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
. . . another good question . . . let me try an answer
if, in fact, "signifiers differ from culture to culture" then obviously what
these different things have in common is their function, within the meaning
system, AS SIGNIFIERS . . .
. . . if they do have this in common then we can establish general pricniples
examining wht this commonality is and how it works . . . if they do NOT have
at least this trait in common then it seems to me to make absolutely no sense
to say that they are all signifiers . .
. . . semiotics as a field--like all other fields, i suspect--requires that
the categories of tha field apply to uniformly to a range of things that
otherwise are heteronomous
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]