Cross mapping the NANDA taxonomy with that of the ICNP®ß2 is the topic of this presentation. The seemingly simple process has encountered hardships of semantics and syntax. Ours is a method of harmonizing the outliers of NANDA. Background: In 2004, NANDA received an invitation from the leadership of the ICN and ICNP®ß2 to join forces in an endeavor to cross map the two systems. In such an attempt, we began our project by mapping the fundamental concepts (Axis 1) of the NANDA Taxonomy II to the Phenomena of Axis A, (Focus of Nursing Practice) of the ICNP®ß2. Whereas the majority of NANDA concepts were mapped to the ICNP®ß2 phenomena, a critical minority had no equivalence. Major problems were syntactic differences (i.e. tense) and inconsistency in the categorization of NANDA terminology. The ICNP®ß2, while more grammatically consistent was too general. Following the basic cross-mapping, we listed unidentifiable concepts which we then subjected to analysis via Optimality Theory of Linguistics. Our OT model demonstrates the analytical process. We follow with a proposal for straightforward fixes which can have a universal effect on the NANDA/ICNP and similar mapping projects. The utilization of linguistic theory for semantic and syntactic harmonization adds to the traditional base of international nursing knowledge, thereby vitalizing international application. Objectives: 1. To standardize the language of nursing, thereby adding to the profession’s fund of knowledge 2. To introduce an innovative method for mapping nursing concepts/phenomena 3. To vitalize the profession through interdisciplinary collaboration in nursing linguistics by introducing a pragmatic neo-nursing model. Methodology: 1. Mapping: a.Identifying an ICNP®ß2 Phenomenon for a NANDA Concept through semantic and syntactic comparison. b.Using a dictionary and thesaurus for validation. 2. Identifying disharmonic terms between the two systems through OT 3. Creating an OT model for repair 4. Developing model cases to serve as guides for mappers Results: 1. A majority of terms were harmonic. 2. Lack of definitions for NANDA Axis 1 concepts made the mapping difficult 3. ICNP®ß phenomena were global, vague and verbose. 4. Difficulty in validating the mapping process 5. Development of a repair model via OT for disharmonic terms (Innovation) 6. Development of model demonstration cases to illustrate the linguistic repair model for future use (Vitality) Conclusions: 1. Inter and intra-system syntax should be standardized for harmonic intersystem communication. NOTE: We plan on discussing some changes in the ICNP ® Version 1, time permitting a quick analysis of it.