Misunderstanding in communication arises from code asymmetry, not mere distortion.

Evidence

Clearly, what we have called Meanings I and Meanings II—as we see in the diagram above—may not be the same. They do not constitute an “immediate identity.” The codes of encoding and decoding may not be perfectly symmetrical. The degrees of symmetry—that is, the degrees of “understanding” and “misunderstanding” in the communicative exchange depend both on the degrees of symmetry/a-symmetry between the position of encoder-producer and that of the decoder-receiver: and also on the degrees of identity/ non-identity between the codes which perfectly or imperfectly transmit, interrupt, or systematically distort what has been transmitted. The lack of “fit” between the codes has a great deal to do with the structural differences between broadcasters and audiences, but it also has something to do with the a-symmetry between source and receiver at the moment of transformation into and out of the “message-form.” What is called “distortion” or “misunderstandings” arise precisely from the lack of equivalence between the two sides in the communicative exchange. Once again, this defines the “relative autonomy” but “determinateness” of the entry and exit of the message in its linguistic/meaning form. — Hall, Stuart, Essential Essays, Volume 1, 787

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines the encoding/decoding model: meanings at each end are never an immediate identity, and code asymmetry explains so-called distortion.
• QUESTION: How does Hall’s ‘relative autonomy but determinateness’ formulation map onto economic determination debates he later engages?