The Taxonomy: What Kind of Clarity Do You Need?
A 60-second diagnostic for aiming “What do you mean?” without turning it into a fight.
Skip the two foundational links below if you have already read them.
The premise
A lot of American discourse right now is “argument” built on a missing step: we never agree on what a key word is doing. “Freedom.” “Safety.” “Woke.” “Accountability.” “Midnight.” We treat the word like a shared object, then we punish each other for not holding the same one.
This post is the first carry-it-into-your-week anchor.
It’s a taxonomy of the most common “meaning failures,” so you can ask for the right kind of clarity: definition, scope, mechanism, evidence, implication, values, and more.
In conversation analysis terms, this is repair (more to come on the repair topic later): how humans flag trouble and fix understanding mid-stream. Repair exists because problems of speaking/hearing/understanding are normal.
In cognitive science terms, it’s also grounding: updating common ground so the conversation can keep moving without having to guess.
A 60-second diagnostic
Before you ask anything, pick the failure point. Most confusion falls into one of these bins:
What are we talking about, exactly? → Reference
Which cases count? → Scope/boundaries
How does it work? → Mechanism
Is it true? → Evidence/standard
What’s being suggested without being said? → Implicature/presupposition
Why does it matter? → Values/stakes
What do you want done? → Action/next step
If you pick the bin, your question gets sharper and the temperature drops.
Tone key (so it lands as curiosity)
A clarification question can sound like a cross-examination if the other person is fused to the claim. So lead with one sentence that protects face and signals collaboration:
“I want to understand your model before I react.”
“Help me map what you mean, so I don’t straw-man you.”
“I may be missing context, can you tighten this for me?”
Then ask your targeted question.
Politeness research treats these as ways of reducing the perceived threat of a request.
The taxonomy: 12 targets for “What do you mean?”
Use this like a menu. You don’t need all twelve. You need the right one.
1) Definition
Use when: a keyword is doing heavy lifting.
Ask: “When you say X, what do you mean by it in this context?”
Example: “When you say ‘accountability,’ do you mean consequences (punishment), transparency, or ownership?”
2) Reference (who/what exactly?)
Use when: the claim feels vague because it points at a fog.
Ask: “What specifically are you referring to: who, what event, what policy, what example?”
Example: “When you say ‘they,’ who do you mean: leadership, voters, media, agencies?”
3) Scope (boundaries + edge cases)
Use when: two people agree on the center and fight on the edges.
Ask: “Which cases count, and which cases don’t?”
Example: “When you say ‘free speech,’ are you talking about legal protection, platform rules, or social norms?”
4) Time (when + how long?)
Use when: disagreement is really about timeline.
Ask: “What time window are we talking about: today, this year, decades? What’s ‘before’ and ‘after’ here?”
Example: “When you say ‘recently,’ do you mean last week, last month, post-2020?”
5) Mechanism (how does X lead to Y?)
Use when: people are trading conclusions without a causal story.
Ask: “Walk me through the mechanism, how does X produce Y, step by step?”
Example: “How exactly does that policy change lead to that outcome? What’s the chain?”
(Mechanism questions are powerful because they force the claim to show its work.)
6) Evidence (what would count?)
Use when: the argument is stuck in “I feel” vs “prove it.”
Ask: “What evidence are you using, and what evidence would change your mind?”
Example: “What would you accept as a credible source here: data, firsthand reporting, audits, court records?”
7) Source/provenance (where did this come from?)
Use when: the claim arrives preloaded with certainty.
Ask: “Where did you first encounter this, and what makes that source reliable to you?”
Example: “Is this from a primary document, an article, a clip, a secondhand summary?”
8) Implicature (what’s being suggested?)
Use when: the conclusion is implied, not owned.
Ask: “Are you implying X, or am I reading that into it?”
This is classic Grice: people infer meaning to keep conversation coherent, and that inference is where conflict often ignites.
9) Presuppositions (what must be true for this to make sense?)
Use when: the framing smuggles in assumptions.
Ask: “What are we assuming as a given here? What would have to be true for your claim to hold?”
Example: “That question assumes intent; are we sure intent is established?”
10) Values/criteria (what are we optimizing for?)
Use when: facts are being used to serve a value conflict.
Ask: “What value is driving your position: fairness, safety, liberty, loyalty, harm reduction?”
Example: “Is your priority preventing harm, preserving autonomy, or enforcing consistency?”
11) Stakes/intent (what are you trying to accomplish?)
Use when: the conversation feels like it has hidden goals.
Ask: “What outcome are you aiming for by saying this: persuasion, warning, venting, coordination?”
Example: “Do you want me to agree, to act, or to understand where you’re coming from?”
12) Action/next step (what do we do now?)
Use when: meaning is clear enough, and the real gap is coordination.
Ask: “What would a good next step look like?”
Example: “What decision are we trying to make by the end of this conversation?”
Quick Scan (copy/paste)
If you only save one thing from this post, save this:
“Define X in this context.”
“What exactly are you referring to?”
“Which cases count?”
“What time window?”
“What’s the mechanism?”
“What evidence would change your mind?”
“Where did this come from?”
“Are you implying X?”
“What assumptions are baked in?”
“What value is driving this?”
“What are you trying to accomplish?”
“What’s the next step?”
Carry it into your week (starting today)
Pick one target from the taxonomy and use it three times before Sunday (if possible).
Here’s the rule: no rebuttal until you’ve run one targeted clarification question.
If you want a simple start, use Scope or Mechanism. They’re high-leverage and low-drama.
Careful promise: when the series is complete, I’ll compile the taxonomy + scripts into a single printable field guide for readers who want the whole kit in one place.
Next Up
Next: Repair—what conversation analysts learned from the way humans fix misunderstandings mid-stream. Repair is the bridge between “meaning in theory” and “meaning under pressure.”