Pandey&Kornana-General Semantics Neuro - Linguistic Prog

Pre-fifinal proofs-
Agnihotri, Khanna & Sehgal-Gupta-

Innovations in the Classroom, Delhi-Swan Blackwell 2016
chapter 8
General Semantics, Neuro-
Linguistic Programming and
Language in the Classroom1
pramod pandey and aruna kornana
Abstract
The central tenet of Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) may be said to
lie in the statement ‘The Map is not the Territory’. That is, we operate in
this world on the basis of the map of the world and not the world itself. An
awareness of the blocks, limitations, and distortions of the map can help us
grow out of them and come closer to reality. The origin of the tenet goes back to
General Semantics, founded by Alfred Korzybsky with the aim of developing
scientific awareness about bringing language closer to reality, in order to avoid
misevaluations and conflicts in the world of human interaction and to free
ourselves from individual proclivities and biases. In this paper, we attempt to
show how a concern with an understanding of the learner’s map of the world,
the teacher can help her overcome her limitations and offer her greater choices of
growth. We begin with a discussion of the evidence for universal and cultural
cognitive dispositions to language, drawing from the linguistic and pragmatic
literature. We then briefly bring up for elaboration some of the basic concepts of
NLP. We finally discuss the results of an NLP based experiment on a group
of BEd students specialising in English in support of the claim.
Introduction
E pistemologists and educationists have held two main aspects

of the human mind/ brain of central concern. These are
98 Trends in Language Teaching
language and reasoning. Philosophers (for example, positivists, such

as Ayer (1936) and ordinary language philosophers, such as Ryle
(1949) and scientists (in fields as diverse as physics, economics,
evolutionary biology and ecology) have found ordinary language
a hindrance in expressing abstract ideas (see e.g. Mermin 2005)
and have looked for a language that facilitates rather than hinders
expression of thought. Reasoning is concerned with being valid
and sound in ascertaining knowledge. Alfred Korzybsky (1940)
founded an area of inquiry known as General Semantics, which
is centrally concerned with both. In his view, the ‘…human
world in which we live is based on science… and therefore on
non-Euclidian, non-Newtonian and non-Aristotelian systems,
yet our inherited orientations remain Aristotelian, Euclidian, and
Newtonian…’. General semantics aims to show the way in which how
valid and sound reasoning can develop in ways that are congenial to
science, andhow
scientific awareness about language can make it come
closer to reality in order to avoid misevaluations and conflicts in
the world of human interaction. Germane to general semantics is
the goal of attaining freedom from biases and miscommunication.
General Semantics set the epistemological groundwork for Neuro-
Linguistic Programming (NLP), a theory of communication (see
Bandler & Grinder 1979; Andreas & Faulkner 1996; Dilts &
DeLozier 2000; Knight 2002; Tosey & Mathison 2006), which
shares Korzybsky‘s basic idea that human beings are limited in
what they know by the structure of both their nervous systems,
and the structure of human languages. As a result, human beings
cannot experience the world directly, but only through what he
called their ‘abstractions’.
Learning is a process that involves transformation. A teacher
faces the challenge of bringing in transformation in students leading
them from a g iven state to a desired state. The distance
between these states is different for different individuals and the
path between them has to be chosen by the teacher considering the
different channels of perception of each individual. Some individuals
develop anxieties, aversions, beliefs, passions and preferences at an
early stage. Some patterns and beliefs help while others limit us in
achieving what we want.
General Semantics, Neuro-Linguistic Programming 99
In a language classroom, it is crucial for the teacher to understand

students’ beliefs about learning a second or a foreign language (see
e.g. Horwitz 1988; Rifkin 2000), as the beliefs may impact positively
or detrimentally in learning a language. Learning English as a second
language involves internalising the grammar and its components
(phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax and semantics) as
well structures of contextual meaning and use, by mainly paying
attention to what is presented in the classroom. In addition, there
are issues related to the learner‘s psychological disposition such as
confidence, self-esteem and spontaneity that affect the learning. A
language teacher has to create an environment where students are
disposed to learn not only what but also how. Teachers can motivate
learners and help them shed their anxieties by making them aware
of their inherent capabilities. New approaches have been identified
to enable the teacher to induce this kind of learning. NLP is one
such approach.
This paper aims at understanding the role of NLP in the classroom
and providing evidence for the claim that the NLP techniques impact
the learner’s as well as the teacher’s thinking and language patterns.
We begin first with a brief discussion of evidence for universal
and cultural cognitive dispositions to language, drawing from the
linguistic and pragmatic literature in support of the NLP position
that we are linguistically and culturally predisposed to subject view of
reality. We then bring up for elaboration some of the basic concepts
of NLP with regard to the ways in which we can inculcate positive
dispositions to teaching and learning. We finally discuss the results
of an NLP-based experiment on a group of undergraduate students
learning remedial English in support of the claim. Given the limited
time for the experiment, it was aimed at showing the impact on
thinking and representational pattern of the learner.
Uncertainty of Sensory Experience and Language

The assumption common to General Semantics and NLP that ‘the
map is not the territory’, i.e., there exists a mismatch between the
world of reality and our interpretation of it, is strongly supported
by the evidence that has gained ground for both variability and
unreliability of sensory perceptions and language as a source of
objective knowledge since the time of Descartes. We briefly
discuss here the evidence for the predispositions for subjectivity of
understanding and interpretation.
We first turn to the differences in sensory perceptions. Mohanan
(2011) gives the following example: ‘Bill and Susan are in the same
room. Bill finds the room warm, while Susan finds it cold. The
objective reality of the temperature of the room is the same, but their
sensory experience of warm/cold is different for the two individuals.
Such differences in the subjective experience of warm/cold are quite
natural if Susan has high fever and Bill doesn’t.’
Just as sensory experiences are different, meaning in language
too, is different at all levels—word, sentence and utterance. At the
word level, consider a familiar example, book, used in different senses:
(1) a. The book weighs a kilo.
b. The book is full.
c. I have the book in my pen drive.
d. She knows the book by heart.
e. The writer has yet to complete the book.
and so on.
In (1) above, the word book is used in different senses in each
of the sentences. Abstract terms such as bright, democracy and
freedom have been known in positivist philosophy to be subject
to variable interpretation. Modern linguistic literature is full of
examples of phrasal (e.g. Egyptian cotton shirt, understood as either
‘a shirt made of Egyptian cotton’ or ‘a cotton shirt manufactured in
Egypt’), syntactic (e.g. Visiting relatives can be dangerous, understood
the
differently on basis of the word visiting being considered a verb
or an adjective) and pragmatic (e.g. It is raining may have the
implication ‘Get me an umbrella’ or ‘I can’t go out now’ or some
other message). We avoid dwelling on the topic here because of
its familiarity in the literature.
More interesting and somewhat in line with Linguistic Relativity
or Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis (see. Kay & Kempton 1984; Gumperz
& Levinson 1996) are cases of linguistic categories influencing a
speaker‘s understanding of the world. Many studies in favour (e.g.

Brown & Lenneberg 1954; Olson 1977; Boroditsky, Schmidt &
Phillips 2003) and against linguistic relativity (e.g. Pinker 1995,
1997) have been presented in recent times. A case in point here is
conceptual gender in languages that categorise objects in different
gender categories. Boroditsky, Schmidt & Phillips (2003: 69) discuss
how grammatical gender in a language may influence not only the
speaker’s understanding of the concept they stand for but also other
decisions. They explain the role of conceptual gender thus:
What does it mean for a turnip to be conceptually feminine or for

a toaster to be conceptually masculine? How does gender actually
make its way into the representations of objects? As suggested
earlier, one possibility is that, depending on grammatical gender,
different (stereotypically masculine or feminine) aspects of objects
may become more or less salient in the representations of those
objects. For example, if the noun that names a toaster is masculine,
then perhaps its metallic and technological properties may
become more salient; but if the noun is feminine, then perhaps its
warmth, domesticity, and ability to provide nourishment are given
more importance.
Boroditsky et al. (2003) report the results of an experiment on

Spanish and German speaking children for the use of adjectives for
objects that are categorised differently for grammatical gender in their
languages. For example, the word ‘bridge’ is feminine in German and
masculine in Spanish. The children were asked to tick the adjectives
that suited the words from a list of the adjectives given to them along
with the words. They report (p. 69), ‘…the word “key” is masculine
in German and feminine in Spanish. German speakers described
keys as hard, heavy, jagged, metal, serrated, and useful, while Spanish
speakers said they were golden, intricate, little, lovely, shiny, and tiny.
The word for “bridge”, on the other hand, is feminine in German
and masculine in Spanish. German speakers described bridges as
beautiful, elegant, fragile, peaceful, pretty, and slender, while Spanish
speakers said they were big, dangerous, long, strong, sturdy and towering.’
Neuro-Linguistic Programming
NLP was developed in the 1970’s jointly by Richard Bandler, a
mathematician and a graduate student of psychology, and John
Grinder, a linguist, originating in their attempt to model excellent
communication by investigating the communicative behaviour of
reputed communicators in the field of psychotherapy. The latter
included names such as Fritz Perls, the innovative psychotherapist
and originator of the Gestalt school of therapy, Virginia Satir, one
of the key figures in the development of family therapy, and Milton
Erickson, a psychiatrist who specialised in medical hypnosis. Bandler
& Grinder initially explored in these excellent communicators their
patterns of language and behaviour, their thinking processes and
their core beliefs. All three of them had different personalities but
Bandler & Grinder found that they all followed similar patterns in
relating to their clients, in the language they used, and in the beliefs
they held about themselves and what they were doing (Revell &
Norman 1999). Bandler & Grinder’s aim was to produce a model of
successful therapy that worked in practice, and could be learned. The
underlying assumption of their research was that all human beings
have the same neurology and, therefore, the behaviour of effective
communicators can be modelled, learned and taught.
They emphasised the fact that we communicate about our
experiences to ourselves and to others through two means, Neuro
and Linguistic. The two could be combined into a single approach
to the study of effective communication called Neuro-Linguistic
Programming. ‘The “Neuro” part of NLP acknowledges the
fundamental idea that all behaviour stems from our neurological
processes of sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch, and feeling. We
experience the world through our five senses; we make “sense” of
the information and then act on it. Our neurology covers not only
our invisible thought processes, but also our visible physiological
reactions to ideas and events. One simply reflects the other at the
physical level. Body and mind form an inseparable unity, a human
being.’ (O’Connor & Seymour 1990: 3). ‘The “Linguistic” part of
the title indicates the way the language shapes, as well as reflects,
our experience of the world. We use language—in thought as well
as in speech—to represent the world to ourselves, and to embody

our beliefs about the world and about life. If we change the way
we speak and think about things, we can change our behaviour. We
can also use language to help other people who want to change.’
(Revell & Norman, 1999: 14) The ‘Programming’ refers to ways
we can choose to organise our ideas and actions to produce results.
NLP deals with showing how we structure our subjective
experience—how
, we organise what we see, hear and feel, and
how we edit and filter the outside world through our senses. Being
aware of our subjective proclivities of reasoning and representation
can lead to our rising above them as well as expanding them, and in
turn helping others, in our case the learner, in achieving the same.
NLP was originally portrayed as a method, which the authors
called ‘modelling’ (Bandler & Grinder 1975: 6). Stemming
from Bandler & Grinder’s original interest in identifying what
distinguished excellent therapists from others, and informed by
Grinder’s knowledge of linguistics, NLP began as a means of studying
how individuals process information, construct meaning schemas,
and perform skills to achieve results. Bandler & Grinder, in their
book Frogs and Princess, emphasised on pragmatic intent: ‘We have
no idea about the “real” nature of things, and we’re not particularly
interested in what’s “true”. The function of modelling is to arrive
at descriptions which are useful.’ (p. 7)
Assumptions and Techniques of NLP Analysis
NLP aims at helping individuals cross the barriers that have a basis
in their mental dispositions and that can be uncovered by analysing
their linguistic expressions and thought processes. NLP begins with
getting to the roots of lack of motivation in learners by analysing the
preferred representational systems, on the one hand (for example,
some individuals prefer listening to reading or sounds to written
symbols, and do better if given a task in the preferred mode of
representation). It then works towards improving motivation for
learning and developing self-reliance in the learner through
its basic assumptions and techniques such as ANCHORING,
REFRAMING, OUTCOME THINKING and RAPPORT

BUILDING. These are explained briefly below.
Assumptions of NLP
Assumptions of NLP are about human behaviour, experience,
communication and potential that influence an individual’s thinking
and behaviour. Achieving excellence is helped if we act as if these
beliefs were true. Some of the main beliefs of excellence (Revell
& Norman 1997) that guide the application of NLP in language
learning are as follows.
a. If someone can do something, anyone can learn to do it.
b. The map is not the territory: what we perceive about the
world and others around us is not the actual reality, as our
senses filter most of what we experience. It is entirely our
reality. So every learner experiences reality in their own way.
We all have different maps of the world.
c. Each person is unique: as every individual has his own way
of filtering the information while experiencing the world,
they have unique ways of learning a language.
d. The meaning of communication is the response you get:
communication is not one’s intention, it is the experiential
process.
e. There is no failure, only feedback: all experience is learning
and a renewed opportunity for success, considering mistakes
as sources of learning.
f. Mind and body are parts of the same system: thoughts,
emotions and behaviour are interconnected.
g. We have within us all the resources we will ever need:
whether it is confidence, self-esteem or spontaneity, we
have them within us already. Although we may not have
these resources in a certain context, we may have them in
some other context.
h. Communication is non-verbal as well as verbal: as a teacher,
one needs to be aware of their own language, gestures,
attitudes, appearances, and the messages they are giving as for
language learners it’s not just the linguistic aspect that helps
but also the non-verbal interaction.
i. Communication is non-conscious as well as conscious:
according to Dr Emile Donchin at the University of Illinois,
more than 99% of our learning is non-conscious. According
to Revell & Norman, learning seems to be more effective
when it is multi-sensory and when it appeals to the non-
conscious as well as conscious mind.
Techniques of NLP
Some of the main techniques used in NLP training are aimed at
awakening the creative potentials of individuals by developing an
insight into their cognitive proclivities and then matching learning
techniques to the realisation of their potentials. These are broached
below.
a. ‘Anchoring’ involves making the learner hold to resourceful
states when his confidence is low. The teacher needs to find
out from the learner his/ her qualities of strength and turn
to them in times of difficulties for the learner.
b. ‘Reframing’ helps change focus from negative or indifferent
to positive expressions, as, for example, ‘I have poor spoken
English’ can be reframed as ‘I want to improve my spoken
English’, and ‘I should write well’ can be reframed as ‘I want
to write well’.
c. ‘Outcome thinking’ is the assumption that the way we think
about our goals decides how efficiently and quickly we are
going to achieve them. A learner who says, ‘I am not going
to keep quiet in class’ is less likely to participate in learning
than the one who says ‘I am going to take an active part in
the activities of the class’.
d. ‘Rapport building’ involves improving the relationship
between communicators, in our case the teacher and the
learner, through compatible matching of verbal and non-
verbal expressions. The focus is communication, and the
methods involve making the learner self-aware of his/ her
potential capabilities and help him/ her develop a strongly

positive mental disposition to communication.
We have attempted above to broach some of the critical concepts
of NLP. For more detailed discussion, the reader may look up
O’Connor & Seymour (1990) and Knight (2002), among others.
Experimental Study
The role of NLP as an analytical tool in uncovering the reasoning

patterns in an individual has been widely recognised by its
practitioners (Lum 2001; Knight 2002; Pandey 2010). However, its
role in affecting the thinking and language patterns of individuals
has come to be seen as controversial, with opposite claims being
made by its advocates (Revell & Norman 1997, 1999 for language
teaching) and its detractors (Sharpley 1984; Roderique-Davies
2009). Roderique-Davies (2009), for example, claims that NLP
‘does not have an evidence base and that NLP practitioners are
seeking a post-hoc credibility.’ In the field of language teaching, the
situation is still exploratory (Revell & Norman 1997, 1999; Craft
2001; Gupta 2008). In order to ascertain the validity of the claims
of NLP in the field of language teaching and learning, a preliminary
study (Cornana 2012) was carried out, in consultation with the
first author, on the possibility of change of preference patterns in
the learner as part of his/ her thinking and reasoning patterns. The
working hypothesis of the study was that the intervention of NLP
will have an effect on the individual’s preferences. Towards that
end, it was felt necessary to devise reliable psychological tests for
the preference patterns following and preceding an NLP workshop.
Preference patterns in Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

The preference patterns that were the focus of the workshop were
the Myers-Briggs personality types, also known as Myers-Briggs
Type Indicators (MBTI), widely followed for psychological test
of personality types today (Quenk 2009). The classification of
personality types involves four main sets of dichotomy, namely,

Extraversion (E)–Introversion (I), Sensing (S)–iNtuition (N),
Thinking (T)–Feeling(F), and Judging (J)–Perceiving (P). Their
main traits are as elaborated below.
a. Sensing (S): Focuses mainly on what can be perceived by
the five senses.
Intuition (N): Focuses mainly on perceiving patterns and
interrelationships.
b. Thinking (T): Bases conclusions on logical analysis with a focus
on objectivity and detachment.
Feeling (F): Bases conclusions on personal or social values with a
focus on understanding and harmony.
c. Extroversion (E): Directs energy mainly towards the outer world
of people and objects.
Introversion (I): Directs energy mainly towards the inner world
of experiences and ideas.
d. Judging (J): Prefers the decisiveness and closure that results from
dealing with the outer world using one of the judging processes (T
or F).
Perceiving (P): Preferring the flexibility and spontaneity
that results from dealing with the outer world using one of
the perceiving processes (T or F).
Each of the four dichotomies has its variant facets, as elaborated
in Table 8.1.
TABLE 8.1 The four MBTI Dichotomies and Facets
Opposite functions of perception Opposite functions of judging

Sensing Intuition Thinking Feeling
Concrete Abstract Logical Empathetic
Realistic Imagination Reasonable Compassionate
Practical Conceptual Questioning Accommodating
Experiential Theoretical Critical Accepting
Traditional Original Tough Tender
(contd...)
(Table 8.1 contd...)
Opposite attitudes of energy Opposite attitude toward the outside

world
Extraversion Introversion Judging Perceiving
Initiating Receiving Systematic Casual
Expressive Contained Planful Open-ended
Gregarious Intimate Early starting Pressure prompted
Active Reflective Scheduled Spontaneous
Enthusiastic Quiet Methodical Emergent
The four MBTI dichotomous sets have their communicational

patterns, projected in Table-8.2.
TABLE 8.2 Communication facets of the MBTI dichotomies
The Sensing-lntuition Dichotomy

Concrete Abstract
Focuses on concrete, tangible, and Focuses on concepts and
literal perceptions, communications, abstract meanings of ideas and
learning styles, world view, and their interrelationships. Uses
values. Trusts what is verifiable by symbols, metaphors, and mental
the senses, and is cautious about leaps to explain interests and
going beyond facts. views.
The Thinking-Feeling Dichotomy

Questioning Empathetic
Asks questions to understand, Believes that the impact of a
clarify, gain common ground, decision on people should be
solves problems, and finds flaws in primary; focuses on important
their own and others’ viewpoints. values and relationships; trusts
own appraisal of what is relevant.
The Extraversion—Introversion Dichotomy

Active
Likes direct involvement in active Likes visual, intellectual, and mental
environments, learning best by engagement, learning best by
(contd...)
(Table 8.2 contd...)
doing, listening, observing, and reading and writing rather than by

speaking rather than by reading listening and speaking.
and writing.
The Judging and Perceiving Dichotomy

Planful Open-ended
Likes the comfort and security of Likes flexible plans and freedom to
working with routine, established choose in the moment; dislike
methods both at work and at being tied down by long-range
home; like the predictability this plans and prior commitments.
gives their lives.
Table 8.2: Communication facets of the MBTI dichotomies

(adapted from Quenk 2009: 10–12)
Based on MBTI, we had eight function-attitudes and sixteen
personality types, listed below.
Introverted sensing: ISTJ and ISFJ
Extraverted sensing: ESTP and ESFP
Introverted intuition: INTJ and INFJ
Extraverted intuition: ENTP and ENFP
Introverted thinking: ISTP and INTP
Extraverted thinking: ESTJ and ENTJ
Introverted feeling: ISFP and INFP
Extraverted feeling: ESFJ and ENFJ
Subjects, questionnaires and their analyses

Two questionnaires were used—Questionnaire-1 and Questionnaire-2.
Questionnaire-1 was administered at the start of the workshop, while
Questionnaire-2 was administered at the end of the workshop. Both
the questionnaires were based on Keirsey Temperament Sorter
(KTS). The first questionnaire was taken from Keirsey & Bates
(1984) and the second questionnaire was taken from the Keirsey
website.2 The purpose of using two versions of the KTS sorter was
to avoid predictable response. In the second questionnaire, some of
the questions were reframed. Both the questionnaires were analyed
using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator [MBTI, as elaborated in

Quenk (2009)]. Both questionnaires consisted of 70 questions; 10
questions belonging to Extraversion (E)–Introversion (I) dichotomy
and 20 questions each for the other three dichotomies, namely,
Sensing (S)–iNtuition (N), Thinking (T) –Feeling (F), and Judging
(J)–Perceiving (P). It should be noted that both questionnaires were
used as a tool to identify the preferences, and did not involve any
scaling and value.
The workshop was conducted three days a week in slots of 1 to
2 hours for a period of 3 weeks in February and March 2012. The
total duration of the workshop was 13 classroom hours. The subjects
were final semester students undergoing teacher training for the
BEd programme in English at the English and Foreign Languages
University, Hyderabad.
A total of 29 participants filled Questionnaire-1 and 33
participants filled Questionnaire-2. Nineteen students filled both
the questionnaires. All the questionnaires were interpreted for
results. However, questionnaires of only 19 participants, who filled
in both sets, were used for research purpose as the objective was to
identify the difference in their preferences. While analysing the data,
questionnaires of 3 more participants had to be left aside because
they omitted more than 20 questions in one of the questionnaires
and according to Myers-Briggs, three to four omissions on any
dichotomy can produce a problematic scoring situation. Therefore,
the responses of only 16 participants were used for data analysis. Of
the 16 participants, 6 were female and 10 male. All were in the age
group of 22–28 years, and came from different parts of India. All
the responses were scored for raw points; once the data collection
procedure was complete. A scoring template was used for scoring
the responses, which gave the raw points for each preference pole
of the dichotomies. The pole of each dichotomy that had the larger
number of raw points was identified as the respondent’s preference
on that dichotomy.
However, if there were equal points on both the poles of a
dichotomy they were classified as I, N, F, or P, depending on
the dichotomy. The convention of breaking tied scores in this

fashion was set by Isabel Briggs Myers when she constructed
previous forms of the Indicator. The basic rationale is that ties are
broken in favour of the preference pole that is less common or
sanctioned in the population at large: A person with split votes
on a dichotomy is indicating a pull toward the less popular pole,
which may be counteracted by an equal pull toward the more
popular pole. The likely preference is therefore hypothesised to be
the less popular one. In this reasoning, for example, a person with
equal points for E and I is going against the tide that favours an
extraverted approach and is therefore probably truly an Introvert
struggling to accommodate to what is socially desirable (Quenk
2009: 48).
An individual’s preferences were then summarised in a four-letter
code, each letter standing for one of the eight preferences, such as
INFP for Introverted, Intuitive, Feeling, Perceiving or ESTJ for
Extraverted, Sensing, Thinking, Judging. All possible combinations
of preferences yield 16 different types.
All 16 types are seen as valid and legitimate ways of being
psychologically healthy, adapted, and successful, though their
interests, talents, and general outlooks are likely to be quite different
(Quenk 2009: 9).
Questionnaire Results: Questionnaire 1

This questionnaire, as was mentioned above, was administered
at the beginning of the workshop. In the evaluation it showed
that out of 16 participants, 9 participants had the preference type
ESFJ (Extraverted Feeling) that constituted to 56.25% of the
total, 3 participants had the preference type ISTJ (Introverted
Sensing) that constituted to 18.75% of the total, and the other
4 participants showed the preference type ISFJ, INFJ, ISTP, and
ESTJ, respectively, that constituted to 6.25% each of the total. Of
the 16 types, 10 types constituted 0% of the total. These findings
are displayed in the table below.
TABLE 8.3 The distribution of personality types among the

participants before NLP workshop
ISTJ ISFJ ESTP ESFP 25%

18.75% 6.25% 0% 0% Sensing type
Introverted
sensing
INTJ INFJ ENTP ENFP 6.25%
0% 6.25% 0% 0% Intuitive type
ISTP INTP ESTJ ENTJ 12.5%
6.25% 0% 6.25% 0% Thinking type
ISFP INFP ESFJ ENFJ 56.25%
0% 0% 56.25% 0% Feeling type
Extraverted
feeling
25% 12.5% 62.5% 00% N=16
Qestionnnaire Results: Questionnaire-2

Questionnaire-2, as mentioned above, was administered at the
end of the workshop. The evaluation showed that out of the
16 participants, 8 participants had the preference type ESFP
(Extraverted Sensing) that constituted to 50% of the total, 2
participants had the preference type ISFP (Introverted Feeling) that
constituted to 12.5% of the total, 2 participants preference type
ISFJ (Introverted Sensing) that constituted to 12.5% of the total,
and the other 4 participants showed preference types ISTJ, INFJ,
ENTP, and ENTJ, respectively, that constituted to 6.25% each of
the total. Of the 16 types, 9 types constituted 0% of the total. These
findings are displayed in Table 8.4.
Discussion
The results of the responses to the questionnaires are present in the
graphs (Figures 8.1, 8.2, and 8.3) below.
On a comparison of the responses to the two questionnaires and
their analysis using MBTI criteria, we notice a considerable change
TABLE 8.4 The distribution of personality types among the

participants after the NLP workshop
ISTJ ISFJ ESTP ESFP 68.75%

6.25% 12.5% 0% 50% Sensing type
Introverted Extraverted
sensing
INTJ INFJ ENTP ENFP 12.5%
0% 6.25% 6.25% 0% Intuitive type
ISTP INTP ESTJ ENTJ 6.25%
0% 0% 0% 6.25% Thinking type
ISFP INFP ESFJ ENFJ 12.5%
12.5% 0% 0% 0% Feeling type
Introverted
feeling
18.75% 18.75% 6.25% 56.25% N=16
FIGURE 8.1 Results based on Personality type (in percentage)
60
50
40
Percentage
30
20
10
0
ISTJ
ISFJ
ESTP
ESFP
INTJ
INFJ
ENTP
ENFP
ISTP
INTP
ESTJ
ENTJ
ISFP
INFP
ESFJ
ENFJ
Before NLP After NLP

FIGURE 8.2 Results based on function preference (in percentage)

60
50
40
Percentage
30
20
10
0
ISTJ
ISFJ
ESTP
ESFP
INTJ
INFJ
ENTP
ENFP
ISTP
INTP
ESTJ
ENTJ
ISFP
INFP
ESFJ
ENFJ
FIGURE 8.3 Results based on attitude preferences (in percentage)

80
70 68.75%
60 56.25%
50
40
30
25%
20
12.5% 12.5% 12.5%
10 6.25% 6.25%
0
Sensing type Intuitive type Thinking type Feeling type

FIGURE 8.4 Results based on attitude preferences (in percentage)
100 93.75%
90
80
70 68.75%
62.5%
60
50
40 37.5%
31.25%
30
20
10 6.25%
0
Introverted Extraverted Judging Perceiving
in the preference types of the participants as a consequence of the

NLP workshop. There was major shift from the Extrovert-Sensing-
Feeling-Judging type to Extrovert-Sensing-Feeling-Perceiving type.
Within the studied sample, 68.75% of the participants showed
preference for the Sensing type after the NLP workshop, and of
those 50% showed Extraverted-Sensing (ES) type. It is claimed that
teachers and learners who have extraverted sensing as a dominant
function are likely to enjoy “learning by doing”, a preference that
is strongly supported in educational literature.
About 94% of the participants evinced a change in at least one
preference pole. 69% of the participants showed a change in only one
preference pole whereas 25% of them showed change in two preference
poles and one participant (6%) retained his earlier preference type,
though the percentage differed from the first to the second questionnaire.
Interestingly, 37.5% of the participants showed a tie between the
poles of dichotomies in Questionnaire-2, which was not found in
the results of Questionnaire-1.
This shows a balance in the attitude types and function types in

Jungian terminology.
94% participants exhibited Judging attitude (J) as their preference
pole and only 6% exhibited Perceiving attitude (P) before NLP
workshop whereas, after the workshop 69% showed Perceiving
attitude (P) and 31% showed Judging attitude (J ).
Conclusion
The results of the present study aver that NLP can have a salutary
effect on the attitudinal and reasoning preferences of learners. An NLP
approach can best be used to reduce and minimise the conditionings
in the teacher/ learner’s attitude and reasoning leading to desired
results. It can be crucially used to extend the boundaries of the
teacher’s and the learner’s predispositions in their modes of reasoning
and thus enhance the possibility of achieving the desired results.
In the words of O’Connor and McDermott (1996: 143), ‘People
respond to their map of reality and not to reality itself. We operate
and communicate from those maps. Neuro-Linguistic Programming
is the art of changing these maps, not reality’. It is essential for
teachers to understand their own as well as the learners’ maps of
reality for holistic learning.
Notes
1. We are grateful to Dr Balachandra Vishnu Adkoli, KL Wig Centre
for Medical Education & Technology, AIIMS, New Delhi, for his time for
very useful discussion on administering the questionnaires and their analyses.
2. http: //www.keirsey.com/personalityzone/cz1.asp
References
Andreas, Steve & Charles Faulkner (eds), (1996). NLP: The New Technology
of Achievement. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
Ayer, Alfred J., (1936). Language, Truth, and Logic. London: Gollancz.
[Harmonds worth: Penguin. 2001]
Bandler, R. & J. Grinder, (1975). The Structure of Magic: A Book about
Language and Therapy, Volume 1. Palo Alto, California: Science and
Behaviour Books.
(1979). Frogs into Princes: Neurolinguistic Programming. Real People
Press.
Boroditsky, L, L. A. Schmidt & W. Phillips, (2003). ‘Sex, syntax and
semantics’. In D. Gentner & S. Goldin-Meadow (eds), Language in Mind:
Advances in the Study of Language and Thought. The MIT Press, 61–79.
Brown R. & E. Lenneberg, (1954). ‘A study in language and cognition’.
Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 49, 454–62.
Cornana, Aruna, (2012). ‘Investigating the impact of language and
thinking patterns on learning and teaching from the perspective of
Neuro-Linguistic Programming’. MPhil Dissertation, Jawaharlal Nehru
University, New Delhi.
Craft, Anna, (2001). ‘Neuro-linguistic programming and learning
theory’. The Curriculum Journal, 12/1, 125–36.
Dilts, Robert B. & Judith A. DeLozier, (2000). Encyclopaedia of Systemic
Neuro-Linguistic Programming and NLP New Coding. NLP University
Press.
Gumperz, J. J. & S. C. Levinson, (eds), (1996). Rethinking Linguistic
Relativity. Cambridge University Press.
Gupta, Anju S., (2008). ‘Neuro-linguistic programming: The new kid on
the block’. Forum for Teachers of English Language and Literature, 13, 7–9.
Horwitz, E. K., (1988). ‘The beliefs about language learning of beginning
university foreign language students’. The Modern Language Journal,
72/3, 283–94.
http: //blog.vcu.edu/hgsims/
Kay, P. & W. Kempton, (1984). ‘What is the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis?’
American Anthropologist, 86, 65–79.
Keirsey, David & Marilyn Bates, (1984). Please Understand Me: Character
and Temperament Types. Del Mar, California: Prometheus Nemesis.
Knight, Sue, (2002). NLP at work. London: Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
Korzybsky, A. (1958 [1940]) Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-
Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics. Lakeville, Conn.: The
International Non-Aristotelian Library Publishing company, The
Institute of General Semantics.
Lum, C., (2001). Scientific Thinking in Speech and Language Therapy.
Mahwah, New Jersey/ London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mermin, N. David, (2005). It’s About Time: Understanding Einstein’s

Relativity. Princeton University Press.
Mohanan, K. P., (2011). ‘A theory of crispness in banana chips:
Scientific thinking in everyday life’. Pdf Ms. http: //www.iiserpune.
ac.in/~mohanan/inquiry/chips.pdf
O’Connor, J. & J. Seymour, (1990). Introducing Neuro-Linguistic Programming.
Cornwall: Aquarian Press.
Olson, D. (1977). ‘From utterance to text: The bias of language in speech
and writing’. Harvard Educational Review, 47, 257–81.
Pandey, Pramod, (2010). ‘On the nature of reason in the present-day
academic research’. In S. Imtiaz Hasnain & S. C. Chaudhary (eds),
Problematizing Language Studies: Cultural, Theoretical and Applied
Perspectives. New Delhi: Aakar Books, 387–97.
Pinker, Steve, (1995). The language Instinct. New York: Harper Perennial
Modern Classics.
(1997). How the Mind Works. New York: W. W. Norton &
Company.
Quenk, N. L., (2009 [2000]). Essentials of Myers-Briggs Type Indicator
Assessment, 2nd Edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Revell, J. & S. Norman, (1997). In your hands—NLP in ELT. London:
Saffire Press.
(1999). Handing Over—NLP-based Activities for Language Learning,
London: Saffire Press.
Rifkin, B., (2000). ‘Revising beliefs about foreign language learning’.
Foreign Language Annals, 33/4, 394–420.
Roderique-Davies, G., (2009). “Neuro-linguistic programming: Cargo cult
psychology?”. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 1/2, 58–63.
Ryle, Gilbert, (1949). The Concept of Mind. London: Hutchinson University
Library. [Chicago: Chicago University Press. 2002]
Sharpley, Christopher F., (1984). ‘Predicate matching in NLP: A review of
research on the preferred representational system’. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 31, 238–48.
Tosey, P. & J. Mathison, (2006). ‘Introducing Neuro-linguistic
programming’. Centre for Management Learning & Development,
School of Management, University of Surrey.
Appendix 1
Questionnaire 1
Keirsey Temperament Sorter (KTS): Book version given before
NLP workshop.
Please read the questions and options provided carefully before
marking (_) the preference.
1) At a party do you: (b) leave early, with

(a) interact with many, decreased energy
including strangers 9) Are you a more:
(b) interact with a few, (a) sensible person
known to you (b) reflective person
2) Are you more: 10) Are you more drawn to:
(a) realistic (a) hard data
(b) philosophically inclined (b) abstruse ideas
3) Are you more intrigued by: 11) Is it more natural for you to be:
(a) facts (a) fair to others
(b) similes (b) nice to others
4) Are you usually more: 12) In first approaching others
(a) fair minded are you more:
(b) kind hearted (a) impersonal and
5) Do you tend to be more: detached
(a) dispassionate (b) personal and engaging
(b) sympathetic 13) Are you usually more:
6) Do you prefer to work: (a) punctual
(a) to deadlines (b) leisurely
(b) just “whenever” s 14) Does it bother you more
7) Do you tend to choose: having things:
(a) rather carefully (a) incomplete
(b) somewhat impulsively (b) completed
8) At parties do you: 15) In your social groups do you:
(a) stay late, with increasing (a) keep abreast of others’
energy happenings
(b) get behind on the new (b) more merciful than just
16) Are you usually more 27) Are you more comfortable:
interested in: (a) setting a schedule
(a) specifics (b) putting things off
(b) concepts 28) Are you more comfortable
17) Do you prefer writers who: with:
(a) say what they mean (a) written agreements
(b) use lots of analogies (b) handshake agreements
18) Are you more naturally: 29) In company do you:
(a) impartial (a) start conversations
(b) compassionate (b) wait to be approached
19) In judging are you more 30) Traditional common sense is:
likely to be: (a) usually trustworthy
(a) impersonal (b) often misleading
(b) sentimental 31) Children often do not:
20) Do you usually: (a) make themselves useful
(a) settle things enough
(b) keep options open (b) daydream enough
21) Are you usually rather: 32) Are you usually more:
(a) quick to agree to a time (a) tough minded
(b) reluctant to agree to a (b) tender hearted
time 33) Are you more:
22) In phoning do you: (a) firm than gentle
(a) just start talking (b) gentle than firm
(b) rehearse what you’ll say 34) Are you more prone to
23) Facts: keep things:
(a) speak for themselves (a) well organized
(b) usually require (b) open-ended
interpretation 35) Do you put more value on
24) Do you prefer to work with: the:
(a) practical information (a) definite
(b) abstract ideas (b) variable
25) Are you inclined to be more: 36) Does new interaction with
(a) cool headed others:
(b) warm hearted (a) stimulate and energize
26) Would you rather be: you
(a) more just than merciful (b) tax your reserves
37) Are you more frequently: 47) Do you value in yourself

(a) a practical sort of person more that you are:
(b) an abstract sort of (a) unwavering
person (b) devoted
38) Which are you drawn to: 48) Are you more comfortable
(a) accurate perception with:
(b) concept formation (a) final statements
39) Which is more satisfying: (b) tentative statements
(a) to discuss an issue 49) Are you more comfortable:
thoroughly (a) after a decision
(b) to arrive at agreement (b) before a decision
on an issue 50) Do you:
40) Which rules you more: (a) speak easily and at
(a) your head length with strangers
(b) your heart (b) find little to say to
41) Are you more comfortable strangers
with work: 51) Are you usually more
(a) contracted interested in the:
(b) done on a casual basis (a) particular instance
42) Do you prefer things to be: (b) general case
(a) neat and orderly 52) Do you feel:
(b) optional (a) more practical than
43) Do you prefer: ingenious
(a) many friends with brief (b) more ingenious than
contact practical
(b) a few friends with 53) Are you typically more a
longer contact person of:
44) Are you more drawn to: (a) clear reason
(a) substantial information (b) strong feeling
(b) credible assumptions 54) Are you inclined more to
45) Are you more interested in: be:
(a) production (a) fair-minded
(b) research (b) sympathetic
46) Are you more comfortable 55) Is it preferable mostly to:
when you are: (a) make sure things are
(a) objective arranged
(b) personal (b) just let things happen
56) Is it your way more to: (a) routinized

(a) get things settled (b) whimsical
(b) put off settlement 64) Are you more inclined to be:
57) When the phone rings do (a) easy to approach
you: (b) somewhat reserved
(a) hasten to get to it first 65) Do you have more fun
(b) hope someone else will with:
answer (a) hands-on experience
58) Do you prize more in (b) blue-sky fantasy
yourself a: 66) In writings do you
(a) good sense of reality prefer:
(b) good imagination (a) the more literal
59) Are you more drawn to: (b) the more figurative
(a) fundamentals 67) Are you usually more:
(b) overtones (a) unbiased
60) In judging are you usually (b) compassionate
more: 68) Are you typically more:
(a) neutral (a) just than lenient
(b) charitable (b) lenient than just
61) Do you consider yourself 69) Is it more like you to:
more: (a) make snap judgments
(a) clear headed (b) delay making
(b) good willed judgments
62) Are you more prone to: 70) Do you tend to be more:
(a) schedule events (a) deliberate than
(b) take things as they come spontaneous
63) Are you the person that is (b) spontaneous than
more: deliberate
Appendix 2
Questionnaire 2
Keirsey Temperament Sorter (KTS): Online version given after
NLP workshop
Please read the questions and options provided carefully before
marking (_) the preference.
1) I consider myself 8) I prefer to

(a) a good conversationalist (a) say right out what’s on
(b) a good listener my mind
2) Facts (b) keep my ears open
(a) speak for themselves 9) It is worse to
(b) illustrate principles (a) have your head in the
3) I often see clouds
(a) what’s right in front of me (b) be in a rut
(b) what can only be imagined 10) Common sense is
4) I feel that the greater fault (a) usually reliable
is to be (b) frequently questionable
(a) too compassionate 11) It is better to be
(b) too dispassionate (a) just than merciful
5) I’m more often (b) merciful than just
(a) a cool-headed person 12) With people I’m usually
(b) a warm-hearted person more
6) When finishing a job, I like to (a) gentle than firm
(a) tie up all loose ends (b) firm than gentle
(b) move on to something 13) I’m more a kind of
else (a) serious and determined
7) I tend to person
(a) make up my mind (b) easy going person
quickly 14) I love to
(b) pick and choose at (a) nail things down
some length (b) explore the possibilities
15) People consider me as 25) I think of myself as a

(a) easy to approach (a) tough-minded person
(b) somewhat reserved (b) tender-hearted person
16) I’m a person with 26) On the job, I want my
(a) a strong hold on reality activities
(b) a vivid imagination (a) Scheduled
17) I believe that children often (b) Unscheduled
do not 27) I prefer agreements to be
(a) make themselves useful (a) signed and sealed
enough (b) settled on a handshake
(b) exercise their fantasy 28) I’m inclined to be more
enough (a) hurried than leisurely
18) It is worse to be (b) leisurely than hurried
(a) a softy 29) Waiting in line, I often
(b) hard-nosed (a) stick to business
19) I see myself as basically (b) chat with others
(a) thick-skinned 30) I speak more in terms of
(b) thin-skinned (a) particulars than
20) I tend to notice generalities
(a) disorderliness (b) generalities than
(b) opportunities for particulars
change 31) I tend to be more
21) It is preferable mostly to (a) factual than speculative
(a) make sure things are (b) speculative than factual
arranged 32) When in charge of others I
(b) just let things happen tend to be
naturally (a) firm and unbending
22) I’m the kind of person (b) forgiving and lenient
who 33) I’m more comfortable in
(a) doesn’t miss much making
(b) is rather talkative (a) critical judgments
23) I prefer stories which have (b) value judgments
(a) action and adventure 34) I’m more comfortable
(b) fantasy and heroism (a) after a decision
24) I tend to be more (b) before a decision
(a) sensible than ideational 35) Clutter in the work place
(b) ideational than sensible is something I
(a) take time to straighten up 45) I’m inclined to take what

(b) tolerate pretty well is said
36) When asked to volunteer (a) more literally
for a public event (b) more figuratively
(a) I hurry to give my 46) What appeals to me more is
name first (a) consistency of thought
(b) I hope someone else (b) a harmonious relationship
will volunteer 47) I get swayed more by
37) I find visionaries and (a) convincing evidence
theorists (b) a touching appeal
(a) somewhat annoying 48) At work, it is more natural
(b) rather fascinating for me to
38) I’m more (a) point out mistakes
(a) observant than (b) try to please others
introspective 49) I usually want things
(b) introspective than (a) settled and decided
observant (b) just pencilled in
39) In making up my mind 50) I considered myself as
I’m more likely (a) an outgoing person
(a) to go by data (b) a private person
(b) to go by desires 51) I’m drawn more to
40) I value in myself more that (a) fundamentals
I’m (b) overtones
(a) Reasonable 52) I’m more interested in
(b) devoted (a) what is actual
41) What rules me more? (b) what is possible
(a) my thoughts 53) In hard circumstances, I’m
(b) my feelings sometimes
42) I prefer to work (a) too unsympathetic
(a) just whenever (b) too sympathetic
(b) to deadlines 54) In a heated discussion I
43) Interacting with new people (a) stick to my guns
(a) brings in lot of energy (b) look for common
(b) taxes my reserves ground
44) I’m more inclined to feel 55) I feel better about
(a) down to earth (a) coming to closure
(b) somewhat removed (b) keeping my options open
56) I’m more satisfied having 64) At a party, I love to

(a) my work in progress (a) interact with different
(b) my work finished people, even strangers
57) At work I feel comfortable (b) interact only with my
(a) being sociable with my friends
colleagues 65) I’m more likely to trust
(b) keeping more to myself (a) my experiences
58) I’m more frequently (b) my ideas
(a) a practical sort of 66) It is easier for me to
person (a) put others to good use
(b) a fanciful sort of person (b) identify with others
59) I like writers who 67) People can disappoint me
(a) use metaphors and by being
symbolism (a) warm and considerate
(b) say what they mean (b) frank and
60) I take it as a compliment if straightforward
someone says 68) In sizing up others, I tend
(a) I’m a logical person to be
(b) I’m a sentimental (a) friendly and personal
person (b) objective and
61) I wish more for myself, impersonal
(a) strength of will 69) I tend to choose
(b) strength of emotion (a) rather carefully
62) In most situations I’m more (b) somewhat impulsively
(a) deliberate than 70) I more often prefer
spontaneous a) final unaltered
(b) spontaneous than statements
deliberate b) tentative preliminary
63) I’m very statements
(a) routinized
(b) unpredictable
Appendix 3
Evaluation Table for Questionnaire 1 and 2
E1 I1 S1 N1 S2 N2 T1 F1 T2 F2 J1 P1 J2 P2
a b a b a b a b a b a b a b
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31 32 33 34 35
36 37 38 39 40 41 42
43 44 45 46 47 48 49
50 51 52 53 54 55 56
57 58 59 60 61 62 63
64 65 66 67 68 69 70
3 4 3 4 5 6 5 6 7 8 7 8
S1 N1 S2 N2 T1 F1 T2 F2 J1 P1 J2 P2
S1 N1 T1 F1 J1 P1
+S2 +N2 +T2 +F2 +J2 +P2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
E I S N T F J P

Steps to determine the typology
1. Transfer the answer from the test sheet to the answer sheed below. (put ‘X’ in the ‘a’ or ‘b’ box for each number)
2. Add the number of times ‘X’ occurs in each column and enter the total in the box directly below the associated column.
3. All totals with the same letters should be added together to form the new letter total. (ex: S1+S2=S)
4. Circle the highest value for each pair of letters. (ex: E or I, S or N, T or F, J or P)
5. The resulting 4 letters represent the typology.

Pandey&Kornana-General Semantics Neuro - Linguistic Prog

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pandey&Kornana-General Semantics Neuro - Linguistic Prog

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pandey&Kornana-General Semantics Neuro - Linguistic Prog

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pre-fifinal proofs-

Agnihotri, Khanna & Sehgal-Gupta-

E pistemologists and educationists have held two main aspects

language and reasoning. Philosophers (for example, positivists, such

In a language classroom, it is crucial for the teacher to understand

Uncertainty of Sensory Experience and Language

speaker‘s understanding of the world. Many studies in favour (e.g.

What does it mean for a turnip to be conceptually feminine or for

Boroditsky et al. (2003) report the results of an experiment on

as in speech—to represent the world to ourselves, and to embody

Assumptions and Techniques of NLP Analysis

REFRAMING, OUTCOME THINKING and RAPPORT

potential capabilities and help him/ her develop a strongly

The role of NLP as an analytical tool in uncovering the reasoning

Preference patterns in Myers-Briggs Type Indicator

personality types involves four main sets of dichotomy, namely,

TABLE 8.1 The four MBTI Dichotomies and Facets

Opposite functions of perception Opposite functions of judging

(Table 8.1 contd...)

Opposite attitudes of energy Opposite attitude toward the outside

The four MBTI dichotomous sets have their communicational

TABLE 8.2 Communication facets of the MBTI dichotomies

The Sensing-lntuition Dichotomy

The Thinking-Feeling Dichotomy

The Extraversion—Introversion Dichotomy

(Table 8.2 contd...)

doing, listening, observing, and reading and writing rather than by

The Judging and Perceiving Dichotomy

Table 8.2: Communication facets of the MBTI dichotomies

Subjects, questionnaires and their analyses

using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator [MBTI, as elaborated in

the dichotomy. The convention of breaking tied scores in this

Questionnaire Results: Questionnaire 1

TABLE 8.3 The distribution of personality types among the

ISTJ ISFJ ESTP ESFP 25%

Qestionnnaire Results: Questionnaire-2

TABLE 8.4 The distribution of personality types among the

ISTJ ISFJ ESTP ESFP 68.75%

FIGURE 8.1 Results based on Personality type (in percentage)

Before NLP After NLP

FIGURE 8.2 Results based on function preference (in percentage)

FIGURE 8.3 Results based on attitude preferences (in percentage)

Before NLP After NLP

FIGURE 8.4 Results based on attitude preferences (in percentage)

Before NLP After NLP

in the preference types of the participants as a consequence of the

This shows a balance in the attitude types and function types in

Mermin, N. David, (2005). It’s About Time: Understanding Einstein’s

1) At a party do you: (b) leave early, with

37) Are you more frequently: 47) Do you value in yourself

56) Is it your way more to: (a) routinized

1) I consider myself 8) I prefer to

15) People consider me as 25) I think of myself as a

(a) take time to straighten up 45) I’m inclined to take what

56) I’m more satisfied having 64) At a party, I love to

E I S N T F J P

You might also like