Linguistics folk call it "other-initiated repair" but what they mean is that a listener lets a speaker know that something needs to be clarified. An example: "Huh?" This little noise invites a speaker to say it all again differently and better. If the speaker honors the request, we can dignify the event with the term dialogue. Otherwise, it's just speaker and passive listener, speaker monopolizing the time of a really-should-be-silent one. [Some people prefer to live in a dialogue-free zone. If you know you already hold the full and final truth because that's just how smart you are, then you don't need dialogue.]

Bullies and propaganda merchants aren't interested in dialogue, even when they pretend otherwise. Real dialogue has clear traits. It is "grounded in social interaction," so some work is involved. It is a process of "confirming and checking [and] managing common understanding." The rules must allow for "other-initiated repair"--for one person to press another to respond to something in particular initiated by the listener. The speaker has to allow her language to change part of the time. She has to be open. She has to see the virtue of creating, protecting, and enlarging the common ground.

See for example the typical form letter you get back from your representative in Congress. You ask a particular question and the staffer sends a form letter proudly reciting a few facts and promising that work is underway. Your question is not answered. Your writing, your public speech, has no effect on the reply. There is no repair that you can initiate. Maybe a lobbyist can, but you can't. It looks a little like a dialogue has taken place but it has not. There was no "other-initiated repair," no openness. At moments like that it's tempting to redefine citizen as a really-should-be-silent one.

("The Syllable Everyone Recognizes," Jennifer Schuessler, NY Times, 11/9/13)