What We Think We Hear: The Hidden Filters in Everyday Listening
Most of us listen with the intention to understand — or at least, we believe we do. But if we were to replay a transcript of our everyday conversations, we might notice something surprising: we are often not listening to what is actually being said — we are listening for where we can jump in. With advice. A story. An insight. A fix.
We are not really hearing them — we are hearing ourselves in them.
We are listening through interpretation. Through projection. Through our version of reality.
There is nothing inherently wrong with this. In fact, it is deeply human. Our brains are wired for pattern recognition — for leaping ahead in conversation to anticipate what someone must mean, even before they have finished the sentence [1]. But in that very act of assumption — even with the best intentions — something subtle is lost.
We begin to overlay our own mental maps onto someone else’s terrain.
We interrupt the organic unfolding of their inner world.
Clean Language is a way of reversing this reflex. It offers a framework for listening that is radically respectful — not only of what someone says, but of how they construct meaning. It invites us to speak less and notice more. To become curious about another person’s internal world — not by asking leading questions or offering interpretations, but by honouring the exact words they use, and gently helping those words unfold [2][3].
Originating in psychotherapy and now influencing coaching, leadership, education, and even everyday relationships, Clean Language teaches us to step back, speak with precision, and listen with humility. It is not just a communication tool — it is a practice of presence.
It is a little like being a curious child again: eager to understand the world through someone else’s eyes.
In this article, we explore how Clean Language can reshape ordinary conversations — helping us become better listeners not in the performative sense, but in a way that makes space for another person’s mind to emerge.
What Is Clean Language?
Clean Language is a way of asking questions that keeps your assumptions out of the conversation — so that the other person’s experience can unfold on its own terms.
It was originally developed by New Zealand-born psychotherapist David Grove in the 1980s [4]. Working with clients who had experienced trauma, Grove noticed that people often described their inner experiences using metaphor — “a weight on my chest,” “a fog I can’t see through,” “a knot in my stomach.” Rather than reinterpreting these metaphors or offering explanations, Grove began to ask a very specific kind of question — one that used the person’s exact words and added almost nothing of his own [5].
“And what kind of knot is that knot?”
“And where is that fog?”
“And is there anything else about that weight?”
The questions sound simple. Almost strange. But their structure is intentional — designed to keep the questioner’s interpretations, suggestions, and assumptions out of the conversation [6].
A Simple Example
Imagine someone says, “I feel stuck.”
Most of us, wanting to help, might respond:
“Why do you feel stuck?”
“What’s making you feel that way?”
“Have you tried changing your routine?”
These are well-meaning — but each question subtly redirects attention. They introduce a framework: that there is a cause, a reason, a fix. That “stuck” is a problem to be solved.
Now compare that to a Clean Language approach:
“And what kind of stuck is that stuck?”
“And where is that stuck?”
“And is there anything else about that stuck?”
These questions do not analyse or solve. They stay inside the person’s experience — using their exact words — and invite more of it to emerge [7].
Often, what unfolds is surprising — even to the speaker.
“It’s like being in thick mud… grey, slow, and heavy.”
“And what kind of mud is that mud?”
“It’s cold. And it’s familiar — like I’ve been here before.”
Here, the metaphor begins to deepen. Insight arises not by dissecting the problem, but by being with it, without interference.
In Team Conversations
This approach is just as powerful in team settings, where miscommunication often arises from unseen assumptions [8].
Imagine a manager asks a team member, “How are you feeling about the upcoming launch?”
The employee replies: “Honestly, I feel under water.”
A typical managerial response might be:
“Okay, what tasks can we help you delegate?”
“Are you worried about meeting the deadline?”
Again — well-intended, but subtly interpretive. They begin to translate “under water” into time management or performance concerns.
A Clean Language-informed response might be:
“And what kind of ‘under water’ is that ‘under water’?”
“And where is that ‘under water’?”
These questions stay with the metaphor and create space for a richer inner reality to surface — maybe the person is overwhelmed not by tasks, but by invisibility, isolation, or emotional pressure.
It is not about being passive — it is about being precise.
By resisting the urge to interpret, we give someone the rare experience of being heard exactly as they are [6].
Why Clean Language Matters — What is Happening Beneath the Surface
At first glance, Clean Language might seem almost too subtle to matter — even a little strange. A shift in phrasing. A choice to reflect rather than reinterpret. But these small differences speak to something much deeper: how we relate to other people’s minds — and to our own.
When we ask a leading question or offer a premature solution, we are often acting from a good place — a desire to help, to speed up clarity, to fix discomfort. But underneath that reflex is a deeper assumption: that we already understand. That we know what someone means. That insight can be delivered rather than discovered [1].
From a psychological standpoint, this is a projection of our internal model — a mental map of reality shaped by our own history, culture, emotional wiring, and unconscious biases [9]. When we impose that model — even subtly — onto someone else, we are not helping them see more clearly. We are often pulling them off their own path of meaning-making.
Clean Language works precisely because it resists that projection. It slows the conversation down just enough to let the person’s inner landscape reveal itself — in their words, images, and metaphors [5].
The Neuroscience of Meaning
Modern neuroscience supports this. The brain is not a passive processor of reality — it is a predictive engine, constantly anticipating what is coming based on past experience [10]. In conversation, this means we do not just hear words — we generate expectations, jump to conclusions, and fill in blanks before they have been spoken.
This mental shorthand is driven by cognitive heuristics — fast, automatic thinking patterns that help us make quick judgments, but can also distort perception and limit genuine understanding [11].
Clean Language disrupts these reflexes by keeping us anchored to what was actually said — not what we think was meant.
Clean Language also supports the conditions under which the brain’s self-reflective systems — particularly those associated with the default mode network (DMN) — may become active, allowing people to explore metaphor and symbolic meaning with minimal external interference [12][13].
Systems Thinking: The Ethics of Non-Interference
From a systems perspective, Clean Language is elegant. It does not treat the mind as a machine to fix, but as a self-organizing system — one that, when given space and attention, can generate its own insights and movements toward change [14].
As cyberneticist Gregory Bateson once said, “The most important information is the information that changes you.” [14] But for that information to emerge, the system (in this case, the person) needs minimal external noise. Too much interference, and the system adapts to the intervener — not to itself.
In this sense, Clean Language is not just a technique. It is an ethical stance.
It recognises that when we speak into someone else’s metaphor too quickly, we might be rearranging their reality instead of helping them understand it.
Clean Language in Practice — Tools for Everyday Listening
Clean Language is not just a therapeutic technique. It’s a way of being in conversation — one that slows down our reflex to interpret, advise, or reframe someone else’s experience, and instead invites their meaning to unfold on its own terms [5].
1. Reflect Their Words Exactly
“And when everything’s moving too fast, what kind of fast is that?”
This helps someone reconnect to their experience — often leading to metaphors or insights that were not previously accessible. Our metaphors are not just descriptive — they are structural. They shape how we understand problems, possibilities, and even ourselves [15].
2. Use “What kind of…?” and “Is there anything else about…?”
These foundational Clean Language questions were developed by David Grove and later formalised by practitioners such as Lawley, Tompkins, Sullivan and Rees [4][5][6].
3. Stay in Their Metaphor
If someone says, “I feel like I’m under water,” do not translate it. Stay with it.
“And what kind of under water is that under water?”
The metaphor itself is doing important psychological work. Honour it.
4. Do not Rush to Resolve
Insight is not a puzzle to be solved. Let pauses breathe.
Let metaphors unfold in their own time.
5. Try It On Yourself
Clean Language can also be used for self-inquiry:
“And what kind of tired is that tired?”
“And where is that tension?”
“And is there anything else about that feeling?”
Listening to yourself with this same respectful precision can be as transformative as being heard by another.
Clean Language as a Practice of Presence
In a world saturated with noise — advice, opinion, urgency — Clean Language offers something rare: a way of being with another person that does not require knowing, fixing, or leading.
A way of creating true human connection.
It is not just a communication tool. It is a discipline of restraint.
A form of relational mindfulness [3].
By asking questions that honour someone’s exact words, we create a space where the mind can hear itself more clearly. Where metaphor becomes a mirror, and silence becomes part of the dialogue.
This is what makes Clean Language more than a technique — it is a kind of ritual attention.
In systems theory, small shifts at the right point can have powerful, even transformative effects [14]. Clean Language operates in that space — not by pushing for change, but by allowing it to emerge organically, from within the system itself.
At morpheose, we specialize in teaching professionals how to integrate Clean Language into their communication, coaching, and leadership styles — using neuroscience, systems thinking, and embodied inquiry. Our trainings and workshops support individuals and teams to listen more deeply, ask more effectively, and connect more authentically.
Sources:
- Friston, K. (2010). The free-energy principle: a unified brain theory? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(2), 127–138.
- Sullivan, W., & Rees, J. (2008). Clean Language: Revealing Metaphors and Opening Minds. Crown House Publishing.
- Tompkins, P., & Lawley, J. (1997). Less is More … The Art of Clean Language, Rapport, 35.
- Grove, D., & Panzer, I. (1989). Resolving Traumatic Memories: Metaphors and Symbols in Psychotherapy.
- Lawley, J., & Tompkins, P. (2000). Metaphors in Mind: Transformation Through Symbolic Modelling. The Developing Company Press.
- Clean Language Resources: https://cleanlanguage.co.uk
- Tompkins, P., & Lawley J. (2023). Introducing Clean Language. Rapport. 81.
- Renee Edwards et al. (2017). “That’s Not What I Meant”. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 36(2), 188-210.
- Leitch, A. et al. (2011). Mental Models: An Interdisciplinary Synthesis of Theory and Methods. Ecology and Society. 16(1).
- Clark, A. (2013). Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 36(3), 181–204.
- Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
- Andrews-Hanna, J. R., Smallwood, J., & Spreng, R. N. (2014). The default network and self-generated thought. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1316(1), 29–52.
- Menon, V. (2023). 20 years of the default mode network. Neuron, 111(3), 362–388.
- Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an Ecology of Mind. University of Chicago Press.
- Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. University of Chicago Press.
