Hello. Earlier, I wrote that therapist responses could follow a procedure, in compliance with a policy, a policy described in terms of the concepts: (1) statement synonymy (2) deductive entailment (3) analytic predication (versus synthetic predication) (4) necessary truths (versus contingent truths) (5) statement presupposition (6) syntactic ambiguity (7) semantic ambiguity (8) semantic vagueness and, in addition, the concepts: (9) illocutionary intent (10) perlocutionary intent. the policy would be ethical, to accord with the principle that: (11) principle: the subjective connotations of your client's communication, when changed by you, needlessly and undesirably manipulate your client's experience. Concepts (9) and (10) could allow pursuit of the activity of: (12) development of terminology to describe therapy session verbal, paraverbal, and vocal transactions. Therapeutic metaphorical communication can be analyzed in terms of: (13) illocutionary intent (14) perlocutionary intent. Concepts (13) and (14) could help answer the question: (15) can therapeutic metaphorical communication possibly comply with a policy based on principle (11)? Steps to follow to answer question (15) are: (16) achieve activity (12) (17) create examples of therapeutic metaphorical communication (18) describe the examples created in (17), with the terms developed in (16) (19) determine whether the metaphorical communications, described in (18), follow an ethical policy, a policy based on principle (11). More steps, or different steps, than (16) through (19), are possible.  But I think steps (16) through (19) are adequate, because: (20) therapeutic metaphorical speech acts CAN be misinterpreted by a client, against the perlocutionary intent of a therapist, the therapist that produced the metaphorical speech acts. -nj