NLP Meta Model

<<snapshot print label:print id:here>>

Sources: http://www.people-management.nl/ http://nlpglossary.blogspot.com/search/label/Causality http://www.microdot.net/nlp/precise-communication/ http://home.earthlink.net/~nlper999/miltmod.html#nom

Distinctie	Proces	Reactie	Image
Nominaliseren	Van een actief proces naar een passief ding maken.	Hoe met name....? Hoe precies....?
Vooronderstellen	Een eigen aanname als waarheid doen voorkomen en staande houden zonder deugdelijk bewijs.	Volgens wie is dit waar? Hoe weet u dit zo zeker? Hoe weet u dat dit waar is? Waar leidt u uit af dat ... zo is?
Verdwenen Performatief	Een overtuiging uitspreken waarbij de spreker zoek is.	Voor wie is dit zo? Vind jij dit ook? Wat vind jij hiervan?
Gedachtelezen	Helderziendheid suggereren.	Hoe weet je dat...? Wat heb je meegemaakt waardoor je dit van hem of haar weet?
Oorzaak – gevolg	Een extern iets (x) aanwijzen als veroorzaker van een eigen gevoel (y) .	Hoe precies leidt X tot Y keuze? Hoe precies dwingt x tot y keuze? Ooit meegemaakt dat x er was zonder y gekozen te hebben?
Onduidelijkheid	Weglaten van personen, objecten, zelfstandige naamwoorden. Het is niet bekend voor wie het zo duidelijk is	Duidelijk voor wie..........? Wat? Welke?
Ontbrekende vergelijking	Een vergelijking maar zonder referentie naar een concreet object om mee te vergelijken	Meer of minder in vergelijk met wat? Meer of minder in vergelijking met wie?
Ontbreken van Referentiële Indices	Het is onbekend wie of wat als voorbeeld diende	Wie met name? Welke met name? Wat precies?
Universele Kwantoren	Alles of Niets uitspraken. Er is geen ruimte voor uitzonderingen	Gebruik overdrijvingen of vraag om een tegenvoorbeeld
Complexe Generalisatie + Equivalentie	Twee overtuigingen die elkaar bewijzen	Gebruik conclusies of vraag om een tegenvoorbeeld
Onterechte vergelijking	Het is niet duidelijk waarmee vergeleken wordt	Vergeleken met..........? Beter dan...wie/wat
Modale operatoren	Geven grenzen aan van noodzakelijkheid: OF Geven grenzen aan van (on)mogelijkheid:	Modale operatoren van noodzakelijkheid worden verkend met de vraag: “Wat zou er gebeuren als je wel... of als je niet....?” Modale operatoren van (on)mogelijkheid worden verkend met de vraag: “Wat belet of wat verhindert u om.........?”
Onvolledig gespecificeerde werkwoorden	Het werkwoord geeft wel activiteiten aan maar kan op meerdere manieren uitgelegd worden	Hoe met name.....? Hoe precies......? Welke manier precies van ......?
Onvolledig gespecificeerde zelfstandige naamwoorden	Het zelfstandig naamwoord geeft wel dingen aan maar kan op meerdere manieren uitgelegd worden	Welke met name ? Welke precies....? Wat met name...? Wat precies...?

See this

pdf

Causality

A relatively common human experience is one in which we each believe that our internal emotional states (how we feel) are a direct effect of the actions of others or the effect of other external conditions such as the weather or the news on television.

In other words people's experience is often distorted, leading them to treat their internal emotional states i.e. happiness, sadness, anger, frustration etc. as a necessary effect of some external cause and something over which they have no choice, no control and even no responsibility. They put the cause of their state outside of themselves. People often express this phenomenon vocally with words like - 'See what you did! You made me so angry!'.

The next Meta Model pattern, the Cause and Effect pattern, challenges these beliefs directly by causing the speaker to examine in more detail the relationship between the internal representation they observe i.e. their emotional state and the external stimulus which they believe to be the direct cause of that state.

If you’ve ever said something like:-

• You make me angry
• My job is stressing me out
• This awful weather is making me feel miserable
• Seeing you on the stage filled me with pride

then your world model has been to some degree impoverished by the belief that your emotional state is directly caused by external forces. A great question from Richard Bandler's book Using Your Brain For A Change that fits this subject matter neatly is 'Who's driving the bus?'. Bandler goes on to say, 'Most people are prisoners of their own brains. It's as if they are chained to the last seat of the bus and someone else is driving. I want you to learn to drive your own bus'.

One need only refer to the NLP Communication Model to remember that while it may be a response to stimuli both internal and external, our state is internally generated and therefore internally controlled.

There is no mechanism by which external triggers can directly cause us to feel one way or another. As the Presuppositions of NLP state – we control our own mind and therefore our results.

When we hear a Cause and Effect statement from another person, or even in our own internal dialogue we can challenge it directly. Appropriate responses to the examples above include:-

• How does what I’m doing cause you to choose to feel angry?
• How do you decide when to feel stressed at work?
• It must be awful to need the weather to change before you can change your mood.
• When did you know it was the right time to feel as if you were filled with pride?

Each of these responses acknowledges the speaker’s internal state and at the same time points out that they are in control of all the input channels and output channels that give rise to that state.

A person who has learned to recognise that they are in control of their own emotional state has greater flexibility and more options available to them from which to choose how to respond more usefully.

Or as Bandler might say - once you remember that it's you driving your bus, the choice of destination is yours and yours alone. (This recognition, increased flexibility and control is also the subject of the concept of Emotional Intelligence or EI.)

Sources: http://nlpglossary.blogspot.com/search/label/Causality http://home.earthlink.net/~nlper999/miltmod.html#nom http://www.microdot.net/nlp/precise-communication/

<<snapshot print label:print id:here>>

Comparitive Deletions

A Comparative Deletion is a phrase in which a comparison is made but the thing, person or standard to which the comparison is made is not mentioned:- 1. It's more or less the right thing to do 2. It's better to do it that way 3. You will enjoy things more and more 4. She's the best!

Meta Model responses to recover the deleted information:- 1. More or less the right thing compared to what? 2. Better than what? 3. Enjoy things more and more than what? 4. Best compared to whom?

Examples:

Sources: http://nlpglossary.blogspot.com/search/label/Compartive Deletions http://home.earthlink.net/~nlper999/miltmod.html#nom http://www.microdot.net/nlp/precise-communication/

<<snapshot print label:print id:here>>

Complex equivalence

Complex equivalence (X↔Y, or X is equivalent to Y) draws an unsubstantiated link between an event and its consequence. The logic just does not follow.

Example 1

• Client: "And now my secretary quit. I'll be bankrupt by the end of the year!"
• Challenge: "Are you telling me your fortune depended on your secretary's employment?"

Example 2

• Client: "She is always late, she must not love me."
• Challenge: "How, specifically, does her lateness mean she does not love you?"

A Complex Equivalence is an example of distortion and is a statement where two meanings are equated as being synonymous or, if you prefer, where one thing means another. Complex Equivalence often appears in speech as a series of two sequential statements such as:-

• She doesn't like me. She never smiles at me.
• He was late for our appointment. He has no respect for my time.
• They can't be interested. They didn't respond to my letter.
• Remember that in Complex Equivalence the two statements are considered to be equal or to have the same meaning i.e.
• [The fact that] she never smiles at me means that she doesn't like me.

or:-

• She never smiles at me = She doesn't like me.

The Meta model response for a Complex Equivalence is to challenge it or to provide a counter-example i.e.

• Do you always smile at everyone you like every time you see them?
• Have you ever smiled at someone you secretly hated?
• What has being late got to do with respect?
• Have you ever been late for a meeting with a person you respected?
• Have you ever been on time and not respected the person?
• When you're interested in someone do you always write to them immediately?
• Would a hastily scribbled note convince you that they were really interested in you?

In other words, when presented with a Complex Equivalence form such as x = y or x means y we can respond in the following forms:-

• How does x mean y?
• Does X always mean y?
• Can you think of examples where x does not mean y?

Sources: http://nlpglossary.blogspot.com/search/label/Complex Equivalence http://home.earthlink.net/~nlper999/miltmod.html#nom http://www.microdot.net/nlp/precise-communication/

<<snapshot print label:print id:here>>

Lost Performative

In addition to gathering information and gaining specificity and clarity in linguistic communication, the Meta Model questions are useful in other ways which include:-

• Challenging the content and boundaries of a person's model of the world
• Encouraging a person to reconnect their model of the world with the world of sensory experience i.e. sights, sounds, body sensations
• Encouraging a person to reconnect their model of the world with the original Reference Structure - the world itself

In the absence of regular review and maintenance a person's model of the world can, over time, become outdated and impoverished through the processes of deletion, distortion and generalisation.

Meta Model questions can encourage a person to update and even expand and enrich their world model by reconnecting it with and reviewing it against the original Reference Structure of shared experience.

In this way a person can often come to new insights and new understandings which were not available to them previously based on their impoverished world model.

A Lost Performative is an example of a distortion which makes reference to an act of speech where the performer of the act is left out, as in:-

• 'It's wrong to cheat'
• 'Everyone deserves a second chance'
• 'People like me never make it big'

What these examples share in common is that they are all value judgements and no mention is made as to who or what is making those judgments.

In order to make a useful evaluation as to the validity of these value judgments we need to recover their source. We can do this using the Meta Model question:-

'According to who?' or 'Who says X?', where X represents the original statement i.e. the appropriate Meta Model response to the second example above would be:-

'Everyone deserves a second chance according to who?', or 'Who says everyone deserves a second chance?'.

In order to answer these questions and identify 'who says', the person we're communicating with has to find examples in their world model. If no examples exist in the person's world model they have the option of enriching their model by reconnecting with the world of experience and their original Reference Structure i.e. the world itself.

If the person can identify from the world of experience examples of 'who says', that person's world model can be enriched by the inclusion of these examples.

On the other hand, if examples cannot be found the world model can still be enriched by the removal of inaccurate or unfounded data.

A third way in which the world model can be enriched is by the inclusion of differing examples, some of which prove the value judgment to be true and some of which prove it to be false. This particlar type of enrichment is especially useful for a person who's choices are being limited by very strongly held beliefs which are not necessarily completely 'true' or completely 'false'.

Lost Performative makes reference to a performative speech act, but the person who is the source of it, and sometimes the speech act itself, is unspecified. This often takes the form of a value judgment without acknowledgment of the fact that a person is the source of that value judgment.

Example 1:

• Client: "Her book was highly acclaimed."
• Challenge: "Acclaimed, by whom?" or "How do you know that?"

Example 2:

• Client: "Disobeying the government is wrong."
• Challenge: "Wrong, according to whom?"

Example 3:

• Client: "An apology was given"
• Challenge: "Who gave the apology and to whom was it given?"

It's important to know about these structures, because it's often necessary to deliver Presuppositions indirectly. These types of phrases contain at least one judgement or evaluation of which we can't identify the source.

• It's important to learn language patterns.
• It's essential to have fun learning all this stuff.
• It's good that we are all here tonight.
• The speaker doesn't state exactly who thinks these things are good, necessary or important.

Examples:

Sources: http://nlpglossary.blogspot.com/search/label/Lost Performative http://home.earthlink.net/~nlper999/miltmod.html#nom http://www.microdot.net/nlp/precise-communication/

<<snapshot print label:print id:here>>

Mindreading

Mindreading means acting as if the speaker is doing exactly that. By making use of the art of speaking generally, a speaker can make an educated guess about the listener's internal experience to build credibility and deepen rapport.

• "I know you are wondering how much you will learn from this training."
• "You may be curious about how you will use these patterns."

We must be cautious to keep our references as general as possible. If specific details clash with the listener's thoughts, it will disrupt his or her attention.

Sources: http://nlpglossary.blogspot.com/search/label/Mindreading http://home.earthlink.net/~nlper999/miltmod.html#nom http://www.microdot.net/nlp/precise-communication/

<<snapshot print label:print id:here>>

Nominalization

A nominalization' is a verb (process word) which has been transformed into an abstract noun. It is like taking a snapshot of a moving object, subjectively the representation has less "movement", and seems like a "static" representation. That is, a dynamic process (or verb) is transformed into a static thing (or noun).

Examples of nominalization

• Example 1:
  • "The communication [from 'communicate'] in this company is poor."
  • Challenge: "How could we communicate more effectively?"
• Example 2:
  • Client: "My decision will be made by tomorrow."
  • Challenge: "How specifically will you decide?"
  • When a verb is transformed into a abstract noun (decision is the nominalized form of decide) it is considered by the author of the model to become stagnant. The intention of responding with the verb form is to facilitate movement and have the respondent become aware of the process form of deciding.

Additional examples: applicability (from applicable)

• The applicability of the meta model was noticeable.
• How specifically was it applicable?

carelessness (from careless)

• Her carelessness was apparent in the way she looked away.
• How specifically was she careless?

difficulty (from difficult)

• The difficulty of the test was a hurdle.
• How specifically was it difficult?

failure (from fail)

• It was a big failure.
• How specifically did it fail?

intensity (from intense)

• The intensity was overwhelming.
• How intense was it?

investigation (from investigate)

• The investigation was carried out thoroughly.
• How specifically was it investigated?

reaction (from react)

• My reaction was immediate.
• How specifically did you react?

The wheelbarrow test

Note: there are 2 simple tests that can be used to determine if a word or expression is a nominalization:

• the wheelbarrow test: if you can put it into a wheelbarrow, it is NOT a nominalization. E.g. A drink is a noun, but it is not a nominalization... as it is tangible, it can be put into a wheelbarrow and carried around. Quality control fails the wheelbarrow test and is a nominalization.
• If the word continuous can be put in front of the noun and still make sense. E.g. improvement becomes continuous improvement, hence improvement is a nominalization. (The fact that continuous can be added indicates that there is a dynamic aspect to this static element).

These examples are used to show how to identify limiting use of language. When a verb is used instead, the mind of the user becomes more flexible in terms of seeing different points of view and looking for solutions to problems. Nominalisations are process words which have been frozen in time and have thus become nouns. In other words we take words which describe actions or processes and, through the process of nominalisation, we turn those actions or processes into things or objects which are frozen in an instant of time.

In some ways, efficiency being one example, nominalisations can be useful tools for communication between human beings, as complex aspects of our experience of the world can seemingly be expressed in a single word such as:-

• Relationship – the process of two or more people relating to each other over time
• Discussion – the process of two or more people discussing a particular subject
• Negotiation - the process of extended communication between two or more parties with the intent of achieving agreement
• Management – the process of managing something
• Freedom – the process of being free
• Confidence – the process of experiencing confident feelings in the mind and body

In other ways our use of nominalisation severely limits our ability to communicate the richness of our experience to other human beings by deleting useful information.

To explain more fully let’s examine the word relationship for a moment and consider more fully what the underlying Deep Structure meaning of that word might be. Firstly we’ll de-nominalise relationship and turn it back into the process of two people relating to each other. Think of a person in your life who you’ve known and been ‘relating’ to for a number of years i.e. a family member or a close friend.

Now, take a few moments to fully consider the sheer volume and diversity of experiences that you and this other person have shared with each other in the course of that process of relating to each other over those years and all the elements of those shared experiences such as:-

• The many different things you have done/heard/seen/spoken about/imagined/planned/dreamed about together
• The sheer volume, diversity and complexity of every interaction you have shared with each other
• The ways in which your individual backgrounds and models of the world have impacted upon and shaped the ways in which you have related to each other over the full course of your ‘relationship’.

Now, take all of that vast expanse of shared human experience and cram it forcibly into a tiny, rigid box. Once you’ve done that, force the lid onto the box with a hastily attached label which reads simply Relationship. Finally, hand that box to a stranger.

Now – using only the single word label – Relationship – could the person you’ve handed that box to ever truly understand/appreciate the full meaning of that word? Not likely! The linguistic representation – the word Relationship – contains nothing of the underlying experience that is required to convey the true meaning. All of that experience is hidden from view inside the box behind the nominalisation/label of the word Relationship.

People communicate with each other using nominalisations all the time and in doing so their conscious thought processes are often not fully in contact with the underlying, ongoing processes which give meaning to those words. In other words, it’s easy to communicate using nominalisations without really thinking about what we’re saying and to completely miss the fact that we are talking about processes which are ongoing and which we can change if we wish to.

The presence of nominalisations in a person’s communication often indicates that, in their perception, they have no choice or control because the events concerned are already in the past i.e.:-

• Our relationship just doesn’t work any more
• There’s no communication here
• His refusal to cooperate brought an end to our negotiation

Another interesting effect of nominalisation is that people are removed from the processes and instead are replaced with things to which responsibility can be assigned. We can rid ourselves of any responsibility by blaming the process. If we re-assign responsibility to the people involved in the processes the above examples could be written:-

• The way we are relating to each other just doesn’t work any more
• People are not communicating here
• We had to stop negotiating because he is refusing to cooperate

Meta Model responses can be used to assist people in reconnecting the nominalisations present in their Surface Structures with the ongoing processes both in the present and over the course of their experience to date.

Examples of Meta Model responses appropriate for challenging a nominalisation and turning it back into a process (denominalisation) include:-

• What specifically about the way you’re relating causes you to think this way?
• What aspects of the way you’re relating do work?
• How would you like to communicate?
• Who’s not communicating what to whom?
• In what way specifically is he refusing to cooperate?
• Could the way you’re negotiating be changed to enable him to cooperate with the process?

In summary it is people, not processes, that are responsible for outcomes and people can change their behaviours and modify the processes until they get the outcomes they desire.

Sources: http://nlpglossary.blogspot.com/search/label/Nominalisation http://home.earthlink.net/~nlper999/miltmod.html#nom http://www.microdot.net/nlp/precise-communication/

<<snapshot print label:print id:here>>

Presupposition

When we humans communicate with each other through the use of a shared natural language our exchanges are, almost without exception, littered with presuppositions.

The actual words that we use when communicating convey explicitly only a portion of the meaning behind our communication. Much of the meaning present in our Deep Structures is not overtly mentioned in our Surface Structures, and is instead conveyed by presupposition alone, often leading to distortion of our experience.

For a fuller explanation of what presuppositions are, how to detect them and some of the ways in which they are so useful please visit the Presuppositions pages in the Persuasive Communication section of this website.

Our topic here is the types of Meta Model responses which are appropriate and useful for challenging the presuppositions in linguistic communication, and for that we'll begin with the following example:-

If my friend John realised how much they hurt my feelings, he would never have said those things.

Let's begin by exposing just a few of the possible presuppositions inherent in the above example:-

• There is a person named John who is a friend of the speaker
• John said some things to the speaker
• The things that John said hurt the speaker's feelings
• John didn't realise:-

        1. How much the speaker's feelings were hurt
        2. The hurt feelings were the result of the things which John said

• Had John realised that a. and/or b. were true he wouldn't have said those particular things

All of the above presuppositions could be true, but which of them are true?

The Meta Model response to this question might be 'true for whom?', or ' true in who's model of the world?', the speaker's model? John's model? Answering such questions is precisely what the Meta Model was designed for.

Meta Model questions appropriate for challenging the presuppositions in the above example could include:-

• How do you know he doesn't know how much your feelings were hurt?
• How do you know he wouldn't have said those things?
• How does friendship govern how people communicate with each other?

If we take the time to notice them the presuppositions inherent in a person's communication can provide insight into aspects of their world model which seemingly limit their choices with respect to behavioural flexibility.

Directly challenging the presuppositions inherent in a person's communication also challenges generalisations in their world model, causing them in turn to review, revise and ultimately enrich the model so that they have more options from which to choose how to behave.

There are several types of presuppositions:

• Existence:
  • "She saw the ice cream in the freezer." Implies is, was. may be.
• Time:
  • Before, after, during, continue, yet, already, begin, stop, start, still, while, since, as, and when. "You may hear noises in the room while you are entering a state of deep relaxation."
• Ordinals:
  • These assume action will be taken, the question is, in what order, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. "Do you want to take a deep breath or would you like to settle down into your chair first?"
• "Or":
  • "Would you prefer a silk blouse or one in cotton?" This presupposes that the listener wants a blouse. The question is which.
• Awareness:
  • These assume the statement is true, all that may be questioned is whether the listener is aware. "Have you realized how common it is to be in a trance?" "Have you noticed how often you go into a trance, even by yourself?"

Examples:

Sources: http://nlpglossary.blogspot.com/search/label/Presupposition

Simple Deletion

The clue is in the name and examples of simple deletion include nouns, objects and real names:- 1. He hurt me 2. The cup was broken 3. I'm scared

Meta Model responses to recover the deleted information:- 1. Who specifically hurt you? 2. Which cup specifically was broken? 3. You're scared about what / by what/whom?

Sources: http://nlpglossary.blogspot.com/search/label/Simple Deletion http://home.earthlink.net/~nlper999/miltmod.html#nom http://www.microdot.net/nlp/precise-communication/

<<snapshot print label:print id:here>>

Universal Quantifiers

Universal quantifiers are broad general statements that do not allow for any exceptions. A formal description of a universal quantifier is that it is an absolute generalisation with no referential index. Universal quantifiers include words such as all, every, none, everyone, nobody, always, never, everything and nothing.

To explain more fully, consider the following two phrases which are responses to the question 'Who broke the windows?':- 1. They broke the windows 2. John and Phil broke the windows

Phrase 1 lacks a referential index in that it is impossible to identify from this phrase alone who specifically broke the windows. Phrase 2 allows us to know who specifically broke the windows because it includes two referential indices - John and Phil.

With an understanding of what a referential index is let's move forward now and consider the following phrases:-

• Nobody likes me
• Everybody hates me

Although these phrases, like all universal quantifiers, sound very specific they are in fact not specific and one of the reasons they are not specific is that their referential indices are not specified. When the speaker says 'Everybody hates me' do they mean:-

• Everybody in their family?
• Everybody they work with?
• Everybody they ever met?
• Everybody in the world, including people they have never met?

This complete lack of specificity is exactly what tells us that this person is operating from an impoverished world model, which leads this person to make these universal and usually inaccurate generalisations about the world.

This complete lack of specificity is also precisely what the Meta Model responses will challenge in order to cause this person to re-examine their world model more closely.

Two ways in which the universal quantifier / lack of referential index can be challenged are directly and indirectly.

One indirect form of challenge is simply to turn the universal quantifier that the person has used back around on them in the form of a question, using your voice to emphasise the universal quantifier:-

• NOBODY likes you? Absolutely NOBODY?
• EVERBODY hates you? You can't think of ONE PERSON who likes you?

A direct form of Meta Model challenge for a universal quantifier is to ask directly for the missing referential index as in:-

• Who specifically doesn't like you? Can you think of one person who likes you?
• Who specifically hates you? Hate is such a strong word, maybe there are people out there who only dislike you?

Every universal quantifier includes an element of exaggeration and every universal quantifier can be usefully challenged with appropriate Meta Model responses.

Sources: http://nlpglossary.blogspot.com/search/label/Universal Quantifiers http://home.earthlink.net/~nlper999/miltmod.html#nom http://www.microdot.net/nlp/precise-communication/

<<snapshot print label:print id:here>>

Unspecified Comparative

'Unspecified Comparatives' or 'null comparative' is a comparative in which the starting point for comparison is not stated.

Example comparisons in English:

good	better	best
well	better	best
bad	worse	worst
far	farther	farthest
far	further	furthest
little	littler, less(er)	littlest, least
many	more	most

<<image Example 1:

• Client: "I put my best effort forward."
• Challenge: "Best, compared to what?"
• Essentially the response is attempting to recover information about the comparison criteria the client is using.

Example 2:

• Client: "I'm playing much better now"
• Challenge: "Better, compared to what?"

Example 3:

• Client: "I felt worse than ever."
• Challenge: "Worse, compared to what?"
• Client: "Than before..."
• Challenge: "Before, what specifically?"
• Client: "I feel worse than I was before the accident."

'Unspecified Comparatives' or 'null comparative' is a comparative in which the starting point for comparison is not stated.

Example comparisons in English:

good	better	best
well	better	best
bad	worse	worst
far	farther	farthest
far	further	furthest
little	littler, less(er)	littlest, least
many	more	most

Example 1:

• Client: "I put my best effort forward."
• Challenge: "Best, compared to what?"
• Essentially the response is attempting to recover information about the comparison criteria the client is using.

Example 2:

• Client: "I'm playing much better now"
• Challenge: "Better, compared to what?"

Example 3:

• Client: "I felt worse than ever."
• Challenge: "Worse, compared to what?"
• Client: "Than before..."
• Challenge: "Before, what specifically?"
• Client: "I feel worse than I was before the accident."

Sources: http://nlpglossary.blogspot.com/search/label/Unspecified comparitive http://home.earthlink.net/~nlper999/miltmod.html#nom http://www.microdot.net/nlp/precise-communication/

<<snapshot print label:print id:here>>

Unspecified Nouns and Verbs

"People can learn easily under hypnosis." There are a few things in this sentence which are not clear,

• Which people?
• How can they learn easily?
• What do they learn easily?

When phrases like these are used, the listener is forced to use his or her imagination to fill in the who's and how's. Again, these types of phrases are useful for pacing and leading when the speaker becoming too specific could mismatch the listener and break rapport or minimize influence.

"So take a moment and enjoy remembering some of the things you learned and did at the seminar." What were your thoughts after hearing that sentence? Did you have a specific representation? What did you learn and do, and which seminar did you learn them at? Nominalizations are one type of unspecified noun.

Sources: http://nlpglossary.blogspot.com/search/label/Unspecified%20Noun http://home.earthlink.net/~nlper999/miltmod.html#nom http://www.microdot.net/nlp/precise-communication/

<<snapshot print label:print id:here>>

Unspecified Referential Indexes

Put simply, a Lack of Referential Index fails to specify a person or thing:- 1. They don't listen to me 2. People don't understand 3. Feelings get in the way 4. Some time

Meta Model responses to recover the deleted information:- 1. Who specifically doesn't listen to you? 2. Which people specifically don't understand? 3. Which feelings specifically get in the way?

     or

4. Who's feelings specifically get in the way? 5. When specifically?

Once you've recovered the deleted information you have access to more of the information contained in the speaker's reference model - their model of the world. If the responses you receive to your Meta Model questions require further clarification simply identify the specific clarification that you require and use the Meta Model to go after it.

Sources: http://nlpglossary.blogspot.com/search/label/Unspecified Referential Indexes http://home.earthlink.net/~nlper999/miltmod.html#nom http://www.microdot.net/nlp/precise-communication/

<<snapshot print label:print id:here>>

Unspecified verbs and adverbs

In an unspecified verb it is not clear how the action creates or created the result.

Example 1:

• Client: "I created a great impression on them."
• Response: "How exactly did you create a great impression (and note the unspecified referential index “them”) on who exactly?"
• Note: The appropriate response is to ask how exactly does taking "x" action lead to "y" result.

Example 2:

• Client: "My students are failing me."
• Respondent: "Failing, how?"

Unspecified verbs and adverbs let us fill in with our own experience.

• "This is much easier to learn than it looks at first."
• "People can relax."

We don't know how it is easier to learn, or how it looks at first. Nor do we know how people relax, nor how they can do it. But we can imagine how. According to my English Teacher at Primary School a verb is a doing word or an action word. In other words, verbs describe actions or things being done. Just like all the other words that we humans use when we communicate with each other, verbs are simple labels used to describe complex aspects of human experience.

When a person uses verbs in their linguistic communication they are in posession of all the underlying complex experience that gives meaning to the words (their Reference Structure), so they know exactly the meaning of the words that they use. We, as the recipient of that communication do not have access to that Reference Structure - for us all of that data has effectively been deleted.

Consider the following phrase:- 'They punished me'.

This Surface Structure is derived from a fuller linguistic representation known as the Deep Structure. The Deep Structure, in turn, is derived from the Reference Structure of the speaker i.e. the speaker's World Model.

In order to appreciate more fully what the speaker means by 'They punished me' we could apply meaning to the words from our own world model. We could think about experiences we've had to which the label 'punished' could be applied and imagine that this is what the speaker means. We could think about experiences that other people have had that we've heard or read about which could fit the description of 'punished'. Both of these methods are flawed insomuch as they amount to mind reading - claiming to know the thoughts of another person.

The underlying Deep Structure of the above Surface Structure could be written as:- PAST(PUNISH [someone, me, in some way])

Any native speaker of the English language understands from the Surface Structure that:-

1. Some event occured in the past
2. The event was a complex event
3. It consisted of the following parts:-
   1. An action, punished, which occurred between:
      1. The agent - some person or thing doing the punishing, here represented by they, and
      2. The object - some person or thing being punished, here represented by me, and
      3. The instrument - the method used to do the punishing, here represented by in some way

Notice that even though not all parts of the Deep Structure represented appear in the Surface Structure (in this case the instrument is not represented in the Surface Structure), the native speaker of English has that information available in their understanding of the sentence.

Meta Model questions/responses can be used effectively to recover the information deleted from the Deep Structure. In this particular case an appropriate question would be:-

• 'How specifically did they punish you?'.

And if we wanted to recover the missing Referential Index on 'They' we could ask:-

• 'Who specifically punished you?'

By recovering deleted information we can gain greater specificity and thus access to the fullest linguistic representation of the Deep Structure.

Sources: http://nlpglossary.blogspot.com/search/label/Unspecified%20Verb http://home.earthlink.net/~nlper999/miltmod.html#nom http://www.microdot.net/nlp/precise-communication/

<<snapshot print label:print id:here>>