<p>What are the psychological differences between art forms that are essentially verbal and those which are essentially visual or aural—and what do these differences imply for teaching literature through film? John Carey argues, paradoxically but plausibly, that although there is no “essence” common to all artworks, verbal artworks are intrinsically superior to non-verbal ones because they are capable of critique, rational argument, and ideation. We’ll show that these are not personal preferences but social judgements based in language. With the well-known educator L.S. Vygotsky, we’ll criticize the dualism of interpreting artworks as word-like symbols. Along with the sociolinguist Ruqaiya Hasan, propose an integrative psychological alternative that relates the acoustic or graphic substance of verbal art to a “theme” in social relations. Along with C.S. Peirce, we’ll extend this to the non-verbal aspect of art, showing that it can be interpreted semiotically if not symbolically. Applying Hasan’s model, we show why even one of the best screenplays of <i>Sense and Sensibility</i> falls short of Jane Austen’s book in verbalization, symbolic articulation, and above all in its theory of social woman and man.</p>