Language Patterns: Expanding Perspectives with Reframing

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 see a problem from a new perspective and discover 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 are what help us actually solve problems. A powerful set of reframing patterns, known as “language patterns,” was developed by Robert Dilts based on the verbal strategies 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.

Some language patterns, if taken out of context or viewed from a particular 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 intervene effectively, you don’t need to use all 14; it’s better to select the patterns that best fit a particular client or situation. Once you become familiar with all the language patterns, you’ll likely realize you’ve already used many of them before. Mastering all 14 will allow you 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 verbal models such as “complex equivalence” (A “equals,” “is,” “is equivalent to,” or “means” B) or “cause and effect” (A “causes,” “leads to,” “results in,” or “brings about” 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 offers little to work with. To clarify, you might 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 more concrete to address.

The 14 Language Patterns: An Example

Let’s break down all 14 language patterns using the following example:

Suppose your client says: “Reorganizing this department is an irresponsible move because it will lead to layoffs.” (This is a cause-and-effect statement: “irresponsible reorganization” leads to “layoffs.”) This viewpoint may limit your client’s options.

1. Intention
   What could be the positive intention? For example, safety.
   Your response: I admire your commitment to safety and fully support it.
2. Redefinition
   Replace “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.
3. Consequences
   Focus on consequences that contradict the client’s belief.
   Your response: Taking responsibility for our actions is a key step in preventing negative outcomes from the reorganization.
4. Separation
   Isolate specific elements that may challenge the client’s belief.
   Your response: I wouldn’t say the proposed organizational structure, with clearly defined staff responsibilities, is irresponsible.
5. Generalization
   Use generalizations to shift the client’s belief.
   Your response: Any change can have unforeseen consequences.
6. Counter-Example
   Find 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.
7. Analogy
   Use an analogy or metaphor to challenge the client’s belief.
   Your response: Good gardeners always find ways to enrich the soil so their plants can thrive.
8. Apply to Self
   Apply 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?
9. Different Outcome
   Suggest 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.
10. Hierarchy of Criteria
    Reevaluate the client’s belief based on a more important criterion.
    Your response: Acting responsibly is more important than taking no action at all.
11. Changing the Frame Size
    Reevaluate the client’s belief in the context of a longer or shorter time frame, a different number of people, or a different scale.
    Your response: The most successful organizations restructure in response to changing circumstances, while those that refuse to adapt often go bankrupt or get acquired.
12. Meta-Frame
    Challenge 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 anyone who disagrees is acting in bad faith?
13. Worldview
    Consider the client’s belief from a commonly accepted perspective or that of respected authorities.
    Your response: Did you know that wise people see reorganization as an opportunity to learn new skills and take on more challenging responsibilities?
14. Reality Strategy
    Use reality-checking strategies to separate fantasy or misconceptions from facts.
    Your response: Let’s clarify which specific aspects of the reorganization concern you.

We hope this set of reframing patterns helps you broaden the perspectives of those around you, enabling them to become more resourceful in solving their challenges.