At first I thought this article was just boring, then it did catch some of my interest. It speaks of ambiguity, context-shifts and double-meanings. It is well written, and seems well updated with contemporary academical philosophy. ”X counts as Y in context C” is a useful formula to keep in mind. Here showing example of how it can be applied, both on a simple and more complex level, in the game of chess:
It is all very well to say of a rule in chess, “X counts as Y in context C” (“Moving a pawn two spaces instead of one counts as one move when it is the pawn’s first move”), but when one has got beyond the mechanics and is actually playing, the excitement, having little to do with the rules, which are now mutually known to the players to the point of banality, concerns whether “X counts as Y in context C” on quite another logical level. One is asking questions of the utmost interest, such as, “Does my-moving-of-my-queen-to-there (X) count as a-structured-attack-on-his-center-together-with-my-two-knights (Y) in the-present-state- of-the-pieces (context C)?”
Skilled players are not those who have the rules off by heart or even the most openings and end games off by heart, but those who are readiest in picking out valuable gestaltlike relations among the pieces.
Same kind of formula could be applied in activities of ordinary life also, on different levels, for example:
The word ”chat” (X) means cat (Y) in French (C)
Dying your hair green and purple (X) is not considered as shocking (Y) within a group of punkers (C)
A link to the article www.jstor.org/stable/468793