Paying Attention to Attention

 

An AI audio introduction, credits due to Academia, to my paper "Atención a la Atención: Sociobiología, Estética y Pragmática de la Atención" ("Paying Attention to Attention: Sociobiology, Aesthetics, and Pragmatics of Attention"). - After an examination of some recent theories on the concept of attention developed in the fields of evolutionary theory, sociobiology and cognitivism, in particular human modes of attention linked to language and social interaction, this paper expounds their relevance in order to reformulate some central issues in the fields of literary interpretation and critical theory.

 

_____. "Paying Attention to Attention: Sociobiology, Aesthetics, and Pragmatics of Attention." AI podcast on José Angel García Landa's paper "Atención a la atención: Sociobiología, estética y pragmática de la atención." Academia 9 Oct. 2026.*

         https://www.academia.edu/8048155/

2026

 

Los marcos como espacios públicos

 _____. "Los marcos como espacios públicos." Academia 25 Aug. 2026.*

         https://www.academia.edu/172340602/

         2026

Composing Drama

 

Un artículo de semiótica teatral. En el que se me cita de pasada.

Jahn, Manfred. "Composing Drama." 2021. Academia.*

         https://www.academia.edu/46997795/

         2026

The (In)Definition of Reality

 

"The (In)Definition of Reality: Reframing and Contested Topsight." Knowledge Commons Works 19 April 2026.*

https://works.hcommons.org/records/704dt-08367 

 

Por si acaso, y for what it's worth, voy a poner también aquí el texto completo.

 

______

 

The (In)definition of Reality:

Reframing and Contested Topsight

 

José Angel GARCÍA LANDA

Universidad de Zaragoza

 

I shall put forward here a definition of reality, or perhaps a particular take or perspective on reality. Reality is what happens between the lines.

 

But perhaps reality as such cannot be represented, or defined. It has to be defined with respect to a specific activity, and it has to be represented from a given perspective, a selective one. In this attempt at a definition I am proposing a perspective by the very fact of emphasizing what happens between the lines—instead of emphasizing, for instance, the lines themselves. The lines might stand for "what is" obviously there, reality as presupposed or unproblematic, reality as something shared by its inhabitants. But an interactional perspective on reality must go beyond that portion of reality which is shared (or "true") for all interactants, in order to give a fuller portrait of those aspects of reality which are not shared, which may be false or nonexistent to some of the participants, or which may be perceived only by some of them.

 

Still, perhaps we do need a definition of reality which is more comprehensive, more balanced and less paradoxical. I will therefore modify my original statement, and further specify that reality is the play, the dynamic interaction, or the dialectic, between what happens for the public record, and what happens between the lines. Or again, reality is constituted by the interactional play between shared frames of action (those "lines" which are unproblematically on the page) and other frames which, though they may be active for some of the participants, are not generally shared. Reality is a play of realities—the explicit one, and other secret, discreet or alternative realities which coexist in a given situation.

 

Reality, then, lends itself to a definition (although perhaps the definition is not actually written on any labels or captions). It is defined by presuppositions, by habits, by socially regulated modes of interaction, by institutions, routines, scripts, and frames of interactional communication. These frames, schemas, and presuppositions have been studied by theorists of cognition, of pragmatics, of interpersonal communication, such as Bateson, Schank and Abelson, Sperber and Wilson, etc. It is perhaps Erving Goffman's frame analysis that provides the most comprehensive and most suggestive version of the structure of reality—including the structure of multiple interacting realities.

 

Goffman provides a powerful model for the analysis of interactional reality: dramatism. Human interaction is organized in principle by shared templates which define and narrativize the situation and provide roles for the participants. It is through these shared templates or frames that we are able to shape reality as to what is at stake, what is happening, in a given moment or situation. What happens (officially) at any moment is, for instance, a meeting at the workplace, a concert, a party, a friendly conversation over a beer: any of these archetypal scripts which orchestrate social reality inasmuch as it is living theatre—theatre played by social actors in real-life dramatic companies, and in a social space which has a theatrical structure. This is the perspective on social life provided by Goffman in The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, in Interaction Ritual, or in Strategic Interaction.

 

What takes place between the lines is what Goffman calls a secondary channel—it is an alternative strip of activity which could also be described as a superimposed narrative line—a subplot which does not involve all of the participants in the main frame of activity or primary channel, but only some of them—or perhaps just one, the observer of that hidden dimension of reality which is taking place between the lines, the one who sees what the other participants cannot see—those aspects of reality that escape them and are, in a sense, both there and not there.

 

It is within this structural set of perspectival relationships that we can describe the concept of topsight. Topsight is the privileged perspectival position enjoyed by those participants who see what others don't see, the position of those observers who are aware of the secondary as well as the primary channel of interactional activity. Topsight need not be an absolute position, since there may be a number of secondary channels or sub-frames imposed on the main frame of activity, and there is no telling that one of them has absolute dominance over the others. Topsight, then, is relative to other interactant's lack of awareness of a given secondary frame, within a comprehensive frame of activity. 

 

To take a simple example, the main frame may be provided by a meeting at work. The participants are all aware of each other's presence. However, their roles are, as far as the meeting is concerned, those of spectators or listeners, given that just now the boss is doing a presentation. It may well happen that two participants at the meeting may begin to interact, whispering about their plans for the evening, while the boss preaches on and all the others dutifully listen. Now these two employees have assumed a different role in the social theatre—they are not merely there in their official capacity; they have assumed a temporary role as private individuals. Just now we'll not investigate any further whether they are lifting their official mask for a moment, or merely donning an additional mask. However that may be, reality multiplies itself and acquires another level of articulation through this secret interactional move, a move which is defined as secondary by its very location within the wider frame within which it is embedded.

 

But if this secret or discreet piece of interaction is perceived and spied upon by a third party—by another employee who feigns she is not listening, or, why not, by the reader of my example—then the structure of reality is no longer doubled, but tripled, or multiplied, in a game of interactional perspectives. Much of the structure of a narrative account of this meeting, or indeed of any interactional encounter, would consist in a description of the perspectival relationships among the agents as they are established and new dimensions of reality appear, or in the gradual and artistic unfolding of existing perspectival relationships which reveals the existing interactional and cognitive situation to a reader or a virtual observer.

 

Let us examine another example of the observational frame in an analysis of narrative structures. Take this poem from Stephen Crane's The Black Riders (IX), a micro-narrative in its own right:

 

I STOOD UPON A HIGH PLACE,

AND SAW, BELOW, MANY DEVILS

RUNNING, LEAPING,

AND CAROUSING IN SIN.

ONE LOOKED UP, GRINNING,

AND SAID, "COMRADE! BROTHER!"

 

Here the narrator is standing "upon a high place", which we might take as symbolizing his perspectival and discursive topsight in the textual structure, above the other characters. The devils are involved in their own interactional frame ("running, leaping, and carousing in sin"), and in the first sentence of the micro-narrative they are unaware that they are being observed. The narrator, the "I", commands two strips of activity: he is aware, like the devils, of the more widely shared frame, the devils' carousal. He is also aware of another strip of activity, namely his own awareness of the situation—the fact that the party is being watched from above by a non-participant, and the devils' ignorance of this. The second frame is more limited as regards participation; in principle the "I" is the only one taking part in it. The devils' party has become for him an objectified event, a spectacle which, however disgusting, can be safely enjoyed by a spectator who contemplates it from the outside; this interactional strip is self-enclosed as far as the devils are concerned, and the frame is like a theatrical fourth wall which prevents the devils from taking part in the focalizer's observational frame.  Note that the frame is for the devils the very limit of reality—in a certain sense is not even a frame because for them there is nothing outside the frame.

 

Of course, the perspectival structure posited by the first sentence is undone or deconstructed in the second sentence, which provides a narrative resolution through frame-breaking.  Although frames are constantly being broken, any frame-breaking has a somewhat paradoxical air about it (Genette's métalepses come to mind), and indeed two different realities, or two different dimensions of reality are meeting through these frame-breakings, and a new reality has to emerge dialectically. In our example, the upright and dignified verticality of the "I" is threatened by the piercing gaze of the devil, which, ascending upwards from below, and breaking through the perspectival containers, seems to threaten the very purity of heaven, and to sully with its foulness the very soul of the reader—because it was the reader, gazing down on the words and letters of the poem, those black devils involved in their own game—(cf. The Black Riders, XLVI)—it was the reader who was "I," towering over the page,  looking down, vicariously, over the narrator's shoulder. The reader, too, thought he was safe in his own extratextual frame, but he is safe no more, because the text can gaze back at him and the devil recognizes him for his brother. Even a sister can feel a jolt at the invasion of her private frame, and at her being demoted from her privileged topsight.

 

Reality is suddenly reorganized, reworked—because human reality is an interactional reality, managed through frames and their operations, through their being established and operated, through their recyclings and displacements, and through their rearrangements, dissolutions and sudden merges.

 

Stephen Crane's text might be further analysed along these lines. But our concern is now with the notion of frame itself, and its role in the managing of reality through attention.  Note that in this example, we have called the devils' party the main frame, on the criterion that it is the more generally shared one. There is a potential ambiguity here, however, because the narrator's observational frame is more potent in another sense—precisely because it is not generally shared, because it is hidden, it makes for dominance, and is the "outer" frame in its own perspectival structure, the comprehensive observational situation which includes an enclosed object of observation.  Still, the observer's frame, while it provides the outermost frame, could not exist without an object which is framed by it; in this sense it is subordinate to the devils' pandemonic party, i.e. to the most widely shared interactional frame, or primary channel.  It is advisable to keep in mind this perspectival ambivalence. The perspectives of the many provide the general interactional game on which the dominant perspectives of the few are built as a second story. But this secondary or embedded story encompasses within its perspectival structure, quite paradoxically, the general frame as a field dominated by the observers' topsight, by a viewpoint which itself escapes observation, or tries to.

 

In our account, the subject who perceives most of these interactional frames and perspectival relationships is that silent woman, the observer of the employees' small talk at the meeting; or the implied author of The Black Riders, designing a narrative structure in which narrative topsight is paradoxically questioned. It is such cognitive (or narrative) subjects that provide our model for cognitive topsight, those who perceive most dimensions of reality— the "I"s who (in our account) observe the interactional landscape from a high place, the watchtower of topsight, or of hindsight, as the case may be. This "I" who stands highest, or who comes last of all, is the observer who observes those-who-believe-that-they-are-observing-without-being-observed. It is a quasi-divine perspectival topsight; a misleading one, therefore, and one which is analyzed by Lacan in his famous seminar on Edgar Allan Poe's story "The Purloined Letter". (This structure invites recursion, and I have pursued this line of analysis further in my paper "Acritical Criticism, Critical Criticism"). We have seen that Crane's poem, too, may be read as a miniature model of this deconstructive move.

 

Yet another example. We converse with someone; we listen and watch her face and body movements. What she says is one thing—a function of the officially established activity, whether work or leisure. On-record discourse is the main frame or primary channel—it is what is said. But what is shown may be something else. We watch a multimedia performance—involving proxemics, intonation, gestures, kinesics, paralanguage, style, eye contact, interactional rhythmn. The body and its theatricality, the secondary channel, is often more worth attending to; it tells the truth which is half-concealed by the words. Or, if the encounter resists interpretation, at least it is there that we try to disclose the elusive reality of the matter; not in the scripted words, but in the full theatrical spectacle, and especially in the gestures, or sub-gestures. Topsight is here an object of desire, a virtual position defining cognitive control, but one which must be imagined rather than fully inhabited.

 

Perhaps we should provide a new definition of the reality effect, to use Barthes' phrase, or a different approach to that effect. As I see it, the reality effect is not so much where Barthes located it in that famous article (in irrelevant or non-significant details—although it is there too, to some extent); it is to be found, first and foremost, in that play of perspectives where two different realities clash or come to terms with each other; two (or more) realities defined by different interactional frames. The anomic interface between these realities is the battleground or the sports field where reality is managed and organized. To be sure, it is being interactionally managed all the time, but it is in the meeting of games of in the space between them (is it baseball or football that we are playing here?) that roles must be reworked and rules must be improvised, at the very least to the extent of preventing general embarrassment. It is in such dramaturgically uncertain situations, and they happen all the time, that reality falls apart. And while it is being managed and restructured it reveals itself for what it is, a set of interactionally organized reality games which sustain the edifice of appearances. Reality at its rawest also reveals itself as an indeterminate no man's land between those games, and as the social engineering which builds briges between them, in a variety of styles ranging from the pitiful to the masterful.

 

There are many realities, possibly more than our philosophy would allow for, but they are no more equal than Orwell's animals. The dominant reality is the official, publicly recognized one, organized into familiar interactional ceremonies which are universally or at least widely shared. It must be acknowledged to have a degree of public priority, and an authority which appears to be the authority of evidence itself. Actually, such primary realities seem to be so solid that we usually forget that they are a function of the theatre of everyday life.  More specific reality games (e.g. a theatrical function embedded in everyday life) seem by contrast transitory, obviously fictional, and they contribute to the reality effect of the primary frame: if Hamlet is a play, surely I'm outside the frame and I'm not in a play myself?  The authority of the real is thereby reinforced, even though it will appear that this force of the obvious is generated by a perspectival or structural effect.

 

Still—or, what is more,— in contrast with this primary frame of everyday life, Channel 1 of the interactional life-world if you want, the secondary frames which are built upon it, Channel 2, Channel 3, etc., also have an experiential priority of their own. A secondary frame opens up a provisional strip of reality in the world, and this reality may acquire a special intensity, enticing us to an intense involvement in it. Secondary realities may be just as immersive as any first-degree life-world. Channels 2 or 3, moreover, enjoy an enhanced immediacy derived precisely from our active involvement in world-building—from their being in contrast to the primary level of reality, and from the continued existence of that primary reality as a backdrop, at once a background noise and a ground floor on which to build the upper stories. If our conversation takes place on the second floor, it is that floor which provides the immediate ground for our feet, however much the structure of the whole story may rest on the foundations of the first floor. After all, the ground floor may be built on an invisible basement, and in the last analysis the earth itself is a groundless basement floating within a system of inexplicable forces.

 

Unofficial or secondary realities, secret interactions and provisional fictions, therefore, do have a primacy of their own, an ontological priority which derives from the experiential priority of reality-management. The interactional difficulty of managing many frames and modes of reality without losing sight of our shared life-world provides us with a never-ending challenge, one which allows us to inhabit life as a slippery space of intense semiosis, a no-man's land (nor no-woman's neither) of interactional risk and uncertainty, rather than a well-rehearsed and predictable repertory play. Authentic experience is defined as such between the acts, and behind the scenes in the theatre of everyday life.

 

 

References

 

Barthes, Roland. "The Reality Effect." In French Literary Theory Today: A Reader. Ed. Tzvetan Todorov. Cambridge: Cambridge UP; Paris: Editions de la Maison des Sciences de l'Homme, 1982. 11-17.

Bateson, Gregory. Steps to an Ecology of Mind. New York: Ballantine, 1972.

Crane, Stephen. The Black Riders and Other Lines: Published May 11, 1895. Online at the Stephen Crane Society website.

            http://public.wsu.edu/~campbelld/crane/black.htm

            2016

            http://public.wsu.edu/~campbelld/crane/black.htm

            2016

García Landa, José Angel. "Acritical Criticism, Critical Criticism: Critical Interaction, Reframing and Topsight." In Con/Texts of Persuasion. Ed. Beatriz Penas et al. Kassel: Edition Reichenberger, 2011. 233-68.

_____. "La perspectiva dominante en El Arte de la Guerra: Más aspectos de un clásico chino (Topsight in The Art of War: Further Aspects of a Chinese Classic)." Social Science Research Network 9 Nov. 2014.

            http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2520473

            2014

Genette, Gérard. Narrative Discourse. Trans. Jane E. Lewin. Foreword by Jonathan Culler. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1980. Goffman, Erving. jThe Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Rev. ed. Garden City (NY): Doubleday-Anchor, 1959.

_____. Interaction Ritual: Essays on Face-to-Face Behavior. New York: Random House-Pantheon, 1982.

_____. Strategic Interaction. (Conduct and Communication, 1). Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P,  cop. 1969. 2nd pr., 1970.

_____. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Foreword by Bennett M. Berger. Boston: Northeastern UP, 1986.

Lacan, Jacques. "Seminar on 'The Purloined Letter'." Trans. Jeffrey Mehlman. In The Purloined Poe: Lacan, Derrida, and Psychoanalytic Reading. Ed. John P. Muller and William J. Richardson. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 1988. 28-54.

Schank, Roger C., and Robert P. Abelson. Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding: An Inquiry into Human Knowledge. Hillsdale (NJ): Erlbaum, 1977.

Sperber, Dan, and Deirdre Wilson. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. 2nd ed. Oxford: Blackwell, 1995.

 

_____

 

The research for this paper has been supported by the European Social Fund and the  Aragonese Government research programme H69 HERAF: Hermenéutica y Antropología Fenomenológica.

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Не)определение реальности: изменение рамок восприятия и спор за контролирующую перспективу

 

"(Не)определение реальности: изменение рамок восприятия и спор за контролирующую перспективу."

https://doi.org/10.17613/cwpxk-y2387

 

 

 En traducción al original inglés: 

_____. "The (In)Definition of Reality: Reframing and Contested Topsight." Academia 9 April 2017.*

         https://www.academia.edu/32351646/

         2017

 

 

El interaccionismo simbólico

El interaccionismo simbólico: https://blogdenotasvanityfea.blogspot.com/2025/05/el-interaccionismo-simbolico.html

Semiótica y hermenéutica del subgesto

 Semiótica y hermenéutica del subgesto: https://www.academia.edu/83763812/

Semiótica y hermenéutica del subgesto

 

Un artículo reciente, que ya va para viejo como yo; lo subo a un par de repositorios donde acumulo mis producciones.

José Angel García Landa. "Semiótica y hermenéutica del subgesto." Tropelías: Revista de Literatura y Literatura Comparada 19 (2013): 281-95.*

         http://zaguan.unizar.es/ojs/index.php/tropelias/article/view/589

         http://zaguan.unizar.es/ojs/index.php/tropelias/article/download/589/665.pdf

         2013

_____. "Semiótica y hermenéutica del subgesto (Semiotics and Hermeneutics of Subgestures)." SSRN 9 July 2013.*

         http://ssrn.com/abstract=2291374

         2013

         Z-General and Theoretical Linguistics eJournal 9 July 2013.*

         https://www.ssrn.com/link/General-Theoretical-Linguistics.html

         2023

         Psychological Anthropology eJournal 9 July 2013.*

         http://www.ssrn.com/link/Psychological-Anthropology.html

         2013          

         Cultural Anthropology eJournal 9 July 2013.*

         http://www.ssrn.com/link/Cultural-Anthropology.html

2013

Cognition & Culture (…) eJournal 5.28 (15 July 2013).*

         http://www.ssrn.com/link/Cognition-Culture.html

2013

Cognitive Linguistics: Cognition, Language, Gesture eJournal 5.21 (23 July 2013).*

http://hq.ssrn.com//Journals/IssueProof.cfm?abstractid=2291374&journalid=1314047&issue_number=21&volume=5&journal_type=CMBO&function=showissue

         http://www.ssrn.com/link/Cognitive-Linguistics.html

Philosophy of Language eJournal 6.27 (23 July 2013).*

http://hq.ssrn.com//Journals/IssueProof.cfm?abstractid=2291374&journalid=950388&issue_number=27&volume=6&journal_type=CMBO&function=showissue

         http://www.ssrn.com/link/Philosophy-Language.html

2013

Cognitive Psychology eJournal 9 July 2013.*

https://www.ssrn.com/link/Cognitive-Psychology.html

2023

_____. "Semiótica y hermenéutica del subgesto." Academia.edu 25 Aug. 2014.*

         https://www.academia.edu/8073444/

         2014

         https://www.academia.edu/83763812/

         2022

_____. "Semiótica y hermenéutica del subgesto." ResearchGate 25 Aug. 2014.*

         https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264992131

         2014

_____.  "Semiótica y hermenéutica del subgesto." Net Sight de José Angel García Landa 4 Jan. 2023.*

https://personal.unizar.es/garciala/publicaciones/subgestoTROPELIAS.pdf

         2023

_____. "Semiótica y hermenéutica del subgesto." Vanity Fea 25 Aug. 2024.*

https://vanityfea.blogspot.com/2014/08/semiotica-y-hermeneutica-del-subgesto.html
2024

 

una publicación de Narratología evolucionista - Evolutionary Narratology.

—oOo—

(Не)определение реальности

 (Не)определение реальности: изменение рамок восприятия и спор за контролирующую перспективу https://www.academia.edu/32313018/

Los marcos como espacios públicos

 

—Que viene de mi ponencia en el seminario sobre "Individuo y espacio público":

La realidad de por sí no tiene estructura—al menos no tiene estructura humana. ¿Quién la estructurará? Nosotros, con nuestras convenciones y expectativas acerca de ella. Sobre los hechos brutos se ha de edificar un sistema de hechos institucionales y culturales. Es lo que Erving Goffman denomina "marcos",  frames, en su libro Frame theory (1974). La realidad es un complejo sistema de marcos entrecruzados, si llamamos marco a un conjunto de signos que se dejan interpretar como una unidad estructural. Una vez hemos establecido un marco, podemos contrastarlo con otros marcos—por ejemplo, podemos aislar una conferencia de otra conferencia, o una conferencia de la sesión de discusión—o podemos transformar ese marco de alguna manera, ponerlo en clave de… en clave de humor, por ejemplo, si en lugar de dar una conferencia parodiamos una conferencia. Podemos insertar ese marco dentro de otro, como este texto puede insertarse en una página web.  Y así la realidad va tomando forma.

Cada marco es un pequeño espacio público—engastado en otros marcos, otros espacios públicos, que en última instancia se insertan en el gran espacio público que denominamos la realidad. No hay por tanto un solo "espacio público", sino muchos espacios más o menos públicos solapados, secuenciados o superpuestos, a veces con transiciones problemáticas entre unos y otros. 

Van desde el espacio público subjetivado e interiorizado, plegado para constituir la identidad personal, al espacio de la calle donde podemos circular más o menos todos, o al espacio global de la web. Son estos marcos espacios accesibles o disponibles para unos sujetos sí y para otros no, y a los que se aplican reglas diversas y variables. Cada marco es una unidad con reglas propias, una unidad poética o drámatica podríamos decir, y en cada uno rigen reglas interaccionales que lo definen como tal marco y lo hacen utilizable para la comunicación social. Desde la palabra individual, pequeño marco, hasta la frase en que se engasta, o al discurso del rey.

Las reglas del juego, claro, no van siempre en manual de instrucciones, sino que están con frecuencia sujetas a cambio, a transformación súbita o a negociación. Parte del trabajo de interpretación de la realidad es no sólo reconocer en qué papel nos hemos metido, en qué marco estamos, sino quizá también salirnos del marco si no nos conviene, renegociar el papel, o el contrato social. La construcción de la realidad, su reconstrucción y su transformación van por tanto unidas. Y es necesaria para esto la negociación con los demás actores: saber si estamos buscando setas o relojes de oro, como decía el chiste de vascos (Van dos vascos por el bosque buscando setas, y uno se encuentra un reloj de oro. "Coño, Pachi, mira qué he encontrado, ¡un reloj de oro!" Y Pachi, "A ver a qué estamos, hostias. ¿Estamos a setas, o a relojes?"). Es decir, se requiere definir el tipo de interacción social en el que estamos participando.

Esta complicada dramaturgia social tiene consecuencias, como decíamos, para el sujeto. Lo sujeta, sí, y así lo constituye—pero lo sujeta a un sistema cambiante de roles, papeles e identidades en última instancia móviles y transitorias. O heredadas—a veces es la identidad del otro la que representamos, la de un role model, por ejemplo, con consecuencias para la nuestra. 

De hecho, la propia identidad personal surge de la interiorización de este teatro social. Podríamos decir que no es otra cosa sino ese teatro de relaciones sociales, visto desde dentro, tal como es interiorizado por un sujeto que sólo mediante esa interiorización pasa a ser un sujeto humano propiamente dicho.

Para el interaccionalista simbólico (como George Herbert Mead) la propia posesión de una identidad personal significa que el actor actúa con referencia a ella—que el actor es capaz de verse a sí mismo en una situación y tener en cuenta este objeto simbólico (uno mismo en la situación) como un factor para guiar la actuación. Es una reflexividad o autoconciencia inherente al sujeto humano, que actúa por referencia a su propia identidad personal y a la identidad de los otros en los que se proyecta, y a los que interioriza como elementos de referencia, tomando el papel de los demás en una relación de circularidad hermenéutica con el suyo propio y con la situación. —Definida ésta, en gran medida, por los marcos cognitivos e interaccionales que sean aplicables en ella.

La definición de la situación

—oOo—

Los marcos como espacios públicos - en Ibercampus

Interaccionismo Simbólico

Una presentación hallada en Scribd:

Interaccionismo Simbólico by api_user_11797_tomas

Disculpen el Cida.

Teoría interaccionalista del significado

Semiótica teatral

 

     from

A Bibliography of Literary Theory, Criticism and Philology

http://bit.ly/abibliog

by José Ángel García Landa

(University of Zaragoza, Spain)

 

 

 

Semiotics of Drama and Theatre

 

 

Alter, Jean. A Socio-Semiotic Theory of Theatre. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P, 1990.

Aston, Elaine, et al., eds. Interazione dialogo convenzione: il caso del testo dramatico. Bologna: CLUEB, 1983.

Aston, Elaine, and George Savona. Theatre as Sign System: A Semiotics of Text and Performance. London: Routledge, 1991.

Bamberg, Michael. "Actions, Events, Scenes, Plots and the Drama.: Language and the Constitution of Part-whole Relationships." Language Sciences 16 (1994): 39-79.

Barry, Jackson. Art, Culture and the Semiotics of Meaning: Culture's Changing Signs of Life in Poetry, Drama, Painting and Sculpture. Houndmills: Macmillan, 1999.

Bennison, Neil. "Discourse Analysis, Pragmatics and the Dramatic 'Character': Tom Stoppard's Professional Foul." Language and Literature 2.2 (1994): 79-100.

Besbes, Khaled. The Semiotics of Beckett's Theatre: A Semiotic Study of the Complete Dramatic Works of Samuel Beckett. Boca Raton (FL): Universal Publishers, 2007.*

         https://www.academia.edu/37796852/

         2018

Бессмертнова С. В. (Svetlana Vladimirovna Bessmertnova). ("Semiotic Aspects of Bertold Brecht's Drama.") In СЕМИОСФЕРА НАРРАТОЛОГИИ: ДИАЛОГ ЯЗЫКОВ И КУЛЬТУР / Semiosphere of Narratology: A Dialogue of Languages and Cultures. Ed. Ludmila Tataru and José Angel García Landa. Balashov: Nikolayev, 2013. 132-41.*

Bobes Naves, Mª del Carmen. Semiología de la obra dramática. Madrid: Taurus, 1987.

_____. Estudios de semiología del teatro. Valladolid: Aceña, 1988.

Bogatyrev, Petr. "Kroj jako znak." Slovo a sovesnost 2 (1936): 43-47.

_____. "Costume as a Sign." Trans. Y. Lockwood. In Semiotics of Art: Prague School Contributions. Ed. Ladislav Matejka and Irwin R. Titunik. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press, 1976. 13-19.

_____. "Znaky divadeini." Slovo a slovesnost 4 (1938): 138-49.

_____. Lidové divadlo çeské a slovenské. Prague, 1940. Select. (9-29) in Semiotics of Art: Prague School Contributions. Ed. Ladislav Matejka and Irwin R. Titunik. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press, 1976. Trans. B. Kochis. 51-56.

_____. "Semiotics in the Folk Theater." Trans. B. Kochis. In Semiotics of Art: Prague School Contributions. Ed. Ladislav Matejka and Irwin R. Titunik. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press, 1976.33-50.

_____. "Le signe dans le théâtre." Poétique 8 (1971): 517-30.

Brußák, Karel. "Znaky na çinském divadle." Slovo a slovesnost 5 (1939).

_____. "Signs in the Chinese Theater." trans. K. Brußak. In Semiotics of Art: Prague School Contributions. Ed. Ladislav Matejka and Irwin R. Titunik. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press, 1976. 59-73.

Burns, Elizabeth. Theatricality: A Study of Conventions in the Theatre and in Social Life. London: Longman, 1972.

Carlson, Marvin. Places of Performance: The Semiotics of Theatre Architecture. Ithaca: Cornell UP, 1989.

_____. Theatre Semiotics: Signs of Life. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1990.

Chambers, Ross. "Le masque et le miroir: Vers une théorie relationnelle du théâtre." Etudes littéraires 13.3 (1980) 397-412.

Chapple, Freda and Chiel Kattenbelt, eds. Intermediality in Theatre and Performance. Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi, 2006.

Claycomb, Ryan. "Here's How You Produce This Play: Towards a Narratology of Dramatic Texts." Narrative 21.2 (May 2013): 159-79.*

Constantinidis, Stratos. "Theatrical Semiosis and Problems of its Notation." Koidikas/Code: Ars Semeiotica 8.1-2 (January-April 1985).

DeCoursey, Matthew. "Making Meaning in the Theatre: Double Noesis." In How to Make Believe: The Fictional Truths of the Representational Arts. Ed. J. Alexander Bareis and Lene Nordrum. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter, 2015. 269-82.*

Díez Borque, José María, and Luciano García Lorenzo, eds. Semiología del teatro. Barcelona: Planeta, 1975.

Eco, Umberto, ed. "Paramètres de la sémiologie théâtrale." In Sémiologie de la représentation. Ed. André Helbo. Brussels: Complexe, 1975. 110-35.

_____. "Semiotics of Theatrical Performance." Drama Review 21 (1977): 107-17.

Elam, Keir. The Semiotics of Theatre and Drama. London: Methuen, 1980.

_____. The Semiotics of Theatre and Drama. 2nd ed. (New Accents). London: Routledge, 2002.* (available in electronic edition).

_____. "The Semiotics of Theatre and Drama." In Semiotics. Ed. Karin Boklund-Lagopoulou, Alexandros Lagopoulos and Mark Gottdiener. London: SAGE, 2002. Vol. 3.

_____. "Semiotics of Theatrical Performance." Drama Review 21 (1977): 107-17.

Ertel, Evelyne. "Elements pour une sémiologie du théâtre." Travail théâtral 28-29 (1977): 121-50.

Fischer-Lichte, Erika. The Semiotics of Theatre. 1983. Trans. Jeremy Gaines and Doris L. Jones. (Advances in Semiotics). Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1992.*

Floch, Jean-Marie. "Sémiotique visuelle et statuts sémiotiques des éléments visuels du discours théâtral." Degrés 13 (1978): 39-57.

Fludernik, Monika. "Narrative and Drama." In Theorizing Narrativity. Ed. John Pier and José Ángel García Landa. (Narratologia, 12). Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2008. 355-83.*

Fortier, Mark. "1. Theatre, Life and Language: Semiotics, Phenomenology and Deconstruction." In Fortier, Theory/Theatre: An Introduction. 3rd ed. London: Routledge, 2016. 13-64.*

Fuchs, Elinor. "The Theatre after Derrida." Performing Arts Journal 26/7 (1985): 163-73.

_____. "Signaling through the Signs." In Fuchs, The Death of Character: Perspectives on Theater after Modernism. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1996. 69-91.*

García Landa, José Angel. "Glass Prospective." In García Landa, Vanity Fea 29 Aug. 2014.* (Frames; Robert Greene's Friar Bacon and Friar Bungay).

         http://vanityfea.blogspot.com.es/2014/08/glass-prospective.html

         2014

_____. "Glass Prospective: La televisión medieval en el teatro isabelino." Ibercampus 6 Sept. 2014.*

         http://www.ibercampus.info/la-television-medieval-en-el-teatro-isabelino-28484.htm

         2014

García Templado, José. La función poética y el teatro de vanguardia. Murcia: Ediciones 23-27/Cátedra de Teatro de la Universidad de Murcia, 1978.*

Gibinska, M. The Functioning Language in Shakespeare's Plays: A Pragma-Dramatic Approach. Krakow: Uniwersytet Jagiellonski, 1987.

Goffman, Erving. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York: Harper and Row, 1974.

_____. Frame Analysis. New York: Harper-Colophon.

_____. Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Foreword by Bennett M. Berger. Boston: Northeastern UP, 1986.*

Gutiérrez Flórez, Fabián. Teoría y praxis de semiótica teatral. Valladolid, 1993.

Hamburger, Käte. "La ficción dramática." In Hamburger, La lógica de la literatura. (2nd ed., 1977). Madrid: Visor, 1995. 132-46.*

Hennaut, Benoît. (Université Libre de Bruxelles and Paris). "Narratologie et écritures théâtrales: Quel dialogue possible?" Cahiers de narratologie 24 (2013): 1-19.*

         http://narratologie.revues.org/6669

         2014

http://journals.openedition.org/narratologie/6669

DOI : 10.4000/narratologie.6669

Online at Semantic Scholar.*

http://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a246/afe47f4afee795ead9e3eb78ae1f98434fe0.pdf

2021

Hidalgo Tenorio, Encarnación. "La teoría de los modelos mentales y el fenómeno de la recepción dramática." Cuadernos de Filología Inglesa 6.2 (1997): 81-112.*

Honzl, Jindrich. "Pohyb divadelního znaku." Slovo a slovesnost 6 (1940): 177-88.

_____. "Dynamics of the Sign in the Theater." Trans. I. R. Titunik. In Semiotics of Art: Prague School Contributions. Ed. Ladislav Matejka and Irwin R. Titunik. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press, 1976.74-93.

_____. "Hierarchie divadelních prostredku." Slovo a slovesnost 9 (1943): 187-93.

_____. "The Hierarchy of Dramatic Devices." In Semiotics of Art: Prague School Contributions. Ed. Ladislav Matejka and Irwin R. Titunik. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press, 1976. 118-27.

Horstmann, Jan. Theaternarratologie. (Narratologia, 64). Berlin and Boston: de Gruyter, 2018.* (Scenery, semiotics of drama, performance, space, perspective; Roland Schimmelpfennig, Der Goldene Drache, 2009; Nicolas Stemann, Faust; Jette Steckel, Der Fremde; Bastian Kraft, Orlando).

Ingarden, Roman. "The Functions of Language in the Theater". In The Literary Work of Art . Evanston: Northwestern UP, 1973.  375-396. Trans. of "Von den Funktionen der Sprache im Theaterschauspiel." Zagazdenia rodzajów literackich 1 (Lodz, 1958): 65-91.

Jahn, Manfred. "Narrative Voice and Agency in Drama: Aspects of a Narratology of Drama." New Literary History 32.3 (Summer 2001): 659-679. Online at Scribd:

         http://es.scribd.com/doc/142349049/

         2013

Online at Project Muse.*

         https://doiorg/10.1353/nlh.2001.0037

Online at Academia.*

         https://www.academia.edu/32026815/

         2021

Kesteren, A. van, and M. Schmidt, eds. Semiotics of Drama and Theatre. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins, 1984.

Kowzan, Tadeusz. "The Sign in the Theatre." Diogenes 61 (1968): 52-80.

Larsen, Svend Erik. "Body, Space, and the Sign." Gramma 2 (1994): 77-92.*

Lotman, Iuri M. "El lenguaje teatral y la pintura (Contribución al problema de la retórica icónica)." In Lotman, La Semiosfera, III: Semiótica de las artes y de la cultura. Madrid: Cátedra / Universitat de València, 2000. 85-96.*

Mages, Wendy K. "Drama and Imagination: A Cognitive Theory of Drama's Effect on Narrative Comprehension and Narrative Production." Research in Drama Education 11.3 (2006): 329-40.

Maguire, Tom. Performing Story on the Contemporary Stage. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015.*

Marinis, Marco de. "Problemi e aspetti di un aproccio semiotico al teatro." Lingua e Stile 10 (1975): 343-57.

_____. Semiotica del teatro. Milan: Bompiani, 1982.

Meerzon, Yana. "Russian Formalists' Views of Film and Theater Interdependence." In Slavische Erzähltheorie: Russische und tschesische Ansätze. Ed. Wolf Schmid. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 2009. 239-72.* (Semiotics of drama and film).

Melrose, Susan. A Semiotics of the Dramatic Text. Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1993.

Nieto García, Jesús Manuel. "Some Reflections on the Analysis of Discourse and Dramatic Text." Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 8 (November 1995): 161-76.*

Nünning, Ansgar, and Roy Sommer. "Diegetic and Mimetic Narrativity: Some Further Steps towards a Narratology of Drama." In Theorizing Narrativity. Ed. John Pier and José Ángel García Landa. (Narratologia, 12). Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2008. 331-54.*

Pérez Bowie, José Antonio. "Sobre Pragmática del texto teatral: el 'hablante dramático básico' en el teatro de Alfonso Sastre." In Estudios Filológicos en homenaje a Eugenio de Bustos Tovar. Ed. José Antonio Bartol et al. Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca, 1992.* 733-48.

Pérez López, Héctor Julio. "Los tres cuerpos de la narración: Una poética cognitivista de la interpretación actoral." L'Atalante 19 (2015): 17-26. Online at Academia.*

         https://www.academia.edu/11723400/

         2020

Pérez Pérez, M. C., ed. Los géneros literarios: Curso superior de narratología: Narratividad-dramaticalidad. 1997.

Prince, Albert. "Dramatic Speech Acts: A Reconsideration." In Rivers 1986. 147-58.

Redling, Ellen. Rev. of Tom Maguire, Performing Story on the Contemporary Stage. JCDE 4.2 (2018): 476-80.*

         DOI 10.1515/jcde-2016-0037

         http://archiv.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/volltextserver/25047/1/jcde-2016-0037.pdf

         2021

Rodríguez Pequeño, Mercedes. "Semiología dramática." In Rodríguez Pequeño, Teoría de la literatura eslava. Madrid: Síntesis, 1995. 207-19.*

Romera Castillo, José. "Crítica semiótica del teatro del Siglo de Oro en España." In Estado actual de los estudios sobre el Siglo de Oro. Ed. Manuel García Martín et al. Salamanca: Ediciones Universidad de Salamanca, 1993. 2.869-78.*

_____. "Hacia un estado de la cuestión sobre teatro y nuevas tecnologías en España." Signa 17 (2008): 17-28.

         http://descargas.cervantesvirtual.com/servlet/SirveObras/56814067650125008921457/029455.pdf?incr=1

         2015

Rossi-Landi, Ferruccio. "Acción social y procedimiento dialéctico en el teatro." In Rossi-Landi, Semiótica y estética. Buenos Aires: Nueva Visión, 1976. 39-52.*

Ruffini, Franco. "Semiotica del teatro: ricognizione degli studi." Biblioteca teatrale 9 (1974): 34-81.

Savona, Jeannette Laillou. "Narration et actes de parole dans le texte dramatique." Etudes littéraires 13.3 (1980): 471-93.

Schwanecke, Christine. "2. Rising Action: Towards a Narratology of Drama." A Narratology of Drama. Berlin and Boston: de Gruyter, 2022.      35-56.*

         https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110724110

         https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783110724110/html

         2022

Segre, Cesare. "A Contribution to the Semiotics of Theatre." Poetics Today 1 (1980): 39-48.

Semiología del teatro. Special issue of Theatralia. Ed. Jesús G. Maestro. (1996).

Serpieri, Alessandro. I sonetti dell'immortalità. Milan: Bompiani, 1975.

_____. "Ipotesi teorica di segementazione del testo teatrale." Strumenti critici 32/33 (Turin: Einaudi, 1977).

_____, ed. Come comunica il teatro: dal testo alla scena. Milan: Il Formichiere, 1978.

Schechner, Richard, and Cynthia Mintz. "Kinesics and Performance." Drama Review 17 (1973): 102-8.

Short, Mick. "Discourse Analysis and Drama." In The Language and Literature Reader. Ed. Ronald Carter and Peter Stockwell. Abingdon (UK) Routledge, 2008.*

Stern, Daniel N. "On Kinesic Analysis." Drama Review 17 (1973): 114-31.

Talens, Jenaro, José Romera Castillo, Antonio Tordera and Vicente Hernández Esteve. Elementos para una semiótica del texto artístico (poesía, narrativa, teatro, cine). 3rd ed. Madrid: Cátedra, 1983.*

Tordera Sáez, Antonio. "Teoría y técnica del análisis teatral." In Elementos para una semiótica del texto artístico. By Jenaro Talens et al. 4th ed. Madrid: Cátedra, 1988. 157-200.*

Trapero, A. Patricia. Introducción a la semiótica teatral. Palma de Mallorca, 1989.

Ubersfeld, Anne. Lire le théâtre.

_____. Semiótica teatral. Ed. and trans. by Francisco Torres of Lire le théâtre. Madrid: Cátedra / U de Murcia, 1989. 2nd ed. 1994.

Urmson, James O. "Dramatic Representation." Philosophical Quarterly 22 (1972): 333-43.

Veltrusky, Jiri. "Man and Object in the Theater." In A Prague School Reader on Esthetics, Literary Structure, and Style. Ed. and trans. Paul L. Garvin. Washington, D. C.: Georgetown UP, 1964. 83-92.*

Weidle, Roland. "Organizing the Perspectives: Focalization and the Superordinate Narrative System in Drama and Theater." In Point of View, Perspective, and Focalization: Modeling Mediation in Narrative. Ed. Peter Hühn, Wolf Schmid and Jörg Schönert. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2009. 221-42.*

West, William N. "Repeating Staging Meaning between Freud and Aristotle." SubStance 89 (1999): 138-58

 

 

 

 

 

Bibliography

 

 

"Curriculum Vitae (publicaciones) del profesor José Romera Castillo sobre teatro." In Cartografía Teatral en homenaje al profesor José Romera Castillo. Ed. G. Laín Corona and R. Santiago Nogales. Ed. G. Laín Corona and R. Santiago Nogales. Ed. G. Laín Corona and R. Santiago Nogales. Madrid: Visor, 2018.  

"Publicaciones del Centro de Investigación de Semiótica Literaria, Teatral y Nuevas Tecnologías." In Teatro, (auto)biografía y autoficción (2000-2018) en homenaje al profesor José Romera Castillo (Tomo III). Ed. G. Laín Corona and R. Santiago Nogales. Madrid: Visor, 2018.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Video

 

 

Ricks, Christopher. "The Medium of Drama Is Not Words." Videolecture. YouTube (New College of the Humanities) 9 Dec. 2015.*

         https://youtu.be/sB6y_OH68Uo

         2016