This article was downloaded by: [University of California Davis]On: 15 November 2014, At: 17:02Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Social SemioticsPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/csos20

Deixis and space in dramaVimala Herman aa University of Nottingham ,Published online: 29 Apr 2009.

To cite this article: Vimala Herman (1997) Deixis and space in drama, Social Semiotics, 7:3, 269-283, DOI: 10.1080/10350339709360387

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10350339709360387

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations orwarranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of orendorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Social Semiotics, Vol 7, No. 3, 1997 269

Delxls and Space In DramaVIMALA HERMAN

This article seeks to explore some of the functions of deixis in the delineation of space indrama. The dramatic text addresses a context of performance and, therefore, space depictionis generally regarded as within the province of theatre since the transformation of the hareboards of the stage into other spaces and places calls forth the skills of scenographers, lightingexperts, etc. Verbal depictions of space are seen to be best employed in referring to off-stagespace or restricted to reference to objects onstage, when they need to be particularlyforegrounded as significant for the onstage action in its relation to the whole. The,basically, onstage/off-stage division is mapped on to the visual/verbal one so that thevisual, onstage space is the main business with verbal references to offstage spacebackgrounded as a consequence. Deictic phenomena, however, cut across such divisions.Deixis uses the body of participants in speech events as the primary point for calculationsof space. The body has access to different channels—visual, auditory, tactile, etc. whichdeictic usages mobilise. Moreover, from a linguist's point of view, the mode of discourseappropriate to drama is speech since the dialogue presupposes actors on stage interactingwith each other, via speech, and not reading texts silently. The voice is the medium ofcommunication, and hence, the body is installed back into the page of the text. Deixispresupposes a corporeal context of utterance with corporeal bodies and channels of communi-cation open for use. This article explores some of the consequences for delineating dramaticspace, when the visual/verbal division and its progeny are undercut by the use of deixis.

Introduction

The study of space in drama is a complex affair. The different aspects encompassinterests as varied as the broader3 'macro5 domain of the architectural study of spaceand the design of different theatres and their influence on performance^ to the'micro3 domain of how space is organised within specific plays. Space., however., liketime3 is abstract and needs to be conceptualised in different ways in concrete^contextualised instances^ if the functions of space are to be made intelligible. Andtheatre., as the art of space3 is also the art of the transformation of space. The bareboards of the stage are the site of transformations since the physical spaces of stageand/or auditorium have to represent various fictional spaces and places« To be sure3

plays exist that foreground the stage as stage as in Peter Handke's Offending theAudience; or plays may reflexively embed a fictional stage as context for action withinthe physical stage as in Pirandello's Six Characters in Search of an Author. The bulkof textual drama., however3 has generated fictional spaces and places which are

1035-0330/97/030269-15 © 1997 Carfax Publishing Ltd

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a D

avis

] at

17:

02 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

270 V. Herman

'other3 to the physical space of the stage—the conventional, theatrical site ofperformance—although located In it. Space transformation Is therefore a crucialaspect of dramatic and theatrical art and covers the more permanent and staticconstraints exercised by architecture or stage design, as well as the more dynamic,mutable and flexible aspects of space creation as employed by specific dramatists inspecific plays. The two are not unrelated3 but it is the latter which concerns us here.

Space In drama, like everything else In a text, addresses the theatrical context ofperformance, and space has been classified in various waySo Pfister (1988) broadlydistinguishes between 'closed3 and "open3 structures of space» The space scope of aplay can be restricted to one locality either by dramaturgical prescription as In theclassical 'unity of placed or by preferred design, as in some naturalistic or absurdistplays; or the space presupposed may span different localities and places, as inShakespeare's plays. Issacharoff (1989) discriminates among the more static archi-tectural spaces of theatre and the scénographie spaces of, among other things, stagedesign, and dramatic space. This last refers to the structure and configuration ofspace as presupposed by particular plays, Scolinicov (1994) terms this 'theatricalspace' as opposed to architectural, *'theatre space9 ̂ with the 'theatrical space3 ofparticular performances realised within 'theatre space3» Theatrical space is thatpresupposed by a play and which Is realised anew by each performance within theboundaries of Its unique space-time structure»

Dramatic space is constitutive of the fictional, spatial world In which the action islocated, and this Is, In turn, divided into on-stage space and off-stage space:'mimetic3 and 'diegetlc3 in Issacharoff s (1989) terminology, along a visual/verbaldivide* On-stage space, as 'mimetic3, Is that which is visible to an audience: 'diegetic3

space Is off-stage and usually invisible to the viewer, with the visual channel closed,so that space is represented via other means, usually In the dialogue» A medialcategory Is also available where mimetic and dlegetic forms of representationInteract, when objects and decor on-stage, and available to the eye, are also referredto via the verbal channel In the dialogue, In order to foreground them for somedramatic purpose» Scolinicov (1994) categorises the division between on-stage andoff-stage space as "the theatrical space within9 and "the theatrical space without sinceboth belong to the same universe and form a continuum of theatrical space»Theatrical space is seen to Include "the mise-en-scene^ acting, choreography, scenery,lighting, etc., as well as a given theatre space33 (Scolinicov 1994: 3)»

Space in drama, therefore, is a complex affair and can be represented by the moreImmediately accessible visual channel via choreography, lighting, scenery, etc», or bymore mediated verbal means» The fonction of the verbal is usually relegated torepresenting off-stage space, invisible space, given the priority of the eye in theatre,or as In Issacharoff (1989) to foreground objects on-stage via reference»

The above general reading of the possibilities of space does not, of course, confrontthe tensions involved in the double claims that are made on the play text—by thosewho privilege performance and the visual renderings of space and those who

sjfffi «s^ y J^L

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a D

avis

] at

17:

02 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

Deixis and Space in Drama 271

prioritise the verbal, or textual representations of space. In terms of the categorieslisted above, it would appear that performance analysts tend to privilege the mimetic^whereas text analysts prefer the textual or diegetic. The two may intersect in variousways; for instance., when dialogue refers to visual and visible spaces«* or in the stagedirections, when the verbal has to be transformed into the visual. The latter does notsolve the opposition and often gives rise to it instead, when stage designers departfrom the dramatist's given stage directions. The importance to be awarded to thevisual and verbal channels is contested, accordingly, with the mechanics andaesthetics of staging visible3 on-stage space taking priority for performance analystsover verbalised space whether in the dialogue or the didascalia.

The anxieties regarding the verbal text in its relation to performance have haddifferent airings but common issues have been articulated well by Pavis (1988). Thestatus of the text in performance becomes a problem when performance work,including space delineation, is regarded as secondary work—a kind of filling in of thegaps«, to provide the referents that the text controls. Moreover the text is alsoregarded as providing one readings one interpretation which has somehow to berecovered in performance in order for the latter to be authentic. Pavis is concernedto rescue performance from being a kind of superfluity3 saddled with the job ofsupplying the concrete addition of referents or signifieds authorised by the text inperformance. From this perspective., the role of the textual verbal becomes tyrrani-cal, and overweighted to such an extent that the other codes of theatre are seen tosuffer. The restoration of significance to the play as theatre then seems to requireequal analytical and practical attention to all the erased codes3 and their historiesand productivités. In the effort., however, the verbal not only gets counter-erased3

but all the other codes are lumped together when in opposition to the verbal. Theverbal as .'text3 is regarded in its separation from the enon-verbaF elements ofperformance^ which are mostly visually accessible in the 'here and now5 of perform-ance in a way the text is not.

To linguists.» however^ the opposing of the verbal and the non-verbal., whether asvisual or otherwise.» in mutual separation in this way3 does not hold. For a start, theverbal exists in two modes—as two modes of discourse—in written form and asspoken speech3 and the one cannot be wholly mapped onto the other. The mediumof transmission of the latter is sound3 since speech does not exist as the silentgrapheme on a page. Moreover., spoken speech requires the human voice3 thehuman body3 and its vocal organs for it to come into existence in the first place. Thedialogue in the written text inevitably addresses a context of performance, whichrequires change in mode of discourse into spoken speech by the actors on stage; itis not written lines in isolation that we are considering but their transmuted role inproducing speech events as material stage events among the bodied, dramatis personae.

Speech events are complex and dynamic phenomena as ethnographers of speech,like Dell Hymes (1972) have shown. Hymes3 acronym of SPEAKING has at-tempted to capture the multiple constituents of speech events: briefly3 S = spatio-temporal context; P = Participants (Speaker—Addressee (s)); E = ends and goals forspeech use in context; A = acts and act sequences as they evolve in time; K = key(i.e. whether formal, informal, etc.); I = instrumentalities (voice3 or some other

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a D

avis

] at

17:

02 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

272 F. Herman

medium); N = social norms directing speech use; G = genre of speech—social chit-chat, sermon, etc. The change of the verbal medium into voiced modes of discoursemeans that other transformations come into being, since different constraints oper-ate on spoken speech as voiced speech» As such, speech is never speech in theabstract: it is always situated^ occasioned: it occurs in specific places and in timeamong specific participants—by someone for others» Speech occurs, therefore, incorporeal contexts and as a corporeal event»

Thus, the spatio-temporal context in which speech is used is one of the majorconstraints on speech, and the contingencies of participants in time and space aregivens in assessing the dynamics of speech in context» fiThe verbal3 as dialogue, oras stage directions, in plays, constitutes Virtual speech events3 (Birch 1991)» TheVirtuality' of speech events and the blend of the verbal/non-verbal elements requiredare not in a text-referent relation alone., as a signifier—signified one, as in Is-sacharoff s and Pavis' description» From the ethnographic viewpoint, speech andcontext are mutually constitutive, the traffic is two-way, not unidirectional fromspeech to context, or text to referent» Nor is one relation between the two presup-posed either» Moreover, the actional aspect of reference has also to be taken intoaccount in a material context of utterance. The relation of reference comes not witha signified or object attached to it, but often only with instructions to find the objectreferred to by the speaker» The ratification of the 'signified' can be a process3 witha hit-or-miss conclusion to the search within the contingencies of a spatio-temporalcontext» As far as space is concemed3 the tie between speech and spatio-temporalcontext has to be maintained3 but as long as the reciprocity between them ispreserved3 different kinds of tie are possible» The visual can relate to the verbal indifferent ways but the effects will change depending on the relation that is actuallyrealised in a specific performance»

Moreover, speech is not the recitation of disembodied lines, or language5 alone,but speech behaviour by someone for others in speech events» And behaviour,including speech behaviour, can semioticise space and be constitutive of it ratherthan merely referring to it» Conversely, spatial context can equally control behav-iour» Places like courtrooms and churches require special behaviours when trials orservices are in session, but not necessarily otherwise» Appropriate activity has moreto do with the way in which we conceptualise space than the bare fact of seeingphysical space, or objects in space, alone» The 'churchiness3, so to speak, of a churchis best realised when it is used as one, but a church can still be a church to a tourist,its primary designation holding outside actual use» Alternatively, when a play isperformed in a church, for the nonce, it is conceptualised differently: it becomes atheatrical space, owing to activity»

Additionally, with respect to language and space, it needs to be remembered thatlanguage3 also exists in two 'fields', which may be termed the 'symbolic' and the'deictic' (Buhler 1934)» The symbolic field is that which generally passes forlanguage', its design features (Lyons 1977) including the arbitrariness of the sign,which means that the tie between sound-shape and concept cannot be logicallyunravelled since fixed by convention; and its capacity for displacement» The latter,in particular, licenses the capacity of language to refer to objects which are dislodged

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a D

avis

] at

17:

02 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

Deixis and Space in Drama 273

from the physical and perceptual context of naming or reference, objects., persons,states of affairs., etc., need not be either in the immediately, physically accessibleenvironment, or temporally simultaneous with speech for them to be available forreference. I may refer to a time or state 'when I was five years old' or to someone'in Paris3 although at many removes from the objects or states referred to. Thesymbolic field can thus be regarded as disembodied^ in this sole sense, that the physicalbody of the speaker or hearer in space is not the primary point of reference inprocesses of meaning. Many mental processes, however, have a bodily basis, asrecent work in cognitive linguistics has shown, (e.g. Lakoff 1987; Johnson 1987;Turner 1991).

The deictic field3 however, relies on the physical body as the primary referencepoint although this could be transferred with its perceptual and bodily qualitiesimaginatively, into or from3 absent contexts of utterance. The deictic field is deeplyanchored in the physical, temporal and perceptual context of utterance with thebody of the speaker (and/or hearer(s)) as the primary point of reference. It can betermed, therefore, as the bodied field of language. The two are not in a binary divide3

although distinct and distinguishable by their different operative conditions andqualities. Different categorisations of deixis are available, but they fall basically intoperson3 place3 time. Social and textual deixis are also included., but it will be the firstthree which will concern us here. Person deixis includes personal pronouns like T 3

'you3 whereby the first person pronoun is a form of self-reference by the speaker(s)in a speech event, reference changes with changing speakers. The second personpronoun refers to whoever., singular or plural, is addressed, and is also capable ofchange. The third person usually refers to 'absent5 others or non-participants. Placedeixis includes adverbs like 'here5, 'there5 and demonstrative pronouns or adjectiveslike 'this5 and 'that3. Spatial relations and locations in the speech event are computedby using the body of the speaker^ for front/back., left/right, near/far calculations;objects and places can be located as proximal or distal to speaker, generally, or asinclusive of speaker place, at the time of speech, although different languages mayhave more complex, deictic categorisations and more finely grained distinctions.(Levinson 1983: 81; Hanks 1990; Dirven & Putz 1996). Time deixis includes timeadverbs and adverbials like 'now5, 'then5, 'next year5, 'last year5, 'tomorrow5, 'yester-day5, 'today5, etc., which are calculated from the time of utterance. The grammaticalcategory of tense is similarly deictic since past and future are computed from theprimary reference point of the time of the speaker's utterance.

In the deictic centre of speech, therefore, the corporeality of participants, especiallythe speaker, although not uniquely, is the primary point of reference for deicticreferencing. The deictic3 or indexical 'ground3, in which the 'figures5, the objects ofreference., are located mobilise resources of the body—haptic, visual, auditory,tactile, of movement, and gesture. In Buhler's (1934) ocular type of deixis, it is thepointing index finger which is used for the location of objects in space; 'index finger5

surrogates, like gaze, or a jerk of the head, for 'this5 or 'that5, 'here53 'there5, etc., are

also resources, without which cue location of objects would not be possible. Buhler5socular types can signify place as proximal or distal to the speaker but 'near3 can bea point in space, or a wider space which is inclusive of the speaker. 'Here5 or 'this3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a D

avis

] at

17:

02 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

274 F. Herman

can be used gesturally and presentatively of an object, as in 'Look ye on this portraitand on this3 or more inclusively as in 'this city is still medieval in character' wherethe deictic 'this' includes the visible space of the speaker within a larger space of thecity which is outside the visual range of actors and audience» Moreover, preciselybecause of the 'shifter' character of deictics, the body's movement in space wouldtranspose deictic referencing accordingly, since the body of the speaker, as primaryreference point would take its spatio-temporal co-ordinates with it in the interac-tional speech event, so that the primary reference point can be a changing one,dynamic, spatially and temporally, in the course of speech»

The deixis am phantasma modes as 'transposed' types can bring other deicticcontexts located via imagination or memory, into the corporeal context of utterance,not descriptively and symbolically, but deictically, as if present and visible within it.,Buhler has listed three types, informally.

(1) 'Mohammed goes to the mountain', by which the speaker transposes itself intothe imagined context and locates objects as observer,

(2) 'The Mountain comes to Mohammed' type., in which the imagined context isregarded as if present to the body in the present context of utterance—likeimagining a vase on a table, or changing the design of a room one is viewing bymentally shifting the furniture to other places. In -natural narratives (Hanks1990) actions undertaken in another context can be 're-lived' and mimed via theuse of deixis—for instance, in describing an encounter with an animal, thedescription can enact the event as in, 'I held the head like this (gesture) and thenslowly turned the head round like this' (action and gesture); the absent can bemade made present to the bodily eye in the speech context;

(3) This is a mixed type which integrates the other two processes—speakers 'proj-ect' themselves to another space and then use their own body co-ordinateswithin it. In all forms of deixis the relation is not between linguistic sign andextra-linguistic referent, in sign-signified terms, but spatial relations are calcu-lated with the body of the speaker, generally, as 'origo' in a figure-ground,inter-meshed relation instead, and dependent on 'where' the speaker and hearerare located, physically.

The speaking-moving body of the speaker as actor in space, in an everyday or stagedcontext of performance, is thus not 'other' to discourse, but basically installed andintegrated within it once the 'diegetic', the verbal channel, is seen not as oppostionalto the 'mimetic', 'non-verbal' channels, a perspective which a bias towards theverbal 'text' as written text in 'symbolic' mode has engendered, as a consequence ofthe institutional assimilation of the dramatic text into literature. Precisely becausethe dramatic text addresses a context of performance, another institutional contextis involved, and another mode of discourse, and the latter is fundamentally deicticfor both performers and audience, since encountered in the 'here and now'. Therelevance of the spoken mode of discourse and its conditions of existence, especiallyin its corporeal, body-oriented, deictic, productivities and constraints have had verylittle attention in either literary or performance studies, but the change in mode ofdiscourse actually renders the usual dichotomies redundant.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a D

avis

] at

17:

02 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

Deixis and Space in Drama 275

If this is the case, then certain consequences follow. For a starts the deictic contextof performance is the overall 'stage event5 which includes the audience, and in whichthe fictional speech events are embedded. The audience's perceptual and cognitiveabilities are also addressed and relied upon to access and process, the physical'doings' and visual offerings., on stage as they are presented, as the given decisions,in a performance. The constituents of speech events on stage, like the discourseunits of speaker/adressee(s)3 whether directly addressed, or not, whether over-hearears, eavesdroppers, etc., are intersected by stage units like 'performers5 or'actors5 in the stage event in progress. There is, thus, the convergence to beaccounted for when speech events presupposed by the dialogue have to be translatedinto stage events in performance, since they coincide. What must be noted is that itis bodied speech within a material context of situation with which we are concernedin both speech and stage events. In such contexts, the bodied channels are open—thevisual, the auditory, the tactile, etc. Dialogic speech events as deictic, stage events.,in bodied form, are multi-medial and mixed; events are enacted in real time and inconcrete spaces, by material persons, however designated, and open to the eye andear, etc., whether inside or outside drama.

Spatially, there is convergence and coincidence since the 'here3 of the tnise-en-sceneis the immediate, deictic, spatial context of the situation of utterance. Althoughspatial settings are presupposed by speech, setting does not unilaterally determinespeech behaviour, nor is setting merely a backdrop, although it can function as one.Courtrooms, classrooms, churches, streets, homes, and shops, etc., require certainkinds of 'typical5 behaviours but changes in behaviour can also change the cognitiveand psychological orientation to the physical space in which speech is conducted,and to participant roles accordingly. A doctor functions as one in a surgery, butdoctor and patient may also switch roles to those of neighbours or friends viabehaviour even within the confines of the physical setting of a surgery in an overallspeech event of a 'medical consultation9 (Auer 1992). Streets may be used forparties, or performances, which activities and behaviours can change the nature ofthe physical space of the street cognitively. And the topography of whole towns canbe similarly transformed into performance spaces, as Schechner (1988) has shown,for the duration of the Ramlila festival in Ramnagar, India.

The physical space of the stage, therefore, is open to cognitive re-readingsdepending on the kind of speech events in progress. The setting is a co-ordinate ofthe speech event, and integrated with speech, but this does ,not presuppose someunique rendering of spatial setting which is 'given5 in the text, even when suppliedby the dramatist in the didascalia. Its visual realisations will inevitably differsince, even here, transformation is required from the linearity of language tothree-dimensional space, to be viewed^ not read, by others. The arrangement onstage, even when the dramatist's directions are faithfully followed, is an alreadyinterpreted one, not a raw and innocent transportation of the verbal 'original5 intothe 'secondary5 visual, in conduit fashion.

On stage, the spatio-temporal aspect of the context of utterance of the speechevent, within the discourse framework, intersects with 'set' in the theatrical frame-work, and 'the set5 can realise discourse 'setting5 in different visual ways and can be

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a D

avis

] at

17:

02 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

276 V. Herman

in tension with it» As Pavis (1988: 91) notes3 "there is a theoretical 'fitting3 that putsthe text under dramatic or stage stress". Theatrical and dramaturgical requirements^moreover., may require conflicts and clashes between setting and speech as is thecase in an Ionesco., for instance* Setting and speech are still related^ but indissonance: negative relations are as consequential as positive ones and open tointerpretation. 'Inappropriate3 behaviour too3 is still interprétable behaviour«, whenin negative relation to its setting. And 'set3 conventions can change as they havewithin the history of theatre. Different 'concrétisations5 embedded in differentpeformances3 in similar or different, social contexts of reception«, with differentperformance values^ and different, architectural stage constraints«, have their ownsignificance. Pavis (1988) notes that different performace choices can renew the textitself as they make new readings possible.

The symbolic resources in language for delineating space are many and include alllocative expressions like prepositions and prepositional phrases3 compass directions«,names of places., etc. These., as part of 'absolute3 systems3 locate objects or delineatespace via fixed points which are independent of the body of the speaker;'relative' systems-, like the deictic system use the body of the speaker (as in English)as primary reference point3 or Ground3 and fix the object or Figure relative to it(Levinson 1993). Space is often depicted by forging spatial relations among objects.,for space itself is abstract. Symbolic resources are many and can work in tandem orin contrast with deictic resources3 since their functions are different (Herman 1995:48-59). It is the deictic aspects of the verbal«, as dramatic discourse3 which are theobject of this study.

Deixis

As far as dramatic space is concerned«, the basic mimetic/diegetic binary founded onvisual/verbal lines3 as pertinent to on-stage and off-stage space«, has to acquire a morecomplex rendering. The unsteadiness of the binary is available in Issacharoff s(1989) inclusion of a mixed mode within the mimetic/diegetic division., in which theverbal is used to refer to visually available objects on stage. The visual and the verbalcan intermingle3 with different functions to perform. Within the deictic«, stage-event3

therefore3 other possibilities are open«, since the multi-mediality of a body-centredcontext of utterance can provide more complex resources for space depiction.,whether via one medium«, like the visual or the verbal3 or3 as is usually the case3 whenother media are exploited as well. Of these., the verbal is the most productive3 sinceit can delineate absent spaces as well; but the deictic verbal can configure space indifferent ways within the visual context of situation«, too. Some of the strategieswhich dramatists have used in exploiting the verbal medium for the depiction ofdramatic space3 in a multi-medial3 corporeal context will be dealt with later in thispaper.

One of the more productive uses of the verbal on-stage3 apart from references toobjects for foregrounding purposes., which Issacharoff has noted3 is for the purposesof verbal painting of the stage setting itself, in order to transform the bare boardsof the stage3 imaginatively«, into another space and place in the fictional world

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a D

avis

] at

17:

02 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

Deixis and Space in Drama 277

(Pfister 1988; Herman 1995) Deictic usages instal the bodies of the participants,speaker(s)/hearer(s)3 or sometimes both., as the 'ground' in the 'here and now5

with respect to which the 'figure5 is located. The deictic relationship can contourthe visual3 spatial field of the stage as other spaces., chiefly3 by invoking theindexical relation that links figure with ground^ in various ways, in order totransform one space into another imaginatively. In Hamlet^ (Herman 1995: 52-3.,69-70; 1996), deictic time references fix the time of the stage event as midnight,or just after, at the beginning of the play—for instance., Bemado5s cTis nowstruck twelve; get thee to bed3 Francisco5 (i.e. at the time of utterance., on stage)(l.i.7). Bernado brackets the spatial context as dark3 since the time at the 'now5 ofspeech is around midnight. Within a few lines3 deictic references have moved thetime to one o'clock in the morning3 and it is still dark. The stars are out and visible.,since deictic., to the seeing eyes of the personae on stage., in the fictional, spatialworld.

BERNADO Last night of all,When yond same star that's westward from thepoleHad made his course t'illumine that part ofheavenWhere now it burns. Marcellus and myself,The bell then beating one—(Li. 36-9)

The indexical relation between object and body makes the star burning in the skyvisible to the eyes of the observers., whose bodies., gaze and attention have to beturned towards it, and invites the audience3 within the protocols of performance orthe readings, to share in the fictional time3 the dark quality of space and the sight ofthe burning star as projected by the deictic cues provided by the language. On stage3

therefore., it is about one o'clock in the fictional world., the space of the physical stageis a dark space with the stars visible to the eye3 and burning in the 'sky5 at an angle'now', at the time of utterance, as they did 'last5 night when the ghost appeared.Scenographers may represent the scene in" any relevant way3 with or without starsvisible to the audience. The language has already installed them into the setting., andin deictic relation to the bodies., and the audience may imaginatively transform thephysical stage accordingly., even in the full light of day3 as the Elizabethan audiencedid.

Other space strategies can map the dimensions of the visible, and inevitably.,restricted, architecturally bounded space of the stage into other3 larger spaces vialanguage., as within the visual and perceptual context of speech, and thus expand thevisible dimensions of stage space into other spaces. In Romeo and Juliet^ the famousball is in progress in Capulet5s house. The disguised Romeo sees Juliet in the midstof her social duties and enquires about her. The action is deictically rendered.

ROMEO [To a servant] What lady's that whichdoth enrich the hand

Of yonder knight, (l.v. 39-40)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a D

avis

] at

17:

02 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

278 V. Herman

The setting is the 'Great Chamber*, cited by the servants earlier, which is the spaceof the festivities in which Romeo is placed, but how large can the great chamber beon stage, physically? And how would it be signified except metonynomically orsymbolically? It would be difficult to map the space of the festivities in a literal' orone-to-one fashion, in scale, on to the dimensions of a particular stage, especially amodern stage» We would expect the fictional space to be larger than the actualarchitectural space that the stage makes available. The visual has to be transformedby other means, and the verbal» especially the deictic verbal, is a productiveresource3 especially when the verbal is used on-stage to contour fictional space,Shakespeare gives us guides via the dialogue., but they do not constitute closedoptions. He merely, by the progress of the dialogue in the scene.» gives hints as tohow space can be organised via the spatial configurations of participants within thesetting. But these are general, rather abstract cues regarding spatial relations onstage, from which we have to infer and expand the fictional scope of space in thescene. The text provides a set of constraints, which may be differently realised onstage, given that the physical, spatial dimensions of stages can differ. It does nottyrannise performace by projecting one concrete realisation alone, as it is assumed to

In the scene from which the extract cited above is taken, space is subdivided viadifferent participant patterns and groupings in the dialogue with different activitiesgoing on simultaneously in the same, visible space, which serve to expand space,since different areas and activités have to be brought into relation as interlinkedwithin the same, visible continuous space. Cognitively, the actual space relationsamong the groupings as organised in a performance, within the inflexible, architec-tural and physical dimensions of a real stage, have to be read by the audience as 'thestage is a ballroom'; in other words as neither just a physical stage nor a physicalballroom but the stage scene as a 'blend' (Turner & Fauconnier 1995) of 'source'and 'target' conceptual, mental spaces in which the visual image provided by thecues of the stage props are integrated into our mental image space of ballrooms.After all, whatever the visual presentation on stage, it is not a Capulet great houseor chamber, but one space which needs to be read as another space while retainingits own performance specificity. The transformation is wholly mental.

The scene begins with Capulet welcoming his guests and then inviting them todance, which they do. The scene is crowded with the Capulet family and guests,including Romeo and Benvolio. At Capulet's invitation the dancing guests form agroup, and after some mingling Capulet expands the immediate space into off-stagespace by shouting instructions to his servants. A second group is formed in adifferent interactive space between Capulet Senior and 2 Capulet, who converse.Simultaneously, yet another grouping is forged between Romeo and the servant.Romeo talks to the servant, but the deictic markers used enable him to expand spacesince his gaze is fixed on Juliet, who is obviously at some distance from him, or couldbe; the use of the deictic, distal, 'that' and 'yonder' signify perceptual distance, butexactly how far would depend on the gaze and the degrees of proximity a particularperformance chooses to instantiate, with respect to overall spatial configurations ofparticipants and others on stage. Tybalt and Capulet, grouped together for speech

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a D

avis

] at

17:

02 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

Deixis and Space in Drama 279

purposes., form yet another bracketed space but are near enough for Tybalt torecognise Romeo's voice»

TYBALT: This., by his voice., should be a Montague»Fetch me my rapier3 boy. What3 dares the slaveCome hither3 covered with an antic face ... (l.v. 52-4).

As the dialogue notes., Romeo is within earshot of Tybalt., who hears and recogniseshis voice3 which is not the case with Juliet in the previous extract. The range of theeye is longer than the range of the ear in a corporeal context of utterance. Thedeictics enable links to be made between these immediately., unshared spaces. So doobjects of a speaker's attention when located in other spaces. So does movements aswhen Romeo moves over to Juliet's space and the wooing between them occurs.Deictic referencings change accordingly—personal and physical closeness signifiedin the gesture in the deictics that Romeo uses in this part of the scene.

ROMEO [To Juliet] If I profane with myunworthiest hand

This holy shrine (1.5.91-2).

What exactly is the referent of 'this . . . shrine'? Her face., her hand3 her body? Hekisses her a few lines later. Wherever the eunworthiest hand' is placed by anactor in a performances the different possibilities bring different connotations ofsexual intimacy between them. The deictic provides the general instruction to linkspeaker body and indexical object as proximal. It does not authorise one interpret-ation of the link to be realised in any one instance. The visual channel is openin deictic usages for the identification of whichever option is used3 for relevantinferences to be made.

In Act Two-, scene 1, the stage directions are the following: A lane by the wall ofCapulefs orchard. Romeo enters and speaks.

ROMEO Can I go forward when my heart is here?

and jumps over the wall of the orchard and re-enters the Capulet domain. Theproximal deictic 'here' is used3 where we would have expected the distal 'there'. Theusage is Type 3 of Buhler's adphantasma kind—when a speaker transposes itself, inimagination^ into the place and presence of a physically distant and absent objectand locates its body co-ordinates within it. The gaze could be in the direction of theCapulet households and Juliet's place3 where Romeo's body is mentally. His physicalbody is also transported to it by his action. Dramatic space is extended away fromthe physical stage space to the deictic space of transpositions to which Romeosubsequently moves himself3 and the domain of the fictional space is expandedaccordingly. By contrasts Benvolio who is in hot pursuit of Romeo uses deixis tosignify a general direction., according to that asumed by his own body3 or gaze3 orgesture3 or a combination of them—'He ran this way3 and leapt this orchard wall.'"This way's too* serves to enlarge stage space3 indeterminately3 along the route of thevisible lane' on stage., while 'this orchard wall' simultaneously informs the audiencedeictically as to what the prop on stage is meant to represent.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a D

avis

] at

17:

02 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

280 V. Herman

On the other hand3 dramatic space can also be extended via the deictic strategy oflocating a speaker in inclusive fashion in a far larger^ geographical space than can bevisible3 and these are the type of usages which Levinson has categorised as 'inclusiveof speaker place at the time and place of utterance' which expand spatial or temporalscope beyond presentative uses of spatial deictics like 'this', or punctual usages oftemporal deixis like 'now'» The space of speech thus becomes part of a wider spacein continuous fashion3 spatially and temporally» Usages like 'This is Illyria, lady3 onthe part of the captain to Viola's question 'What country^ friends3 is this?3 in TwelfthNight are cases in point. The visible scene of action is a part of another largergeographical unit with which it is integrated» The deictic 'this3 links the speaker'slocation at the time of speech as Illyria, which backgrounds momentarily theimmediate stage location of the action—the sea coast to which the rescue party hasbrought Viola» The sea coast location is embedded into the wider spatial unit ofIllyria, which is not represented visually^ and the 'set' or 'setting' itself is a metonymof the wider unit» The point is3 that the invisible is an extension of the visible stagespace3 not somehow other to it» On-stage and off-stage3 the visible and the invis-ible—the rest of Illyria—are integrated by such usages3 and the scope of dramaticspace is expanded3 from the stage outwards accordingly»

Juliet on discovering Romeo outside her bedroom uses deictics as well—'I wouldnot for the world they saw thee/here'—the 'here' is used in socio-centric fashion(Hanks 1990) not to locate an object3 but to foreground the joint space in whichboth speaker and addressee are located3 as assessed visually in the deictic context;Juliet at her bedroom window with Romeo below and beyond it, but within earshot»'Here' is also3 pragmatically3 part of the Capulet terrain3 within which the bedroomand house are located3 the part invoking the whole and intensifying the threat to

Other uses are functional for the conduct of stage business3 in the 'Here comesRomeo' types3 since they announce the identity of the actor who enters the stage forthe benefit of the audience as much as to inform each other» They also expand thevisual field of the on-stage world into off-stage spaces3 as extensions of it» Off-stagespace thus becomes part of the same3 unbroken space and is made continuous withit because of the visual range or field of the speaker—as far its eye can see fromon-stage out and beyond3 in the 'here' and 'now' of speech» In Beckett's Endgamethe only part of the world that is relevant to those within the closed space of the playis that which can be seen and reported by looking out the window3 and this is bleak»The only 'outside' becomes a threat» The auditory medium3 too3 can be used whenspeech participants are distributed on-stage and off-stage3 so that spatial distancescould be calculated via sound3 as it strikes the ear of both audience and stage figures3

whether far away or near» Volume of voice could be significant in the speech eventas in calls or shouts between or among those on- and off-stage» The 'here and now'are unifed in their extension3 accordingly3 as participant space3 even if out of rangeto the eye» Similarly^ the degree of audibility of the sound heard can also be a gaugeof distance from the object-source»These instances mobilise the ear in expanding thescope of space outside the visible3 on-stage context of utterance» The sense of smellcan be recruited for similar purposes3 as sharp and overpowering3 or faint, in thespeech/stage event in progress3 even if the latter option is rarely used in theatre»

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a D

avis

] at

17:

02 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

Deixis and Space in Drama 281

Deictic verbal means are more common as in 'This air smells sweet3 in Macbethwhich relies on speakers recording their immediate sensuous experience of spacesand places^ in which they are located3 in deictic mode.

Modem drama has experimented with stage space in various ways and deicticusages in the dialogue can be drawn into the newer modes of drama and theatre andexploited in productive and creative ways. This is the case with Thornton Wilder'sOur Town where the Stage Manager., in epic mode., verbally transforms the stage andauditorium space with a high density of deictic usages., and hence.» vebally andgesturally (Herman 1995: 52-93; 1996), The same stage space has often to rep-resent multiple spaces as in Strindberg's The Ghost Sonata or Sartre's Huis Clos(Issacharoff 1989) and sometimes changes of locale and time have to be accom-plished without curtains coming down and up as in Alan Ayckbourn's A Chorus ofDisapproval. In another of Ayckbourn's plays3 4̂ Small Family Business^ the actiontakes place in a set which is a two-storey house with a sitting-room with a divider,and the kitchen, open to full view., and the dining room obscured to the view butlinked by a hatch to the kitchen. Upstairs, one of the bedrooms3 the landing and thebathroom are open to view. The action is sometimes located in different rooms3 asif taking place simultaneously in different spaces in the same house, and at othertimes, the set can become the house of some other character. The stage directionsinstruct that lighting changes are to indicate change of location. Lighting change byitself, however3 is not sufficients since it merely signifies change. What kind ofchange and place the set is supposed to be in any one instance is underscored byparticipant behaviour in speech.

When it is Jack and Poppy's home3 their speech behaviour instantiates the 'beingat home5 state in the dialogue via topic and participant configurations. The sameoccurs when the set is supposed to be Ken's house. It is Jack who is the visitor andis treated as such by Yvonne; it is Ken who is deictically located as 'upstairs' andawaiting Jack who has come into his space3 and leads Jack cin here' to the bathroomfor the private talk. When the location changes back to Jack and Poppy's house,participant changes in the speech events on stage3 and the 'family at home'behaviour reverts the ownership of the house to Jack3 Poppy and their children. Thesame occurs when the set is to represent the other residences which are the placesin which the action takes place. In all these instances., the set is not changed tosignify another house. Via speech behaviour., however3 the discourse setting changes3

and since setting is a co-ordinate of speech., speech changes the nature of the spacein which it is situated accordingly. The static spatial 'set' can be transformed andmade to function as different spatial 'settings', dynamically., in these instances;discourse setting causes the set to be conceptualised differently. In the above3 thesame set, a two-storey house3 is interpeted as different houses as a consequence.

When parts of the house., as stage-set3 are used as different houses with actions indifferent locales taking place simultaneoulsy3 deictic references can make the ar-rangement clear. For instance, Mr Benedict is left at Jack's home while he consultsthe others elsewhere about finding extra money as demanded by Benedict. On stage,both parties are in the same house physically, in the static set, and visible to theaudience., but the speech 'settings' are different in different parts of it and with

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a D

avis

] at

17:

02 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

282 F. Herman

different participant groups. Jack's deictic usage of 'home' in his impatient ultima-tum to the family—'You've got five minutes. Because I've left him sitting at homewaiting for an answer' (Ayckboum 1996: 266) makes clear that the space in whichhe is located is not his £home'3 which is elsewhere«, and that the visible action ofBenedict and Poppy3 etc.3 in close proximity visually^ on stage3 are at a distance inspace3 in another place3 from that in which he is located. The audience has tointerpret the actions in the physically visible space of one house which is the givenstage-set3 as being conducted independently of each other., in two different spaces^in two different homes3 but simultaneously^ in time.

While it is usual to separate the visual and the verbal depictions of space withinsuperordinate categories like the 'mimetic' and the £diegetic'3 basically along lines ofon-stage and off-stage space., deictic representations of space in drama3 it has beenargued3 are a productive resource to bring the two into relation. The deictic contextof speech is a bodied one3 with participant bodies forming the anchor point for deicticreferencing. The visual channel is open and3 thus3 gesture3 direction of gaze3

movement, the range of audibility of voice3 etc., are also open for exploitation. Thedeictic context3 the scene of speech3 is therefore multi-medial in its own right.Deictic usages can transform the bare boards of the stage into another place., withor without scenery; they can bracket the space between figure and ground associo-centric space; they can link differently configured spaces into a larger space byreference to objects or persons who are visible but in other participant groupings orconfigurations on stage; and they can integrate off-stage and on-stage space invarious ways., in order to expand and extend the immediately visible space into largerspaces as required in the dramatic world. Since theatrical set and discourse settingcan converge within the stage event3 participant roles and speech activity canpresuppose a discourse setting which can be mapped onto a given static set tochange location accordingly. In all these cases3 the visual and the verbal blend3 sincethe deictic context of utterance is a corporeal context using the resources of the bodyand the different domains of access that are available to it. The verbal in drama isnot merely a textual verbal3 but a spoken one3 with the resources of the bodyavailable to it, which deictic phenomena can and do exploit.

University of Nottingham

Ayckboum A 1995 Plays 1: A Chorus of Disapproval A Small Business. Henceforward... Man of theMoment Faber London.

Auer P 1992 'Introduction: John Gumperz' Approach to Contextualization' in P Auer & A DiLuzio (eds) The Contextualization of Language John Benjamins: 1-38.

Beckett S 1958 rep. 1988 Endgame Faber and Faber London.Birch D 1991 The Language of Drama: Critical Theory and Practice Macmillan London.Buhler K 1934 Sprachtheorie Fischer Jena.

Conclusion

References

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a D

avis

] at

17:

02 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014

Deixis and Space in Drama 283

Dirven R & M Putz 1996 The Construed of Space in Langauge and Thought Mouton de GruyterBerlin & New York (Cognitive Linguistic Research Series 8).

Handke P 1969 repr. 1971 Offending the Audience Methuen London.Hanks WF 1990 Referential Practice: language and lived space among the Maya University of

Chicago Press Chicago.Herman V 1995 Dramatic Discourse: Dialogue as Interaction in Plays Routledge London.Herman V 1996 'Space in Dramatic Discourse' in R Dirven & M Putz: 553-70.Hymes D 1972 'Models of the interaction of language and social life' in JJ Gumperz & D Hymes

(eds) Directions in Sociolinguistics Holt, Rinehart and Winston New York: 35-71.Issacharoff M 1989 Discourse as Performance Stanford University Press Stanford, California.Issacharoff M & RF Jones 1988 (eds) Performing Texts University of Pennsylvania Press Philadel-

phia.Jarvella R & W Klein (eds) 1982 Speech, place and action: studies in deixis and related topics John

Wiley and Sons New York.Johnson M 1987 The Body in the Mind: the bodily basis of meaning University of Chicago Press

Chicago and London.Lakoff G 1987 Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: what categories reveal about the mind University

of Chicago Press Chicago.Levinson SC 1983 Pragmatics Cambridge University Press CambridgeLevinson SC 1992 'Primer for the field investigation of spatial description and conception'

Pragmatics 2, 1, 5-48.Lyons J 1977 Semantics Vols. 1, 2 Cambridge University Press Cambridge.Pavis P 1988 'From Text to Performance' in M Issacharoff & R Jones (eds): 86-100.Pfister M 1988 The Theory and Analysis of Drama Cambridge University Press Cambridge.Pirandello L 1922 repr. 1925 Six Characters in Search of an Author in Three Plays JM Dent

London.Scolinicov H 1994 Women's Theatrical Space Cambridge Cambridge University Press.Schechner R 1988 'Performance Orientations in Ritual Theatre' in M. Issacharoff & R Jones

(eds): 116-37.Shakespeare W. All citations are from The Complete Works of William Shakespeare 1994 London

HarperCollins.Strindberg A 1964 repr. 1990 Plays: One The Father, Miss Julie, The Ghost Sonata Methuen

London.Turner M 1991 Reading Minds: The Study of English in the Age of Cognitive Science Princeton

University Press Princeton NJ.Turner M & G Fauconnier 1995 'Conceptual Integration and Formal Expression' in M Johnson

(ed.) Journal of Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 10 3.Wilder T 1962 repr. 1982 Our Town The Skin of Our Teeth The Matchmaker Penguin

Harmondsworth Middlesex.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alif

orni

a D

avis

] at

17:

02 1

5 N

ovem

ber

2014