Three types of talk
Some cognitive scientists propose that thought and language are two different things and that they occur in two different “places” in the mind. According to this theory, thinking consists of complex computations that occur in the subconscious in a language called mentalese. We direct and express that thinking using the natural language that we consciously experience. It follows that building a better understanding of language is an important step toward improving our thinking, including the collective thinking that occurs when two or more people use language to think together.
Roughly described, the study of language divides into 1) the study of words (semantics) and sentences (syntax) and 2) the study of language “beyond the sentence.” The latter type of language is called discourse and its study is termed discourse analysis. In this post, we’ll take a look at three types of spoken discourse.
There are various ways to define discourse. One of the simplest is this: A contiguous stretch of language comprising more than one sentence (text) or utterance (speech). As indicated by this definition, discourse is normally divided into written (text) and spoken (utterance) forms. Here, we’ll focus on the latter. The major classifications of spoken discourse are monologue and dialogue. Dialogue is more casually referred to as conversation or talk. Linguists have yet to agree on the “right” way to classify the different types of dialogue. For our purposes, we’re going to divide it into the three kinds of talk identified by Neil Mercer and Karen Littleton in their book Interthinking: Putting Talk to Work.
Cumulative Talk: When engaging in cumulative talk, everyone simply accepts and agrees with what others have to say. They may elaborate on each other’s ideas by adding information of their own, but they do not evaluate the ideas. They do not say why they are for or against an idea. The emphasis is on group harmony, conviviality, and trust building.
Disputational Talk: With disputational talk, it’s just the opposite. There is nothing but disagreement. There are few attempts to pool knowledge and offer constructive criticism. The approach is competitive rather than constructive. It is dominated by assertions and counter-assertions. People do not explain why they hold to their assertions, nor do they ask others to explain why they hold to their assertions.
Exploratory Talk: Exploratory talk sits between the extremes of cumulative talk and disputational talk. When engaging in exploratory talk, everyone engages critically but constructively with each other’s ideas, i.e., they are constructively critical. People explore their differences by asking and answering questions and asking for and giving reasons. In this way, they share information and reason about it, which is to say, they reason collectively.
Some implementations of exploratory talk are these:
Many design firms use design crits (short for design criticisms) as a way for a designer to obtain feedback from design peers, researchers, product managers, and others. As compared to a more formal design review session, a design crit is a brief, informal, focused look at a particular issue and is run at any stage, and perhaps multiple stages, of the design process.
James Watson and Francis Crick used constructive criticism to elucidate the structure of DNA, for which they were awarded the Nobel Prize. As Crick explained, “Our…advantage was that we had evolved unstated but fruitful methods of collaboration…. If either of us suggested a new idea, the other, while taking it seriously, would attempt to demolish it in a candid but nonhostile manner."
Pixar’s Andrew Stanton says, “There’s a difference between criticism and constructive criticism. With the latter, you’re constructing at the same time that you’re criticizing. You’re building as you’re breaking down, making new pieces to work with out of the stuff you’ve just ripped apart.” Pixar’s plussing technique is based on this idea. It dictates that people may only criticize another’s work if they also add a constructive suggestion.
In his book Making Conversation: Seven Essential Elements of Meaningful Conversation, Fred Dust suggests using this language to soften the way that criticisms are offered—people should either confirm an idea (agree with it) or complicate it (disagree with it). So, instead of saying, “I don’t agree with that,” you might say something like, “Let me complicate that a bit.”
Mercer and Littleton suggest that group members do the following to implement exploratory talk, which are good things to remember when serving as a group member or meeting facilitator:
“[F]reely express critical views about any proposals made by fellow members, but only criticisms that are genuinely felt and motivated by a wish to help the group succeed in its task;
treat any critical comments about their ideas as constructive criticism, rather than as personal attacks;
give any ideas or proposals made the same kind of critical scrutiny, regardless of the relative status of the proponent within the group;
share whatever relevant information they have that might help the group’s work and not assume too readily that relevant knowledge is held in common;
try to provide justifications for any proposals they make, so that their partners have a basis upon which to assess those proposals;
seek relevant information from other members, for example by asking if anyone has anything to share or add, and requesting that information is elaborated if it is not initially clear;
regularly seek ratification and check agreement for proposals that they make;
reflect together occasionally on their joint activity[.]”
Kevin W. Holt, the founder of Co.Innovation Consulting, is a strategic planning consultant and meeting facilitator based in Phoenix, Arizona. He works with commercial, government, and nonprofit organizations to develop innovative strategies and solutions. His strategy consulting and meeting facilitation practice centers on the use of proven processes mapped to collaboration technologies (e.g., electronic brainstorming) and specialized software tools (e.g., the Blue Ocean strategy canvas). The technologies enable him to serve as both an offsite meeting facilitator and a virtual meeting facilitator for strategic planning workshops, innovation labs, brainstorming sessions, feedback sessions, and other types of meetings. Kevin is the author of Differentiation Strategy: Winning Customers by Being Different, published by Routledge in June 2022.