Re-Modelling NLP: Part Two:

Re-Modelling Language
John McWhirter
“I keep six honest serving-men
(They taught me all I knew);
Their names are What and Why and When
And How and Where and Who.”
Rudyard Kipling 1865 – 1936,
Just So Stories (1902) “The Elephant’s Child

I want to thank all those people who have responded to my last article, especially
Michael Hall and David Smallwood for sending me related material. I also
appreciated comments made by Jo Hogg on the difference between techniques and
modelling in training. I changed my own NLP training a number of years ago to
create a modelling approach to training NLP. It is initially more challenging but the
increase in effectiveness rewards the effort. Thanks again to Martin Roberts for his
continuing questioning of modelling and NLP.

In my first article I briefly outlined my pursuit of the modelling methodology in NLP.

My ‘stopgap’ approach that later became DBM has been created over a period of
almost twenty years. In this and subsequent parts I will outline my re-modelling of
NLP. I will try to present it with a sense of development. I do not work in a linear
fashion, preferring to have a number of inter-related projects at any one time. This
facilitates the holistic nature of my work and the fertile cross-fertilisation of different
areas and models being applied.

In this article I will outline some of my developments in modelling language. This is

an area in which I have worked longest and probably found the most rewarding.
Language has been the main tool in creating DBM, which is similar to the central role
which it has had in NLP.

For a number of years I was content to use the Meta Model (M. M.) questions. I was
working therapeutically with families and adolescents and the M. M. proved to be
very useful. They were by no means the only things I used. The stimulus for my re-
modelling was initiated through my attempts to train others working in social work
and child care. Teaching the M. M. highlighted a number of concerns for me. I have
continued to explore language and the following account is a result of twelve years of
development. I will summarise the main stages to give a flavour of the modelling
sequence as well as to emphasise the recursive nature by which models are developed.

My response to my more serious concerns has been a continual developing of my

modelling of modelling. I will outline the main stages below .I suggest also that you
study the summary sheets provided and I would recommend you complete the
exercise I have included in this article in order to give you an experience of the
additional questioning possible with the Fractal Language Model.
Part One: Modelling and Re-Modelling
The original M .M. was the product of modelling so I will begin with a few point
about models and modelling before examining the M. M. and my developments.

" A model of the interaction between structure and process underlies much of
the argument of this book, and it will be critical to understand the relationship
between these notions and the problem of knowledge or description.
A model has several uses: first, to provide a language sufficiently schematic
and precise so that the relations within the subject that is being modelled can
be examined by comparing them with relations within the model. Occidental
languages, in general, do not lend themselves to the discussion of relations.
We start by naming the parts and after that the discussion of relations between
the parts appear as predicates attached usually to a single part - not to the
two or more parts among which the relation existed. What is required is
precise talk about relation, and a model will sometimes facilitate this. That is
the first purpose of a model.

A second purpose of a model appears when we have a vocabulary of relations,

for then the model will generate questions. One can then look at the subject
which is being modelled with these specific questions in mind - and perhaps
find answer to them.”
Bateson, Angels Fear, p.37:

In DBM we constantly E-valuate our models for further development. Our main E-
valuations are firstly 'is the model "effective"', if so then, is it "efficient", then if so, is
it "elegant". The summary table below outlines some of the relevant issues. The life
cycle of a model is given next..

DBM E-Valuating Models

E-Valuation Performative Performative Performative
and Description Impact Effect Affect
Effective: Ineffective Impotent Helpless
It does what it is Inaccuracy
designed for Insufficiency
Efficient: Inefficient Incompetent Hopeless
It can be applied Inconsistency
effectively Inexact
Elegant: Inelegant Inept Hapless
It is simple and Inattentive
beautiful Incoherent

Modelling Life Cycle

Stage Evaluation Response
Infancy Incomplete Update
Functional Complete Re-Model
Antiquated Obsolete Create new Model
Part Two: The Meta Model
I first came across the M. M. in 1979 through ‘Magic I’. I was already familiar with
Chomsky’s model of Transformational Grammar, the source of the M. M.. Anyone
who has read this book will be aware that the structures are not summarised clearly so
I was fortunate in having to make my own summary. I say fortunate because if I had
been given a clear summary I would not have needed to understand the differences
between the structures in enough depth to classify them. For me the lost performative
language structure was difficult to place. If it was as it states the performer is deleted
as in “It’s important to study”, question, “Says who?”, then it should be a deletion. It
was included in the distortions as there seemed to be more ‘going on’ than a simple
deletion. Through the M. M. Bandler and Grinder aimed to offer a model for therapy.
In the ‘forming’ of their model a certain information regarding transformational
grammar and therapy was used to ‘conform’ to a chosen structure.

“Since one of the main ways in which therapists can come to know and understand
their clients is through language, and since language is also one of the primary ways
all humans model their experiences, we have focused our work on the language of
therapy. Fortunately, an explicit model of the structure of language has been
developed independent of the context of psychology and therapy by transformational
grammarians. Adapted for use in therapy, it offers us an explicit Meta-model for the
enrichment and expansion of our therapeutic skills and offers us a valuable set of
tools to increase our effectiveness and, thus, the magical quality of our own
therapeutic work.” Magic I, p. 18-19

The M. M. was first published in 1975 in the ‘The Structure of Magic, Volume I. I am
assuming that readers are familiar with the basic model. The main distinctions are:

DELETION
SIMPLE and COMPARISONS:
LACK OF REFERENTIAL INDEX
UNSPECIFIED VERBS
NOMINALISATIONS
GENERALISATION
UNIVERSAL QUANTIFIERS
MODAL OPERATORS
DISTORTION,
CAUSE-EFFECT (X CAUSES Y)
MIND READING
LOST PERFORMATIVE
COMPLEX EQUIVALENCE

Some benefits of the Meta Model

1. It details explicit questions based on the structure of language – there is always an
answer.
2. Works with the clients model rather than content..
3. Draws attention to the benefits of explicit models.
4. Can stimulate an interest modelling.

Part Three: Questioning the Meta Model

A. The Map

How was the M. M. formed?

The ‘format’ chosen for the M. M. included three so called universal modelling
principles of deletion, generalisation and distortion. I could find no source of them
apart from Bandler and Grinder. On closer reading it seemed that they were their own
terms. Transformational Grammar used only deletion as a central term.

Deletion, generalisation and distortion are three different types of label. In other
words the internal structure of the meta model was not well modelled in terms of
‘types’. A deletion is about what is taken out, a generalisation is a change in what was
there and distortion a change from what is there. They are unrelated categories.

“Again, we wish to point out that our categories do not impose any necessity on the
structure of reality – we have found these categories useful in organising our own
thinking and actions, both in presenting this material and in therapy; that is, in
developing our model for therapy. We suspect that most readers will, if they think
about the usual meanings of the terms, come to see Generalisation and Deletion as
special cases of Distortion.” Magic I, p. 20, Footnote 8

A model should be integrated if it is to be more than a list or classification (see my

last article regarding levels of modelling). A list or classification can be useful but
Bandler and Grinder claimed that the M. M. is both a ‘model’ and ‘meta’ - a model of
the model known as language. This is indeed a grand claim to make. So ‘how
specifically is it a meat model?’.

”Fortunately, an explicit model of the structure of language has been developed

independent of the context of psychology and therapy by transformational
grammarians. Adapted for use in therapy, it offers us an explicit Meta-model for the
enrichment and expansion of our therapeutic skills and offers us a valuable set of
tools to increase our effectiveness and, thus, the magical quality of our own
therapeutic work.” Magic I, p 19

How complete is the M. M.?

“The Meta-Model we are presenting is in large part inspired by the formal model
developed in transformational linguistics. Since the transformational model was
created to answer questions which are not immediately connected with the way that
humans change, not all portions of it are equally useful in creating a Meta-model for
therapy. Thus, we have adapted the model, selecting only the portions relevant for
our purposes and arranging them in a system appropriate for our objectives in
therapy. Magic I, p. 40

Bandler and Grinder would appear to have included only the portions that they
thought were relevant for therapy. Why did they select the structures they did? They
do not say. Did they have other structures? The simple answer to this is yes. In
Grinder’s book on Transformational Grammar there are a number of additional
structures. For example from page 80-84 six structures which were not included in the
M. M. are described (The either argument, the Tag question, the ‘not even’ fragment
argument, the ‘neither’ fragment argument, the ‘some → any’ shift argument, the
‘until’ argument). A number of other patterns are given later in the book. Many of
these patterns I consider to be great benefit in therapy and beyond. Clearly the M. M.
could be extended. Bandler and Grinder were of a similar opinion at that time. In their
very useful bibliography they twice identify potential material for extending the M.
M.:

“An excellent example of the General Semantics approach which we feel will
contribute much to an enlarged Meta-Model for therapy.” P 221

B. The Territory: The Wizards: Other questions asked by Erickson, Perls, etc.

Bandler and Grinder had other patterns available but what about the ‘territory’ they
were modelling? Did the ‘therapeutic wizards’ whom they modelled use other
patterns of questions? Again the answer is yes. Open any book with transcripts of
Perls, Satir, Erickson you will find many other types of questions.

Perls: From: Gestalt Therapy Verbatim

1. M. I can’t go back.
Perls: You cannot go back. Who prevents you? p. 109
2. Perls: And now?
M: They go away.
Perls: And then?
M: Then I am Alone.
Perls: And you are safe? p. 112

Satir: From: Virginia Satir, The Patterns of Her Magic, Andreas

1.48.18: Linda: No, she couldn’t touch me.
48:20 Virginia: Why?
2.48:25 Linda: I was a wonderful little baby.
48:28 Virginia: “Wonderful little baby”. Where did you get that idea?

Erickson: From: Life Reframing in Hypnosis, M. H. Erickson, Irvington, 1985

1. Erickson: Is it rolled up enough? p. 83
2. Erickson: Why do you say yes? p. 239

It is not just the ‘wizards’ whom they modelled that used other questions, Bandler
also used other questions.
Bandler: From: Magic In Action
1. Bandler : “You have a belief, right? Right? Now, is it a strong belief?” page158
2. Bandler: “For example, what are some of the differences?” page160

“Yet, while the techniques of these wizards are different, they share one thing: They
introduce changes in their client's models which allow their clients more options in
their behaviour. What we see is that each of these wizards has a map or model for
changing their client's models of the world - i.e., a Meta-model - which allows them
to effectively expand and enrich their client's models in some way that makes the
client's lives richer and more worth living.” B and G., Magic I, p. 18
The wizards are using more than M. M. questions. How do Satir, Perls, and Erickson
know when to use a M. M. type question or one of the questions above that do not fit
the M. M.? The answer cannot be formed using the M.M. so clearly the M. M.,
however useful, is not a ‘Meta Model for Therapy’. It cannot be used to organise the
therapists questioning in a MEANINGFUL way. It is not a model of meaning and
purpose but a model for specifying the historical changes in the structure of the
client’s statements.

C. The Territory: Some other language uses not included in the Meta Model
1. From Transformational Grammar, Grinder lists a number of patterns not included
in the later M. M..(Grinder 1973)
2. Other NLP Language Models: Milton Model, Sensory Predicates, Metaphoric,
Presuppositions, Sleight of Mouth patterns
3. The M. M. is only for constructing questions. A complete model would include
statements and commands (integrate with the Milton model).
4. From my modelling experience: Concepts, Qualifiers, Concurrence, Judgements,
rules, inferences, numbers, performative language. There are no M. M. questions
for questions! The M. M. makes no distinction between ‘walk’ and ‘hurry’(both
unspecified verbs). We can go for a walk, we do not go for a hurry. The higher
functions of ‘love’, belonging’ are treated the same as sensory behaviours of
‘walk’ or ‘talk’. Try the M. M. question ‘how do you know?’ to each of these and
experience the difference.
5. The DBM ‘Epistemology Grid’ (see my previous article) uses a fractal structure
for what – how –why which is very useful for relating different levels of
understanding. This emphasises the great benefit of the question ‘why?’. This was
actively discouraged in NLP. I have been given many different reason as to ‘why’
why shouldn’t be used. One reason was that parents ask this of children and so it
will anchor a negative state. Another, more serious, reason was that the question
‘why?’ takes the client out of their model and so you will not get sensory
descriptions. This reason is valid only if you are wanting to stay at the sensory
level. When we are working with values, beliefs and identity or with strategies
and modelling where sequence is important then it is necessary to know why
things need to be in a certain order. With the Epistemology Grid we can ask a why
level question without using why, for example‘how come?’ or ‘what is the reason
for that?’. If you don’t know why you have not to use why and if there is a
paramount reason (which I doubt) then there is no guarantee it won’t be asked
with how or what question!

Part Four: DBM Re-modelling of Meta Model and further Language

modelling
There has been little official development within the M. M.. The Milton model
together with pre-suppositions were added. Meta Model III with some other guidance
for the use of the M. M. was also added. Recent additions of questions from General
Semantics and elsewhere by Michael Hall are a very useful add-on to the M. M. but
they do not address the serious limitations listed below.

If we keep Batesons comments in mind when we study the relationship of the M. M.

with the territory of language use then a number of issues become obvious.
1. The model is not an integrated classification but more of a structured list. If it was
an integrated model then deletion, generalisation and distortion would be of the
same type. They are not.
2. There are many important language structures not included
3. The individual structures do not relate to each other.
4. The model is only designed to retrace the historical ‘transformation’. It is not
designed to study language use. This means it can not be a meta model for therapy
as intended. The model does not give the required basis for directing questioning
beyond what statements the client makes.
5. The M. M. does not relate to our use of language only to the production of surface
structures from deep structure. It does not relate to how these deep structures are
created and changed. The main classification structures correspond to what is
produced not how it is produced. Much of this is due to the use of filter as a
working metaphor. As I pointed out in my last article filtering is the opposite of
what happens. To model language use we require to identify what is happening in
positive terms. What is the client doing that results in deletion, generalisation and
distortion?
6. If everything is a distortion, as Bandler and Grinder suggest, then to use the term
distinguishes nothing. Distortion presupposes a previous accuracy of form,
something well formed. It is this ‘well formed’ in terms of models that the M. M.
fails to specify.
7. The M. M. responds to the products of our subjective experience, not how we
created them. It cannot be used therefore to model its own creation. It cannot be a
‘meta’ model of how we use language.

An improved model would need to respond to these concerns.

I am continually seeking ever more practical and integrated models of language that
can be used for therapy, modelling and for any other application area. I will now
outline some of the (overlapping) stages in my re-modelling of the NLP meta model..

The first stage (1979 – 1983)as I said earlier was putting my own summary together.
I used this for over five years until I wanted to teach other professional how to gather
quality information.

The second stage (1983 – 1986) was my putting the meta and milton model together.
These were presented as the opposite though there was not a perfect overlap. This
resulted in the ‘filling in of some gaps’. Part of this stage was to change the
aggressive language used with the M. M.. I changed ‘violation’ and ‘challenge’ with
‘pattern’ and ‘specifier question’. This made teaching them easier and the use of them
untainted by the over aggressiveness that often seemed to accompany the M.M..

The third stage (1986) was the creation of the ‘Integrated Language Model’ (see
diagram). This resulted from a major insight that I had. I wanted to develop a holistic
language model. I had puzzled over this for a while before realising that any whole
model can be described using three related components of ‘detail’, ‘scope’ and
‘connection’ and that these components could replace the unrelated components of
deletion, generalisation and distortion. creation of detail, scope and connection. to
make it positive, what is modelled – a model of the modelling of language. I also
realised that mind reading was also something we did to ourselves and not just others
as in ‘I can’t do that’. This later led to my realising that all of these were examples of
a larger category of ‘judgements’.

The fourth stage (1987 – 1993) involved integrating with other areas of NLP
including Presupposition, Sleight of Mouth, Sensory Predicates, Metaphor. Detail –
Scope, and connection prove to be very useful in re-modelling and integrating many
diverse areas of NLP.

The fifth stage (1987 – 1999) involved integrating other models of language.
There have been many other language models, each with something to offer. I wanted
to make sure that I included the best of all of them. There had been a few specific
models before the Meta Model. The General Semantics of Korzybski offered a
number of structures. Erickson and Rossi identified many hypnotic language
structures.

The sixth stage (1992 –1996) involved the creation of the basic fractal language
model. This was an integration of what I had discovered and learnt in the previous
stages. This model had detail – Scope –Connection at two levels for two categories
giving 18 Language distinctions.

The seventh stage (1996 – 1998) involved the creation of the much extended
‘Fractal Language Model’ (see diagram). I created this by applying Fractal
Modelling to the Basic Fractal Language Model. In Bateson’s terms the
‘relationships’ suggested themselves once I had the basic patterning. For the first time
I was able to use the model to predict new language possibilities. In this model there
are 81 related distinctions. This truly becomes an effective model to use for modelling
in order to make useful distinctions and to assist clients in making precise changes.

Benefits of Fractal Language Model

1 It is more effective. It covers the territory more accurately with far fewer gaps
and inaccuracies.
2 Many more questions are possible through having many more distinctions.
This creates a greatly improved basis for modelling, therapy and all other
applications.
3 It is practical. It is easy to start with general details that are bounded (scoped)
and connected together in some way and then to develop more precision using
the next two levels of distinctions. From a detailed exploration you can easily
return to a simpler overview.
4 It integrates with Higher Functions through the Fractal Model Meaning and
Fractal Model Thinking and to subjective processing through Life Grid and to
other Fractal Models - Motivation and attainment Models; Sensory
Processing; other Language Models – Presupposition, Erickson and Rossi's
Language patterns, Sleight of Mouth, etc. This greatly facilitated my
integration of many diverse areas of NLP and will be evident in later articles.
5 By being integrated to all the clients processing it can be used to identify what
to change (How the client has organised their model of the world and how to
usefully assist them in changing). This is consistent with intentions of Bandler
and Grinder for their M. M..
6 It can be used to model the processing of subjective experience as well as the
products.
7 It is inter-related and holistic.
8 It is developmental. It can be applied to its own production.

Part Five: Application: Conversational Belief change

KNOW DO

INVESTIGATE
This is major DBM model which describes how, based on our knowledge of the world
(know) we organise our behaviour (do). When we do not know and need to do things
it is useful to explore the world (investigate).

The "know" part of this model is relevant here. In DBM we identify three levels of
knowledge. The first, knowledge with evidence, we call knowing. The second is for
when we don't know for sure but we have some evidence - we call this believing.
Beliefs will vary from 0 - 100% in our sense of commitment to them. That is why we
can have a strong or weak belief – we never describe ourselves as having ‘strong’
knowledge (we talk about a lot or little knowledge not strength of knowledge). Beliefs
then are our judgement tool for when we don’t know. They let us ‘know’ what might
be or could be until we get to really know for sure. The third level is for when we
need to know in order to do but have not got any evidence. This is conviction.
Conviction is digital like knowledge, and is a necessity in an unknown world and as
such it potentially has the most limiting consequences for us. NLP has generally used
the label "belief" to describe this whole area of knowledge, beliefs and convictions.

Modelling Inaccuracies in NLP

We can use the three types of judgement to clarify inaccuracies in NLP (and
elsewhere). I have chosen two examples. The first is from the sub-modality Belief
Change developed by Richard Bandler. In this technique the client is asked to identify
a 'strong belief'. Richard often suggests the belief that "the sun will come up
tomorrow". I don’t know anyone who actually believes this! It is in fact a basic
knowledge of the world. The technique in this instance uses knowledge to change a
belief. If an NLP practitioner follows the procedure and the client actually picks a
strong belief and not knowledge then the results are different from those that Richard
gets! Maps and territory problems again!

The second example of how I have used the model to clarify NLP is from the work of
Robert Dilts. In his book ‘Changing Belief Systems’ Robert uses the following
example to demonstrate the difficulty in changing a belief. In the example a
psychiatrist has a patient who ‘believes’ he is a corpse. The psychiatrist asks, "Do
corpses bleed?" He then takes a needle and pricks the patients finger and of course the
man bleeds. Dilts continues:

“Since the patient is a corpse there is nothing much he can do about it. So the
psychiatrist sticks him with the needle and the man starts to bleed. The patient looks
at it totally amazed and says, "I'll be damned. Corpses do bleed!"
The point is that when you have a belief, even environmental and behavioural
evidence won't change it because a belief isn't about reality. You have a belief in
place of knowledge about reality. Beliefs are about things that nobody can know in
reality. If somebody has a terminal illness he doesn't know if he is going to get well.
There is no present reality as to whether he is going to get well or not. He has to
believe that he is going to get well precisely because nobody knows what the reality
is.” P. 8

With my more detailed model of judgements we can understand this situation

differently. The client has a conviction or knowledge of self and not a belief. That is
why the counter example strategy does not work. In my modelling and client
experience counter examples tend to reinforce identity (self knowledge or conviction)
and so can make things more difficult to change while genuinely trying to help! We
will often express knowledge through saying that we believe or think something is the
case. If you are asked if you belief that the sun will rise tomorrow you can easily say
that yes you “believe it” because it is contained within your knowledge of the world.
The success gained in NLP through taking language literally ( as in I ‘see’ what you
mean) gets in the way here.

The potential limitation of success has been usefully highlighted by Robert Dilts in
his book on beliefs and health (Dilts 1990):

“One of the claims that I make is: "Success is as much a limitation to creativity as is
failure". This is because when you remember a success, your memory often becomes
really strong and you get a good feeling about it. You are likely to keep doing the
same thing over and over again without exploring other options. You get to a point
where you stop being creative and get stuck, because you've run into a new situation
where your old behaviours don't work and you don't have new choices.” Page 40

The great success of the M.M. and literal language in NLP has indeed resulted in a
failure – a failure to accurately model and to develop further the tools that will assist
all of us to develop more effectively, efficiently and elegantly.

Exercise: Changing Judgements

This exercise sequence is one way to assist clients to develop a more accurate self
knowledge. Please refer to the Fractal Language Model for more detail.

Step One: Judgement

Identify a limiting judgement, eg, “I can’t learn mathematics.”

Step Two: Equating

Question this to identify evidence
1. How do you know?
2. What else?
This will result in either an ‘equating’ structure or else ‘I don’t know’ if the subject
has taken on the judgement without understanding.

Step Three: Inferring

Question to get the underlying thinking (inferring) that produced the judgement.
1 When did you 1st decide / conclude / realise this? (Each of these three
will get a different answer and come from the Fractal Thinking Model
which also has 81 related distinctions).
2 How did you decide / conclude / realise this?
3 What else did you do?
4 What else do you know (or could know) now?
5 What would you decide / conclude / realise differently NOW?
In this step the subject might also answer ‘I didn’t’ if they haven’t thought it through
themselves but only accepted someone else’s reasoning. If the answer at any stage is
‘I don’t know then a new judgement can be formed using question 5 to investigate..
(Further details and exercises are available on the Sensory Systems web-site)

Concluding Comments
In my experience we don’t just retrieve past ‘transformations’ of language when we
answer questions – we can also change our sensory experience, our thinking and
change our language. What is worth changing will be dependent on what we are
aiming for in terms of a usefully ‘well-formed’ model of the world. Bandler and
Grinder proposed:

“…… that there is a subset of the well-formed sentences of English which we

recognise as well formed in therapy. This set, the set of sentences which are well
formed in therapy and acceptable to us as therapists, are sentences which:
(1) Are well formed in English, and
(2) Contain no transformational deletions or unexplored deletions in the
portion of the model in which the client experiences no choice.
(3) Contain no nominalisations (process → event).
(4) Contain no words or phrases lacking referential indices.
(5) Contain no verbs incompletely specified.
(6) Contain no unexplored presuppositions in the portion of the model in
which the client experiences no choice.
(7) Contain no sentences which violate the semantic conditions of well-
formedness.” Magic I, Page 54

These conditions mean that Bandler and Grinders well formed in therapy is practically
impossible as there will always be something unexplored. In terms of a well-formed
outcome all of them apart from the first one is stated negatively! What are we to go
for that is well formed and how will we positively recognise it? Well formed in
therapy needs to be about the function of the language not the structural content of
what is said- the grammar. The function of language is to organise and communicate
meaning. Well formed in therapy should be well formed in terms of the ecology of the
meaning. This can be done by E-valuating the clients model for its effectiveness,
efficiency and elegance for their life as a whole – an ecology of being.

Modelling developmentally is an on-going process. The products of modelling are

static and not easily open to change as evidenced by the twenty-five years of
unchanging meta model. And so we must always return to the world and ask how we
can make our models more effective, efficient and elegant. There is always more!
“We Shall not cease from exploration
And in the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.”
T. S. Eliot, Little Gidding, from Four Quartets 1943

References:
Andreas, Steve, Virginia Satir The Patterns of her Magic, Science and Behaviour
Books, Inc. 1991
Bandler, Richard & Grinder, John, The Structure of Magic vol. 1, Science and
Behaviour Books, Inc. 1975
Bander, Richard, Magic in Action, Meta Publications 1984
Dilts, Robert, Hallbom, Tim & Smith Suzi, Beliefs: Pathways to Health & Well-
Being, Metamorphous Press 1990
Dilts, Robert, Changing Belief Systems with NLP, Meta Publications 1990
Grinder, John & Elgin, Suzette Haden, Guide to Transformational Grammar, History
Theory Practice, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. 1973
Lewis, Byron & Pucelik, Frank, Magic of NLP Demystified, Metamorphous Press
1990
Perls, Frederick S., Gestalt Therapy Verbatim, Real People Press 1969
 Integrated Language Model
USE STRUCTURES TO ENCOURAGE "CLIENT" TO USE THEIR MODEL ASK QUESTIONS TO SPECIFY AND CLARIFY "CLIENT'S" MODEL
Direction
(referred to as "MILTON MODEL") (referred to as "META MODEL")

Modelling Process Typical Statement Structure Sub-distinctions Example Statement Feed Forward Typical Question
DETAIL 1. You are sitting …….. 1. Major phrase missing 1. DELETION: SIMPLE 1. "I feel uncomfortable" 1. Specify what they are 1. "About what?"
uncomfortable about
2. … more relaxed …. 2. Comparative missing 2. DELETION: 2. "It's better to stay" 2. Retrieve the comparison 2. "Better than what?"
COMPARATIVE
3. … feeling comfortable... 3. Process or behaviour eg: sense, 3. UNSPECIFIED VERB 3. "He's rejected me" 3. Specify "rejected" 3. "How did he reject you?"
know, wonder, experience, think,
4. …thinking about that 4. People or things not specified eg: 4. UNSPECIFIED 4. "They don't listen to 4. Specify "they" 4. "Who doesn't listen to
person…. him, them, it REFERENTIAL INDEX me" you?"
What elements are included. 5. …and you have a lot of 5. Process words used as a noun eg: 5. NOMINALISATION 5. "We have to improve 5. Retrieve process in "relating" 5. "What is it about your
Information not given by the curiosity…. hypnosis, curiosity, learnings our relationship" (Noun into verb: add ‘-ing’) relating together that you'd
speaker. The listener has to love like to improve?"
supply it from their own 6. …about that interesting 6. Noun supported by nominalised 6. LESSER 6. "She is a lazy 6. Retrieve information from 6. "What does she do lazily?"
model.. person… process words, adjectives NOMINALISATION housewife" judgement "lazy" (Adjective
into adverb: add ‘-ly’)

SCOPE 1. …Friends are important… 1. A class or group is referred to; 1. GENERALISED 1. "Arabs are dishonest" 1. Specify evidence, reduce 1. "Every single one? Which
Scope extended REFERENTIAL INDEX scope ones?"
2. …thinking about all your 2. Over-extended Scope: all; every; 2. UNIVERSAL 2. "He always complains" 2. Recover specific examples, - 2. "Always? Every time he
contact with them… never; nobody QUANTIFIER reduce scope speaks?"
3. …Just relaxing… 3. Words that limit the Scope, eg 3. LIMITING QUANTIFIER 3. "She's the only one for 3. Recover larger frame, - 3. "The only one ever,
Just, only me" extend scope anywhere for anything?"
4a. …You can remember… 4a. What included/excluded as 4. MODAL OPERATORS 4a."I can't tell him the 4a. Specify "can't", (bring 4a. "What would happen if
The extent; the models limits possible eg: can, able to, want a) - of possibility truth" within scope) you did?"
can be too extensive or too 4b. …what you needed from 4b. What included/excluded as b) - of necessity 4b. "I must finish this 4b. Specify "must", (move 4b. "What would happen if
limited. What is included and them… necessary: must, have to, need to today" beyond scope) you didn't?"
excluded.

CONNECTION 1. …It's important to people 1. Evaluative statement or rule in 1. LOST PERFORMATIVE 1. "It's bad to be 1. Recover where judgement 1. "Who says? How do you
to be cared for… which the source is missing inconsistent" rule comes from know?"
2. …I know you want to 2. Information or judgement about 2. MIND READING 2. "She doesn't like me" 2. Recover the evidence 2. "How do you know?"
improve things… self or other is made without (other, self or context)
? supporting evidence
3. …and you are attending 3. Conjunction3, eg and 3. CAUSAL MODELLING 3. "You look at me and I 3. Check for possible causal 3. "Is there a connection
and learning… OR LINKAGE get angry" connection between my looking and
you getting angry?"
! 4. …if you relax more, you 4. Connection in time, eg during, as, 4. IMPLIED CAUSALITY 4. "I would talk to her but 4. Specify implied connection: 4. "How does her being
can remember… while, when, use of but, if…then she's really angry at "angry" - "talk to" angry stop you talking to
me" her?"
5. …and learning will make 5. Causality eg, makes, forces, 5. CAUSE-EFFECT 5. "His frowning makes 5. Specify the connection 5. "How does his frowning
things easier requires me angry" between "frowning" and make you angry?"
The relation and connection "angry"
between elements within the 6. …now you are sitting 6. Two statements, often with a 6. COMPLEX 6. "She hates me…she's 6. Specify the connection 6. "How does yelling mean
model. The basis for these quietly……remembering pause in between, given as being EQUIVALENCE always yelling at me" between the two hate?" "Have you ever
are not supplied by the different ways of saying the same yelled at people you don't
speaker. thing. (One part is often hate?"
externally verifiable, the other,
mind reading)

Copyright John McWhirter 1987 and 1990, all rights reserved. Integrated Language Model is a development by John McWhirter from the original ‘Meta’ and ‘Milton’ Models by Richard Bandler and
John Grinder. The Detail – Scope –Connection modelling structures and additional material developed by John McWhirter.
 DBM® Fractal Language Model
Identifying Processing Operationalising
I II Type Level III Detail II Type Level III Detail II Type Level III Detail
D Referencing Matter: This, That D Selecting A D Sequencing To
Space: Here, There An From
Time: Now, Then The Between
S Subject / Object Single (Tree) S Process Operator: Rub S Relationship Parting
Detail

Referencing General (Scrub) Referencing Action: Wipe Referencing Belonging

Functional (Park) Response: Clean Owning
C Lesser Tired C Nominalising Feeling C Relational-ing Part
Nominalising Lazy Learning Belong
Reluctant Communication Own
D Relating At D Quantifying Number – 1,2 D Qualifying Hurry
st nd
In Ordinal – 1 , 2 Quickly
Beside Quantity – gram Pretty
S Static Collective S Comparative Many S Dynamic Movement
Scope

Scoping General Scoping More Scoping Velocity

Universal Most Acceleration
C Mode of Could C Mode of Like C Mode of Want
Identifying Might Processing Desire Operating Have / Obliged
Is / Isn’t Crave Need
D Judging Convicting D Investigating What: Who, Which D Directing Ruling
Believing What: Where (Injuncting) Commanding
Knowing What: When Guiding
Connection

S Equating Structuring S Questioning How: What S Concurring Mattering

Equating How: How Spacing
Extending How: Why Timing
C Inferring Deducting C Inquiring Why: Considering C Transitioning Transiting
Inducting Why: Pondering (+ Causing) Transferring
Abducting Why: Wondering Transforming
Copyright John McWhirter, Sensory Systems Training 1999, All rights reserved. The Fractal Model is an original development by John McWhirter drawing on the
work of Korzybski (1934), Bateson (1972), Bandler and Grinder (1975), Ryle (1993), McWhirter (1987 and 1994).