le sue strlngentl deduzlenl. La mente sl è fomata sul fagioli ,nel senso che la sua capacl tà di classificarli (essi scno quel le cose che seno ratte cosi e cosl) e di dlvlderll in bianchi e neri, si è romata su tutte le cose naturali in un modo che ncn cenosclamo affatto, na nel quale la senlot lca (questi arrarl seno dei fagloll) e la slntassl (tutt l questl affari io li claulfico cane fagioli) ha operato ln modo indistingulbile. La ca,petenza logico-lingulstica è Il prodotto di quest' attività. ~lndl se c'è UNI ca,petenza attuale del la mente, essa ncn deve dlsdegnare la realtà (nen apro neppure Il sacco, perchè so che tutti I fagioli seno bianchi: se ne tiro fuori uno faccio una tautologia) .~esta capacità deduttiva e le relative si tuazlenl necessitanti della logica sa,o In qualche modo Induttive, se viste nel caiplesso della cenoscenza e della storia naturale. La nante e le sue capacità sl sa,o wlluppate su situazienl di lnteraziooe singolari e sulla fattualità di risposte standardizzate, via via che la esperienza della coooscenza procedeva. Il sillogismo è assolutamente valido, perchè è stato ed è erplrlcamente valido. D'altra · parte, fin da principio la erplrlcità si è In-posta cane struttura,cane regola,cane capacità di significato,e cane evento casuale. Se la IDISlte è in grado di dire "tutti I fagioli seno bianchi dunque ••• " e "tutti gll uanlni sa,o mrtall allora ••• " (anche Socrate) è perchè c' erano In essa delle capacità di vedere le cose ordinatamente, e questo ordine è stato chianato, al t ermlne di una certa cosa, faglol o: la induzione che ha fornato e111lrlcamente la mente, e che ha ccndotto alle caq,etenze logiche, al sillogismo, a "tutti ••• " si è serpre basata su una struttura che Il ha accettate cane provviste di senso, e questa struttura era in qualche modo, proprio per questo, categoriale, ordinata, pres«nte a priori, deduttiva. Si costruisce una regola per cui i tutt I cigni sono bianchi, vivendo In un mondo In cui possa,o serpre apparire cigni n«a bianchi. ~esta è la strategia della mente. Per raglcnare dobbiamo mettere In foma analitica deduttiva tutti gli input dell 'esperl«nza-lnduzlone, i quali In pratica sono già anpiamente anall tlco dedutt lvi. ~indi nella storia naturale della logica, lnduziooe e deduzime, sanlotica e sintassi, si Salo costruite a victnda, e rinangmo unite anche nel prodotto pre1WDlbllmente più evoluto delle interazieni cenoscit ive, cioè la conosctnza logico-llll&Uistlca dell' uOIIO.

948

Questi ruaterlall semiotici, Includenti le connessioni l oglche che l I hanno eret t I a I lnguagglo, sono collegati tra loro da relazioni già valide e stabillllte per altri materiali semiotici. Tait relazioni appaiono non solo co111e connessioni generali di tipo logico, ma cONe connessioni !attuali, quelle stesse che hanno stabilito Il significato di altre entità llngulstlche 5econdo la competenza semiotica e sintassi. Si suppone cioè che tra certe entità riconosciute e Identificate co111e slgnlrtcatlve esistano certe relazioni, anche esse comprovate o coaunque conosciute. SI costrui sce uno stato interno supposto, ed è quanto chiamiamo Ipotesi. Olre che Ipotesi è costruita "per analogia" o "sul la base di conoscenze acquisite" significa che essa è costNzlone orientata categorlal111ente. La ipotesi, usata come categoria temporanea, conduce a certe conseguenze che eventualmente la collegano ad alt rl domini, e in111ersa in tal sorta di rete può dimostrarsi più o meno adeguata.Ancora una volta si sottolinea che l'adeguamento non è al la realtà corue tale, perchè anche nell'Ipotesi sclentllica non vi è nulla che possa somigliare ad un confronto bruto con l' esterno, ma è al la realtà del linguaggio, a sua volta collegata ali' esterno. Per "provare" una Ipotesi scientifica occorrono esperlrnen t I , c I oè cost ruzl on I la rga111ent e astratte, Interne ad un sistema linguistico. In tal senso la ipotesi è un sistema di previ s ione o anticipazione. A questo modo Il lettore linguistico agisce sempre usando un slstea111 di previsione, appunto Il linguaggio nel suo complesso, e I' Ipotesi è Il 1D0111ento del la cost ruzlone del la singola previ slone nel aingol o dominio, che è valida In quanto compatibile con l'Intero sistema. L' u-o agendo ali 'Interno del suo sistema di previsione a priori (elaborato come a posteriori della realtà, e adattato dunque a quella), propone schemi a priori singoli e collegati tra loro . Alcuni si dimostrano solldall con la rete, ed entrano nella rete, ed altri no. Alcuni fanno variare la rete, altri sono a tal riguardo lndlfferent i. Quando si dice che la conoscenza (anche

949

scienttrtc:a) nc,n è precisa, nai è assoluta, st intende usualmente denigrarla, togliendole tl suo carattere preci puo. Invece la sua precisione con si st e In questa reticolarità accurata, che la rende capace di attribuire significati alle realtà naturali, al\' Interno di un linguaggio che la rappresenta. XVI. La letteratura è piena dt ctgnt bianchi, di corvi neri, di fagioli. Quando sl parla dl deduzione, induzione e abduzione, difflcllmente sl scampa a cigni e fagioli. Non c'è dubbio che essi vengano presi come cose eststentt, perchf un corvo è un corvo. Riferendoci a Peirce, diciamo: tutti I fagioli dl questo sacco sono bianchi, quindi se lo tiro fuori un fagiolo da questo sacco, è bianco. lo so a priori che tutti i;ono bianchi, quindi so che 11 Gingolo evento (la ident lfi cazl one del atngol o fagl ol o) è di un certo tipo: il fagiolo che tiro fuori è bianco. Idem per Socrate, che è notoriamente mortale. Ciò è deduttivo, e parte da un a prlort. 11 fatto che tiri fuori materialmente il fagiolo non aggiunge niente alla mia conoscenza perchf &o già per certo che tutti i fagioli sono bianchi. Se lo ho un sacco che contiene fagioli, ma non so se siano bianchi o neri, a li ora ne t I ro fuori uno, è bianco, poi ne tiro fuori un altro, è bianco, pot un altro, è bianco, e così fino al\ 'ultimo: io dico "tutti i fagioli sono bianchi" e lo dico per espert enza, ctoè tndutt I vament e. Se li prendo fuori tutti meno uno, non so esattamente come quello sarà e se dico "tutti t fagioli sono btanchl", faceto una affermazione che ha un certo grado di probabi lltà, perchf è valida solo per n - 1 fagioli. E' stabilito che per 6.06 x 10 24 molecole dt una mole dt qual cosa, t l con t egg t o è più dlf fl et le, quindi verostmi lment e una certa probabilità è intrinseca all'lnduzlone. Poi e• è l 'abduzione, che è, secondo Pei ree, ni plù ni meno che la ipotesi: c'è questo sacco che contiene fagioli, ne tiro fuori alcuni e sono bianchi, e allora posso tentatlvamente dire "tutti l fag l ol l sono blancht" e procedere pol come se ef f ett I vamen te lo fossero.

9SO Sotto quale foma opemtiva 51 cc.-.stata que5ta realtà? Appunto nell'ipotesi, o abduztme. Mll vl è in essa, rispetto al taglo\l di Pierce, una camtterist ica soatanzla\e. Nm è che la abduzlme sia una sorta di principio de\ \a mente, o una nuova strategia dl tipo "indiziarlo", la strategia de\ rischio e de\ lluto. Nm è che io mi avventuri, ln altre parole 611 di Wl terzo terreno, distinto dalla liwzlme e dalla deduzlme, scoprendo una via alternativa. ln realtà a,i tengo sulla via vecchia e ben stabilita, sulla quale si SQllO costruite deduzlc.-.1 e lnduziml. Questi fagioli saraMo bianchi o neri? Quelle stelle s0110 pulsar o buchi neri? E esisteranno elettrc.-.i po&I tivl? ln ree \là è Il fatto ( ti c011front o della nacchlna a priori c011 la realtà, mediato dal linguaggio) che inpone la Ipotesi cane strategia pemanente, cioè cane modo di operare . l\ confrcnto de\ \a nacchina interpretat Iva (categoriale, nomatlva) c011 una realtà &!! sendotlzzata, n011 è ti casuale ccnfrmto cm I fagioli, che pos&alo essere bianchi o neri. Questa sltuazlme si verifica solo In parte, e rappresenta le caq,I essi ve n.cdall tà ccnosci tlve In a,odo de\ tutto artificioso. C' è 1.s1 grande dominio llnguht lco che riflette Il già ordinato, Il senso per li lettore, ed è In base a questo che la Ipotesi viene costruita. VI s0110 nella realtà della cmo1cenza, alCWle raglmi per ritenere che I fagioli stano bianchi oppure neri, e che li fatto di essere bianchi oppure neri abbia cmseguenze su altri legwnl e altri colori. La zcna di Incertezza, che esl&te e che è quella che fa progredire la cmoscenza, è pure ctrcoi;crlvlblle: I' ipotesi è adatta ad un quuito per il quale ncn si sa a priori \a risposta, mi si sa che è un quesito. Esso viene affrontato mettendo tnslene Il già noto In qualche modo orientato, facendo delle previ simi verosimi \I, \a utl \I tà delle qua \I è rapportata a mo\ t I fattori: I\ ll\.lllero de\ \e cmoscenze già In possesso di chi fa \e ipotesi, e quindi \e piil o - o a,q,ie posai bi I ità di alternative, ti grado e l' evoluzione de\ linguaggio 1pectflco ne\ \o specifico campo, \a efficienza della macchina deduttiva de\ singolo, le possibilità di condurre osservazioni e cosi via. In altre parole, una "\cslc:a foma\e pura" awha da\ linguaggio cane corpo tnter5CS&etttvo tn prcgreHic.-.e e dalla raente cane rrecchtna evolutiva tornatasi sulla realtà, rischia effett Iva.mente di essere asslmi lato ad un puro "produttore di tautolcgie" per I\ quale nm è vera.iuente 1en1ato nulla.

9SI

Sosteniamo, al cC11t111rio, che la biologia è integralmente spertinentale co&truziC11e di sei50, e perciò una "&cmiotlca naturale". Ena è intrinsecarDl:l'lte coincidente CCII la cC11o&cena, intend«ido appunto CCII tale termine ciò che ha senso per un lettore. 11 significato nC11 è solo coerenza CCII altri signtficatl in IDI shtera toraale, na è aderenza al reale. \a'\ll

?acolt~ di Medicine

~!.!:!'J.~.!

~

Bologna ~J.-9.tm!• Italia

96

ARISTOTLB'S A8DOCTION Gia11paolo Proni In nveral placea of the Collected Papera, all written before 1905, Peirce stated that he had discovered Abduction in Ariatotle. In 1905, suddenly changing his opinion, he denied any validity to this discovery. Eco (Eco, 1983) has already considered the presence of abductive ele11enta in Aristotle's Analytics. Hy task here ia to re fine thia inquiry, tro11 a Paircean point of view, that ie, to aee how Peirce put down the question, at firat giving it a positive answer, then shifting to a different state11ent. Along the vay, I hope to co11e to a definitive answer to the question: are we allowed to say that Abduction, or somathing similar, is present in Aristotle? PRIOR ANALYTICS, II, 25, 69a In Arietotle, Deduction consiste of interence of the conclusion froa Hajor Premise and Minor Premise; it 'shows by the 11iddle tera that the 11ajor extreae applies to the third' (An. Pr. II, 23, 68b, 30-35). In heuristic teras, ve should say that we possess the certainty of Hajor Preaias and Minor Premise and we obtain tha deaonatration of Concluaion. Deduction, in ita cardinal expreaaion ae firet figure ayllogis11, rapreaenta the perfect applic:.tion of the transitive property: 'if A is predic:.ted of all 8, and 8 of alle, A must necessarily be predicated of all c.' (An. Pr. II, 23, 68b, 15-20). According to Aristotle, all the ayllogis11a of other kinda can be deaonatrated only by reducing them to thoae of first figure. Beeide Deduction Arietotle recognized aa a valid arguaent Induction or, atrictly speaking, 'inductive syllogisa• (An. Pr. II, 23, 68b, 15-20). In Induction we infer the de11onstration of Major Preaiss froa the other two propositions; it consiste 'if Bis the 11iddle tera of A and e, in proving by aeana of e that A applies to B,' (An, Pr. II, 23, 68b, 15-20). Taking Aristotle's exa11ple, if A indicates 'being longlived' and 8 indicate• •not having bile', and e indicate& 'the longlived individuala', na■ely 11an, horae, aule etc; then, aince we can predic:.te AC alld BC, we can predicate A of 8, and put the rule that longevity and absence ot bile are

9S4

soaehow necessarily connected, But, it we reconstruct the arguaent, ve see that the interence •AC, BC, then AB' does not contor111 to the acheae ot the tirst figure, therefore it is not valid, Induetion becomea valid only through a aoditication that allova ua to reduce it to the tirat figure. We aust perfora a conversion ot the two ter■ s B and c, that is, ve ■uat predicate not-having-bile ot all the longlived individuala as vell as being longlived ot all bileless individuala. We are allowed to perfora this conversion because it ve enumerate all single longlived individuala and it ve predicate ol every one of them not-having-bile, there ia nota single bileleaa individual vhich ia not longlived; namely c ia the totality ot longlived individuale. Thus we are allowed to perfora the conversion troa BC to CB, and so to obtain a tirst figure ayllogisa: 'AC, CD, then AB', The ainor teni takes the place ot the aiddle tera: this point, very i■portant in Aristotelian logie, is anyvay quite unimportant in aodern logie, aince in it the order ot enunciation ot premi•••• haa no importance. However, it ia important tbat the univeraal quantitication allova ua to convert the teras. The totality ot the set ot individuala given in the premisses allows usto turna aeries ot individuai predieations into a universal attir111ative proposition. In Ariatotle, then, the only criterion ot validity ia the reduction to the tirat figure, na■ely the eanonic tranaitivity rule in the necessary ■ode. Furtheraore, even outside the necessary mode, deaonstrative logie is in Aristotle alwaya internal to the toraal tield. Bxperience and intuition ot course play a role, but not in demonatrative processes. 8etore going on vith Aristotle, I think it would be usetul to otter some re■arks about Peirce•a concept ot Abduction. According to him Abduction ia the argu■ent vhich intera the Minor Premia• tro■ the two other propositions. Taking a Deduetion aa Rule:

All the computera

(8)

are electronic

■achines

(A)

Case: Thia device (Cl is a co■puter (8) Reault: This deviee (Cl is an electronic aachine (A)

the correaponding induction would be case: These devicea (Cl are coaputera (B) Reault: These deviees (C) are electronic aachines (A)

9SS

Rule:

All computers (B) are electronic machines (A)

and the abduction would be Re■ult:

Rule: case:

'l'hi• device (C) ia an electronic machine (A) All coaputera (B) are electronic aachines (A) 'l'his device (C) is a c011puter (B)

Let's first analyze these last two arguments from an Aristotelian point of view, warning that, in our notation, the placa■ are inverted with respect to the Aristotelian notation (B-A instead of A-B), The foraer argument, Induction, coaes to the Concluaion by aeans ot the co-presence of two ditferent predicationa (to be computer• and to be electronic machines) in every individual of a series. According to Aristotle, this inference is valid, as we have seen before, only it the■e individuala are the totality ot the individuala to whom the first predicate refers, that is to say, if C and B are convertible. Now, if we examine Abduction, we see that it drawa the Conclusion by aeans of the co-presence of the aame predicate in two different sUbjects. With a wholly hypothetical operation we can try to reconstruct an Aristotelian treataent of this syllogisa. It is quite plain that the conclusion doesn•t tollow necessarily from the premisses, because the argument can•t allow the conversion of B - A into A - B (it•s not necessary that all electronic machines be computera). If it waa so the aajor tera could take the placa of the aiddle tera and the transitive rule would be valid. To reduce Abduction to the firat figure we should perfora a conversion not concerning the teraa of the case (or Kinor Preaias) but instead the ter■s of the Rule (or Kajor Preaiss). But the conversion of the Rule can•t be perforaed by aiaple enuaeration, aa it i• nota predication concerning a certain nuaber ot individuala that are all the individuala to who• a predicate refera, but it i• a relation between two general predicatea. It is plain that the conversion of the Rule 'all the co■putera are electronic aachines• in 'all the electronic ■achines are computera•, however ve taJte it, is more coaplieated than siaple enuaeration, since in this case ve should turna relation of si■ple i■plieation into one of reciprocal iaplieation. 'l'here is a basic difference between the aodality of eonveraion of Induction and that whieh we should perforato eonvert Abduction. In the case ot Induction the totality of the individuala to whom the predicate refers la stated in the premise: the only difference between 'being

956

longlived' and 'the longlived individuala' is that the latter is an exhaustive enu•eration and the for111er a universal tera. But the extension of the tvo expreasions is the saae. Thua, in perforaing the converaion, ve don•t introduce new inforaation. But in the case of Abduction our converaion ia, froa the point of view of the logie of argu•ents, absolutely arbitrary. The Rule as i t standa can be converted only in •~!!.! eleetronic aachines are co•puters•, but ve are not logically alloved tostate that, in the aode of necessity, the device ve talk about i• one of the11. Aristotle wouldn't have counted this argwaent as a valid ona.

But Peirce had a coapletely different theory of logical aodes. Peirce aaintains that in the three kinds of inference ve find three different k.inds of relatives (subject-predicate connectives). FUrther■ore, the three ■odes of inference are, in Peirc., the expression of the three phanerosco}ic (phano■enological) categorie•, that is, not of tbree or11al aodes, but of three ~11atic ■odes, which originate three different critirlaorvalidity. According to Peirce, Induetion is valid even if enu11erated individuala are not the totality of individuala. The conclusion ■ust si•ply be atated, not in the 11ode of necesaity, but in the 11ode of actuality, of experience. In the conclusion of Deduction and Induction the copula I i•' does not bave the same ■eaning. In the foraer the aeaning is conventional, syabolic, for•al: •is, according to certain rules•: in the latter is factual, perceptive: •according to experience as far as now.• It is quite the sa11e in Abduction, but the ■ode is that of possibility, hypotheaia: • it poasibly ia. • It ia i11portant to sae this •poasibly' not as a fonaal aodality, but as a praqaatic aodality, that ls, bound to be tested in future experience. Induction comes in when experience has already received a certain •pattern•, and quantifies and generalizes it. AJ:>duction tries to produce valid •odels for this process. Abduction, in Peirce, is then a valid argu11ent in the mode of pragaatic possibility, even if it is not valid in the nacessary ■ode.

However, thia theory was not evident to Peirce hi•self until the begiMing of 20th century, and because of thia unclearness ha continuosly trias to describe the three inferencea in the same for11al way, running the risk ot loosing the original nucleus ot his approach (as he ao■eti11es actually does). Searching tor strictly argu11entative olaasitications Peirce forgets the

951

•categorial' ditterences ot the three logical principlea. Peirce hi■selt recognized it, and contessed (C.P., 2.102) that he had given the syllogistic tor■ s too 111uch i■portance, eapecially Induction and Abduction. But it we don•t use a categorial approach to interenee, we cannot help accepting the tor■al one, and so Induction in which enu■eration ia not exhaustive, and Abduction will not be valid arguaents. So, when Peirce, in C.P 7.164-255, tried to demonatrate that Ariatotle was actually tounding Abduction aa an hypothetical argu111ent in chapter 25 ot book II ot Prior Analytica, he waa torced to auppoae large corruptiona in the original text. Peirce ahows heuristic desire when he writes (talking about , a kinds ot argu■ent) that Aristotle should bave written 'which conclusion (ot the argu■ent) we discover to be a tact• (C.P. 7.249). Tbe heuristic desire betrayed Peirce: in Aristotle, propositiona torming ayllog\s■s are never tact, in the sense ot tested experience. So we muat stiti'"that Ariatotle doea not report any theory ot Abduction, at least in the tor■ we know troa Peirce. Nevertheleas, tollowing Bco•a suggestion, it is possible to look tor Abduction elsewhere. LBVELS OP ABDUCTION Peirce did not state a clasaitication ot the ditterent types ot Abduction, yet Peircean studies by Bontantini, Beo and Thagard ahowed that a typology ot Abduction i• widely i■plicit in his work. Thagard (1978) was the tirst who showed that in Abductive tor■ ot interence there ia a double chance, naaely, that ve can inter the Case, but that ve can alao inter the Rule. But it aee■a tome that Thagard ■ ixes up Abduction and Induction (1978: 167), sinee it ia not the interence ot the Rule tro■ case and Reault that constitutes the other type ot Abduction, but the interenee ot Rule and case together trom only ona proposition. Starting with the Reault Thia device is an elactronic aachine ve inter both the Rule All co111putera are eleetronic aachinea and the case

This deviee ia a

co■puter.

The two propositions thus produced constitute an •explicans• ot the tirst proposition, and indeed this can be put as a conclusion ot the two taken as premi••••• 'l'his abduction, together with the converaion, actually tinda the ■iddle ter■ 1 thia way we shall have two levala ot abductivity, corresponding to two difterent approachea to the logie ot arguaents. The tirst level is that ot the logie ot inauiry, that is the quest ot the Rule, or middle tera, which allows usto settle the inference as an explanation. Th• second level ta>ces the argu■ent as a whole (indeed, given the pre■ isaea, we co■e mecbanically to tbe conclusion), and its concern ia not with the composition but with the validity, or with the aode ot validity in tbe case ot Abduction. However, theae two levala are connected, since in both cases we look tor ■didle ter■s between two tarma. In the tirst-level Alxluction we are concerned with tinding, roughly speaking, a vira wbich could allow us to aettle a connection. The kind ot rul• we introduce conatitutes an eleaent ot another classitication.~ Below the tirat level thare ia no explanation. At the second level we are concerned with specitying the degree ot validity ot the connection, in a range tbat goes trom a vague poaaibility to a connection that allowa usto pertorm the converaion ot the Rule, turning Alxluction into Deduction. ARISTOTLE AND INQUIRY We have seen that a claasitication ot argumenta ia uaetul only to point out the ditterent mode• ot interence. Indeed, in tbis perapective, Abduction ia ■erely a quite uncertain arguaent, limited by an unpertor■able converaion of tbe Rule. If we confine ourselvea to this point ot view we can only use Abduction as an emergency arguaent, auch weaker than Induction and Decluction. But we don•t use ar9Uments only to atudy ditterent waya to drav a concluaion. We use thea as instruaents ot knowledge and explanation. Aristotle himaelt acltnovledged this: Quick wit ia a pover ot bitting the aiddle term in an iaperceptible tiae1 e.g., if one •••• that the moon always haa ita bright side towards the aun, and quickly graaps the reason, viz. that it gets ita light troa the sun1 or recognizes that ao■eone is talking to a rlch man because he is borroving tro■ hi■1 ( ••• ] on seeinq the extreaea one has recognized all the middle teraa. (An. Post. I, 34, 89b, 10-15).

9S9

We aee that thia exaaple illuatratea the poaaibility of explaining a fact expreaaed in a propoaition. Thi• explanation correaponda to our firat l•v•l of inferenca. Let'• take Ariatotl•'• inatance: A will ba an acquaintance ot oura, and C will be 'talking with a rich man•. Thia propoaition AC will be the atarting point of inquiry. We want to explain thia tact AC. Now, it ia the datu• that we introduca aa tha aacond, na•aly B, borrowing, that raaolvea our inquiry (Beo, 1983: 242 tt.). Either we put down a rule that atatea that •one who borrowa auat talk to a rich •an• or that • A ia often borrowing aoney•, but in any case we begin with tinding tha aiddle teX'!II. How, according to Ariatotle, thia doaa happen? CATCHING THE MIDDLS Tha ter11 that we called B ia the 11iddla ter11. Thia tera i• in aoae way connected to the other two teX'!lla that we po•••••• na111ely A and e, aince it ■uat stand a■ aubject and predicate to tha axtraaaa. So we •ust start tro111 tha extreaea to search tor tha •iddle tara. According to Ariatotle, the inquiry can take tour directiona, in ordar to aacertain (1) that, (2) why, (3) whethar the thing exiats, and (4) the 11eana to diacover whather there ia or there is nota 11iddle (a cause) of it. Once we have aacertained that a thing ia ao11athing, or that it axiata, we can investigate why or what that thing is, and thia ••ana inveatigating what the aiddle ter11 ia. (An. Post, II, 2, 89b, 36-40). However • In all such cases the what and the why are the sane.• (An. Post, II, 2, 90a, 14), so, the !!~, and the what, and the cause or •iddle tera and the eaaence areall the aame. To aay what-a-'thing ia ••ana to give ita definition: 'definition revaala aaaantial nature• (An. Post. II, 3, 91a, 40). Wa aaa, then, that Eco waa right when ha pointed out that the problea waa juat one of definition. And then Ariatotle goes on to define definition. Firat be apecifies that a detinition i• nota da•onatraton, ainca the latter •reveala that a given attribute attacbea or doea not attacb to a given subjact' (An. Post. II, 3, 91a, 40), while •to prove eaaential natura ia not tha aa111e as to prove tbe tact ot connexion• (An. Post, II, 3, 90b, 35), that ia, to aay what a thing is, ia very ditterent fora aaying that a thing ia aoaething (aubject-predicate connection). Thia ia quite i•portant: if definition were the aaae aa de•onatration, there would be no roo• tor inquiry, but

from every tera would automatic:ally spring all the possible middle terme. This is not so, and a demonstration of definitory expresaion cannot exiat. However, there exi•t• a dialectic ayllogiaa, that can deduce eaaence (An. Post. XI, 8, 93a, 15). Such a ayllogisa, starting with the lcnowledge that a thing is something (and then, i11plicitly, tbat it exiata), statea that there ia a reason, a speech (Aovo,> of thia •something". Definitions act aa i1111ediate, unqueationable preaisses: 1 1fhen we bave got down to imaediate pre11isses, we ltnow both the tact [ ••• ] and the reaaon. 1 (An. Post, XX, 8, 93a, 35) Ariatotl•'• reaaon or apeech ia very aimilar to the application ot pertinentization procedure& to the continuum ot marka in which we •explode' the aubject of inquiry. Let 1a see Ariatotle's exaaple: • Let eclipse be A, the moon e, interposition ot the earth B. To ask whether the moon autters eclipse ia to ask whether B exiata, and thia i• the aa11e aa aaking whether there ia an explanation ot A: if an explanation exiata, we aay A exiata• (An. Post. II, 8, 93a, 34). Now, thia procedure ia ai11ilar enough to Peirce•s Abduction to confirm what was stated by Eco (1983). Xn a propoaitional approach, indeed, it correaponda to the search tor an antecedent, the conaequent being given, vhile in an argu11entative approach it correaponda to the aearch fora aiddle tera. CONCWSIONS We bave seen that Peirce vaa vrong when ha identified Abduction, seen aa adoption ot a hypotheais in the torm ot arguaenta, with 'o.no.ycoyl\ • of chapter 25 ot the tirat book ot Prior Analytica. Hovever, br elaborating Peirce•a theory until we tind as the genet c nucleua ot the abductive interence the choice ot the aiddle term, we have aeen that thi• aatter i• actually treated in Ariatotle'a theory ot definition. But according to Ariatotle detinitiona are unde11onatrable and so they relate on one side to the voò~ (d1rect lntuition) and on the other to dialectic, that which toraa the opinion. The obatacle to the acknowledge■ent ot the validity ot abductive interence in Ariatotle i• nota consequence ot a logical lack, but ot a aetaphisical ontological background attitude, that deniea the propertiea ot logicity to non-deductive reaaoning. Istituto di Discipline delle comunicazioni e Spettacolo. unlveralta di Bologna Bologna, Italia

961

NOTES 1.

2.

See the first chapters of De interpret., An. Pr., An. Post. A cla■■ification of the different kinda of Abduction can be found in Bonfantini-Proni, (1983) and Beo (1983).

RBPERBNCES Aristoteles. Analytica Priora et Posteriore, w. o. Rosa instruxlt, oxonll 1958 Prior Anali;ìic■, translàted by Hugh 'l'redennick, wliliam Henemann Ltd., London; Harvard University Pr•••• Cambridge, Ma••· Prior and Poaterior Analytica, comaented and translated by w. o. Ro■a. Oxford: Oxford University Preas 1948. 'l'he Works of Aristotle, translated by w. D. Rosa, Ch1cago-London; Bncyclopedia Britannica, Inc. 1952. Bonfantini, Massimo1 Proni, Giampaolo (1983). To Gue■a or Not to Gueaa. In 'l'he Sign of Three, Bloomington, Indiana universlty Preaa. Eco, Umberto (1983). Roma, Cloga, Hoov••• Some Hypotheses on three Kinds of Abduction. In The Sign of Three, Blooaington, Indiana Univeraity Presa Pann, K.T. (1970). Peirce•s Theorv of Abduction, Martinus Nijhoff, The Hagu■• Peirce, Charle■ Sandera. Collected Papere, Cambridge (Ma■■ .), Harvard Univeralty Pr•••• 1931-1958. 'l'hagard, Paul R. (1978). semiotica and Hypothetic Inference. Versus 19/20, Bompiani, Milano.

97 LA RELAZIONB DBLLB OOKPONENTI VOCALI B NON-VOCALI NllLLO

SVILUPPO DBLLA COH\INICAZIONB UMAlfA Walburga von Ra1'fler-Bngel

Il segno à segno eolo in quanto viene percepito da qualcuno. Un'entità e un avvenimento poaaono esistere indipendenteaent dall'eaeere percepiti da un eaeere vivente, 1111a110 o anllllllle che sia; ea aeewaono caratterietica di segno eolo in tundone della loro interpretazione, non importa ee minima:> erronea. La coeunicuione 1aa11a avendo per acopo di eeaere percepita da un altro eaeere umano, lo etudio della co11W1icazione costituisce quindi un aspetto fondalllentale, e forse la baae atea,a, della scienza semiotica. La comunicazione• stata studiata da Ungulati, da pslcoloei, da sociologi e da antropologi, u enpre con un notevole pregiudizio a favore di ognuna di queste scienze. Solo in tempi recenti la nascente disciplina della comunicazione ha e,pprodato lo studio della medeei■a da una prospettiva meno unilaterale. I ee11iotisti hanno studiato 11 comportamento nonverbale ■a mancano pur easi di un'analisi della COIIWlicazione dove venga coordinato l'elemento Mnverbale con quello verbale. La tras1111aione del aeeeaggio avviene per via orale ed t percepita dall'orecchio (linguaggio verbale e paralinguistico) e attraverso ■enitestazioni corporee che vengono percepite da altri een•1. L'occhio percepisce la mimica tacciale, la geet1colu1one, 1 1110vi11enti del toreo e del corpo intero, quelli delle gaabe, della testa e dello eguardo. Il aeneo del tatto percepisce 11 contatto della pelle. La proar.. .1ca, oltre che dal eenao dell'occhio, viene 11iaurata dalla temperatl&J'a che e1 genera nell'aria e quindi nel corpo di chi la percepisce. L'e■otiYità ha pure una parte notevole nella comunicazione in quanto altera lo atato ormonale dei c0111111icatori. Nella comunicazione partecipa 11 corpo intero nella ritmicità del auoi ■ovi■enti. Il paralinguaggio à recolato dall'apparato fonatorio ea coinvolge - e toree in realtà net deterainato - 11 movimento rit■ico di tutto il corpo, anche ee queeto ■ovi■ento non à aeaipre oatenaibil■ente esteriorizzato. t tiaicuente i■poaaibile ■ettere l'accento enfatico ,u una parola della tra.e e acco■pagname un'altra con un gesto enfatico del braccio. Fi1iologlcaaente ai pu~ dietinguere quello che viene prodotto dalla bocca da quello che viene prodotto da altre parti del corpo. In questo senso, 11 linguaggio verbale e la paralinguistica vanno gruppati inaieae costituendo gli eleaenti vocali della COIIWlicazione, mentre tutte le altre ■aniteata&ioni, co■e la gesticolazione vanno gruppate da un'altra parte e vengono

964

solitamente cblautl eleaentl nonverball, 011 apeciallatl del cervello tendono a tare una dlvlalone differente, ragruppando 1na1Ne la parallngulatlca (detlnlta coee elee.ento vocalenonverbale) e 1 110vlaenti corporei coee prodotti dell'ealefero destro del cervello dl contro al llngua«glo verbale che viene prodotto dall'emlatero alnlatro, Nelle mle ricerche bo aol1tuente adottato la dlvlaione flalologlca percbè presenta meno coapllcazlonl (von Rattler- Engel 1980). Nella cognizione la relazione tra l'imiaglne vlalva e 11 llnguaulo verbale è forse molto plà stretta cbe non al ala pensato tlnora ( Gullen 1984). Sia cbe al adotti la dlvlelone flelologlca o quella neurologica, eta di fatto cbe 11 parallnguaggio è a cavallo tra 11 comportamento verbale e quello nonverbale. La prima eepresaione comunicativa del bambino al ■aniteeta nel 110do paralinguistico (von Rattler-Bngel 1961,.) quando non è ancora avvenuta la distinzione tra le due lllodalità della trasmiaalone e della percezione del aeaaagglo, quella verbale e quella nonverbale nè al è fossilizzata la emlatericltà del cervello, Sappiaao cbe 11 IIOdello comunicativo di Shannon è sorpassato e cbe la trae■leslone del ■eeeaulo non è eola■ente detemlnata dall'intenzionalità e dalle capacità cognitive e fislologicbe del mittente e influenzata dalle turbe cbe lnterferlecono nel vari punti del c&Mle traemlaalvo. Dall'inizio della traaaiealone di un ■eeaagglo, 11 mittente, altre cbe dell'ublente, aublace l'influenza del ricevente. Queeta reazione subentra tln clall'lnlzlo e non solo a causa del feedback operante durante la trasmlaelone. Nel rapporto ba■blno-aadre, nella maa:loranza del cael, la C0111unicuione viene lnlzlata dal ba■blno (von Rattler-Bngel e Rea, 1980) cbe etabllllce contatto tattile e ocul.are con la ■adre, Il ba■blno piccolo aa cbe pub upettaral una eoddlafacente interazione con sua madre, L'interazione coaunicativa tra la 111&dre e 11 auo baablno è probabile che comlncl dopo 11 terzo aeae di geatulone (von RattlerEngel 1983&) . A dodici settlaane 11 teto reagisce quando viene toccata la pelle del ventre ■atemo e a ventlael settl■ane esso è ln grado di distinguere la qualità dl un auono, se ruaoroao o acuto. Il alatSM nervoso del teto è quindi in relazione con 11 suo ublente. Io bo intervistato donne incinte cbe ■i banno tutte detto cbe quando aentlvano 11 teto ■uoverei, apeeso ai toccavano l'addoae, Lo toccavano partlcolamente quando le mosse tetali apparivano brusche e ml dicevano cbe al toccavano con l'intenzione di c&la&re 11 baabino. Sovente le loro carezze erano accOIIJ)ll&ll&te de parole e de c:antllene. La cultura giapponese riconosce valore toraatlvo alla co■unlcadone tra la madre e 11 bambino tanto pri111& cbe dopo la naeclta, Nql1 Stati Uniti è stato recente■ent docU1111ntato cbe quando una ■adre perde 11 teto a cauaa di aborto spontaneo, eeaa lo piange n~lla stessa ■antera cbe piange un tlglio 110rto (Povledge 1983). Le ■adrl pure desiderano accordare lo ateaso rito funebre al baabino nato ■orto che al uaa accordare a un baablno 110rto lungo tempo dopo 11 parto (Bonavoglla 1983).

96S

Io ho oaservato che quando una parturlente tocca 11 suo nascituro eaeo si dimostra rilassato mentre aanlfeata t11tt'altro atteggluento ciuando viene toccato dal ginecologo o d&lla levatrice. B noto che ae u.n neonato viene poeto in 11er.zo tra d11e dOMe che gli dirigono la voce, esso al volta verso ciuella della aadre. Le scoperte in ■edicina neonatale fanno auggerire che 11 bub1no conosca sua aadre da pr1a della nascita. Dalla trentac1nquee1a 1ett1aana 41 geata&1one 11 feto e1 dirige vereo 11na tonte l1111inoea. Prla di nascere 11 bubino non pu~ certo avere vlato gli occhi u.ternl • il neone.to à t1siolog1cuente preparato a rispondere (IU&ndo ,ua 11adre stabilisce contatto oclllare con lui. La sensazione tattile e la aueeeguente eapreaetone geetuale ai co■binano con 11 rltao ■elod1co del linguaggio aaterno. A mio avviao, nà in ontogen1a nà in filogenia, l'eapreaalvità dei movi■ent1 corporei precede l'eapresaivita vocale (von Rafflerllngel 1983). Anche nell'anl■ale, l'oca aelvat1ca 41 Lorenr. (1979) Nette delle vocal1naz1on1 ciuando gira l'uovo che sta incubando e c011Unica vocal■ ente con gli occh1ett1n1 appena. 1g11ac1at1. La coatUnicazlone \111811& - oltre ecll ele■entl prapat1c1 (preeuppoz1on1, presenza ostene1b1le di artefatti) - à costituita dall'lneie■e dell'ele■ento vocale e q11ello cinetico. St11d1are l'uno senza tener conto dell'altro cond11ce a risultati erronei percbà ai tende a &nl\llzzare una coorponente parziale come" fo••• il tutto. Chi identifica la COIIUJlirell"§"!MlO infantile, Brescia: Paideia (Studi gwticaU e linguietici 7), -----(1980) , Introduction, In Aepecta or nonver'bal co■■u.nication, Il. von Rattler-11:ngel (ed.), l-5, Une: Sveta a. Zeitlinger.

967

---(1981) . On soae ■iu1ng tncredients in our ay■post1111. In The cognitive repreeentation ot epeeell, T. Myers, Jolln Le.ver, , Jolln Andereon (eda.), 338--339. (Advancee in Peycholu 7). Auterdaa: North Rolland. -----(1983&). On tlle aynchronoue develop■ent ot geeticul&tion and vocalizat1on 1n ■en'a early co■■un1cat1ve bellavior. In Gloee enetics The ori in and evolution ot e, Erte de Grolier ed, 295-311. Paria: Harvood Acad•lc Publiabera. (Proceedinge ot tlle International Syçod1111 on Glouogenetica, Parie, U-NBSCO, 1981) . ----(1983b). The perceptton ot nonverbal behavlor 1n the career interviev. Auterda■ : Jolln BenJu1ne. (Preg■attce and Beyond IV/4).

-----& Cather1ne Rea

(198). The 1ntluence ot tlle cllild on tbe convereational behavlor or the adw.t: the evolution or a nev concept. In Proceedtnga ot tlle Plret International eongreaa tor tlle Stu~ or ehlld t.anguye, D. Incru, F.e .e. Peng and Ph111p Dale ede.), 170-197. f.anll&■: Untvenlty Preea ot A■erlca.

98 MICROSl!MAH'l'IQUE ET SEMIOTIQUE

Françoie Raetier

l,l.

PROBLEMATIQUE

La eémiotique qui tente auJourd'hul de réalieer le proJet de Saueeure et de HJel■1lev co.pte la a'-ntlque par■i aee aourcea prlnclpalee. Rappelona eeuleaent, de RJel■alev, Pour une aéaantigue atructu.rele (1957), et de Grelua, Sécantlgue etructurale (1§66), partole preaente co■■e "le premier traiti de aliìlotique", La déf1nit1on ■e.e dee relatione et un1téa 1nlotique1 fondulentalee contir■e ces relation1 étro1tes. Par exe■ple, l'étude Interaction of ee111ot1c conetrainte (Grei■ae & Raet1er, 1968) dif1n1ssa1t les •~■ea par un quateme de relatione binalree; or, cette structure eéaantlque élécentalre a pu devenir par la suite le ■odàle conatltutionnel d'une théorie aéaiotlque, prenant alora, eana ftre IIIOClifiée, le no■ de carré sémiotique (et. Grei■aa, Du aena, vol, I, 1970, II, 1983) . Ainsi, ■he altuée dans le chulp prop~t linguiatique, une rétlexion sur lee co■posanta sécantiqui• peut concerner lea tondemente de la sélllotlque ell e-aftae. Sans préJuger pour l'lnatant d'autree co■posante eéuntlques, on étudlera lei le etatut dee•••· Dana son excellent Précla de eécantl9ue trançoiee, M. Tutescii°'risuae alnei quelquee 1de6e ordlnalreaent reçuea: "L'unlté ■inlaale de eene, le trait pertlnent du contenu 11ngu1atlque, l'invariant de aene e'appelle lllll'QUO ••19ue 1 mar9ueur aéai9ue ou eftle ( ... ) Lea aàiee eont dea univereaux aubatantiela ( ••• )"1:ei trait• aéaiquea doivent etre toniulia, selon certains sémanticiena, en teraea de conditions du ■onde rétérentiel, d'arguaents ou d'indice• rétérentiels" (1974, p. 46). Nous diecuterona auccesa1vesent le• th~aea euivantea, en le• réfutant: (1) Ile eont dee qualitée cl'un rétérent, ou dea partiee d'un concept. ( 11) Ile eont dee un1vereaux. (111) Ile aont en petit no■bre, (iv) Ila aont dea co■poaant• ultime• et ■iniaaux.

l,2, LBS Sl!MES SONT D!S QUALITBS D'UN Rl!P!IU!NT, OU D!S PARTil!S D'UN CONCEPT

1.2.1. Le• qual1tée du rétérent et le• aporles de la eéaant1que extentioMelle. Depuie tort longte■pa, logiciena et ph1loaop™ta font uno analyae extenaiOMelle du contenu. Dana cette perapective, le

la lotta e la congiunzione del mondo e della terra, principi costitutivi dell'opera che una volta tanto nella storia della filosofia non subiscono la subordinazione di quello che chiamiamo 11 significante al significato, essendo la terra ciò che si apre autochiudendosi, temine i111pen!!_ trabile che mai si assimila al senso. Ed è precisamente questo giuoco dell' alttlte.uz, di verità e nascondimento, ciò che ci avvia verso un evitabile processo di interpr~ tazione appunto applicato alla tanto complessa e partic2, lare esplicitazione degli impliciti che l'arte sempreaq gerisce ed anche riserva, colle successive articolazioni di un senso mai compiuto, sempre differito , non sicuramente sprovvisto di una logica ill09ica. Il segno dunque,. lo ribadisce Eco, non è soltanto sostituzione (atiqu.id p,,.o atiquo) ma sempre possibile interpretazione. Abbiamo imparato da Peirce che nell'illimitata semiosi un segno si traduce sempre in un altro segno che dice qualcosadipiù. ora, questa non coincidenza e slittamento di confini,dif ferenza mediata dallo sforzo interpretativo,sembra richiedere un principio che garantisca ta°le produzione significante secondo una capacità che è inventiva e creati va. A questo punto il lavoro filosofico permette d'Jntegrl!_ re riflessioni che sovente sono state considerate isolatamente. Proponendo un ripensamento di Kant ( non meno che di Heidegger e di Wittgenstein), Garroni sottolinea come quella capacità inventiva, centrale nella dimensione estetica, è anche valida nella linguistica, essendo presente reciprocamente nell'arte anche l'arbitrarietà del segno. Si tratterebbe di una creatività garante di questa stessa arbitrarietà e che solo si può dare in congiunzione con essa . Viene cosi in luce il carattere costzu! tivo dell'estetico in un piano originario di fondazione

98S

filosofica, di costituzione ed istituzione di senso non più soltanto nell'-accezione semiotico-lin11Uistica, dato che sta alla base delle rispettive produzioni linguistiche ed estetiche in uno sfondo comune dove si precisano le condizioni generali di possibilità dell'esperienza. E' chiaro che porre in evidenza questa esigenza di rifondazione trascendentale non significa affatto trasc~ rare o dimenticare tanti altri validi approcci in differenti livelli e con essi quanto si è riusciti ad acquis! re ed ottenere nel lavoro compiuto dagli studi semiotici negli ultimi decenni? Per esempio, e per una applicabili tà irrmediata alla sfera della pittura, basterebbe accennare soltanto all ' importanza indubitabile della formulazione lin11Uistica e semiotica della famosa coppia inetafg ra/metonimia, sin dagli assi del lin11Uaggio saussuriani, attraverso gli apporti di Jakobson e Lacan, tra altri che contribuirono ad approfondire questi meccanismi per così dire, di base. Sappiamo che non si tratta solo di pr01!1P8! tive linguistiche, retoriche, logiche e psicanalitiche limitate a precisi livelli di analisi, da~o che probleffl! tizzare la metafora è anche riflettere sul destino della storia del pensiero occidentale. Ed è ben quello che è pure in gioco nella pittur4 e nella comprensione del suo dinamiSlllO. Discutere un tropo che è ben più di un tropo, insistere attualmente in un'estetica dell'attività indiziaria- ripresa con la semiotica peirciana- offre allora spunti molto ampi- e proficui - per la esplicitazione del testo pittorico. In una vertiginosa molteplicità di prospettive gli slittamenti metonimici del lavoro artistico sicuramente riescono a creare una combinatoria di proiezioni postmoderna in concordanza con le poetiche contemporanee di opera aperta e di lettura plurale. I giochì aleatori delle operazioni collage, tecnica specifica 1110! to antica ma considerata nell'attualità come vera innov~ zione del secolo, realizzano in pittura con procedimenti costanti (discorso doppiamente retorico) trasgressioni classificate con rigorosa precisione, la cui strategia forse ha un solo ed astuto obbiettivo: burlare ancora 1na volta l'egemonia del senso. Estetiche della citazione, della copia e del simulacro la cui visione franmentaria ed a mosaico è stata assunta in regioni anche molto lontane e distanti da numerosi pittori che han saputo con intuizione acuta e versatile percepire un'atmosfera di

986

dispersione incerta, di rottura dell'unità. Svanite le categorie potenti ed univoche della raetafisica, si per• viene ad una sola certezza: contingenza e precarietà. Affermato quanto è evidente nella realtà, nella vi• ta, nella comunicazione e cosi pure nell'arte, cioè la straordinaria proliferazione, circolazione e contaminazione di significati che ci offre lJt, nostra quotidianacon temporaneità, fatto che perse stesso squalifica e nega ogni riduzione univoca cosi come 09ni pretesa o &lllbizione totalizzante, riconosciuta dunque la validità di una ricca diversificazione di motivi e categorie che definiscono marche dominanti del nostro tempo, ci ai pone ora la qu~ stione di decidere quali indirizzi testuali possano oggi risolvere ad891,latamente 1 problemi del testo pittorico . In un amplissimo panorama di indagini ci riferiremo alla apertura della pragmatica, non senza però segnalare prima una concezione di estremo interesse, in molti aspetti opposta a ,quella per 11 suo ·carattere extramet:odico e decontestualizzante. Si tratta dei noti lavori de J.Derrida, sorti nell'ambito del post-strutturalismo francese. La critica al fonocentrismo del segno (linguistico), deb! tore del logocentrismo che pesa sull'intera storia d 'Oc-· cidente coll'antico privilegio del senso permetterebbe in principio la messa a fuoco del significante . E se questo poté ancné significare una molto necessaria rivalutazione del corpo materiale dell'arte, ciò che veramente importa di questa materialità è la sua esteriorità come!'@ ziatura che esclude tutto quanto non è illimitato tessuto intertestuale dove l'universo si r iasswne ed espande. Infatti non vi è altro che testo, eclissate le relazioni intra- ed extuteatuali,coerenti, secondo il filosofo, colle opposizioni dialettiche (metafisiche) interno/e5te!: no, sensibile/intelligibile, tempo)spazio, ecc . 01 fronte al testo assoluto l'ermeneutica, dichiaratasi totalmente libera,procede alla sua decostruzione nella misura in cui scatena il movimento del differire, attenta alla traccia mai presente in un'origine che non è tale, già da sempre ripetizione e rappresentazione. B' una scelta, dove 11 testo si l439ge nella dispersione di significati pronti a r i scriversi colla pratica della citazione in 1~ finiti nuovi e,ontesti sganciati dai referenti esterni. Nel far prevalere questa disseminazione spiazzata in di-

987

rezione centrifuga Derrida si confronta e misura con Keidegger, sostituendo la verità della pittura con la ve rità .ilt pittura. Se per Keidegger l'evento dell' alUheia si compie n~lla controversa relazione (presenza e assenza) del mondo e della terra, Derrida sconvolge questa presenzialità aprendo un altro giuoco con concetti kan· tiani della Critica del Giudizio, cioè coll' e.itgon, l'o~ ra, e il J)Cllle.itgon, 1 suoi accessori istrumentali, affidando a questi la sottile e prevedibile funzione di decentramento e sfocalizzazione dell'i11111agine in direzione tesa verso i bordi, i margini, la differenza, dove fina! mente la parola tace, Veniamo ora a tutt'altra possibilità di riflettere sul funzionamento del-la pittura, questa volta in linee m!!_ todiche e contestualizzanti, con la introduzione di specificazioni testuali, giuochi d'enunciazione e meccanismi pragmatici che possono contribuire molto efficacemen te alla formulazione del testo come categoria storica. Qui è da notare che il forte illlpatto della linguistica testuale e della pragmatica permette di rip::endere quest.ia ni in parecchi aspetti opposte al decostruzionismo, se si pensa alla preoccupazione per la delimitazione, coerenza e compiutezza del testo, non meno che al distinguo tra cotestualità e contestualità. Operazioni di recupero che riscattano nel testo 11 soggetto ed 11 contesto situazionale trascendendo l'astratta cerchia testuale della semiotica strutturale, interessata soprattutto alle regolarità irmianenti, essendo ora 11 testo considerato in rapporto agli utenti, alle condizioni esterne di produzione e ricezione, condizioni introdotte nel centro stesso del meccanismo significante e del suo funzionarne~ to. Ci sembra che fruire un quadro è pensarlo secondo quell'atto semantico di cui parlava Mukarovsky; è acced!!_ re cosi alla discussa e polemizzata "intenzionalità" e "voler-dire" dell'artista. Precisiamo, non è rimettersi ad una origine, dato che questo ancoraggio non ostenta decisamente caratteri assoluti, cosi come i codici non son da concepirsi in prospettiva ontologica come una struttura identica dato che oggi è decisamente possibile pensarli come convenzioni pragmatiche, Il testo, ora lo si capisce, nonè più semplicemente messaggio da decod! ficare, trasparente veicolo di comunicazione, trasmissi2

988

ne di significati, traslazione e circolazione di unità di contenuto. B' invece un insieme di istruzioni che devono essere non solo decodificate ma interpretate. In4U!!. sto caso-come in altri- l'esempio della pittura è cruciale, essendo il testo pittorico un insignificante che funziona come stimolo permanente, incita111ento, sollecit~ zione e provocazione per l'attribuzione di Al'llllirevoli ef fetti d.i senso. Strategia che, lo veniamo a comprendere, collega l'enunciatario e l'interprete. Infatti Eco dice: Un testo è una macchina semantico-pragmatica che chiede di essere attualizzata in un processo interpretativo, e le cui regole di generazione coincidono con le proprie regole di interpretazione. In un testo l'autore costruisce artifici semiotici prevedendo i comportamenti del PJ:'2 prio destinatario, anticipandoli, iscrivendoli-nelle fibre stesse del proprio ordigno testuale, e postulandosi come condizione di riuscita (o di felicità come oggi si suol dire) del proprio atto comunicativo. Si intravede il dinamismo dell'unità testuale, spazio pronto all ' interazione, alla conversazione, al duali smo di attanti. Importa specialmente una pragmatica ade.e pia voce, istanza dialogica, non monologica, modello "a due posti" che però non esclude certamente un terzo, per definizione assente. La pittura ha esemplificato molte volte queste complesse e segrete vie di significazione nell'irrmagine sempre propizia allo sdoppiamento ma anche, eccezionalmente, alla relazione triadica (si ricordi il 'giovane arcadico• della Fta9e.Uaz.ione. di Piero). Orientamenti di indirizzo lacaniano (esplicito od iraplicito)han saputo sviluppare categorie di una molto diretta applic~ bilità alla sfera dalla pittura, col concetto di rappresentazione vincolabile alla relazione imnaginaria come trappola e seduzione, col giuoco degli specchi che sti~ la meccanismi molto profondi nell'icona. Una iconicità il cui statuto deve essere ristabilito (col prestigio di Peirce) dopo aMi di subordinazione all'arte non figurativa, prediletta da non poche poetiche conteraporanee,per lo pi~ form~liste. Dopo queste brevi osservazioni, si conclude che èin sede pragmatica dove si intravedono molte possibili al-

989

leanze di estetica e semiotica, nella dinamica della recezione, col rinnovato interesse per le procedure della interpretazione, già prossime alla fruizione, 1110111ento chiaramente estetico. In qualche modo spianato 11 cannino, si può cominciare a pensare ad una complementarietà e convergenza diatteggiamenti e di proposte, sempre e sg lo a livello di discorso, luogo delle figure retoriche. E' li dove non manca non solo l'interesse per la singola rità e compiutezza del testo, ~a per la sua storicità e temporalità -particol~ente significative per l'arteaspetto che l'approccio sistematico della semiotica anni 60 tendeva a dissolvere nella visione sincronica de! le strutture. Ciò non vuol dire che le differenze di entrambe le discipline svaniscano, ma vi è sicuramente una interrelazione di competenze. Ad esempio, si è detto che la semiotica si occuperebbe soprattutto di un sistema g~ neratore valido, come modello di riferimento generale, per tutti i casi concreti, mentre l'estetica punterebbe piuttosto sulla struttura individuale di ogni singolo t~ sto. Ci ramnentiamo però che Metz nel 70 aveva già assegnato alla semiotica questo ultimo compito, appunto riformulando problemi di semiologia strutturale, con la ci!_ coscrizione e delimitazione di un "sistema testuale" di carettere singolare. Altre volte poi si è creduto che la semiotica preferisse le analisi di unità di contenuto an zicchè quelle del piano dell'espressione, ma prestigiose analisi potrebbero dimostrare il contrario. sussistono senz'altro prospettive che non si correlano facilmente ma più in là di sottigliezze che ogni disciplina giustamente pone ciò che più conta oggi nelle indagini delle scienze dell'uomo è l'alimentazione e rial~entazione di saperi non intralciati da suscettibilità disciplinarie. In un piano di reciproca collaborazione è certo che tanto l'estetica come la semiotica devono porsi 11 compi to di precisare una della più importanti questioni della arte, quella di discernere la peculiare comunicabilità del testopittorico,che opera non senza residui, cioé a~ cora una volta dovrebbe problematizzarsi la ~ua indubbia differenzialità . Però si ha da dire che la non riducibilità linguistica dell'oggetto artistico è tutt'altra cosa di una essenziale intraducibilità. In ogni caso verrebbe annessa per l'arte un'enigmatica componente di non-.

990

presenza, già considerata da Heidegger ed estremizzata da Derrida. E' chiaro che 11 discorso sulla pittura,coi!:l volgendo un complesso apparato di categorie scientifiche e filosofiche perderebbe non poche ambiguità esplicitando alcune ipotesi di fondo. Qui interessa sottolinearne alcune. Se la pittura è da spiegarsi entro la costellazione delle esperienze dell ' uomo, sicuramente con l'impronta dell'inconscio e del linguaggio, con largo intervento culturale, come prodotto della mano e del pensiero, una legittima traducibilità discorsiva valorizzerà senza altro approcci storici, sociologi, antropologici, psicologici e psicoanalitici, come importanti strumenti cognitivi. se invece svanisce il •voler dire" di determin!, to soggetto e l'opera viene sottratta alle vicende stor! che e personali, solo rimarrà la determinazione dell'essere o di quello che oggi ne prende il posto, 11 linguaggio. Tali chiarimenti sono indispensabili per inquadrare la riflessione teorica ed accertare la pertinenza delle metodologie in corso, nelle rispettive analisi. Va coraunque notato che la schematizzazione proposta offre una~ satta polarizzazione, dato che è sempre nelle determinazioni del linguaggio e dei suoi giuochi dove tutto si svolge per l ' uomo, ed altro non significa l'essenziale storicità umana che appunto viene fondata con la vita dei segni. Per6 bisognerà precisare come venga pensato il E'!2 lo del soggetto, o meglio, quale sia l'iniziativa e la responsabilità che gli competono nella dimensione estet! ca ed etica della esistenza. Dipartimento di ~ilosofia Università Nazionali~ Rosario!.!!!. Plata Rosario,!!,! Plata. Argentina. RIFERIMENTI Benveniste, !mile (19661: Pwbtiiau de Unsu.i6t~ue. 9tnwde. Paris : Gallimard. Derrida, Jacques ( 1967 I: tle. la ~to9ie. Paris: Minnuit. - - -( 1970 I: La 11t,\.ltt

rion.

eri

~e..

Paris : Aubier-Fl11J1111a-

991

Eco, umberto (1975): T"4tta.to cU. .iemiouca 9e.11eMle.. Milano: Bompiani. ---(1979) . Prospettive di una semiotica delle arti visive . Xn Te.OJI..UI e. p.\at.iclte della (!11,(,Uca d'alt.te.. Atti del Conveqno di Montecatini - Ma99io 1978 (a cura di Egidio Mucci e Pier Luigi Tazzi ).Milano: Feltrinell.i. Garroni, Emilio (1983). La filosofia e rapporti facili/ difficili di estetica e semiotica. In uteuca e Wl 9uc'.6tc'.ca, a cura di Emilio Garroni. Bol09na: Mulino. Mezt, Christian 119781 Avant-prol)Os . In Iazse(6) et cultu· \e.I.i). Co-111,c'.catio11 DECODING OF VERBAL AND NONVERBAL SIGNS: ORCHESTRA CONDUCTING

Monica Rector

An interaction ia the tranamiaaion of a n-eaaa99 by 1118ana of verbal and nonverbal aigna. The behavior of

an interacting group undergoea two different proceaaea. According to Mead, there ia the process by which one is able to accunulate and syatematize observations, in order to recognize, articulate and consciously learn distinct aspects of coinmunication. 'The other is the route which we aa acholara and scientists have followed in attenpting to reduce to order the mass communication that goes on between two or nore people and alao, reflexively, within the individual' (Mead, 1972:277). This JMJlti-llOdal interaction takes place within a context of cooperation with the h\llllln behavioral proceaa. Otherwiae, the decodification and interpretation of the neaaage by the receiver can either lead to 1111sunderstandin9 and m1sinterpretation, orto hostility and evento a blocking resistance from the nell'bers included in the process. In the rehearsal, the orchestra conductor uaea signa - verbal and nonverbal - which are tranafornd into nonverbal signa in the performance and which have to be tranalllitted and interpreted by the orchestra mall'bera. Their deacription and function in this interaction, aa well as the underlying convention& conatitute the forms of thia present study. The transformation of signs from the first rehearsal to the final nonverbal lllllke-up of the musical performance is the scope of our analysis. We want to thank andare profoundly indebted to the conductor ROBERTO RICARDO DOARTE for his aid, constant collaboration and for letting 118 attend hia rehearaala and discuss our obaervationa.

994

1. The relationship between co11p0ser, conductor , orchestra, aurlience is an infinite network of signs referring back to earlier signs and producin~ an infinite chain of signs. The other words, there is a se~iotic linkaqe from elld.tter to receiver in a constant changing of position (the corrposer omits to the conductor, who receives the message and emits it to the orchestra, etc.) The final interpretant will be at the sane tine a result of the sead.osis and a mdel. This nodel ml.ght change in tine and space,chronological and diachronically, according to technique and values, and synchronically due to the interpretation, the idiolect of the interpreter. The interpreter can be, at different instances or simultaneously, the CO!ll>OSer (who interpreta his work), the conductor (who interpreta the C011Pser), the nenbers of the orchestra (who interpret the conductor and the corrposer), and the audience (who interpreta the orchestra, the conductor and/or the COJl'P()ser). Nattiez says that the very fact that the huJM.n behavior beconas the object of an analysis shows that we have associated it with a certain nunt>er of interpretants. 'The CO!ll>OSer, the performar, the listener also organize for the1N1elves the interpretants of the work which is created, played or listened to in a specific Nnner, and this without being necessarily aware that a syrrt>olic process is at work' (Nattiez, 1977:134). The work is transmitted by ireans of a 111WJical score, to a performer who interpreta it, and translates it to the listeners. In this way, 'a network of exchanges takes place between individuala' (Molino). SO, this work cannot be dissociated from the one who produces it and the one receives it. Molino classifies these three aspects of the work, usinq Gilson and Valery ' s terllli.nology, as l. rietic (production pole), 2. esthesic (pole o reception), and 3. neutral (level of the ~aterial object, as heard and produced) (In Nattiez, 1977:134. Cf. Holino, 1975:47). Initially, we will consider the conductor as the interpretar of the conposer. What is a conductor? 'The conductor is a soloist and the orchestra is his instrument' (Schonberg, 1970:22). He is a leader that through his orchestra translates musical synbols into neaningful sound. The reading of the syat>ols varies according to the conductor, it differs from one interpretant to another. There are in fact two interpretations, a nachanical one (to play the score)

99$

and a personal one (to interpret the score). Schonberg

asks: 'How fast is fast? When Mozart writes "allegro", is it a pace, a trot or a galop?' (Schonberg,1970:17).

Each conductor interpreta the syrrbols with his own "ideas", based on his capacity (nchanical interpretation) and on his •intuition" (personal interpretation). Ideas and intuition are signs interpreting other signs, 'the basic condition of semiosis (which) is its being interwoven with signs sending back to signs, in an infinite regression' (Eco, 1979:188-189). However, there are son specific differences,which can be analyzed from a co~sitional spectrum of markers: the interpreter is in itself a text, the interpreter is the soiolst, the conductor, the whole orchestra, the audience: l. the interpreter (a soloist) manages an instrument C object J, which is /inanimate/; the conductor nnages an orchestra Cset of human beings J, who are / animate /. The relati.on soloist/.1.nstrunnt is a direct one, whereas the relation conductor/orchestra has an interuediation: being/another being/object. 2. The prill'e function of the conductor is interpretative. The interpretation follows a semiotic sequence: conductor~interpretation {:~~l Jorchestra{nonverbal ) gestural performance rehearsal

Figura l.

Steps of interpretation

The conductor does not "teach" the orchestra,which already knows the l'IIUSic, he hears it, that is, makes a conjunct correction. The conductor rehearses his orchestra either by l. giv.1.ng verbal instructions: speaking (beating the time), 2. singing or hullling a mus.1.cal sequence, 3. malcing a corresponding syllbolic gesture. Any of these instructions are received silently by the orchestra and reproduced by perforllling the ordered sound. The ideal in conducting is to speak as little as possible, and gesticulate the essential features only. The conductor economizes gestures to gain eicpression. The interpretar (performer) interpretes the coaposer, according to his own personal.1.ty and elq)&rience - his self -; the conductor not only

996

interprets the conposer, but depersonalizes the orchestra for it to interpret the conductor's will • The conductor does not play a material inatruSTent, but he plays an instrument called orchestra. The orchestra plays the eoll'l)Oser's elllitions which are passed to the rrenbers through the conductor's interpretation. There 1s the following relation: COnposer I

interpretation l

I

conductor

I

interpretation 2 I

orchestra

I

interpretation 3

41~

instrunents

~,u.

audience Figure 2. Sequence of relations in the interpretation The orchestra is then the lllirror that trans~its to the audience the eonductor's image of the music. In this signifying process, Peirce's definition of sign is the key-word: 'A sign, or representamen, is something which stands to soSTebody for sonething in s01111 respect to capacity. It addresses soffl!lbody, that is, creates in the mind of that person an equivalent sign, perhaps a ll'Ore developed sign. That sign which it creates I call the interpretant of the first sign. The sign stands for that object,not in all respects, but in reference to a sor~ of idea, which I have soireti•• called the ground of the representation' (Peirce 2.228). Musical sallliotics is the study of the signs of l"'Ucic nnd 'the various types of signs have at least the co111110n feature that they referto somethinq else, thenwe can envisage misic as a syìibolic phenonna' (Nattiez, 1977:124). The interpretant is the idea to which the sign-gives rise in the mind of the interpreter,

997

whereas the qrolllld is the idea in the co11111Unicative process between two or more interpreters. 'The interpretant is a way to represent, by n,eans of another sign (, •• ), what the representamen in fact selects of a 9iven object (its qrolllld)' Eco,1979:183). Ifthe interpretant is the interpretation of one sign into another sign, then this interpretation by interpretants is the way which the grolllld is e>q>ressed as naning. However, the interpretant establishes a habit, that is, a regularity of behavior in the interpreter or user of the sign, Otherwise, it would be iirpossible for the orchestrato follow the conductor in a series of rehearsals, as well as several different conductors directin9 the sane lll\18ical work. This habit is a tendency 'to behave in a similar way llllder similar circumstances in the future' (Peirce S.487), the final interpretant of a sign is the resulting habit (Peirce S.491), The conductor works with the interpretant, it is no longer the co11p0ser's idea (sign l), but another sign, the conductor's idea (sign 2). This sign 2 has its own representall'en independently fro~ the first idea. Sign l cannot be enpirically verified due to the a . t:he absence of the conposer, which inplies not only the creator's sign, but the musical values of the conposer's (native) place (and of his specific) tiire1 b. the lll\18ical score, which only contains the essential ~arks. The syll'bols and instructions on the printed paç.se permit various interpretations. The functions of the conductor, who stands over many individual interpreters (orchestra mell'bers) is to 11111.ke them assimilate the ideas of the coll'l)Oser through his own ~ind and will. This idea of the sign conceives a form that is perceived as a naning, The percept is defined by Peirce as 'the object perceived in a single act of perceiving' (MS 693b, 1904, ISP 98. In Johansen: S),1 Thi3 percept is a solid starting point of knowledge developed by the conductor as single things, which becon classes of possibilities (MS 693 b, ISP 113-S), of images of solllld, that form the irenory of the percept and nke it possible to reproduce these percepts in modified ways (Johansen: 6). These images of solllld can be regarded as a sign, but in thell\Selves they carry no ll\8anin9. 'But many of

998

our ideas, which considered in what they ilfflediately exhibit are nerely irnages, are in reality 1Nch 110re, bacause they are connacted with othar ideas by association, and aither suggest or are suggested by these other ideas' (MS 693 b, 1904, ISP 100-2).These associations are unique in the conductor's r.d.nd, and only he is able to transform this content into an expression. This expression inplies a pu~se, "an operative desire" (Peirce l.205). This ieas usto other philosophical problell\9. According to Peirce (MS 599, 1902, ISP), the i:reasure of desirability is value and the value of anything to us is its meaning. On the other hand, desire is a reference to the future. 'That leads us to inquire whether neaning does not always referto future•. In accepting Peirce's point of view, we can ~ake it operative in musical interpretation,in the process of IMking 111Usic from a written text. When the conductor interprete the conposer's sylTÒOls, the JTQ&ical score, in order to become naningful syrrbols, the signs have indices and icons attached to them. The conductor uses the indexical element for its raferential function, the iconic element as a syntax,a grawnar of conducting as well as mental irnages in the chain of associations to arrive finally at the syrrbol, the production of a sound that contains not only the conventions, but the personal input. 'The sonic phenonena produced by musicare indeed, at the san-e tine, icone: they can illlitate the clarors of the work and evoke them, or be sill'()ly, the irnages of our feelings ••• ' (Molino, 1975:45). 3. The hand and the baton play the rnain role in the gesticulation of conducting. The baton, although the hand's extension, offers additional leverage to the ar,. 'It adds a len