| |
| |
| |
| |
The entire book is about modeling, and it repeatedly bemoans the lack of modeling in the field. “In particular we refer to the lack of modeling, the very activity that defines the core of this discipline NLP.” (p. vii) “The vast majority of the actual activity at present in what is loosely referred to as the field of NLP is application and training.” (p. 55.) “It is regrettable that creating variations on such themes seem to be the principle focus of much activity in NLP as opposed to modeling of new patterns itself.” (p. 225) There is a great deal of discussion about the difference between NLP modeling, application, design, variations, and training (pp. 50-56), and in particular the difference between a new model and an application of an old model.
However, after reading the entire book very carefully several times, I’m still unclear what the distinctions are, and which patterns the book would place in each category.
The meta model is described as both the first model in NLP (pp. 142-163) and also as an application of the model already existing in transformational grammar.“The meta model can, for example, be usefully understood to be an application of the modeling of linguistic patterning inspired by Transformational Grammar” (p. 51).
The Milton Model is described as the third model in NLP (pp. 173-183) and elsewhere as the inverse of the meta model—in other words, the distinctions are (mostly) the same, only the uses are different, which seems to make it also an application of an existing model, rather than a new model. In short, no criteria are provided that would clearly distinguish between these different categories of modeling.
The book states that “The new code is an excellent example of pure design, a pure manipulation of these variables.” (p. 51)
OK, let’s take a look.
| |
| |
| |
|
|
