Why conversation is more like a dance than an exchange of words

(Press-News.org) Nijmegen, 27 February 2026 - Think about the last time you told a story to a friend. You probably adjusted it halfway through. You saw their eyebrows lift. You noticed them lean in, or glance away. You clarified a detail. You sped up the ending. That constant fine-tuning is not a bonus feature of communication: it ís communication. And you can read all about this real-time coordination process in a new review by Judith Holler and Anna K. Kuhlen (Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics), published in Nature Reviews Psychology.

Holler and Kuhlen argue that conversation is not simply one person speaking while another listens. It is a process in which both participants continuously monitor, predict, and shape each other’s behavior. “Conversation is not a linear exchange of words,” Judith Holler writes. “It is a jointly managed activity in which meaning emerges through coordination.”
 

Talking is a full-body activity

Speech is only part of the story. In face-to-face interaction, people rely on a rich stream of visual signals: gestures, gaze shifts, facial expressions, posture changes, and brief vocal cues like “mm-hm.” These signals allow speakers to detect confusion, engagement, agreement, or hesitation, often before a single clarifying question is asked. “Listeners are not passive recipients,” Holler emphasizes. “They actively shape the speaker’s unfolding message.”

When that feedback loop is disrupted - for example, during lagging video calls or audio-only conversations - communication becomes more effortful and less fluid. The review highlights how deeply conversation depends on immediate, embodied feedback.


Two brains, one coordinated system

Traditional psycholinguistic research has often studied language production and comprehension separately. But real conversation does not divide so neatly. Instead, the authors describe conversation as a temporary partnership between minds.

Speakers anticipate responses before they arrive. Listeners prepare replies while still processing what they hear. Both sides constantly adjust, as Judith notes: “Face-to-face conversation requires rapid adaptation and mutual prediction. It is a dynamic system distributed across participants and modalities.”
 

This perspective reframes conversation as a form of multimodal joint action, closer to coordinated movement or ensemble performance than to a simple transfer of information. Viewing conversation as coordination has broad implications:

It reshapes how scientists study language and cognition It informs the design of conversational technologies It deepens understanding of communication challenges in clinical contexts It highlights the cognitive demands of everyday social interaction Conversation may feel effortless. But beneath that ease lies continuous prediction, adjustment, and alignment between people. The review calls for language research to move beyond isolated tasks and toward studying communication as it naturally unfolds: embodied, adaptive, and fundamentally collaborative. “Meaning does not reside in words alone,” Holler concludes. “It emerges through bodies and interaction.”


Read the full article:

Psycholinguistic perspectives on face-to-face conversation | Nature Reviews Psychology


PUBLICATION
Holler, J., Kuhlen, A.K. Psycholinguistic perspectives on face-to-face conversation. Nat Rev Psychol (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-026-00538-1


ABSTRACT
Traditional psycholinguistic approaches to language have examined production and comprehension in isolation. However, these processes are tightly intertwined and embedded in social interactions. In this Review, we summarize empirical work that highlights the behavioural and cognitive complexities of communicating meaning in face-to-face conversation and that should be captured by psycholinguistic accounts and paradigms. To begin, we consider the implications of conceptualizing language as a situated joint action. Then, we summarize work on three defining features of conversation. First, visual bodily signals play an integral role in composing and comprehending meaning and achieving mutual understanding. Second, addressee feedback signals understanding or difficulty understanding, and the monitoring of interlocutors for such signals adds demands on cognitive resources. Third, multi-party interactions require participants to keep track of and adapt to multiple people’s understanding, signals and shared knowledge. In closing, we point to issues that require further research and the development of experimental paradigms that can capture defining features of face-to-face conversation while maintaining experimental control.


QUESTIONS? CONTACT:

Judith Holler

Phone: +31 24 352 1911

Email: Judith.Holler@mpi.nl

Anniek Corporaal (press officer)

Phone: +31 24 352 1947

Email: Anniek.Corporaal@mpi.nl

 

END