The concept of a dialogue is considered in general terms from the standpoint of its referential presuppositions. The semantics of dialogue implies that dialogue participants must generally have a collective intentionality of agreed-upon references that is minimally sufficient for them to be able to disagree about other things, and ideally for outstanding disagreements to become clearer at successive stages of the dialogue. These points are detailed and illustrated in a fictional dialogue, in which precisely these kinds of referential confusions impede progress in shared understanding. It is only through a continuous exchange of question and answer in this dialogue case study that the meanings of key terms and anaphorical references are disambiguated, and a relevantly complete collective intentionality of shared meaning between dialogue participants is achieved. The importance of a minimally shared referential semantics for the terms entering into reasoning and argument in dialogue contexts broadly construed cannot be over-estimated. Where to draw the line between referential agreement and disagreement within any chosen dialogue, as participants work toward better mutual understanding in clearing up referential incongruities, is sometimes among the dialogue’s main points of dispute.
Theatre, in the notional complexity to be undertaken, updates and in this update it feels more pronounced the tendencies of increasing the performing spectrum. Writing about theatre inevitably leads you to set on something, on that attribute bringing the conviction that around its analysis the appreciative matters get interesting and reveal assumptions for future analysis.
The article we propose approaches theatre in the cardinal ambiguity of meanings, namely in what we call here interval. We assume an approximate delimitation of this range, balancing and improving the center-periphery relationship, and then establish ourselves to turn the performance itself into a phenomenon, with a double implication. Making a connection between the audience and the performance is not something new, but if the significance, the midpoint of this relationship is fractured in the process transmitter-receiver, can we not think of the possibility of the interval/range as a deconstruct refuge of meanings?
This paper asserts that if hiding the meaning becomes a phenomenon itself, it will be possible to read the performance by averaging this interval in which will be found, in the articulation of the public’s reception, the association of the cultural and theatrical codes.