Meta-model (NLP)
The meta-model in Neuro-linguistic programming (or meta-model of therapy) is a heuristic set of questions designed to specify information, challenge and expand the limits to a person's model of the world. It responds to the distortions, generalizations, and deletions in the speaker's language. The meta model forms the basis of Neuro-linguistic programming as developed by then assistant professor of linguistics, John Grinder and Richard Bandler. Grinder and Bandler "explained how people create faulty mental maps of reality, failing to test their linguistic / cognitive models against the experience of their senses."
The meta model draws on transformational grammar and general semantics, the idea that language is a translation of mental states into words, and that in this translation, there is an unconscious process of deletion (not everything thought is said), distortion (assumptions and structural inaccuracies) and generalization (a shift towards absolute statements). Likewise in hearing, not everything said is acknowledged as heard.
These language patterns were based on the work of family therapist Virginia Satir, gestalt therapist Fritz Perls and linguistic patterns from Transformational syntax. It is claimed that the Meta-model "yields a fuller representation of the client's model of the world - the linguistic Deep Structure from which the client's initial verbal expressions or Surface Structure, were derived" by offering challenges to its limits, the distortions, generalizations or deletions in the speaker's language. The reverse set of the meta-model is the Milton-model; a collection of artfully vague language patterns elicited from the work of Milton Erickson.
The following examples were derived from therapeutic contexts. The developers state that these patterns can be identified in all human communication.

# Discussion
Definition of the meta-model:
Uses of meta model in psychotherapy:

# Examples

## Distortion: Semantic Well-formedness

### Presupposition
Presupposition, refers to an assumption whereby the truth is taken for granted.
Crucially, negation of an expression does not change its presuppositions: I want to do it again and I don't want to do it again both mean that the subject has done it already one or more times; My wife is pregnant and My wife is not pregnant both mean that the subject has a wife. In this respect, presupposition is distinguished from entailment and implication. For example, The president was assassinated entails that The president is dead, but if the expression is negated, the entailment is not necessarily true.
Examples:
- "My wife is pregnant."
- Presupposition: You have a wife.
- "Do you want to do it again?"
- Presupposition: I have done it already, at least once.
- Challenge: "Have I done it before?"
- "My husband is as lazy as my son."
- Presuppositions: You have a husband; you have a son; your son is lazy.
- Challenge: "Am I to assume that your son is lazy?"

### Cause-effect
Cause-effect, the inappropriate use of causal thinking (x means y, x makes me y, or x makes y happen)
Causality always implies at least some relationship of dependency between the cause and the effect. For example, deeming something a cause may imply that, all other things being equal, if the cause occurs the effect does as well, or at least that the probability of the effect occurring increases.
Example 1:
- "That news makes me angry."
- Challenge: "If it weren't for that news, you would not be angry?"
Example 2:
- "Being late means she does not love me."
- Challenge: "How specifically, does her being late mean she does not love you?"

### Mind-reading violation
Mind-reading violation occurs when someone claims to think they know what another is thinking without verification.
Example:
- "If he doesn't start paying his share of the bills, she is going to leave him."
- Challenge: "How do you know this? Has she told you that she intends to leave him if he doesn't?"

### Lost Performative
Lost Performative, makes reference to an action but the person who performed the action is unspecified.
Example:
- "Her book was highly acclaimed."
- Challenge: "Highly acclaimed by whom?" or "How do you know that?"

## Generalization
- See also: hasty generalization

### Nominalization
Nominalization occurs when a verb is transformed into a noun. A dynamic process (i.e. a verb) is transformed into something static (i.e. a noun). It's like taking a snapshot of a moving object, you don't see the movement any more, just the (static) object.
In English, some verbs and adjectives can be used directly as nouns, for example, change and good. Others require a suffix:
- applicability (from applicable)
- carelessness (from careless)
- difficulty (from difficult)
- failure (from fail)
- intensity (from intense)
- investigation (from investigate)
- movement (from move)
- reaction (from react)
- refusal (from refuse)
- swimming (from swim)
- nominalization (from nominalize)
Examples:
- "The communication  in this company is poor."
- Challenge: "How could we communicate more effectively?"
- "They need my decision  by Monday."
- Challenge: "Have you decided yet?"
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).

### Universal quantifiers
All known human languages make use of quantifiers, even languages without a fully fledged number system.  For example, in English:
- Every glass in my recent order was chipped.
- Some of the people standing across the river have white armbands.
- Most of the people I talked to didn't have a clue who  the candidates were.
- Everyone in the waiting room had at least one complaint against Dr. Ballyhoo.
- There was somebody in his class that was able to correctly answer every one of the questions I submitted.
- A lot of people are smart.
Universal quantifiers occurs when someone attempts to characterize an entire set (all people, every X, everyone, everything, ...). This NLP meta model question can be used when someone is generalising too broadly. (See also: False dilemma)
Example:
- "My co-workers are all lazy."
- Challenge: "All of them?" or "Which co-workers, specifically?"

### Modal operators
Modal operators are intuitively characterised by expressing a modal attitude, such as necessity (have to, must, should) or possibility (can, might, may) towards the proposition which it is applied to. (see also: wishful thinking)
Example:
- "I can't put myself together."
- Challenge: "What would happen if you did/didn't?"

### Complex equivalence
Complex equivalence draws an unrelated conclusion from an event to create a logic that "does not follow" See also: non sequitur
Example:
- "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?"

## Deletion

### Unspecified Comparative
Unspecified Comparatives or null comparative is a comparative in which the starting point for comparison is not stated.  These comparisons are frequently found in advertising. For example, in typical assertions such as "our burgers have more flavor", "our picture tube is sharper" or "50% more", there is no mention of what it is they are comparing to. In some cases it is easy to infer what the missing element in a null comparative is.  In other cases the speaker or writer may have been deliberately vague in this regard, for example "Glasgow's miles better".
The null comparative
Example:
- "That was the best plan."
- Challenge: "What were some of the other plans?"
- "Our picture tube is sharper"
- Challenge: "Sharper, compared to what?"

### Unspecified referential index
Unspecified referential index, refers to the use of personal pronoun when the context is unknown, or can not easily be understood based on the preceding sentences. For example uncontextualised use of they, them, you, ...
Example:
- "They say I should go into business, but I don't know if I have the confidence."
- Challenge: "Who is it that says you should go into business?"
- "Yeah, I have tried alcohol before.  It makes you say stupid things."
- Challenge: "Wait, it makes me say stupid things?"
- "I hate watching the Vikings in the playoffs.  We always lose and it makes me depressed."
- Challenge: "By 'we', do you mean that you are part of the Vikings?"

# Influences
John Grinder did his doctoral thesis on Noam Chomsky's Transformational Grammar..
It can also be traced to the nominalistic tradition of William of Ockham.
An effort unrelated by origin but going in the same direction of improving clarity of communication is the constructed language Loglan (and its close cousin, Lojban).