Milton Model: Using Quantifiers in Speech

Being able to speak ambiguously is one of the most important communication skills. This skill is essential for building and maintaining rapport, constructing metaphors, conducting verbal interventions, and in many other situations. When we speak, the listener matches our words to their own experiences that they believe fit the description. This continues as long as they feel there is a match. The more ambiguous the speech, the more situations it can apply to. However, speech that is too ambiguous can irritate the listener and provoke resistance.

For example:

• People make mistakes.
• No, not everyone makes mistakes!

What happened here? The general phrase “people make mistakes” was interpreted by the listener as “all people make mistakes,” which triggered a protest. We often become critical of such overgeneralizations, especially in advertising, political slogans, or newspaper headlines. When we hear them in conversation, rapport can be broken.

Not only overgeneralizations but also excessively vague speech can provoke similar reactions:

• There are people who, for some reason, neglect certain norms.
• If someone, somewhere, sometimes, doesn’t want to live honestly.

Therefore, when constructing phrases, it’s important to control the level of vagueness and avoid creating more ambiguity than necessary. In other words, speak with an optimally appropriate level of (in)definiteness.

Quantifiers

A quantifier (from Latin quantum — “how much”) is a logical operation that gives a quantitative characteristic to the set of objects to which an expression applies. In everyday language, such characteristics are conveyed by words like “all,” “every,” “some,” “exists,” “there is,” “any,” “each,” “only,” “several,” “infinitely many,” “a finite number,” as well as all numerical quantifiers.

In language models used in NLP (Meta and Milton models), only the universal quantifier is typically considered. However, using other quantifiers, especially existential quantifiers, can provide additional tools and expand the possibilities for verbal influence for those practicing NLP or Ericksonian hypnosis.

When we talk about a set of objects or actions, quantifiers are necessary to clarify whether a statement applies to the entire set or just a part of it. For example, if we say “people,” the statement can be interpreted as “all people” or “some people.” The same applies to verbs: “make mistakes” can mean “always make mistakes,” “make mistakes in something,” “make mistakes constantly,” or “make mistakes sometimes.”

Universal Quantifiers

Universal quantifiers in speech create certain restrictions, as they assert that “there are no exceptions.” In language, they are expressed by words like: all, always, constantly, every, nobody, nothing, never, etc.

• All the speakers laughed.
• No one paid attention to him.
• She is always surprised.
• Ivan Petrovich was never late.

Universal quantifiers can mean “for all/everything”: all, always, everywhere; or “for none/nothing”: never, nowhere, nobody, nothing.

Existential Quantifiers

Existential quantifiers indicate that “the set is not empty,” that some phenomenon or thing exists, adding a shade of uncertainty to speech. They are expressed by words like: someone, something, some, several, sometimes, once, happens, occurs, etc.

• Something happened to us.
• Someone doesn’t have food.
• Men can be inconsistent.
• Sometimes Ivanov visited the neighbor upstairs.

Grammatically, existential quantifiers can be expressed as:

• Pronouns: someone, something, some, whose, a few, anything;
• Verbs: happens, occurs, takes place;
• Adverbs: occasionally, sometimes;
• Adjectives: rare, possible, probable;
• Numerals: some, many, few, several;
• Participles: happening, occurring, being.

As you can see, there are many more existential quantifiers in speech than universal ones.

Numerical Quantifiers

Numerical quantifiers simply indicate the exact size of a set or its part. They are rarely used in vague speech.

• One, both, three, five, half, two-thirds.

Types of Ambiguity

For the subject, ambiguity concerns both the “size of the portion” described by the quantifier and the precision of its definition.

• Men think about family.
• Some men think about family.
• Most men think about family.
• Certain men think about family.

Similarly, for the object:

• Men think about family.
• Men think about any family.
• Men think about the whole family.
• Men think about someone’s family.

For the predicate, ambiguity almost always exists and concerns duration, frequency, place, reason, etc.:

• Men think about family.
• Men at least occasionally think about family.
• Men constantly think about family.
• Men somewhere think about family.
• Men for some reason think about family.

Increasing Ambiguity

Let’s see how ambiguity increases with the use of quantifiers.

Universal Quantifiers

They indicate no exceptions—either “all” or “none.” Thus, there is no ambiguity, which often provokes resistance and a desire to check if there really are no exceptions.

• All employees…
• None of the companies…

Numerical Quantifiers

These are fairly specific, but they indicate the size of a part, not who or what exactly is included. So, there can be variations.

• Half of the employees are against it.
• Two-thirds of companies experience cash shortages.

Existential Quantifiers

Even more ambiguous—not only is it unclear what is included in the “portion,” but also the exact size of that portion.

• Some employees…
• Most companies…

Within existential quantifiers, there are also gradations. For example, words like rarely, often, many, most, several are more specific than occasionally, someone, somewhere, happens.

Absence of a Quantifier

For the subject and object, if we’re talking about a set but no quantifier is present, this creates extra ambiguity: does the statement apply to the whole set or just a part? The absence of a quantifier before the predicate only increases its ambiguity, but not more than that.

• Employees are against it.
• Companies experience cash shortages.

Replacing Meaningful Words with Quantifiers

Quantifiers can replace meaningful words:

• All people work.
• Everyone works.
• Many workers were against it.
• Many were against it.

This increases ambiguity, as it’s unclear which set the quantifier refers to. For example, the last phrase could mean “many workers,” “many workers and their relatives,” “the plant management,” “a large part of the city’s population,” etc. Here, ambiguity increases relative to the level set by the quantifier itself.

Application

Portion Size

Universal quantifiers indicate “all or nothing,” while the “portion size” described by existential quantifiers changes more smoothly: rarely – happens – often – constantly. If we combine them, we get a scale: never – rarely – happens – constantly – always. At the ends are universal quantifiers, which at first indicate that nothing like this exists, and at the end—that it’s “everything.”

• Most physicists agree with this.
• I constantly assess the market situation.

It’s best to be cautious with extremes, i.e., using universal quantifiers. For example, “all psychologists know this” instead of “most psychologists know this” may be met with resistance. However, if you can refer to “everyone,” the phrase will sound more convincing.

• All management members want to change the situation.
• We always fill out the paperwork correctly.

If you want to indicate rarity, it’s better to reduce the portion size:

• Occasionally, we have to review the situation.
• We all make mistakes sometimes.
• None of us wants anything bad for you.

If you don’t know the details—how often something happens, how many people are involved—it’s best to use a “medium portion size,” which is the most ambiguous:

• It happens that people get offended.
• Some companies try to settle amicably.

Creating Truisms

Quantifiers can be effectively used to construct truisms—statements that are (supposedly) absolutely true:

• Women can be talkative.
• Right now, somewhere, someone is eating something.
• Sometimes you really want to drop everything.

We need to create expressions that fully match the client’s map and don’t provoke objections. In most cases, overly precise expressions (except for well-known facts) are not suitable. Thus, universal quantifiers and numerical quantifiers are only good for verifiable situations.

• You are all sitting. (Indeed, no one is standing in the room.)
• There are two pencils on the table. (If there really are two.)

However, the statement “Half of humanity are men” may not be accepted as a truism, and someone might object that “there are fewer men than half.” So, it’s more convenient to use universal and numerical quantifiers in truisms together with existential quantifiers.

• Almost half of humanity are men.
• In every woman’s life, there comes a moment when she’s ready to explode.

Be careful with the absence of quantifiers, as the most common interpretation is as a universal quantifier. For example, in response to “Women are sensitive,” you might hear, “Well, not all of them!” As a result, the most commonly used tool is the existential quantifier.

• Rare is the bird that flies to the middle of the Dnieper.
• In some situations, it’s hard to figure things out.
• It happens that people misunderstand you.

Using Truisms

Establishing and Maintaining Rapport

If you say something that fully matches reality, you’re likely to match the listener’s map exactly.

• Most companies eventually go bankrupt.
• Some people write complete nonsense.
• Sometimes it’s hard to deal with yourself.

Creating a Certain Frame of Perception

• We all think about the eternal at least sometimes.

This phrase shifts the focus to “the eternal” and prepares for a conversation on that topic. If a client is very worried about their actions, you can start with:

• All people make mistakes at least sometimes.

This suggests that even successful people can make mistakes, and the client can be successful even if they did something “wrong.”

To boost the client’s confidence, you can say:

• We can handle almost any problem if we try.

The same situation can have several opposite, yet absolutely true, perspectives:

• Women can be extremely irritable.
• There are very balanced women.

So, it all depends on your goal.

Breaking Limiting Beliefs

Universal quantifiers are often found in limiting beliefs:

• No one loves me.
• Men always lie.
• All good things come to an end.

To break such beliefs, you need to increase the ambiguity of the statement, which creates more options.

Adding an Existential Quantifier

For example, you can add existential quantifiers to universal ones, resulting in “a general rule, but not for everyone.”

• There is always a danger.
• There is always a danger somewhere for someone, but even that’s not certain.
• Everyone is deceived.
• Yes, you’re right. Everyone is deceived sometimes.

Note that in the last example, the universal quantifier is the subject, and the existential quantifier refers to the predicate. This increases ambiguity when you add an existential quantifier to any part of the message.

Replacing a Universal Quantifier with an Existential Quantifier

• People always make mistakes.
• Yes, everyone makes mistakes occasionally.

If a limiting belief lacks quantifiers and the absence is interpreted as a universal quantifier, a simple way to address it is to add an existential quantifier.

• [All] men are inconsistent.
• Actually, only some men are inconsistent.

Creating Confusion

Another way to use quantifiers is to create confusion. By combining different types of quantifiers or using them grammatically or logically incorrectly, you can create paradoxical phrases (verbal paradoxes):

• everything and nothing;
• rarely, but constantly;
• two-thirds, that is, half;
• constantly occasionally happens.

Verbal paradoxes can be used to induce confusion, for example, when inducing trance, or as another way to break limiting beliefs.

• You hate me.
• Some of us two always treat you well.
• Men always lie.
• Men lie constantly, but very rarely.
• No one loves me.
• The majority of nobody even knows about you.
• He always deceives me.
• Does it happen that he always deceives you?

Based on materials from Alexander Lyubimov’s website www.trenings.ru