SCREEN-L Archives

March 1996, Week 1

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU
Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:
Re: Semiotics
From:
Mikel Koven <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 1 Mar 1996 07:55:29 -0330
In-Reply-To:
<[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (17 lines) 
Why must it be a "standard film language"? Where Metz, Levi-Strauss and
the boys went wrong, or at least where my current research in
sociolinguistics is taking me, is that semiotic analysis is culturally
specific.  I.e. the signifiers and siginfieds (as well as their
interrealtionships) differ from culture to culture and from group to
group, therefore the can be no single unifying pricipal.
 
_____________________________________________________________________________
Mikel J. Koven
Department of Folklore
Memorial University of Newfoundland
[log in to unmask]
 
----
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2