The model of the author is incorrect/weak. It's more useful to consider a conversation to be a synchronisation process between two persons (or more than two, or one/several persons and a boundary object, i.e. interface).

Thoughts are not encoded as words. Words are generated essentially as GPT does it. There is a % probability of using a particular word, you can go into many directions. There is only a weak correlation between a resulting text and what the person wants to convey. Also, it's not like there is a single goal - to convey a particular fact. It's easy to assume that and it may be useful in a theoretization context, but in reality there are many motivations. Even just to avoid the akward silence.

One can use sentences to encode information formatlly. However, usually we do not do that. Examples of when we do - google Object−Process Methodology. But normal language is not like that. There is more structure and intent to a long text/conversation than to a particular sentence. We can analyse a sentence, we can't have a similar understanding of a long text.

I believe it's much better to think about conversations in a new way. Imagine each participant (and the interface) has a mental model. A mental model can be (for simplicity) assumed to have form of objects + relations. Relations can be processes, btw. So different participants have different graphs in their minds. Then they exchange pieces of conversation (which can take many forms) to sync parts of the model. The participants may not realise they are doing that, the process is more akin to syncing of metronomes on the same surface or of people clapping together. If mental models of different participants are too different (because "domains of discourse" are two different or for other reasons), then there is no sync. If, however, there are some shared concepts or ideas, sync may happen. If people converge, then they may get to a shared mental model.

When this happens through spoken language, this basically doesn't work or barely works, because executive memory is very small and people can keep just 3-4 objects in the focus of their attention. Using boundary objects (interfaces, exocortex) is potentially much more effecitve. Using special methods of discourse (protocols) can be very powerful too. Finding a way to avoid emotional and social traps is a great enhancer as well.