A simple deletion is when an important element in a statement is missing. This is different from the earlier category of “unspecified nouns” because in the latter case the sentence has an object, it’s just unspecified. Here, it would be missing entirely.

Here are some examples of how a client might use them and thus inspire us, as therapists, to employ the meta model to recover information lost from the surface structure of their sentences:

I don’t know… it’s just awful.

This happens every time I go.

My Dad told me, and he was proven right over and over again.

And here are some examples of how we can purposely simply delete, for positive purpose:

“I know you are wondering.” (about what? - The listener must fill in the blank.)

“And as she drifted into trance she listened carefully.”

“Deeper and deeper. That’s right.”

In NLP’s “meta model,’ a “comparative deletion”  is when the speaker leaves unstated what things are being compared and/or how that comparison is being evaluated.

As an example, if you’re speaking with someone and they say something like ”it’s better,” you would have no idea what they’re talking about. And, instead of assuming or hallucinating some meaning that may not be true, it’s better to ask questions. Like - “What do you mean?” or “What’s better than what?” Or “In what way is it better?”  ANY of these questions will elicit more precise information from the person.

Examples:

Sugar’s sweeter. Love takes me higher. Bill is the smartest. Rail is faster. TexMex offers more.

AND - as you know by now - as hypnotists, we get to deliberately violate this meta model restriction in the service of artfully vague language that we employ to assist our client in a therapeutic way.

“It’s better to go into trance with your feet on the floor.”
“This is going to be the best one yet.”
“The best communicators have studied Ericksonian language patterns.”

So, as you continue to evolve as a communicator, isn’t it nice to know that you’re learning and growing and truly becoming better?

(Sometimes it’s good to just smile and say yes.)

This is an old Chinese Taoist story. It is a wonderful metaphor.

Once upon a time there was a village that was experiencing a terrible, prolonged drought. The elders of the village had heard of a Rainmaker, a man who could induce the rains to come. So they sent word that they wanted this man to come to help them.

When finally he did arrive at their village there was much rejoicing because their long collective hardship would soon be eased. They threw out the red carpet for this man. They gave him a tour of their village. They asked him, “What do you need to do your magic? Do you need a bonfire? A sacrifice? Drummers? Tell us what you need and we will provide it.”

He said, “No. Your village is very out of touch with the Tao. I only need a quiet place to stay that is outside the village, please.”

They provided him this and he moved in.  The first morning he rose with the sunrise, swept the front walk of the house, gathered wood for his fire, made the fire in the hearth, prepared his tea, cleaned up after his morning meal and later went to bed within an hour of the setting sun.

The next day he rose with the sunrise, swept the front walk of the house, gathered wood for his fire, made the fire in the hearth, prepared his tea, cleaned up after his morning meal and later went to bed within an hour of the setting sun.

On the third day he again flowed with the rhythms of the day.

On the fourth day it rained.

A “Selectional Restriction Violation” is when someone ascribes to a thing something, usually a feeling, that is technically impossible for it to possess (at least as far as we know). So if you hear someone say something like, “the grass was feeling annoyed at the moles.” We might be tempted to employ the meta model to clear up this distortion. “Precisely how do you know what the grass was feeling?” We also might be tempted to suggest that our client lay off the grass for a while.

But, when we reverse the meta model, it can be very useful to violate a selectional restriction.

As an example if, in the course of my telling a therapeutic metaphor, I were to say, “You can listen to the cheerful trees and sit on this noble divan while your hands decide which of them will lift up first,” I’d be employing this pattern three times. First, with the “cheerful” trees, second, with the “proud” divan, and thirdly with the hands being able to decide for themselves what to do. This pattern is especially useful while telling metaphors.

Because the listener realizes on some level that the selected thing can’t actually feel these feelings, they will personally identify with the feelings. This is especially true when the speaker uses a shift in tonality consistent with an embedded command. This is referred to as an interspersal technique.

Readers who have read Bandler and Grinder’s “Patterns of the Hypnotic Techniques of Milton H. Erickson M.D., vol. 1″ will remember the section (pp.26-50) about the farmer named Joe who was suffering from cancer. Erickson spoke to Joe about tomato plants and how they feel good and comfortable when they grow.

That little seed, Joe, slowly swells, sends out a little rootlet with cilia on it…
…they must make the tomato plant feel very good, very comfortable…

So you, dear reader, are probably thinking that you could write a trance induction of your own using this and many of the other language patterns explored this year.

What a terrific idea! I wonder how much fun you could have doing that? Tell you what, send in your happy finished product and I’ll post it. Providing it’s appropriate content, of course… I reserve the right to not post it. Keep in mind, that while I can promise I won’t use it, other readers will have no such obligation. The possibility exists it might be “borrowed.”