.png)
14 hours ago
1
Press enter or click to view image in full size
Here’s something to try: spend the next minute speaking without using the word “is.” No “He is tired.” No “This is unfair.” Not even that weary “It is what it is.” Feels strange, doesn’t it? How long before you noticed the absence of something you’d never consciously considered?
If you attempted this, you’ve just tasted E-Prime — a version of English that asks the verb “to be” to quietly leave the room. At first glance, it resembles one of those intellectual exercises that emerge during marathon university discussions when everyone has consumed too much caffeine and too little sleep. Yet something unexpected happens when you persist with E-Prime. It begins pushing you towards precision, accountability, and occasionally, surprising gentleness.
Most of us have conversations entirely unaware of our dependence on that small word “is.” But what I’ve found is that this goes beyond grammatical tinkering. E-Prime actually reshapes how you think, how you perceive the world, how you engage with people, how you understand yourself. What starts as a mildly entertaining word puzzle slowly becomes something more substantial: a different way of navigating the complexity of human interaction.
What E-Prime Actually Does
E-Prime (short for English Prime) eliminates every form of the verb “to be”: no “is,” “am,” “are,” “was,” “were,” “be,” “being,” or “been.” Instead of “She is brilliant,” you might say “She explains quantum physics so clearly that I actually grasp it, which feels miraculous.” Seems like a minor adjustment, right? But observe what happens — it consistently draws you away from vague, habitual descriptions towards what you genuinely experienced.
The idea rests on solid intellectual foundations. Alfred Korzybski developed General Semantics, essentially the study of how language distorts our perception of reality. His famous observation that “The map is not the territory” cautioned us that our words can mislead us about what they’re meant to describe. In the 1960s, linguist David Bourland Jr. took this insight and made it practical. He argued that “the verb ‘to be’ in English…creates a structural confusion between identification and predication,” and that removing it “forces speakers to be more specific about what they mean.” Simply put, eliminating the verb “to be” compels us to work harder to express what we actually think.
Press enter or click to view image in full size
Why Bother With This Linguistic Exercise?
We’ve all witnessed perfectly reasonable conversations detonate because someone selected exactly the wrong words. Someone declares, “You’re inconsiderate,” and suddenly you’ve abandoned the original issue. You’re now having that other argument — the one about character, blame, and who wounded whom. Now imagine the same moment with different phrasing: “I felt hurt when you didn’t return my call.” The contrast proves striking. The first statement delivers a verdict. The second creates space for much richer information.
E-Prime won’t prevent every relationship disaster, obviously. But it introduces a pause — that crucial moment where reflection might enter. Communication researchers support this approach: studies demonstrate that “I-statements” rather than “you-statements” genuinely reduce defensiveness and improve outcomes. The shift moves us from sweeping pronouncements to observable facts. Instead of “He is arrogant,” consider “He interrupted me three times, and I felt dismissed.” Same emotional reality, entirely different atmosphere.
Press enter or click to view image in full size
Rewriting That Internal Dialogue
How we address ourselves matters more than most of us care to acknowledge. “I am a failure” strikes like a final judgement — as though your entire existence could be compressed into three crushing words. Consider instead “I really botched that presentation, and I feel awful about it.” One statement slams the door; the other at least keeps it slightly open.
Cognitive Behavioural Therapy has advocated this approach for decades. Pioneering therapist Aaron Beck observed that depressed patients typically view themselves, their world, and their future negatively through language that transforms temporary setbacks into permanent character flaws. E-Prime doesn’t excuse poor performance, but it accomplishes something more nuanced: it converts rigid labels into flexible components — feelings, actions, and patterns that might actually change. Sometimes that shift towards self-compassion transforms everything.
Press enter or click to view image in full size
Language, Politics, and Rhetorical Sleight of Hand
Politicians maintain a passionate relationship with the verb “to be” because it allows them to present opinions as unquestionable facts. “That is dangerous.” “This is freedom.” “She is untrustworthy.” These statements close down discussion while appearing refreshingly decisive.
George Orwell identified this tactic decades ago, noting that political language frequently aims “to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” E-Prime disrupts these rhetorical mechanisms. It exchanges declarations for descriptions: “She made contradictory statements, which made me question her reliability.” Suddenly the audience has something to examine rather than simply accept. In our current climate of spin and soundbites, that approach feels quietly subversive.
Creativity Through Constraint
Ask any poet about creative limitations, and they’ll probably enthuse about sonnets and haiku. Restrictions don’t suffocate creativity — they channel it into unexpected territory. Robert Frost grasped this when he observed that “Poetry provides the one permissible way of saying one thing and meaning another.” Eliminating “to be” functions similarly. “The sky was grey” transforms into “Storm clouds wrapped the horizon in pewter.” Less economical, perhaps, but considerably more evocative.
Research validates this apparent contradiction. Creativity expert Patricia Stokes discovered that “constraints can actually enhance creativity by forcing individuals to think outside established patterns.” Without our familiar linguistic support, we begin showing rather than telling. Sentences develop texture and weight. Meaning, surprisingly, becomes more vivid.
Therapy and the Art of Reframing
Therapists have been applying E-Prime principles for years, though they might not label it as such. Albert Ellis, who developed Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy, devoted his career to challenging what he wryly termed “musturbation” — rigid thinking patterns expressed through absolute language. “I am damaged” becomes “I feel overwhelmed and frightened right now.” Both acknowledge pain, but only one preserves the possibility of change.
Ellis expressed it directly: “When people say ‘I am a failure,’ they make a gross overgeneralisation from their specific failing acts.” These linguistic adjustments might appear minor, but they often prove transformative. They provide language that feels honest without feeling condemning. Sometimes that shift alone initiates the healing process.
Press enter or click to view image in full size
Students and the Death of Lazy Thinking
Teachers experimenting with E-Prime frequently watch their students abandon empty generalisations. “Mozart is a genius” tells us nothing valuable; “Mozart’s Jupiter Symphony makes me feel like I’m accidentally eavesdropping on a celestial conversation” requires actual thought — and genuine courage.
Educational research confirms this transformation. When students shift from merely repeating information to genuinely grappling with ideas, the quality of their thinking improves dramatically. Instead of echoing received wisdom, they begin exploring their own responses. More demanding? Absolutely. Better thinking? Almost invariably.
When E-Prime Doesn’t Work
We should remain realistic — E-Prime doesn’t suit every situation. “Water is H₂O” functions perfectly well. “The train was late” doesn’t require philosophical intervention. Not every sentence needs to trigger an existential examination.
Even David Bourland recognised this limitation, cautioning that E-Prime “should not become a rigid dogma” but rather serve as “a tool for clearer thinking and more precise expression.” The objective isn’t linguistic perfectionism — it’s awareness. Use “to be” when it clarifies meaning. Question it when it flattens complexity or enables thoughtless blame. Consider E-Prime as a precision instrument, not a blunt tool.
A Personal Experiment
The first time I attempted E-Prime, I stumbled over the most basic observations. Challenging a language habit that runs so deep feels genuinely difficult. “That person is disabled” wanted to emerge, but instead I said, “That person becomes breathless when they walk more than five metres.” The revision surprised me — it sounded stronger, more useful, less dismissive, and something I could actually respond to if needed. It felt less like something easily dismissed and forgotten.
Gradually, I noticed subtler changes. I interrupted people less frequently (though I still have to be mindful of this). I blamed others less often. Somehow, more careful language created space for patience, and people responded differently. Communication researchers call this “linguistic accommodation” — when speakers modify their style, it frequently generates more positive responses from listeners. Who would have imagined one troublesome verb could create such ripples?
Small Changes, Significant Effects
You don’t need to embrace E-Prime completely to benefit from its influence. Try writing a few emails without “to be.” Rewrite some social media posts. It feels uncomfortable initially — like attempting to write with your non-dominant hand — but with practice, it can feel surprisingly natural.
Even everyday irritations provide opportunities. Next time someone cuts into your lane, instead of muttering “That driver is an absolute moron,” try “He swerved into my lane, and I feel quite shaken.” Road rage research demonstrates that reframing incidents through cognitive reappraisal strategies significantly reduces aggressive responses. It won’t get you home any faster, but it might spare you a cardiovascular episode.
Relationships and the Language of Blame
In intimate relationships, word choice carries tremendous weight. “You are thoughtless” lands like a physical blow. “I felt ignored when you forgot our anniversary” creates different possibilities — ones that might actually lead somewhere constructive.
Relationship expert John Gottman’s research identifies “criticism” — attacking character rather than behaviour — as one of the “Four Horsemen” that predict relationship failure. Couples who experiment with E-Prime often report fewer explosive arguments and more meaningful exchanges. When partners describe their experience instead of assigning blame, something fundamental shifts. They begin hearing each other instead of merely reacting.
The Compassion in Precision
We rarely intend to wound others with our words, yet language sometimes inflicts unintended damage. Labels like “He is hopeless” or “I am useless” freeze people in place. E-Prime gently releases them.
Person-first language research demonstrates this principle clearly. Studies reveal that saying “person with autism” rather than “autistic person” reduces stigma and promotes more positive attitudes. It creates space for complexity. “She lives with depression” or “He struggles with anxiety” acknowledges difficulty without reducing someone to their diagnosis. Both approaches can feel accurate, but E-Prime typically offers more breathing room — and dignity.
Press enter or click to view image in full size
E-Prime Against Shame
Shame flourishes in sentences beginning with “I am.” “I am a terrible mother.” “I am worthless.” Researcher Brené Brown’s work distinguishes between guilt (“I did something bad”) and shame (“I am bad”), noting that shame correlates strongly with “addiction, depression, violence, aggression, bullying, suicide, eating disorders.” E-Prime doesn’t dismiss the pain, but it reframes the experience. “I lost my temper with my daughter, and I feel deeply ashamed” leaves room for growth. It maintains accountability while allowing us to breathe.
Moving from identity to experience creates an escape route. That small distinction sometimes marks the beginning of self-forgiveness.
An Invitation, Not a Directive
You don’t need to become a linguistic purist to explore E-Prime. You don’t need to treat “is” as though it personally insulted your family. But what if you experimented for a day? Simply to observe what happens?
Pay attention to your words. Notice how others respond. You might surprise yourself. You might discover that your language — like your thinking — contains more flexibility than you previously realised.
That seems worth exploring.
References
Beck, A. T. (1976). Cognitive therapy and the emotional disorders. International Universities Press.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bourland, D. D., Jr. (1965). A linguistic note: Writing in E-Prime. General Semantics Bulletin, 32, 111–114.
Bourland, D. D., Jr., & Johnston, P. D. (Eds.). (1991). To be or not: An E-Prime anthology. International Society for General Semantics.
Brown, B. (2012). Daring greatly: How the courage to be vulnerable transforms the way we live, love, parent, and lead. Gotham Books.
Deffenbacher, J. L., Stephens, A. N., & Sullman, M. J. M. (2016). Driving anger as a psychological construct: Twenty years of research using the Driving Anger Scale. Transportation Research Part F, 42, 236–247.
Dunn, D. S., & Andrews, E. E. (2015). Person-first and identity-first language: Developing psychologists’ cultural competence using disability language. American Psychologist, 70(3), 255–264.
Ellis, A. (1994). Reason and emotion in psychotherapy (Rev. ed.). Birch Lane Press.
Frost, R. (1939). The figure a poem makes. In Complete poems of Robert Frost (pp. 131–133). Henry Holt.
Giles, H., Coupland, N., & Coupland, J. (1991). Accommodation theory: Communication, context, and consequence. In H. Giles, J. Coupland, & N. Coupland (Eds.), Contexts of accommodation (pp. 1–68). Cambridge University Press.
Gottman, J. M. (1999). The marriage clinic: A scientifically based marital therapy. W. W. Norton.
Gottman, J. M., & Levenson, R. W. (1992). Marital processes predictive of later dissolution: Behavior, physiology, and health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(2), 221–233.
Korzybski, A. (1933). Science and sanity: An introduction to non-Aristotelian systems and general semantics. Institute of General Semantics.
Orwell, G. (1946). Politics and the English language. Horizon, 13(76), 252–265.
Stokes, P. D. (2005). Creativity from constraints: The psychology of breakthrough. Springer Publishing Company.
