One of the most destabilising dynamics in couple conversations is the sudden shift in what the conversation is actually about. It is rarely dramatic. One partner speaks about an event, a need, or a plan; the other replies not to the content but to how it was said, or to what they believe the statement implies. The topic is replaced by a commentary on tone, intention, or character. The couple think they are continuing the same conversation — they are not.  

In therapy, we use metacommunication deliberately. We slow the process, name what is happening between people, and work inside that experience. But in intimate relationships, metacommunication fractures interaction. The level of discourse changes without mutual awareness. One person is still trying to resolve the original issue while the other is now engaging an inferred motive. What follows is not disagreement but divergence: two conversations running parallel, each invalidating the other.  

This is not driven by malice but by structure. Relationships slip between levels of communication without recognising it has happened. Escalation often has little to do with the topic itself; it emerges because the couple are no longer anchored in the same frame of meaning. In my work, helping partners notice when they have switched levels — and to return to a shared conversation long enough for meaning to stabilise — is one of the hardest and most necessary parts of the work.