Language Patterns
All thoughts and actions take place within a certain context (a specific situation and environment), whether we realize it or not. Often, these frames limit our thinking and choices. By using reframing, we can help ourselves or others gain a new perspective on a problem and find alternative solutions. However, reframing alone rarely solves problems. It simply offers the potential to “soften” the problem, increasing the chances of finding a solution.
Reframing patterns help solve problems. A powerful set of reframing patterns, called “language patterns,” was developed by Robert Dilts based on the verbal patterns of influential figures such as Karl Marx, Milton Erickson, Abraham Lincoln, Jesus Christ, and Mahatma Gandhi. All of these individuals were known for their remarkable persuasive abilities.
In NLP, patterns are regularly recurring elements of behavior.
Some language patterns, if taken out of context or viewed from a certain angle, may seem harsh or blunt, but that’s not their purpose. Language patterns are designed to expand a client’s worldview, opening up new possibilities for them.
Dilts identified 14 different language patterns. To make a specific intervention, you don’t need to use all 14. It’s better to choose the patterns that best fit a particular client.
Once you become familiar with all the language patterns, you’ll likely realize you’ve already used many of them before. If you learn to use each of the 14 language patterns, you’ll be able to adapt to any client.
Beliefs
Our beliefs reflect the connection between our core values and other areas of our experience.
From a linguistic perspective, beliefs are usually expressed in the form of verbal models such as “complex equivalence” (A “equals,” “is,” “is equivalent to,” or “means” B) or “cause and effect” (A “causes,” “generates,” “is the reason for,” or “leads to” B), where:
- A – the first part of the statement or judgment
- B – the second part of the statement or judgment
Language patterns are effective for changing a client’s beliefs. For example, suppose your client holds the belief: “I don’t believe it’s possible to reorganize the department.” This statement doesn’t fully reveal the client’s belief and gives little to work with. To better understand the client’s beliefs, you should ask: “What does reorganizing the department mean to you?” (complex equivalence) or “What will reorganizing the department lead to?” (cause and effect). If your client responds using complex equivalence or cause and effect, you’ll have something to work with.
The 14 Language Patterns: Examples
Let’s break down all 14 language patterns using the example above.
Suppose your client responds: “Reorganizing this department is an irresponsible move because it will lead to layoffs” (a cause-and-effect response: “irresponsible reorganization” leads to “layoffs”). These words express a viewpoint that may limit your client’s options.
- IntentionWhat could be the positive intention? For example, safety.
Your response: I admire your commitment to safety and fully support it.
- RedefinitionReplace the word “irresponsible” with “inattentive,” and “layoffs” with “inability to adapt.”
Your response: I agree that we need to be more attentive to how this is carried out so people can adapt to the new circumstances.
- ConsequencesFocus on consequences that contradict the client’s belief.
Your response: Taking responsibility for our actions is a key step in preventing negative consequences from the department’s reorganization.
- SeparationIsolate specific elements that may undermine the client’s belief.
Your response: I wouldn’t say the proposed organizational structure, with clearly defined staff responsibilities, is irresponsible.
- GeneralizationUse generalizations to shift the client’s belief.
Your response: Any change can have unforeseen consequences.
- CounterexampleFind an exception that disproves the client’s belief.
Your response: I don’t consider business reorganization irresponsible, especially since the last reorganization saved the company from bankruptcy.
- AnalogyUse an analogy or metaphor to challenge the client’s beliefs.
Your response: Good gardeners always find ways to enrich the soil so their plants can thrive.
- Apply to SelfApply key aspects of the client’s belief to themselves to challenge it.
Your response: Wouldn’t it also be irresponsible and lead to layoffs if we did nothing to address our current problems?
- Different OutcomeSuggest a different outcome that questions the client’s belief.
Your response: Maybe the real issue isn’t reorganizing the department, but rather preserving jobs—which will be hard to do without reorganization.
- Hierarchy of CriteriaReevaluate the client’s belief based on a more important criterion.
Your response: Acting responsibly is more important than taking no action at all.
- Change Frame SizeReevaluate the significance of the client’s belief in the context of a longer or shorter time frame, a different number of people, a different territory, etc.
Your response: The most successful organizations restructure in response to changing circumstances, while those that refuse to keep up with the times go bankrupt or get acquired.
- Meta-frameChallenge the client’s belief by creating a new belief about it.
Your response: Could it be that your belief about reorganization assumes you know the “right” way and that everyone who disagrees is acting in bad faith?
- WorldviewConsider the client’s belief from a generally accepted perspective or from the viewpoint of respected individuals.
Your response: Did you know that wise people see reorganization as an opportunity to learn new skills and take on more challenging responsibilities?
- Reality StrategyRefer to reality-checking strategies to separate fantasy and misconceptions from reality.
Your response: Let’s figure out which specific aspects of the reorganization concern you.
We hope this set of reframing patterns will help you broaden the perspectives of those around you, so they can become more resourceful in solving their challenges.