Granted that a common language is a necessary
condition for communication, such a common language is not
simultaneously a sufficient condition, or at least not one of
most efficient, for communication. Interactivity, as it evolved
beyond the literate model, is based on the probability, and
indeed necessity, to transcend the common language expectation
and replace it with variable common codes, such as those we
establish in the experience of multimedia or in networked
interactions. Even the ability to interact with our own
representation as an avatar in the Internet world becomes
plausible beyond the constraining borders of literate identity.
Taking literacy for granted
In preceding paragraphs, we examined what is required, in
addition to a common language, for a conversation to make sense.
Scale is another factor. The scale that defines a dialogue is
very different from the scale at which human self-constitution,
language acquisition and use included, take place. Scale by
itself is not enough to define either dialogue or the more
encompassing language-oriented, or language- based, practical
activity through which people ascertain their biological
endowment and their human characteristics. There is sufficient
proof that at the early stage of humankind, individuals could be
involved only in homogeneous tasks. Within such a framework of
quasi-homogeneous activity, dialogues were instances of
cooperation and confirmation, or of conflict.
Pages:
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193