Language, chess, and design

One Saturday morning, I was cleaning up my files to gain some storage space and ended up bumping into a text I wrote back in college. I read it, didn’t understand, read it again, and realized it was a better text than I gave myself credit for at the time. I shook off the imposter syndrome and here we are with a tidier version and with fewer academic frills. Hope you like it.

There is a text very famous among academics (and protected by copyright) that a thinker named Saussurre draws a parallel between the game of chess and the question of language in human interaction¹. Assuming that the chess game is structured in “moves” previously stipulated by a system of rules, the author makes the comparison that this movement has the same logical structure as speech. In other words, speech is only possible because it is part of a set of pre-established grammatical and linguistic rules, which society was conditioned to understand.

Through an analogy about chess pieces, the author indicates that the words, as well as the figures of the bishop or knight in the game, for example, are only understandable to another human because these are already foreseen in the game, and through image association, they can be interpreted and contribute to the game’s interaction. Thus, through this parallel, speech is only understandable when the words are arranged or sonically oriented to associate with what is already foreseen in the language (the “language” is described by Saussure as such a set of rules in which the system linguistic support). This applies in case two people who speak different languages ​​(one from Japan and one from Germany, for example) do not understand each other verbally, however much they are willing. Perhaps a mime saves them, which leads us to an imagery association such as that of chess pieces.

Next, the author argues that, as much as words are thought-limiting, the combinatorial analysis of all existing ones has the potential to produce a very large number of possible arrangements. And it is. According to the library of babel website ², there are mathematically about 10⁴⁶⁷⁷ possible books with every combination of characters in the alphabet from A to Z, including commas, periods, and spaces. The website is the library of Babel mentioned in the text, there it is possible to search for a phrase, which the system will give you in which book, shelf, and wall on which this imaginary book would be found, and it will remain there forever. Therefore, it would be possible to conclude that all thought disposed of in words is not provided with absolute innovation. When turning thought into sound or image, we just choose a part of one of the books in Babel’s library, and we recite it.

Thus, it is curious to think that, technically, language limits us in the sense of expression, but would this notion apply to interface design? The simple answer is…yeah, sort of. Like the words in a verse from the fifth book on the left, on the third shelf of the north wall of the Babel library, pixels on a screen would have the same limiting value as language.

If so, then nothing matters? Is there no sense in creation and expression if everything is already pre-established and mapped out? Not quite. Remember that there is only value in chess pieces because there are relationships established between the parts. Without these relationships, the pieces alone do not add meaning to the player, and the same goes for their design. The arrangements by which we communicate are designed based on choices guided by the purpose of making ourselves understood. Decoding how these arrangements communicate and address the issues that design sets out to solve is the biggest challenge. And nothing is limiting about it.

“…language does not consist of a set of positive and absolute values, but of a set of negative values ​​or relative values ​​that only exist because of their opposition.” ¹

The limiting sense of pixel blending can be somewhat… liberating. Think that the answer to any problem already exists, it's just a matter of finding the correct book page. As you learn where to look, the easier it will be to navigate the sea of ​​possibilities, and the faster you will find the books that will solve the problems that will appear again and again over time. In the same way, we can think that even if we continue and accept that we will forever be re-establishing patterns already foreseen in the imagery system, to whom are those patterns were predicted? Would the sequence of these patterns be something by consequence bad or of lesser value?

Within the design community, there is a belief in innovation at any cost and impact in the industry that only through breaking paradigms can one continue to stand out and become relevant to others ³. This discussion would yield another equally long article, if not longer. However, it is interesting to emphasize that innovation in face of the finite pattern of possibilities is a fallacy. Fallacy, because it is not a race for the new absolute, but for someone who finds another word never seen before in the dictionary first. This word would potentially bring the user closer to the linguistic object, and therefore, making it easier for the communication to be made. But the question remains, just because a new word was found, would it have meaning? Does it convey the message as effectively as established standards? ⁴

At this point, we have more questions than answers. Sorry to disappoint, but if there is one thing Saussure has been able to demonstrate, it is that pointing out the existence of inflexible lines or contradictions is a rather eternal mission. The immensity of possibilities in the understanding and communication that human relationships trace, makes us think that we will never fill all the gaps in this library of Babel. Although finite and imperfect, we will find ourselves forever trying to adapt and find ways to add new meanings to old things and dethrone innovations for being mere reinterpretations.

One way or another, the important thing is the constant search for the word that will replace the one that has fallen into disuse or rearrange the letters to a word that was not yet known that carries a new meaning capable of changing the way we function as a society (and for the better let's hope!). Remember, although every word "has been arranged" doesn't mean that whatever mash of letters that come from smashing your forehead onto your keyboard means anything. What matters is what we as people attach to these symbols and how we let these letters (and pixels) affect us.

Thank you for your time!
Let me know what you think on the comments below and give it some claps of support if you liked what you read :)

Bibliography and other references
[1] Saussure, Ferdinand de. Course in General Linguistics. Edited by Charles Bally and Albert Sechehaye, in collaboration with Albert Riedlinger. Translated by Wade Baskin. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1966.
[2] Bloch, William Goldbloom. The Unimaginable Mathematics of Borges’ Library of Babel. Oxford University Press; Illustrated edition, August 25, 2008.
[3] Salowitz, Joe. Innovation Only Looks like Innovation in Hindsight. 2016.
[4] Norman, Donald A. Signifiers, Not Affordances.December, 2008.

Also some videos that may help understand broader concepts
1. Semiotics: WTF? Introduction to Saussure, the Signifier and Signified
2. Ferdinand de Saussure: Semiotics and Language
3. The Library of Babel Introduction