https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/bloomsbury-semiotics-9781350139442/
https://books.google.ro/books?id=AtiVEAAAQBAJ&pg=PT469&lpg=PT469&dq=nicoleta+popa+blanariu&source=bl&ots=mPQW-fSqX4&sig=ACfU3U3eUjsVLDTZhUeBGBMsNT8rS_OuKw&hl=ro&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi11fjf0u__AhXLPOwKHVuJD8Q4PBDoAXoECBsQAw#v=onepage&q=nicoleta%20popa%20blanariu&f=false
Along with changes in how the performing arts are understood and practiced, their semiotic approach also naturally evolves, together with the entire field of Performance and Dance Studies. Prefigured since antiquity (Lucian of Samosata 2009, Augustin 2002), the semiotics of performance is very indebted, in the 1930s–1940s, to The Prague School Theory of Theatre, and even later, in the 1970s, to the linguistic paradigm of structuralism. This has the great advantage of having changed the perspective on the aesthetic object. However, the semiotics of performance emerges with the awareness of the methodological risk to which it is exposed by some "tendency to reduce all the problems of sign to language" (Kowzan 1968, Lehmann [1999] 2002, Barba and Savarese [2008] 2012). In fact, performing arts cannot be reduced to a textual component or to one assimilated to the functioning of verbal language. New symptoms of identity crisis will also arise later when the nature of the performance and its semiotic approach are equally and insistently called into question. Semiotics will then try to cover the performative turn of theatre which debuted in the sixties. In such a context, semiotics is particularly interested in the "crisis of representation", "crisis of the body’s mediation", crisis of "classic textual invariant" (Helbo 2016: 342-345; Helbo, Bouko, Verlinden 2011: 100), as well as "crisis of the ‘authoritarian staging" (Pavis 2014: 238). These come together with "the idea of a performance that isn’t theatre" (Kaprow [1976] 2020) and the replacing of the "dramatic text" with the "performance text" (Schechner 2011: 25).
However, valuable contributions ingeniously used some acquisitions of linguistics and structuralism. To illustrate just a few of many possible examples, Erika Fischer-Lichte organizes her Semiotics of theatre (1992) according to the trichotomy "systema, norma y habla" from Eugen Coşeriu's "integral linguistics" ([1952] 1967), and De Marinis ([2008] 2012: 182-5) applies the principle of "double articulation" to the description of the actor's "physical actions". In his turn, Philippe Hamon (1972: 86-110) saw the character as a sign, "a kind of doubly articulated morpheme, manifested by a discontinuous signifier that refers to a discontinuous signified". In this sense, the character is part of the "paradigm" that the message builds.
In the 1970s, the idea of the "possibility of a theatrical semiology" (Pavis 1982: 9) has emerged, inspired by the models provided by the language sciences. It was a period of intense theoretical concerns, having as an object a hypothetical "theatrical language". (The latter had also fascinated Antonin Artaud in the 1930s.) Such preoccupations set the stage for a more pragmatic and versatile semiology, able to contribute to the analysis of some practical aspects: the staging, the scenery, the acting, etc. This direction took shape especially in the 1980s, with the reluctance against a "universal model" of theatrical semiology. Thus is born a "method of semiological inspiration" allowing reconciliation of semiology with other ways of approaching theatre: aesthetics, chronicle play, dramaturgy, among them (Pavis 1982: 9). In this phase, "theatrical semiology" develops "as a descriptive system", "analysis of the show", rather than as an "axiological" system, "analysis of meaning" (De Toro 2011: 80). Hence, theatrical semiology loses its "radicalism", preferring a federal role of "epistemologist, of hermeneut, a propaedeutic role" (Pavis 1982: 9; Helbo 2021).
The transformations of artistic practice – the "avant-garde" after 1960 – imposed an adaptation of theoretical discourse (Bouissac 2011, Bouissac 2015, Elam 1980, Féral 2008, Féral 2011, Fischer-Lichte 1992, Fischer-Lichte 2008, Helbo 2011, Helbo 2018, Helbo 2021, De Marinis 1993, De Marinis 2011, Pavis ([1980] 1996), Pavis 2007, Pavis 2014, Schechner 2002, Schechner 2011, De Toro 1995, De Toro 2011). On the one hand, postmodern creators theorize their own theatrical or choreographic practice, and on the other hand, in their creative activity, they capitalize on theory (including structuralism, such as Kirby). In extremis, a "nonsemiotic performance" may appear (Kirby 1982), which goes along with the "nontheatrical performance" (Kaprow [1976] 2020). La sémiologie de la mise en scène gives way to a phénoménologie de la performance (Pavis 2007). The result is an "experiential semiotics" (Helbo 2016) which seeks a rapprochement between the lived experience and its conceptualization. This approach is more appropriate to the contemporary performance, with its extreme subjectivization and emphasizing of perception, with the central role it gives to the body, presence, (unpredictable) spectator-performer interaction, with the dissolution of the old narrative-dramatic structure and classical space-time landmarks. This calls for overcoming the "cleavages" between production and reception, between the "immanentist approach to meaning" (concerned with "the significance of the object to be decrypted") and, respectively, "a constructivist approach" (related to reception, insofar as "I build a message, and it builds me according to what I am") (Helbo 2021).
Thus, the theoretical discourse changes with its corpus of analysis, now refractory to the old constraints of elitist aesthetics. In it are found, by their "spectacular" nature, theatre, dance, dance-theatre, opera, circus, street arts, happening, performance, ritual, folklore. The new semiotics dialogues with performance theory, communication theories, pragmatics and speech acts theory, reception studies, reader-response, theatrical anthropology, cognitive and behavioral neuroscience.