Abstract: Reviews the historical context out of which R. Bandler and J. Grinder's (1975, 1976, 1979) theory of neurolinguistic programming emerged, in order to provide some insight into the theory's underlying premises. Influences from Husserl's phenomenological philosophy; W. Wundt's study of language, myth, and custom; and C. Rogers (1951) and Chomsky (1957) are discussed. Borrowing extensively from Chomsky's (1947) theory of transformational grammar, Bandler and Grinder outlined a step-by-step analysis of a client's language as presented in therapy, the surface and deep meanings of these structures, and specific meanings of these structures. Communication analysis has championed the existence of innate unobservable processes that influence communication, but it is limited by the lack of empirical research and the failure to recognize the importance of environmental influences on behavior. As an alternative to the narrow approach it is welcome, but in many ways the innate mechanisms of their neurolinguistic programming cannot account for all verbal behavior. It is concluded that experimental examinations will help to clarify the neurolinguistic programming model and its effectiveness and may lead to future improvements. (9 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2005 APA, all rights reserved).