< previous page page_262 next page >

Page 262
The sample included both undergraduate and graduate students trained in semiotics. It has been assumed that, given the social conditions of its circulation in 1890 and its stylistic sophistication, Drame was directed to an audience of middling-high culture. In any case our subjects proved that even a cultivated reader gives at first reading a typically naive response. One of the subjects vaguely remembered having already read the story, but reacted as a Model Reader.
In short, a consistent majority identified rather well the two main characters (90%) and strongly believed that they plan to go to the ball or effectively go (82%). The content of the letters was correctly remembered by 72%. About 42% were convinced that Raoul and Marguerite are respectively the Templar and the Pirogue. Only 25% made a forecast as to a possible denouement, and only 15% tried to anticipate a conclusion.
In the second phase 70% recalled the scene of nonrecognition exactly and the fact that Raoul and Marguerite learn something from the episode. The sample becomes oddly fractioned as far as a critical attitude is concerned: only 4% appeared unable to grasp the basic contradictoriness of the story, 40% tried to detect a semiotic machinery, and 20% gave various sorts of rational explanations (of the following type: Probably the Templar was the one who wrote the letter to Marguerite and was convinced he would find Marguerite disguised as a Pirogue . . .). Less than 20% proved to be completely lost. All the rest of the sample gave imprecise summaries. However, if a good summary demonstrated satisfactory comprehension, the opposite is not true: one can have understood something and can have formulated expectations but not have been able to verbalize correctly, maybe because of the abrupt reaction asked for.
Interesting suggestions for this test were given by van Dijk (1975).

 
< previous page page_262 next page >