Reference

Any noun or nominalisation in a sentence presupposes that the thing named exists — at least as an internal representation.

One family — modal operators — with three subtypes: Possibility (can / can't), Necessity (should / must) and Desirability (would love to / wish to).

One thing is presented as directly producing another — an external or internal cause is credited with creating a response.

Two different things are equated: one is treated as meaning the other. This is where labels and identity statements are manufactured.

Verbs of awareness, recognition, realisation, knowing and deciding presuppose the truth of whatever is being noticed.

Words and tenses that locate events in time presuppose sequence, duration, repetition, change or stability.

An adjective describes a noun; an adverb modifies an action or verb. Both smuggle in a description as though it were settled, and shape the internal representation.

Language can frame options as mutually exclusive alternatives (either / or) or as alternatives that may coexist (both / and).

Ordinal and sequence words presuppose an order of events — and often that additional stages or events exist.

Claiming to know another person's internal state or intention without specifying how that knowledge was obtained.

A judgement or rule is stated as if it were a fact of the world, while the person or standard performing the judgement is missing.

One event or person is presented as causing an internal state or outcome — usually with the cause placed outside the speaker.

Two different experiences are treated as synonymous: a behaviour is equated with a meaning, often an identity.

Something has to be accepted as true for the sentence to make sense at all — and it usually passes unexamined.

One experience is generalised into a rule that admits no exceptions.

A rule is stated as compulsory, with the consequence of breaking it left unstated.

A limit is stated as a fact about the world rather than a belief about the map.

An ongoing action or process has been turned into a static noun, so the people and the doing disappear.

An action is named while how it actually happened is left out.

A statement leaves out the object or context altogether: uncomfortable about what, difficult to do what.

The person or thing being referred to is left unspecified.

A comparison is made while the thing being compared against is omitted.

Claiming to know another person's thoughts, feelings or inner experience without saying how you know.

A value judgement is stated with the person or standard performing the judgement left out.

An implied causative links one experience to another: because, makes, if…then, as…then, when…then.

Two experiences are treated as equivalent: one is said to mean the other.

Something must be taken as true for the sentence or the frame to make sense at all.

A generalisation with no exceptions stated: all, every, everyone, always, never.

Words of possibility or necessity: can, could, may, might, must, should, need to, have to.

An ongoing process is frozen into a noun: insight, understanding, confidence, motivation, communication, relationship.

An action is named without specifying how it happens.

A short question appended to a statement: isn't it, don't you, can you not, right?

The person or thing being referred to is left unspecified.

A comparison is made while the thing being compared against is deleted.

Describing the listener's current, externally verifiable experience — what they are doing, where they are, what is around them.

Two choices are offered, and both of them presuppose or lead toward the same broader action or outcome.

A communication framed as a yes/no question that functions as an indirect request or suggestion.

Nested layers of quotation or story, with the message carried in an inner layer.

A capacity — feeling, knowing, seeing — is attributed to something that would not literally have it, so the sentence is not well formed under ordinary semantics.

Language that supports more than one interpretation. Four subtypes: phonological, syntactic, scope and punctuation.

Using what is already happening — including what the client just said — instead of resisting or ignoring it.

Move up one level of abstraction by naming the class the current thing belongs to.

Move up by asking what the thing is for.

Move up by asking what the person is trying to achieve.

Move down a level toward detail, distinction and concrete information.

Move down by naming members or instances of the current class.

The two different downward relationships — class membership and componenthood — and why confusing them breaks a hierarchy.

Reach another example at roughly the same level of abstraction by going up to the shared class and back down elsewhere.

Choosing the direction of movement from the conversational objective, not by habit.

Using upward movement to find, and then confirm, a shared purpose between positions.

Chunk up to find connections and relationships, then chunk back down to relate the connection to the current situation.

Overwhelm as a chunk-size problem: the current level is too large to act on.

A descent that will not stop, combined with sorting for what is wrong or different.

Building a parallel story that preserves the important relationships of the original situation while changing all of the surface content.

Keep the event exactly as it happened and open other meanings it could plausibly carry.

Keep the behaviour or quality exactly as it is and change the situation it is being evaluated in.

The correct answer whenever there is no clear event or behaviour to reframe, or the timing is wrong.

Split the sentence into the observable part and the meaning the client supplied.

Treat intention as something to explore with the person, not something the practitioner knows.

A reframe is a proposal. Fit is decided by the client, and rejection is repaired rather than defended.

The recognisable failure modes, so students can name them in their own work.