Transmission and Interpretation of Signs: two sides of the same coin, or two different currencies?

The main issue motivating this inquiry is the extent to which transmission and interpretation of signs need to be considered mutually interdependent practices and processes. In other words, do practices and processes of sign transmission presuppose the simultaneous co-occurrence of practices and processes of sign interpretation in order to function successfully, and vice versa, or can the transmission and interpretation of signs occur independently of one another and still be considered successful? Or, put yet another way: for us to claim that signs have been successfully transmitted, do we have to take as criterion for their successful transmission that they have been, or will be able to be, successfully interpreted? My assertion will be that neither the transmission nor the interpretation of signs can legitimately be considered value-free practices(the question of how to define value being a theme I shall revisit shortly). Consequently, in any given situation where signs are transmitted, it will also be necessary to take into account to what extent adequate conditions exist for their legitimate interpretation, if we are interested in gaining an as complete as possible understanding of the efficacy (or not) of the transmission practice or process.