Ksenia Elisseeva - Bruno Osimo, traduzioni, semiotica della ...

If the 2.12. move in the chess match is compared below with the lexical
morpheme, the smallest significant unit in the sentence, this is not done in order
for a sentence to be considered as a gradual, “move by move”, accumulation of
morphemes either clarifying or negating the meaning of the preceding sentence
(Hockett 1961: 220-236) – this is a very common notion – but in order for these
elements to occupy a similar position in the structure of the whole.
1.3. Comparing a chess match with dialogue is only useful when we are
involved in both cases with two participants who are alternately active and
passive and who pursue a definite goal: winning at chess or achieving
understanding in the act of communication. Achieving understanding is
considered somehow self-evident, but in fact the participants have to overcome
a substantial amount of “noise” having to do with nonconvergence of their
semantics and nonconvergence of their grammar and phonology, which is also
theoretically possible 1 . Moreover, situations are possible in which the speaker
deliberately tries to conceal his meaning. This stance brings him closer to the
position of the chess player, who as a rule tries to hide the meaning of a move,
although in chess as well there are quite a few moves whose meaning is
obvious to the other participant. Thus we are concerned with goal-directed
activity in both objects of study; let us now examine the means of achieving the
goal.
2.0. We shall consider both objects of study as structures, collections of
elements with fixed relations between them.
1 See following pages.
36