University Microfilms, a XEROX Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan

72-4458 CRANE, Joshua, 1931- AN INVESTIGATION OF CAST AND AUDIENCE SEMANTIC AGREEMENT IN READERS THEATRE PRODUCTIONS. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1971 Speech University Microfilms, A XEROX Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED AN INVESTIGATION OF CAST AND AUDIENCE SEMANTIC AGREEMENT IN READERS THEATRE PRODUCTIONS DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Joshua Crane, 8.A., M.A. ***** The Ohio State University 1971 Approved by | 'Adviser Department of Speech Communication PLEASE NOTE: Some Pages have indistinct print. Filmed as received. UNIVERSITY MICROFILMS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to acknowledge the assistance of Drs. Franklin H. Knower, Kathryn Schoen, and Keith Brooks who served on the dissertation committee and of Dr. Joseph M. Foley whose aid in the statistical analyses and in devising the computer program for them was so valuable. Special appreciation is expressed to my advisor, Dr. Keith Brooks, for affording me two such professionally challenging and rewarding years. I also wish to acknowledge the sacrafice and constant encouragement of my wife and family who made the completion of the program possible. ii VITA October 14, 1931. , . Born - Boston, Massachusetts 1954........... .. B.A., Guilford Collage, Greens boro, Worth Carolina 1954-1958 ...... Director of Speech and Drama, Lake l\Jorth High School, Lake Worth, Florida 1958-1962.. .......... Instructor, Communications De partment, Palm 3each Junior Col lege, Lake Worth, Florida 1961.................. M .A., University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida 1962-1964...... Television Coordinator and In structor, Communications Depart ment, Palm Beach Junior College, Lake Worth, Florida 1963.................. Post-Graduate Studies, Shakespeare Institute, Department of Extra- Mural Studies, University of Birm ingham, England 1964-1969 ......... Professor, Communications Depart ment and Director of Forensics, Palm Beach Junior College 1969. ......... Graduate Administrative Associate, Department of Speech, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio FIELDS OF STUDY Major Field: Oral Interpretation and Readers Theatre Studies in Communication Studies in Broadcasting and Film Studies in Literature and Drama iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS................................ ii l/I TA . iii LIST OF FIGURES................................. vi LIST OF CHARTS................................... vii Chapter I. BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY........ 1 Development of Readers Theatre.... 2 Some Basic Assumptions........... 29 II. REVIEW OF THE RELEVANT LITERATURE. 37 Experimental Studies in Readers The atre .... 37 Studies in Semantic Compatibility with Plays and Readers Theatre......... 52 III. THE NEED FOR THE S T U D Y .............. 68 Investigating the Communicative Pro cess in Readers Theatre. ..... 68 Determining an Effective Semantic Agreement Measurement. 73 Studying Diverse Readers Theatre Pro ductions ............. 81 IV. THE RESEARCH DESIGN.................... 86 Hypotheses . ............. 86 Constructing the Semantic Differential 90 Gathering Additional Data. ...... 104 Replicating the Investigation. .... 108 Computing Semantic Agreement ..... 112 V. ANALYSES OF THE PRODUCTIONS.......... 126 Audience Profiles. ..... 128 i v Chapter Page Cast Profiles ............. 136 Productions Examined, ......... 142 VI. ANALYSES OF SEMANTIC AGREEMENT.......... 157 Semantic Agreement on the General Scales. ............. .. , . 156 Semantic Agreement on the Particular Scales........... 184 Influence of Other Variables. ..... 188 VII. CONCLUSIONS ....................... 198 Significance of the Results ...... 198 Limitations of the S t u d y . ............. 203 Suggestions for Further Research. , . 204 APPENDICES A. Profiles of Individual Casts and Audiences . ...................... 207 Q. A Sample Script: "1971— As We See It" . 220 C. Particular Scales for Twelve Pro ductions. ............. 246 BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................... 254 v. LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Summary of Scores on Scales Used in the Pilot Study.................... 99 2. Cast-Audience Semantic Agreement, General Scales .................... 159 3. Comparisons of Cast and Audience Semantic Agreement on General Scales for Twelve Productions. 161 4. UJilcoxon "T" Test on Differences Between Cast Da's and Audience Da 's 162 5. Cast-Audience Da 's Greater or Less than Cast Da 's or Audience Da 's as Separate Indices. ....... 163 6. Range of Cast Da *s and Audience Da 's According to Contest, High School, and College Groupings. ........... 166 7. Cast-Audience Semantic Agreement, Particular Scales. ........ 185 8. Comparisons of Cast and Audience Semantic Agreement on Particular Scales for Twelve Productions. , . 187 9. UJilcoxon "T" Test on Appropriately Communicated Readers Theatre Productions. ............. 196 vi LIST OF CHARTS Chart Page I. Graph Showing Semantic Agreement of Casts and Audiences for a Hypo thetical Readers Theatre Production. 124 II. Semantic Agreement Graph for Cast and Audiences "1971— As We See It" .... 169 III. Semantic Agreement Graph for Cast and Audiences "Lord of the Flies"......... 170 II/. Semantic Agreement Graph for Cast and Audiences "Jesus Christ,Superstar" . 171 V. Semantic Agreement Graph for Cast and Audiences"To Kill a Mockingbird" . 172 VI. Semantic Agreement Graph for Cast and Audience: "A Collage of Carl Sandburg" 173 VII. Semantic Agreement Graph for Cast and Audiences "Poetry of Robert Frost" . 174 VIII. Semantic Agreement Graph for Cast and Audiences "Life and Poetry of Dylan Thomas"........................ 175 IX. Semantic Agreement Graph for Cast and Audiences "Rock Music" ........ 176 X. ' Semantic Agreement Graph for Cast and Audience: "A Member of the Wedding". 177 XI. Semantic Agreement Graph for Cast and Audience: "Winnie the Pooh"........... 178 XII. Semantic Agreement Graph for Cast and Audiences "Out, Out— " ........ 179 XIII. Semantic Agreement Graph for Cast and Audiences "After the Fall" ........... 180 vii CHAPTER I BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY Of all the Speech arts, few have garnered as much interest and elicted as much excitement and experimenta tion, in the last decade, as has Readers Theatre. Although it borrows lightly from the Theatre, this form of group Interpretation has as its primary function the task of recreating literary experience in symbolic, suggestive and psychological--rather than representational— ways. The study and practice of Readers Theatre has advanced to a stage where its development can be traced, its litera ture reviewed, and its process explored. It is now possible and desirable to perform experimental studies in order to investigate Readers Theatre in terms of its theories, methods and effectiveness. The primary purpose of this work is to report on one such experimental investigation, cast and audience Semantic Agreement in Readers Theatre productions. It seems reasonable that a comprehensive survey of the development of Readers Theatre,‘including a report on current trends, and a statement of certain necessary assumptions would be helpful as a background for the study. 2 Development of Readers Theatre Although the term, Readers Theatre, has been in popu lar usage for less than a quarter of a century, this form of Interpretative art had its genesis in the reading patterns of the early Greek Rhapsodes, Eugene Bahn has written! A form of dialogue (was) carried on between two characters, read by two rhapsodes. One would read, in the first book of the Iliad, up to the quarrel of the princes; then a second reciter would step forward and declaim the speeches of Agamemmon while the other read the part of Achilles. The rhapsodes did not always confine themselves to the epic poems. They also read the didactic and gnomic poetry of such writers as Hesiod. Ulhen these poems, which were read by one person, had more than one character in them, a type of activity which approaches the art of interpretative reading of plays was developed.1 ^Eugene Bahn, "Interpretative Reading in Ancient Greece," Quarterly Journal of Speech, 18(june, 1932), 434- 437. Similar activity,so adapted to the literature then in vogue , o has been noted during the Medieval Ages and the Renaissance. ^Eugene 3ahn and Margaret L. Bahn, A History of Oral Interpretation (Minneapolis, Minnesota; Burqess Publishinq Company, 1970), 68 and 106. Furthermore, a remarkable description in the published work of Gilbert Austin testifies to the existence of a type of Readers Theatre-in England during the last part of the Eighteenth and early part of the Nineteenth centuries: 3 Another species of dramatic reading has of late years been practised in private companies assembled for that purpose. It differs from that just mentioned (one person reading a play) by limiting each individual to the reading of the part of a single character. In this enter tainment, as on the stage, the characters of the drama are distributed among the readers according to their supposed talents; and each being furnished with a separate book, either the whole play, or certain select scenes from one or more, are read by the performers sitt ing around a table, whilst others of the com pany serve as the audience. The reading is per formed by each in his best manner, the part allotted to each is often nearly committed to memory, and such gestures are used as can be conveniently executed in a sitting position posture. Higher

Load more