Conversation, talk, the communicative process, can be compared to the symphonic play of a piece of music. There is an orchestra, the musicians, whose tones and notes must flow, complement and harmonize with one another. There is a main theme. As the music builds variations on the theme are played, and new themes and subthemes are introduced. The basinett responds to the strings, the bass emphasizes the mood of the violin, while the french horn adds a new melody. The subtlety and evenness of flow, the seeming simplicity of the piece, the rich interleaving of subdevelopments, variations, tangents, and recapitulations, are what make a piece of music great.
Coherent communication is much the same. It looks easy. It flows. It seems effortless. In reality, of course, it is rich and complex, in both form and content. As in music, conversants may begin a conversation slowly, tentatively, with some simple (or complex) topic in mind. Slowly the momentum builds, the connections surface, and the themes become defined. As in music, these themes are then elaborated upon in various ways. Topic elaborations often spawn their own variations. New themes and subthemes are introduced. All the while, as in music, original themes reappear and are interwoven with the new ones. The twists and turns of the conversation seem to occur effortlessly.
In music, there is usually one composer in control of which instrument plays next; one composer who is in charge of what the instrument will say. There is a single coordinator of theme introductions, developments, variations, and interweavings. The composition is done off-line and usually involves editing and re-editing for flaws. In discourse, however, we have on-line development with multiple parties responsible for flow coordination. All parties have to organize their own turns, themes, and variations, in addition to their being able to integrate these items into co-conversants'.
In their book, "Understanding Computers and Cognition," Winograd and Flores (1987) cite the following from Gadamer (Winograd and Flores, 1987, p. 32):
It is not so much our judgments as it is our prejudices that constitute our being ... the historicity of our existence entails that prejudices, in the literal sense of the word, constitute the initial directedness of our whole ability to experience. Prejudices are biases of our openness to the world. They are simply conditions whereby we experience something -whereby what we encounter says something to us. (Gadamer, Philosophical Hermeneutics, 1976, p. 9