«12 »Pages: 1/2

主题 : 张翔：掌握英语口语--《超级口语教程》

复制链接 ┊浏览器收藏┊打印

竹影无风

级别: 论坛版主

显示用户信息

0 发表于: 2004-03-25

正序阅读 ┊ 只看楼主 ┊ 小中大

张翔：掌握英语口语--《超级口语教程》

1：INTRODUCTION TOsgroupsDISCUSSION

　第一章小组讨论介绍

　　小组讨论是指人们为了交流学习、解决问题、协调行动或促进理解而聚到一起进行协商的过程。人数少，从属感、人情味和针对性强等是小组讨论的特征。根据各种群体的功能，小组可以划分为任务小组、社会小组和教育小组。小组讨论的成败取决于多种因素，其中，效率、气氛、情感、目标、责任以及合作是其中的主要因素。

　

　Definition定义

　　Group discussion refers to a process in which asgroupsof persons talk with each other (usually face to face) insgroupsto achieve some interdependent goal, such as increased understanding, coordination of activity, or a solution to a shared problem.

　

　Characteristics ofsgroupsDiscussion小组讨论的特点

　　1. A small number of people for each to be aware of and have some reaction to each other. The typical number is three to seven, rarely more than fifteen.

　　2. A mutually interdependent purpose, making the success of one member contingent on the success of all.

　　3. Each personshavingsa sense of being part of the group.

　　4. Interaction involving verbal and nonverbal channels, with words conveying the content of the discussion. Impromptu communication rather than prepared speeches is the essence, which involves give and take.

　　5. A sense of cooperation among members. Although there may be disagreement and conflict, all members perceive themselves as searching for asgroupsoutcome that will be as satisfactory as possible to all, so that no one is frustrated at losing something to anothersgroupsmember.

　

　Types of Groups小组种类

　　Groups can be defined in a different way; generally speaking, however, there are three basic types of groups:

　　Task Groups

　　Task groups are those groups formed to gather information, solve problems, or to perform a specific task.

　　Many groups fall under the heading of task groups because their purpose and function is to govern, solve problems, or complete tasks. Most of organization-based task groups are known as committees. A committee is a small discussionsgroupsthat usually has no more than seven members. Committees can be characterized as follows:

　　They have a particular task to do as part of a larger organization.

　　They meet regularly.

　　Members serve on them because of particular knowledge of interest.

　　Members are not necessarily linked by personal or social connections.

　　There are few enough people so they can address each other by name.

　　Social GroupsSocial groups are those groups formed because of a common interest to plan social activities.

　　Social groups generally get together to fulfill human needs to socialize. Few people in our society can function without human interaction on a regular basis. Social groups can range from an informal gathering of friends eating dinner together or talking about instructors to social organizations such as religious groups, minority groups, and clubs. Their functions overlap. When they invite a police officer to give a presentation on preventing date rape, they become an educational group.

　　Educational Groups

　　Educational groups are those groups formed to help the members learn about something.

　　While a tasksgroupsfocuses on common task goals rather than socializing, and social groups fulfill human needs of communication and belonging, many groups function with learning as a goal. These groups differ from task and social groups because they emphasize personal goals and individual gain. Alcoholics Anonymous, Weight Watchers, and various other groups exist so that members can learn about and get help with their problems.

　　Distinguishing asgroupssounds fairly easy and straightforward，however, many groups serve a variety of purposes. For example, Internet groups are often defined by more than one function. In a chat room, a socialsgroupsmay get together to discuss a topic of interest. But in another instance, a committee, whose members are at different locations, could participate on-line, making thatsgroupsa task group.

　

　Reasons for the Ineffectiveness ofsgroupsDiscussion小组讨论失败的原因

　　There are a variety of reasons why thesgroupsmight not function effectively as a system. After asking people what problems they have had with groups, we have come up with four of the most frequent complaints.

　　Lack of Efficiency

　　Many people think that some discussion in which they were involved were a waste of time. They don’t believe that groups are efficient because, rather than working on the task, people“like to hear themselves talk”or because various people“had nothing to say and took too long to say it.”

　　Certainly, discussion can be a waste of time, but not because of some inherent weakness in the process. Nothing magical happens just because people gather together to discuss.sgroupsdiscussion only works when we make sure that all parts of the system work. For example, our cars are a system-all parts work together. If we don’t put gas in our car or change the oil, the car will no longer take us to our destination. That is not because a car is inherently bad; it just needs maintenance. When onesgroupsmember fails to prepare for a discussion, thesgroupsmay not have anything useful to say or do. When leaders are not skillful in guiding members in productive directions, discussion will likely degeneratesintoschaos or just be pleasant but nonproductive gatherings. When members and leaders do not understand and implement the requirements for effective, purposive discussion, the process will probably be time-consuming and minimally productive.

　　Inhospitable Climate

　　A second complaint was about the climate for participation. There are aggressive talkers everywhere, and most people are not really prepared to compete with them. Many people felt intimidated by conflict and seek to avoid it; others may respond by open combat. Usually after being squelched two or three times, a person keeps silent.

　　However, these difficulties also are not inherent in the discussion process. Your members must make careful choices about your own interpersonal behaviors. As you make choices that will affect the climate, you should also keep cultural differences in mind. Some cultures do not speak aggressively or make eye contact. If you assume that a person does not want to talk and you ignore him or her, then you will miss out on valuable ideas. It is important that during the first meeting you talk about how your discussion will proceed and that you are open and ask questions about interpersonal differences.

　　Personal Feelings

　　A third complaint reflected confusion over the appropriateness and role of personal self-disclosure. That some groups focus on the personal feelings of members in asgroupscontext can sometimes lead to problems. In a problem-solving group, task aspects should receive primary emphasis. Such an emphasis can also promote friendly and satisfying interpersonal relationships in some cases. By channeling emotionssintosthe hard work of gathering and evaluating information, and by recognizing that a small portion of the meeting should be dedicated to maintenance functions, personal feelings can support problem-solving rather than interfere with it.

　　Personal Integrity

　　The fourth complaint, and perhaps the most troublesome of all, came from individuals who felt they had to sacrifice personal integrity insgroupsto work with the group. Often, when five members of thesgroupsagree on an idea, the sixth person goes along with the majority to avoid being a holdout. It isn’t a consensus at all; the dissenter feels embarrassed by holding out and doesn’t want to endure the group’s resentment for taking up valuable time.It is important for individuals to remain individuals in thesgroupsand to feel free to express ideas.sgroupsprocess is designed to synthesize individual ideas to obtain“the greatest good for the greatest number.”Individual point of view cannot be synthesized unless it is expressed. Notice how a productive climate ties directly on this complaint as well. If individuals do not feel encouraged to express dissenting views, then they will not, and it is thesgroupswho will lose.

　

　Reasons for the Effectiveness ofsgroupsDiscussion小组讨论成功的原因

　　Goodsgroupsdiscussion does not just happen automatically; the members must work at it. We believe that individuals can make things happen by saying what needs to be said when it needs saying. It also means that we make some basic assumptions about what happens in discussion. We will cover five basic premises of effectivesgroupsdiscussion.

　　Effective Discussion Is Goal-Oriented

　　When we talk aboutsgroupsdiscussion, we do not include all the things people can do together in groups. For our purposes, a small number of people gathering and sharing ideas does not makesgroupsdiscussion, even though it may classify as asgroupsconversation.

　　When we talk ofsgroupsdiscussion, we are dealing with a relatively formal process. It is purposive talk by people who have formed groups to make decisions, to solve problems, to declare policy, to evaluate programs, to collect and examine facts, to administer operations, to select personnel, and so forth. The kind ofsgroupsproblem-solving almost always requires some kind of formal outcome.

　　It doesn’t matter whether yoursgroupsis in industry, the community, or the classroom or whether members have volunteered or have been assigned. The kind of discussion we are talking about is purposive activity intended to accomplish some goal that the individual acting alone could not attain or that no single individual could handle because so many people have an interest in the outcome.

　　Effective Discussion Is Regulated by a Public Agenda

　　Group discussion requires that a number of people with different ideas and points of view come together and talk insgroupsto solve problems. Due to the volume of different ideas, it is important to have procedures that all participants can follow. These“rules of order”will help members focus on the task in a systematic, effective way. Procedural rules help reduce conflict and uncertainty and help members to focus on a common goal. When discussion participants follow an agenda, they can process their ideas intelligently and increase their chances of achieving a workable solution to the problem.

　　Effective Discussion Requires the Responsibility of EverysgroupsMember

　　A system is more than the sum of its parts. This is true only if all of the parts are working properly. All too often groups are composed of some individuals who refuse personal responsibility. They arrive unprepared and don’t participate. Yet, at the end of the project, they feel free to criticize everyone else.

　　To be effective, members must be committed to listen, to think through, to reason, and to share the results of their reasoning with the group. All members must adopt a critical attitude toward the information they collect and that which is presented by others. To do this, all members must know what is expected, what possibilities exist for behaviors and, most important, how to separate personality from their own comments.

　　Effective Discussion Presumes Cooperative Efforts and Attitudes

　　Group discussion is not forums in which individuals may orate on behalf of their favorite causes or charities.sgroupsmembers are required of participation obligated to have ideas about the topic or question under discussion. You are obligated to present those ideas and to listen to the ideas of others. You are entitled, even urged, to criticize ideas dissent when it is reasonable, and argue when you are legitimately motivated to do so. Keep in mind, though, that your goal is not to“defeat”or“criticize”the people who disagree with you, but for each of you to come closer to a common position. This will help yoursgroupsto achieve the cooperative spirit ofsgroupsdiscussion.

　　Effective Discussion Requires Leadership

　　Someone needs to be responsible for making the process work. In problem-solving groups, someone must be responsible for the following.

　　Oversee liaisons with agencies

　　Coordinate work that is assigned

　　Make sure work gets completed

　　Keep records

　　Keep participation going in the group

　　Referee conflicts

　　Maintain files of information and ideas

　　Notify thesgroupsof times and place of meetings

　　Above all, someone must lead. While discussion groups can distribute leadership tasks among members, we advocateshavingsa central person responsible for overseeing tasks. There are many ways to select a leader and many responsibilities for the leader to perform. We will focus on them in depth in another chapter.

　

　Exercises练习

　　This icebreaker exercise can be done in thesgroupsdiscussion of the class. The exercise is designed to help you get acquainted withsgroupsmembers and reduce the tension and formality that exist among strangers. The entiresgroupsshould sit in a circle so members can see each other face to face. Use a name card large enough to be read across the table.

　　a. First, draw a picture to illustrate each of the following statements about yourself. Each person responds to the first statement before proceeding to the next. Begin each set of answers with a different person and proceed around the circle until all have answered.

　　I am taking this course because...

　　Being in a smallsgroupsmakes me feel...

　　The thing I like best about myself is...

　　The thing I like least about myself is...

　　It would surprise most people if they knew that I...

　　No matter what anyone says, I will not change my mind about...

　　I really dislike...

　　My favorite activity is...

　　Then years from now I see myself as...

　　b. Briefly discuss the following:

　　Who is most like you?

　　Did anybody’s answers particularly surprise you? Why?

　　How do you feel now about your class?

　　What have we learned from this exercise?

风来疏竹，风过而竹不留声；
雁渡寒潭，雁去而潭不留影。

回复引用

举报顶端

竹影无风

级别: 论坛版主

显示用户信息

15 发表于: 2004-04-03

只看该作者 ┊ 小中大

14：AN EXAMPLE OF THE EXCELLENT DEBATE

　最佳辩论范例

　　为使同学们能在较短时间内迅速提高口语问答、讨论、阐述、争辩、质疑等方面的实战水平，我精心选编了一套精彩绝伦的口语辩论内容，即美国前总统乔治·布什与民主党议员(时任马萨诸塞州州长)迈克尔·杜卡基斯当年竞选美国总统时的电视辩论。辩论主题涉及犯罪与死刑、副总统人选、税收与预算、社会保障、价值观、军费预算、当代英雄、家庭观念、堕胎问题等等十分敏感又切中要害的主题。我选取其中的片段，希望同学们可以从中学习他们口若悬河、妙语联珠、思维缜密、滴水不漏的雄辩口才。

　　好好地磨练一下你的sense of occasion(随机应变的适应能力)吧！

　

　THE U.S. PRESIDENTIAL TV DEBATE

　

　辩论双方背景介绍

　　辩论双方辩论的目的在于竞选下一届总统职位。在里根八年执政期间，美国经历了长达6年多的战后和平时期最长的经济发展期。通货膨胀连续两年保持在4.4%的低水平。但是联邦财政赤字居高不下，吸毒问题成为严重的社会问题。

　　乔治·布什

　　时任里根政府副总统。曾在第二次世界大战中任海军航空兵飞行员，多次驾机参战，屡建战功。退役后考入耶鲁大学经济学系，学习成绩优秀，获学士学位。毕业后入得克萨斯州石油钻探公司，通过白手起家，数年内成为百万富翁。后弃商从政，曾任美国驻联合国首席代表。20世纪70年代中美关系好转后任驻北京联络处主任等职位。布什处事谨慎、冷静，行政、外交经验丰富。在政治方面属共和党内“温和保守派”(其子小乔治·布什现为美国总统)。

　　布什以里根政府副总统身份竞选下届总统，既要继承里根的大政方针，又想极力走出里根的阴影，提出解决财政赤字和毒品问题的有效方法。

　　他曾倡议“千点之光”计划。他说：I have spoken of a“thousand points of light”- of all the community organizations that are spread like stars throughout the nation, doing good. They are timeless, sacrifice, commitment, and a patriotism that finds its expression in taking part and pitching in. (我说过“千点之光”--像繁星一样遍布全国做善事的组织。职责、牺牲、义务以及以亲身参加和努力工作表现出来的爱国之心是永不过时的。)

　　And I do not mistrust the future; I do not fear what is ahead. For our problems are large, but our heart is larger, our challenges are great, but our will is greater.(我并非不信任未来；我并不害怕面临的问题。我们的问题很多，但我们的内心更博大。我们面临的挑战很严峻，但我们的意志更强大。)

　　I see history as a book with many pages-and each day we fill a page with acts of hopefulness and meaning.(历史是一本有很多页的书，我们每天都用有希望、有意义的行动来撰写每一页历史。)

　　迈克尔·杜卡基斯

　　美籍希腊裔人。曾进医学院学习，六年后以优异成绩毕业，后在韩国服兵役。两年后进入哈佛法学院攻读法律，毕业后作律师。后当选为马萨诸塞州(布什出生地)州长，连选连任。

　　杜卡基斯任州长期间，利用该州高校智力优势，对产业结构进行改造，将重工业转型为高技术产业，创造了美国经济的新奇迹。他还严格制定税收法规，连续十年使州财政收支平衡。并且制订了马萨诸塞州保健法，使该州公民都能享受医疗保障制度。

　　杜卡基斯强调要以稳步地、逐渐地减少赤字作为目标。

　　他说过：

　　We need a chief executive who’s prepared to lead, but will lead, will bring down that deficit, will make tough choices on spending, will go out and do the job that we expect of him and do with it the Congress of United States.(我们需要一位具备领导才干的行政首脑，他将能够起领导作用，他将能削减赤字，他将能严格控制开支，他将能做我们期望他做的工作，他将能和国会合作共事。)

　　So I hope and expect that I’ll be liked by the people of this country. I think it’s important to be somebody who’s willing to make those tough choices.(所以我期望并企盼能被国民所喜欢。我认为一个愿意去解决棘手问题的人是至关重要的。)

　　现场辩论

　　主持人一开始便用咄咄逼人的口气询问杜卡基斯：“假如你的夫人被奸杀，你会赞成对杀人犯施行死刑吗？”目的在于促使杜卡基斯(一向反对死刑)阐述反对死刑的观点。

　　【请记住：对现在不可能发生的假设要用虚拟语气：if +过去式，would +动词原形；询问赞成与否常用：Would you favor...?】

　　Mr. SHAW(主持人)：...Governor(州长，指杜卡基斯)，if Kitty Dukakis(杜卡基斯的妻子)were raped(强奸)and murdered, would you favor an irrevocable death penalty(死刑)for the killer?

　　Mr. DUKAKIS: No, I dont, Bernard, and I think you know that I’ve opposed the death penalty during all of my life. I don’t see any evidence that it’s a deterrent, and I think there are better and more effective ways to deal with violent crimes (暴力犯罪).We’ve done so in my own state, and it’s one of the reasons why we have had the biggest drop in crime of any industrial state in America, why we have the lowest murder rate of any industrial state in America.

　　【陈述观点：I think you know that I’ve opposed...我认为你知道，我一直反对……Its one of the reasons why...这就是为什么……】

　　But we have work to do in this nation; we have work to do to fight a real war and not a phony(假的，不真实的)war against drugs. And that’s something that I want to lead, something we haven’t had over the course of the past many years, even though the Vice President has been, at least allegedly(宣称地)，in charge of that war. We have much to do to step up(促进)that war, to double the number of drug enforcement agents, to fight both here and abroad, to work with our neighbors in this hemisphere. And I want to call a hemispheric summit just as soon after the 20th of January as possible to fight that war.

　　【为了进一步阐明具体观点，杜卡基斯使用了：We have work to do... That’s something that I want to ... We have much to do... I want to do ...】

　　But we also have to deal with drug education and prevention here at home. And that’s one of the things that I hope I can lead personally as the president of the United States. We’ve had great success in my own state, and we’ve reached out to young people and their families and been able to help them by beginning drug education and prevention in the early elementary grades.

　　【在阐述完此观点后，杜卡基斯用了：So we can do...】

　　So we can fight this war and we can win this war, and we can do so in a way that marshals our forces, that provides real support for state and local law enforcement officers who have not been getting that kind of support, do it in a way which will bring down violence in this nation, will help our youngsters to stay away from drugs, will stop this avalanche(如雪山崩般倾泻而下)of drugs that’s pouringsintosthe country, and will make it possible for our kids and our families to grow up in safe and secure and decent neighborhoods.

　　Mr. SHAW: Mr. Vice President, your oneminute rebuttal(反驳).

　　Mr. BUSH: Well, a lot of what this campaign is about, it seems to me, Bernie, is to a question of values. And here, I do have, on this particular question, a big difference with my opponent.

　　You see, I do believe that some crimes are so heinous(罪行穷凶极恶的)，so brutal(残忍的)，so outrageous(暴虐无耻的)- and I’d say particularly those that result in the death of a police officer - those real brutal crimes, I do believe in the death penalty. And I think it is a deterrent. And I believe we need it, and I’m glad that the Congress moved on this drug bill, and it finally called for that, related to these necrotics drug kingpins. And so, we just have an honest difference of opinion. I support it, and he doesn’t.

　　【真可谓雄辩的口才，无可否认的事实。轮到布什反驳了。对于对手的连珠炮，布什选择“一言以蔽之”：A lot of what... is about, it seems to me, is to a question of...(在我看来，对于……的许多方面，是……的问题。)然后表示不同观点：I have a difference with my opponent.(我与对方观点不同。)

　　I do believe in ....(我的确相信……)

　　I’m glad that ...

　　最后布什说：And so, we just have an honest difference of opinion.(由此看来，我们有着明显不同的观点。)】

　　Mr. SHAW: Now, to you, Vice President Bush. I quote to you this from ArticleⅢof the 20th Amendment of the Constitution: Quote,“if, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President-elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President,”meaning, if you are elected and die before inauguration Day-

　　【主持人不愧为“名嘴”，又提出一种假设，意在迫使布什评价其竞选搭档丹·奎尔。

　　请记住这个句式：

　　What have you to say about that possibility?

　　你对这种可能性要说些什么？】

　　Mr. BUSH: Bernie!

　　Mr. SHAW: Automatically, automatically, Dan Quayle would become the 41st President of the United States. What have you to say about that possibility?

　　Mr. BUSH: Id have confidence in him, and I made a good selection. And I’ve never seen such a pounding, an unfair pounding, on a young senator in my entire life. And I’ve never seen a presidential campaignswheresthe presidential nominee runs against my Vice Presidential nominee - never seen before. You know, Lloyd Bentsen(杜卡基斯提名的副总统候选人)jumped on Dan Quayle when Dan Quayle said he’s had roughly the same amount of experience. He had two terms in the Congress; he had two terms in the Senate, serving his second term.

　　He founded the - authored the Job Training Partnership Act(职业培训协作法案)that says to American working men and women that are thrown out of work for no fault of their own, that they’re going to have jobs. We’re movingsintosa new, competitive age, and we need that kind of thing. He, unlike my opponent, is an expert in national defense, helped amend the INF Treaty(中程核武器条约)，so we got a good, sound treaty which these people over here were talking about a freeze. If we’d listened to them, we would never have had a treaty.

　　【从布什的这段辩解中我们可以学到很多有用的句式，并了解到美国人的思维逻辑表达方法。启、承、转、合，层层推进。主题句(启)直入主题：I’d have confidence in him, and I made a good selection.

　　转折句：I’d never seen...

　　扩展句--列举事实，说明主题

　　He founded...

　　He is an expert in...】

　　And so I have great confidence in him and he’s–it’s turning around. You know, the American people are fair. They don’t like it when there’s an unfair pounding and kind of hooting about people. They want to judge it on the record itself. And so I’m proud of my choice. And, you know, I don’t think age is the only criterion. But I’ll tell you something, I’m proud that people that are 30 years old and 40 years old now have someone in their generation that is going to be Vice President of the United States of America. I made a good selection. The American people are seeing it and I’m proud of it. That’s what I’d say. And he could do the job.

　　【总结句--重复主题And so I have great confidence in him... I made a good selection.

　　...That’s what I’d say. And he could do the job.】

　　Mr. SHAW: Governor Dukakis, your oneminute rebuttal.

　　Mr. DUKAKIS: Bernard, this was the first presidential decision that we, as nominees, were called upon to make and thats why people are so concerned because it was an opportunity for us to demonstrate what we were looking for in a running mate. More than that, it was the first national security decision that we had to make.

　　【该轮到杜卡基斯反驳了。针对布什指责他们攻击丹·奎尔一点，杜卡基斯避实就虚迎合选民心理。

　　核心句式：This was the first...and that’s why people are so concerned because it was an opportunity for us to demonstrate...More than that, it was the first...】

　　The Vice President talks about national security. Three times since World WarⅡ, the Vice President has had to suddenly become the president and Commander-in-Chief. I picked Lloyd Bentsen because I thought he was the best-qualified person for the job. Mr. Bush picked Dan Quayle and, before he did it, he said,“Watch my choice for Vice President. It will tell all.”And it sure did. It sure did.

　　【杜卡基斯就挑选副总统一事说：I picked Lloyd Bentsen because he was the best qualified person for the job.

　　并引用了布什的一句话来支持自己。最后脱口而出：It sure did.(确实这样。)】

　　Mr. SHAW: Ann Compton for the Vice President.

　　Mr. COMPTON(电视女记者)：Thank you, Bernie, Mr. Vice President, yes, we read your lips:“No new taxes.”But, despite that same pledge from President Reagan, after income tax rates(收入所得税率)were cut, in each of the last five years, some federal taxes(联邦税收)have gone up-on Social Security(社会保障)，cigarettes, liquor, even long-distance telephone calls. Now that’s money straight out of people’s wallets. Isn’t the phrase“no new taxes”misleading the voters?

　　【女记者康普登女士向布什先生提出了一个选民都很关注的敏感问题：“虽然你提出不增加税收，并且收入所得税等降低了，但社会保障、烟、酒、长途电话费等收费却上涨了，那么“不收新税的保证”不是误导选民吗？”且看布什如何作答。】

　　Mr. BUSH: No, because that’s-that I’m pledged to that. And, yes, some taxes have gone up. And the main point is taxes have been cut and yet income is up to the federal government by 25 percent in the last three years. And so, what I want to do is keep this expansion going. I don’t want to kill it off by a tax increase.

　　More Americans are at work today than at any time in the history of this country and a greater percentage of the work force. And the way you kill expansions is to raise taxes. And I don’t want to do that. And I won’t do that. And what I have proposed is something much better. And it’s going to take discipline of the executive branch. It’s going to take discipline of the congressional branch-and that is what I call a flexible freeze(灵活冻结)that allows growth-about 4 percent or the rate of inflation-but does not permit the congress just to add on spending.

　　【布什绝对是政坛老手，他不慌不忙，先稳住阵角，进行正面回答：没有误导。因为Im pledged to that.(这一点我保证过。)Some taxes have gone up.但是The main point is that...(总体上……)And so, what I want to do is...

　　然后列出政绩之一：失业率下降。

　　I don’t want to do that. And I won’t do that.并且进一步提出改进措施：

　　It’s going to take discipline of...

　　That is what I call...】

　　I hear this talk about a blank check. The American people are pretty smart. They know who writes out the checks. And they know who appropriates the money. It is the United States Congress and by two to one, Congress is blamed for these deficits. And the answer is to discipline both the executive branch and the congressional branch beholding the line on taxes.

　　So I am pledged to do that. And those pessimists(悲观主义者)who say it cant be done. I’m sorry. I just have fundamental disagreement with them.

　　【最后总结：so I am pledged to do that. I have fundamental disagreement.】

　　Mr. SHAW: Governor Dukakis, your oneminute response.

　　Mr. DUKAKIS: Ann, the Vice President made that pledge; he’s broken it three times in the past year already, so it isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. And what I’m concerned about is that if we continue with the policies that Mr. Bush is talking about here this evening-flexible freeze-somebody described it the other day.

　　【杜卡基斯毫不客气地反击道：

　　So it isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.(因此连印有“保证”这两字的白纸都值不了。)

　　然后提出：What I’m concerned about is that...

　　并将布什的“灵活冻结”计划嗤之以鼻为“化了的冻糕”。他说道：Somebody described it ...】

　　He wants to spend billions of virtually every weapons system around. He says he’s not going to raise taxes, thought he has broken that pledge repeatedly. He says he wants to give the wealthiest 1 percent in this country a five-year,＄40 billion tax break, and we’re going to pay for it. And he’s been proposing all kinds of programs for new spending costing billions.

　　【在阐明主题后，杜卡基斯便展开讨论，列举了布什所做的几个典型事例，句式主要有：He wants to... He says... He’s been proposing...】

　　Now, if we continue with these policies, this trillion and a half dollars worth of new debt that’s already been added on the backs of the American taxpayers is going to increase even more. If we continue with this for another four years, then I’m worried about the next generation, whether we can ever turn this situation around.

　　No, we need a chief executive who’s prepared to lead, who won’t blame the Congress, but will lead, will bring down that deficit, will make tough choices on spending, will go out and do the job that we expect of him and do with it the Congress of the United States.

　　Mr. SHAW: And to Governor Dukakis.

　　Mr. COMPTON: Governor, let me follow up on that by asking you, you’ve said it many times, that you’ve balanced 10 budgets in a row in Massachusetts. Are you promising the American people, here tonight, that within a four-year presidential term, you will balance the federal budget?

　　【以假设句进行推展：If we continue with this for ... then I’m worried about...

　　最后，杜卡基斯断然否定对方，并极其煽情地概括其主张。

　　请记住这句话，当接着问及一个问题可用：Let me follow up on that by asking you...】

　　Mr. DUKAKIS: No, I’m not sure I can promise that. I don’t think either of us can, really. There’s no way of anticipating what may happen. I will say this, that we’ll set up our goal a steady, gradual reduction of the deficit, which will require tough choices on spending. It will require a good strong rate of economic growth. It will require a plan that President works out with the Congress-doesn’t blame them, works it out with them-which bring that deficit down. It will require us to go out and collect billions and billions of dollars in taxes owed that aren’t being paid in this country. And that’s grossly unfair to the average American who’s paying his taxes, and paying them on time, and doesn’t have any alternative-it’s taken out of his paycheck.

　　Mr. Bush says we’re going to put the IRS(国内税务局)on every taxpayer. That’s not what we’re going to do. I’m for the taxpayer bill of Rights. Well, I think it’s unconscionable(不合理的) that we should be talking or thinking about imposing new taxes on average Americans, when there are billion out there-over a hundred billion dollars in taxes owed that aren’t being paid.

　　Now, I think if we work together on it, and if you have a president that will work with the Congress and the American people, we can bring that deficit down steadily,＄20, 25, 30 billion a year, build economic growth, build a good strong future for America, invest in those things which we must invest in: economic development, good jobs, good schools for our kids, college opportunity for young people, decent health care and affordable housing, and a clean and safe environment. We can do all of those things, and at the same time build a future in which we’re standing on a good strong fiscal foundation.

　　【对某事不做完全肯定回答，不使自己处于被动并授人把柄，就可说这些句式：

　　I’m not sure I can promise that.

　　I don’t think either of us can, really. There’s no way of anticipating what may happen. I will say this, that we’ll set up as our goal...(我愿这样说，我们以……作为我们的目标。)

　　It will require...】

　　【反驳用语：

　　That’s not what we’re going to do.(那不是我们要做的事。)

　　I’m for...(我赞成……)Well, I think its unconscionable that...(我认为……是不合情理的。)】

风来疏竹，风过而竹不留声；
雁渡寒潭，雁去而潭不留影。

回复引用

举报顶端

竹影无风

级别: 论坛版主

显示用户信息

14 发表于: 2004-04-03

只看该作者 ┊ 小中大

13：REFUTATION
　

　第十三章反驳

　　反驳是指辩论双方驳斥对方观点的过程。它可以分为直接反驳和间接反驳两种。反驳的方式多种多样，对方的论据、论证过程都可以成为反驳的对象。为了提高反驳的有效性，应该遵循反驳的步骤并注意反驳时使用的语言。

　

　Definition of Refutation反驳的定义

　　Refutation is the key element in debate and makes the whole process exciting by relating ideas and arguments from one team to those of the other. It is challenging because it is more spontaneous than reading prepared speeches. Refutation is based on good research, good constructive development, and good anticipation of potential attacks. It is the essence of debate and is difficult to master. A great deal of practice and attention to the basic principles outlined in this chapter will help guide you to becoming an effective debater through skillful refutation.

　

　Two Types of Refutation两种反驳的方式

　　Direct refutation

　　Direct refutation attacks the arguments of the opponent with no reference to the constructive development of an opposing view. For example, it attacks the affirmative need issue by demonstrating the error or inadequacy of arguments A, B, and C. The most effective refutation, as you can probably guess, is a combination of the two methods so that the strengths of the attack come from both the destruction of the opponents- views and the construction of an opposing view.

　　Indirect refutation

　　Debaters refute through an indirect means when they use counterargument to attack the case of the opponent. Counterargument is the demonstration of such a high degree of probability for your conclusions that the opposing view loses its probability and is rejected. For example, the affirmative need issue may be supported by arguments A, B and C. Negative refutation of the need issue may be the development of arguments X, Y and Z. Although the refutation for the argument is indirect, there is a direct clash on the need issue. The use of counter argument is the strategy of the constructive negative case.

　

　Methods of Direct Refutation直接反驳的方法

　　It makes no sense to illustrate on the methods of indirect refutation due to its ambiguity and uncertainty. It’s meaningful, however, for us to explain the methods of direct refutation due to its clearness and certainty. To refute the case of an opponent is to demonstrate the error or inadequacy of the arguments upon which it is based. Because arguments are the result of reasoning about evidence, the two kinds of direct refutation are attacks on the evidence itself and attacks on reasoning which is the meaning of evidence.

　　Attacks on Evidence

　　Since refutation aims to demonstrate error or inadequacy, the two broad tests of evidence are: Is the evidence correct? And is the evidence adequate to prove the argument? The following questions are offered as more particular criteria for testing evidence.

　　Testing the Facts:

　　1. Are the facts presented consistent in themselves?

　　2. Are the facts consistent with other known fact, or does the evidence appear as unusual, picked evidence?

　　3. Are enough facts introduced to support the conclusions derived from them?

　　4. Are the facts accurate as they are presented?

　　5. Are the facts verified with good supporting documentation, and is the source used qualified to know and report the facts?

　　Testing the Opinion:

　　1. Is the opinion from a qualified source? Is the source an expert in the subject under consideration? Is the source prejudiced? Is this expert usually accurate?

　　2. Does the quotation cited give a fair indication of the persons real opinion, or was it lifted from context or otherwise distorted?

　　3. Is the opinion consistent with other assertions the authority has made?

　　4. What is the reason for the authoritys opinion? Opinions are based upon reasoning and are subject to the same tests of reasoning which apply elsewhere.

　　In summary, the refutation of evidence is limited to the questions of correctness and the adequacy of the evidence. An idea that needs to be stressed is that merely matching sets of evidence does not result in good debating. In our opinion, the most common fault of debate speakers on all levels is that they are too often content to limit their refutation to a matching of evidence. For example, in a debate on the policy question of adopting a federal program of health insurance, the affirmative might argue that there is a need for compulsory health insurance and support this argument with evidence showing that in cities A and B, a significant percentage of the aged receive inadequate medical care. The negative might respond with evidence which indicated that in cities C and D the aged are well cared for and, thus, no need exists. This futile matching of evidence results in an unfounded leap from the evidence to the issue. Argument, or reasoning about the meaning of evidence, is omitted. If reasoning is omitted from debate, and if analysis is lost in simply comparing different piles of note cards, then school debate is guilty of poor education as charged by its critics. The proper relationship of the evidence would suggest that some problems do exist, and subsequent reasoning ought to be along the lines of finding out whether enough problems exist to constitute a need, whether the problems are inherent within the status quo, and ultimately, whether the affirmative provides an adequate solution to the problems.

　　Attacks on Reasoning

　　In a good debate, the evidence is usually not questionable, the facts are as the speakers say they are, the opinions cited are those of recognized authorities, and each debater has a thorough knowledge of the evidence. Conflict, therefore, should center on the meaning of the evidence and on reasoning about the facts and opinions.

　　Since argument in debate is nothing more than the oral expression which results from the process of reasoning, any debate speaker must develop skill in talking about the process by which conclusions are derived from evidence. In short, the question, one must return to concepts introduced in the previous chapter. If reasoning can be described according to the relationship of the evidence to the conclusion, then the correctness of arguments ought to be measured by questions which test the correctness of that relationship. Table 1 is provided as guide to the testing of arguments. In using the table, the reader should recall the guiding principle underlying all tests of argument - that every argument is either based on a generalization (deductive) or makes a generalization (inductive).

　　Table 1Summary: Analysis of Argument

　　Kind of Argument

　　Sign

　　Explanation

　　The argument asserts that the presence of A indicates the presence of B.

　　Example

　　A build-up of troops in country A indicates hostile intentions toward country B.

　　Tests

　　Is the sign adequate to prove the conclusion, or are other signs necessary for corroboration?(The probability of an argument from sign is strengthened as additional signs are introduced to support the conclusion.

　　Have unusual circumstances occurred which change the normal sign relationships? (The build-up of troops may be relevant to the internal affairs of country A, or country B may have stages a troop build-up first.)

　　Kind of Argument

　　Causal

　　Explanation

　　The argument asserts that if fact A exists, it will cause fact B to follow. Or, in past fact, A was followed by B; therefore, A was the cause of B.

　　Example

　　Future fact: The invasion of country B would lead to a general war.

　　Past Fact: During the past three Democratic administrations there have been wars. Therefore, Democratic administrations cause wars.

　　Tests

　　Is the cause adequate to produce the alleged effect?

　　Will other factors alter the alleged cause-effect relationship?

　　In past fact, is the cause directly related to the alleged effect, or could there have been other causes for the same effect?

　　Kind of Argument

　　Analogous

　　Explanation

　　The argument asserts that if facts relating to A and facts relating to B are alike in some essential respects, they will be alike in another, or other, essential respects.

　　Example

　　The war in country B was fought as a limited war with characteristics A, B, and C; so it follows that a war in country C would also exhibit characteristics A, B, and C.

　　Tests

　　Are the cases really alike in essential respects?

　　Are enough comparisons made to support the probability of the conclusion?

　　Kind of Argument

　　Example

　　Explanation

　　This is the inductive form of reasoning that provides the generalizations upon which deductive argument is based.

　　Example

　　A build-up of troops in Vietnam, Burma, Thailand, and Laos each led to war; therefore, all such cases of troop build-ups lead to war.

　　Tests

　　Are enough examples given to justify the generalization that is made?

　　Are the examples clearly related to the generalization?(Are the examples really instances of the circumstances being generalized?)

　

　Five Steps in Refutation反驳的五个步骤

　　/where/ in the constructive speeches or in the rebuttal period, the debate speaker ought to view the whole case of the opponents and evaluate the effect of the opposition, they must limit the refutation to one argument at a time. While preceding paragraphs have stressed the importance of relating the particular refutation to the whole case, the intention here is to offer a guide to the refutation of particular arguments. There are five steps in the process of refuting an argument effectively.

　　1. State with absolute clarity what it is you are going to refute.

　　2. Clarify the relationship of the argument to be refuted to the attack of the opponent.

　　3. State how you will refute the argument.

　　4. Present your argument in refutation.

　　5. Indicate the effect of your refutation on the issue in question and relate the effect to its impact on the opponents’case.

　　In print, these five steps may seem to be cumbersome, but in practice they are completed briefly with the use of effective language. The refutation given in the following example can be completed in less than one minute.

　　Step 1 and 2:

　　The argument to be refuted and its relationship to the case as a whole.

　　In developing a need for price controls, the effect of inflation has been injurious to the welfare of the American laborer. Now, if this were true, the affirmative would indeed have a strong argument.

　　Step 3:

　　How it will be refuted.

　　However, it can be demonstrated that the affirmative has reached an erroneous conclusion by neglecting the most relevant aspects of the United States economic picture.

　　Step 4:

　　Refutation with supporting evidence.

　　Has the United States laborer been hurt by inflation? On the contrary, according to the Secretary of the Treasury, his buying power has gone up forty per cent in the past twenty years, and according to a study conducted by the labor organizations themselves (AFL-CIO report),“The laborer, even though prices have gone up, still is in a position to buy more of the desired goods on the market than ever before.”

　　Step 5:

　　The effect of the refutation.

　　Transition to continued refutation.

　　Thus we see that the affirmative need argument, an appeal to the welfare of labor, is refuted by the labor leaders themselves. Now, let us proceed to their other need arguments to see if they are real or largely imaginary.

　　

Language of Refutation反驳的语言

　　Because refutation is always concerned with the communication of rather complex ideas, it is highly important that the debater make the means of communication - language - as clear as possible. Avoid vague terms and use the vocabulary of debate by referring to issues, arguments, and evidence. If the opponents have labeled an argument a certain way, use the same label when referring to it. Likewise, in your own case, use consistent references to your ideas and outline in all your speeches. This care is not always evident, as the forms in table 2 indicate. These examples were taken directly from college debate speakers in a tournament situation.

　　Table 2The Language of Refutation

　　Avoid these expressions:“The point has been brought up.”

　　Because: Vague. Calling everything a point, whether it is an issue, and argument, or evidence, is probably the most common language error in debate. By itself it is vague; when it is overused it leads to total confusion.

　　Use instead:“The contention of workability has been attacked with the argument that”

　　Avoid these expressions:“As our quotes have proved”

　　Because: Vague. Be concrete by making specific references.

　　Use instead:“On the other hand, both Professor X, of White University, and the Director of the National Science Foundation have”

　　Avoid these expressions:“They said”or“We said”

　　Because: Vague and clumsy.

　　Use instead:“The first affirmative speaker asserted”or“Miss Smith, in her first constructive speech”or“The contention has been”

　　Avoid these expressions:“The negative hasn’t had too much evidence to support”

　　Because: Clumsy. This use of too is sometimes called the“too tautology.”Not only does it beg the question of how much evidence is enough, but it negates a circumstance that probably could not exist. Could the negative have too much supporting evidence?

　　Use instead:“The negative has offered insufficient evidence to support”

　　Avoid these expressions:“The Status quo is taking care of”or“Our plan takes care of that”

　　Because: Trite.

　　Use instead:“The problems are being effectively solved within the status quo”or“Those problems would be solved if the affirmative were adopted, for”

　　Avoid these expressions:“Here is no need”

　　Because: Trite. The more judicious approach is probably that the need is insufficient, not that there is no need whatsoever.

　　Use instead:“While the negative will quickly admit that there are some problems in our contemporary society, the negative view is that these problems can”

　　Avoid these expressions:“During my partner’s stand on the floor”

　　Because: Trite and clumsy.

　　Use instead:“During the first negative speech”or“During the constructive speech of my colleague”

　　Avoid these expressions:“They came back and said”

　　Because: Clumsy.

　　Use instead:“The negatives response was”Avoid these expressions:“How did they hit this?”

　　Because: Clumsy, although the use of a question to clarify and emphasize is effective.

　　Use instead:“What was the attack on this argument?”or“Let me call your attention to the manner in which this argument was refuted.”

　　Avoid these expressions:“The members of the opposition brought forth the argument”

　　Because: Clumsy; at best archaic.

　　Use instead:“The opposition introduced the argument”

　　Avoid these expressions:“We stand on”

　　Because: Clumsy.

　　Use instead:“Our support of this contention has been”

　　Avoid these expressions:“We backed this up”

　　Because: Clumsy.

　　Use instead:“We supported”

　　Avoid these expressions:“Where is their proof?”and“We have offered proof.”

　　Because: Clumsy and erroneous. Proof is often confused with evidence.

　　Use instead:“Where is the supporting evidence to prove”“We have offered evidence to support”

　

　Exercises练习

　　Discuss the following disputes which might happen in our daily life and point out the success or failure in the refutation.

　　1. Aunt: Im sure glad my nephew got a new car. That other one he was driving had terrible brakes and no windshield wipers.

　　Neighbor: Your nephew didn’t get a new car. That car you see him driving is his roommate’s.

　　2. Mary: If you are going to Butte College, the closest place to live is in Paradise.

　　Howard: No, it’s not. My friend lives in north Oroville and it takes him less time to get to school than it does Ron who lives in upper Paradise.

　　3. Bob: Mr. Smith certainly is a great mother. She works two jobs so that she can afford to send her children to the best day care center in town. She even works overtime around Christmas so that she can afford to buy name brand clothes for presents.

　　Mary: I totally disagree, Smith is so busy working that she has almost no time just to be with her children. All she does is pay their bills.

　　4. Susan: Portland is about 400 miles from Chico.

　　Bob: No, it’s not. It’s 389 miles.

　　5. Robert: My daughter got an apartment right next to campus. How lucky can you get!

　　Jenny: She’s not lucky at all. The only bridge across the river is over a half-mile down stream.

　　6. Don: Conventional weapons caused much more damage in World WarⅡthan atomic weapons.

　　Martha: That’s impossible. Everyone knows that atomic bombs cause more damage than conversational bombs.

　　7. Carol: The most important sense organ for humans is their eyes.

　　Ted: No, it’s not. I knew a friend in college who was totally blind and he could“see”things by snapping his finger and then listening for the echo.

　　8. Fred: Angels dont exist.

　　Donna: Sure they do. Look at all the books written about angels that are best sellers! Look at the faith that so many people place in angels! Look at all the great works of art that deal with angels! How can you possible question the sincere convictions of so many people?

　　9. Sally: I just read the annual report for HAL, Inc. What a great company in which to invest! Their profits were up 25% last year.

　　Tom: No, I think you’re mistaken. I don’t think HAL is doing well at all. Besides, the Security and Exchange Commission just cited them for making false and misleading statements in their annual report.

　　10. Tony: There are less than 8 million unemployed people in this country, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

　　Kate: You can’t believe the Bureau of Labor Statistics. A Private research organization has reported that there are only 124 million people in the United States with paying jobs. Since there are over 250 million Americans, that means over 126 million people living here are unemployed.

风来疏竹，风过而竹不留声；
雁渡寒潭，雁去而潭不留影。

回复引用

举报顶端

竹影无风

级别: 论坛版主

显示用户信息

13 发表于: 2004-04-03

只看该作者 ┊ 小中大

12：CROSS-EXAMINATION

　第十二章质询

　　本章讨论了辩论当中质询阶段的各种因素。质询是指辩论双方有目的地相互问问题和回答问题的过程。本章首先探讨了质询的定义和功能，接下来研究了问问题以及回答问题时应该遵循的基本原则，并在一个具体例子中介绍了这些规则的具体应用。

　

　Definition of Cross-examination质询的定义

　　Cross-examination may be defined as the purposeful asking and answering of questions about the issues in the debate during an established time format. An effective cross-examination will consist of a series of carefully-word-ed questions which establish an order, or a sequence, of ideas which help to persuade the audience that you and your statements are worthy of belief.

　　Edward Bennett Williams, once called“the country’s hottest criminal lawyer,”gave this tough but practical advice on the most difficult of trial techniques, cross-examination:

　　It is ...the art of putting a bridle on a witness who has been called to do you harm, and of controlling him so well that he helps you. You must think of him as a man with a knife in his hand who is out to stab you, and you must feel your way with him as if you were in a dark room together. You must move with him, roll with him. You must never explore or experiment during cross-examination. You must never ask a question if you do not already know the answer. If you do know it and the witness refuses to say what you know, you can slaughter him. Otherwise he may slaughter you. Never attack a point that is unassailable. And if you hit a telling point, try not to let the witness know it. Keep quiet and go on. The time to dramatize it to the jury is during your closing argument.

　　

Functions of Cross-examination质询的作用

　　All of the considerations of argumentation and debate apply to cross-examination debate. Cross-examination mainly has the following four functions.

　　1. Some portions of your opponents speech may have been unclear - either by accident or design. Cross-examination affords an opportunity to clarify them.

　　Q: Your plan calls for placing a space station in orbit. What sort of an orbit will that be?

　　A: Geosynchronous. That way we will be able to ...

　　Q: Thank you. That’s what I wanted to know.

　　This brief exchange clarified the affirmative’s plan. The negative now knows that the affirmative is going to use a high orbit that will be far more costly than a low orbit and will present many technical difficulties. With the now-clarified plan before them, the negative can begin to develop plan attacks specific to the type of orbit the affirmative is now committed to using in their plan.

　　2. If you know of a defect in your opponents evidence, crossexamination gives you an excellent opportunity to expose it.

　　Q: You justify your plan for greater freedom for law-enforcement agencies by claiming that crime increased 16 percent last year?

　　A: Yes, and not only last year; it has been a steady trend.

　　Q: And the source of your evidence was?

　　A: The Boston Globe.

　　Q: Andswheresdid the Globe get its figures?

　　A: (Consulting card) From, er, let me see. From the FBI. Yes, from an FBI report.

　　Q: From the FBI report. Thank you, we’ll come to that later. Now...

　　The questioner has now established the source of the affirmative’s evidence. In the next speech the negative will certainly emphasize the flaw in that evidence. You may recall that the FBI had warned against using these statistics to make year-to-year comparisons.

　　Let’s consider another example:

　　Q: You claim industry will move to escape environmental controls?

　　A: Right. They certainly will.

　　Q: Would you please read that card? I think it was the ...

　　A: State Street Report.“When faced with unreasonably high taxes and excessive regulation, industry will give serious consideration to their option to move to a location that offers a more favorable business climate.”

　　Q: That specifically says a combination of high taxes and unreasonable regulations, doesn’t it?

　　A: Well, er, yes, but I think the focus is ...

　　Q: Does the evidence say that any industry moved because of environmental regulations alone?

　　A: Er, no, I don’t think so. Not in this report, but environ-mental controls are a part of it.

　　Q: Does the State Street Report specifically mention environmental controls?

　　A: It cites“unreasonable regulations”and many of the ...

　　Q: No mention of environmental controls. Thank you. And it said industry would consider moving, didn’t it?

　　A: Yes, and they have moved.

　　Q: Does your evidence say so?

　　A: Well, no, not this evidence. We have other evidence that my partner will read ...

　　Q: We’ll be looking for it in her speech. But so far there is not evidence of industry moving, no evidence about environmental controls. Thank you.

　　This cross-examination has given the questioner an opportunity to point out important flaws in the evidence. If the respondent’s partner fails to provide the promised new evidence in her speech, the questioner’s colleague should be prepared to point that out.

　　3. Crossexamination may be used to advance your position.

　　Q: You didn’t respond to our argument that unemployment will persist, did you?

　　A: No. We give you that.

　　This brief exchange allowed the debater to emphasize that the other team had dropped an argument. The“development of space”resolution provides another example:

　　Q: Our evidence says that industry will make billions in the space station, doesn’t it?

　　A: Yes, but industry is reluctant to gosintosspace.

　　Q: You mean industry is reluctant to make billions in profits?

　　A: No. They’re reluctant because they’re not certain that the station will be built.

　　Q: Our plan mandates that the space station will be built, doesn’t it?

　　A: Yes, but ...

　　Q: And industry will certainly want those billions of dollars of profit, won’t they?

　　A: Well, once it’s built ...

　　Q: Thank you.

　　4. Crossexamination may be used to respond to an attack made on your position.

　　Q: In your workability attack you said our plan wouldn’t work because the people in the space station would get sick.

　　A: Right. The evidence shows they develop low blood pressure and lose bone marrow. Both Russians and Americans. And it takes three months.

　　Q: They get low blood pressure. So what?

　　A: Low blood pressure isn’t good for you.

　　Q: Does the evidence say that?

　　A: Well, no, but everybody knows that low blood pressure ...

　　Q: The evidence doesn’t say it’s low enough to do any harm, does it?

　　A: It says they develop low ...

　　Q: The evidence doesn’t say it gets low enough to stop them from working, does it?

　　A: Well, no, but everyone knows low blood pressure ...

　　Q: No significance shows in low blood pressure. Now, about the bone marrow - so what?

　　A: They lose 5 percent of their bone marrow, and it takes three months to get it back to normal. Both Russians and Americans.

　　Q: Again no significance. The evidence doesn’t say that they can’t work, does it?

　　A: It does say that it takes them three months to ...

　　Q: And they’re back to normal. But the evidence doesn’t attach any significance to a 5 percent loss, does it?

　　A: I certainly think it’s significant.

　　Q: Do the physicians who made the reports say it’s significant?

　　A: Well, what they say is ... they report ... they report low blood pressure and loss of bone marrow.

　　Q: And in neither case do they say it’s significant. Thank you.Here the debater defended his case by establishing that the workability attack had no significance.

　

　Rules for the Questioners提问者的规则

　　1. Questioners should avoid“openended”questions that allow the respondent freedom to roam at will.

　　Q: Do you think your plan will reduce fuel consumption?

　　A: Absolutely. The Petroleum Study proves our tax will effectively reduce consumption. The hearings prove we have the technology. The Berkeley Report says that this combination of increased taxed and already-proved technology will reduce oil imports by at least 20 percent within ...

　　The“do you think”opening gives respondents license to say anything they want to. Of course, they think position is favorable and will use this opportunity to advance it.

　　Lawyer and best-selling author Scott Throw admonishes.“A good trial lawyer never asks why, unless he knows the answer.”Know echoes Williamswise advice considered earlier. Like the“do you think”opening, a“why”question invites respondents to give the best possible reasons for their position.

　　Further considerations of the questioner include:

　　2. Questioners should try to elicit brief responses. They may not cut off a reasonable qualification, but they may cut off a verbose response with a statement such as“Thank you, that gives us enough information”or“That’s fine, thank you. That makes your position clear.”

　　3. Questioners should not develop arguments on the responses obtained during crossexamination. Cross-examination is a time for asking questions and getting responses. The significance of the responses should be argued in the constructive speeches or in rebuttal.

　　4. Questions should be brief and easily understandable. Rambling, ambiguous questions may confuse the opponent, but they may also confuse those who render the decision. Respondents would certainly ask for a clarification of such questions, and the resultant waste of time would reduce the number of questions that could be asked.

　　5. Questions may set the stage for a question. For example,“You know of course, that President Bush has announced his support for...”

　　6. Questions should never ask a question unless they already know the answer. Remember the attorney Williams- advice given earlier.

　　7. Questioners should not attempt to attack unassailable points. Some of the arguments in the respondents- case will probably be so well established as to be irrefutable. Questioners should focus on the points they can carry.

　　8. Remember that the whole purpose of asking questions in crossexamination is to obtain information that you can use to your advantage in your next speech. On your flow sheet make notes of your questions and the responses you receive - the judge will be doing this so that you refer to them directly. Don’t assume that the significance of an opponent’s response is self-evident. Drive your point home to the audience in your nest speech.

　　In cross-examination Gail admitted that their space station would be in geosynchronous orbit. Let’s see what that really means in terms of cost ...

　　Roger admitted in cross-examination that their figures on increased crime came from the FBI. Now I’m going to tell you what the FBI itself said about using those figures for year-to-year comparisons ...

　　Remember when I asked Mark about the significance of his claim that people get sick in space stations? He couldn’t give you any significance of low blood pressure. None. Again on the bone marrow - Mark couldn’t give you any significance there either. There’s no significance shown in their workability attack ...

　　

Rules for the Respondents回答者的规则

　　Rules for the respondent include:

　　1. Respondents must keep in mind that each question is designed to destroy their case or to advance the case of their opponents. Consequently, they must constantly be on guard.

　　2. Respondents must answer any reasonable question. As noted earlier, however, they can refuse to give a“yes”or“no”answer and can add reasonable qualifications.

　　Q: The report adopted the recommendations of the chemical companies, didn’t it? Yes or no.

　　A: There were Democrats and Republicans on the committee and the report was adopted by a unanimous vote.

　　3. Respondents may refuse to answer ambiguous or“loaded”question.

　　Q: Have you stopped cheating on examinations?

　　A: I quit the same day you stopped snorting cocaine.

　　Q: But, but, but I never snorted cocaine.

　　A: Bingo!

　　4. Respondents may qualify their response. The“Yes, but ...”qualification is weak. It is better to give the qualification first and then give a direct response.

　　Q: Do you believe that all branches of government should be responsive to the will of the people?

　　A: I believe that the Supreme Court is responsive to the will of the people by protecting their Constitutional rights. With this important Constitutional safeguard, I would say that government should be responsive to the will of the people.

　　5. Respondents must answer from their perspective. Governor Mario M. Cuomo of New York provided an example of this:

　　Reporter: Aren’t you pretty thin-skinned about that, Governor?

　　Cuomo: If by thin-skinned you mean very, very quick to respond–that’s what I’ve done for a lifetime. I’d been a lawyer for more than twenty years. You can’t let the comment from the witness pass. If［by thinskinned］you’re talking about being personally sensitive to criticism, that’s a lot of［expletive］.

　　6. Respondents should promptly admit not knowing the answer to a question.

　　Q: Do you know what methodology Kwarciany and Langer used in their study?

　　A: They’re reputable scholars. I’m sure they used an appropriate methodology. Buy, no, I don’t know their exact methodology.

　　7. Respondents should not attempt to defend an indefensible point. It is better to yield a point immediately than to allow questioners to wring admissions from the respon-dents in a series of questions that will only fix the point more firmly in the minds of those who render the decision.

　

　A Full Example for the Whole Process全过程举例

　　Examiner: On contentionⅡ.B, what was your supporting evidence?

　　Respondent: We cited a study calling for federal intervention.

　　Examiner: Was the study done by the federal government?

　　Respondent: No, it was done by Zwgler Research.

　　Examiner: Did the federal government commission pay Zwigler to do the study?

　　Respondent: Well, yes, they did have a federal contract.

　　Examiner: What was the date?

　　Respondent: October, 1972.

　　Examiner: Was there a presidential election that year?

　　Respondent: Yes, I believe so.

　　Examiner: Could money influence the results of a study?

　　Respondent: I’m not sure what you’re getting at.

　　Examiner: Suppose you were hired to mow somebody’s lawn, would you do it the way they wanted?

　　Respondent: I guess so.

　　Examiner: Is it possible such bias might creepsintosa study report as well.

　　Respondent: I suppose it’s possible.

　　Examiner: Was President Nixon running for reelection that year?

　　Respondent: I don’t know.

　　Examiner: Well, he was, and if we later introduce evidence showing he strongly favored federal intervention in this area as a theme in his campaign, are you still willing to stand by an argument whose only support is a twenty-year-old study, done at the request and support of the federal government, which exactly concludes what the incumbent wanted it to conclude and which was issued just in time for the November election?

　　Respondent: Well, (pause) you’d have to show meswheresthere’s a problem.

　　Examiner: Would a reasonable person at least have cause to wonder?

　　Respondent: Well, (pause) I’m not so sure. (pause) We thought it was pretty good.

　　Examiner: Thank you, let’s now turn to contentionⅢ. Can you restate your title of this contention for me?

　　As you can see, the examiner set up a series of questions designed to reveal a weakness in the opposition’s case. While the respondent never admitted this weakness, most people in the audience would be impressed by the damaged credibility of the evidence and by the team that proved it, and they would be ready for subsequent refutation.

风来疏竹，风过而竹不留声；
雁渡寒潭，雁去而潭不留影。

回复引用

举报顶端

竹影无风

级别: 论坛版主

显示用户信息

12 发表于: 2004-04-03

只看该作者 ┊ 小中大

11：FOUR KEY ELEMENTS IN DEBATE
　

　第十一章辩论的四个要素

　　命题、论点、论证和证据是辩论中最重要的四个要素，本章讨论了这四个要素的相互关系。鉴于证据的重要性，本章接下来详细介绍了证据的种类以及检验证据有效性的方法。

　

　Four Elements四个要素

　　There are four structural elements that serve as the ingredients of a debate case. These are (1) proposition, (2) issues, (3) arguments, and (4) evidence. Analysis of a debate case is made possible through a complete understanding of the function of these parts. A fifth element, and the most important one, is the reasoning process. It, however, is not a separate element so much as the means by which the other four are bound together. The following paragraphs will serve to define each of these four formal elements, while the subsequent section will apply each element directly to the complex problem of building a debate case.

　　Proposition. A proposition (or resolution) is a judgment expressed in a declarative sentence. Each debate centers around a carefully-worded proposition insgroupsthat everyone may know precisely what is being talking about. There are propositions about fact, value, and policy. The value or policy propositions are usually used in school debate, and both are supported by these formal elements: issues, arguments, and evidence.

　　Issues. Issues are often called inherently vital points. They are the assertions (or unsupported statements) which must be proved insgroupsto establish that the proposition ought to be adopted. They are the main contentions that function as the basic reasons for the adoption of the proposition. Finding the issues that are relevant to a proposition is the result of analysis. Ordinary intelligence will suggest that if one advocates a change from the present system (status quo), it becomes necessary to support the idea that there is something wrong with the status quo or that some major new benefit will result from the change. In a policy proposition, if these faults or benefits are extensive, they may provide sufficient and compelling reason for concluding that there is a need to change from the present system. In short, the fact that there is a need to change becomes an issue. If you are dealing with a value proposition, then common sense also tells you that you must also provide your listeners with enough reasons to conclude that the evaluation you are making should be accepted by them as well. Issues do not stand by themselves; rather, they appear as assertions and need to be supported with arguments and evidence.

　　Arguments. An argument is an assertion which is the result of reasoning. The characteristic feature of arguments, as compared to other discourse, is that it states or implies a reasoning process. For example:“The papers are on the table”is not an argument; but the statement,“If we do not close the window, the papers will be blown off the table”is an argument because it contains an inference, the result of a reasoning process. Arguments serve as reasons for the acceptance of an issue. Arguments may stand by themselves but usually need to be supported with evidence.

　　Evidence. Evidence is that statement of fact or opinion which makes an assertion acceptable to an audience. It consists of facts, opinions, and objects that are used to generate proof. The advocate brings together the raw materials and, by the process of reasoning, produces new conclusions.

　

　Put Everythingsintosan Example:

　

　Functions of the Four Elements

　

　举例：四个要素的作用

　　In the previous chapter you saw an example of an outline of an affirmative case on highways along with a companion negative outline on the same topic. Here is another example of a hypothetical case outline which uses these four elements.Proposition: Resolved: That the United States would be justified in significantly increasing trade restriction.

　　Issue: I. National security considerations would justify in creasing trade restriction, for:

　　Argument: A. Highly technical products reach our adversaries.

　　Evidence: 1. Secretary of State testimony regarding loss of important computer advances to communist world.2. Defense Department report on military equipment sold through third parties.

　　Argument: B. Technical losses endanger our security.

　　Evidence: 1. Congressional hearing citation regarding uses made of our technology by others which have harmed U.S. security.

　　2. Statements from Joint Chiefs of Staff concerning danger to our military personnel resulting from technical transfers.

　　Issue: II. Domestic Industries Need Protection, for:

　　Argument: A. The textile industry has been hurt by imports.

　　Evidence: 1. Statistics on lost jobs in textiles due to imports.

　　2. Etc.

　　Thus you can see how the relationship of each of these elements is present in a topic as well as in policy questions. The rule is simple - all propositions are supported by major issues, and these in turn are supported by arguments which have specific evidence as their supports. All of these elements are bound together by reasoning - a fifth and ever-present element.

　　Do not forget this relationship because you will need to create both affirmative and negative cases from outlines, and the format above gives you the outline system to follow.

　　As you can see, the debate case is built upon evidence. Good supporting materials, in the form of fact, opinion, and reasoning, which the audience will find compelling, are the foundation of every debate case.

　

　Necessity to Illustrate Evidence in Detail详细举证的必要性

　　Evidence is the standpoint of an argument on which everything is based. A detailed illustration of evidence is of vital significance in a debate. The types and tests of evidence will be analyzed respectively in the following text.

　　Types of Evidence

　　Written or unwritten evidence

　　Written evidence is evidence supplied by writings of all kinds: books, newspapers, and magazines, as well as less frequently used types of writing such as roman numerals carved on the cornerstone of a building. Unwritten evidence includes both oral testimony and objects offered for personal inspection.

　　In arguments outside the courtroom, written evidence generally is given greater weight than oral evidence, because it is easier to substantiate. In a recent intercollegiate debate, a negative speaker introduced unwritten, secondary evidence by saying:

　　Last week I had the opportunity to talk with Senator _____ when he visited in my hometown, and he told me that ...

　　Then the negative debater quoted a statement strongly critical of the affirmative’s position. An affirmative speaker replied to this by using written evidence:

　　We have no way of knowing how accurately the negative quoted Senator _____ nor of knowing what the senator said in a private interview. However, we do have a record of the considered opinion of the senator on this subject as he expressed it in an article in the New York Times Magazine of last week when he stated ...

　　The affirmative debater then quoted a carefully qualified statement that indicated only minor reservations about the affirmative’s position. Which of the speakers quoted the senator correctly? Perhaps both. The senator may have changed his mind; or, more likely, the two statements represented the difference between an offhand comment and a considered opinion. In any event, the judge accepted the statement of the affirmative speaker, since he could better substantiate his evidence.

　　Lay or expert evidence

　　Evidence is usually classified as either lay or expert. As a practical matter, however, it is often difficult to distinguish between the well-informed layperson and the expert. Representatives and senators, for example, may or may not the experts on the subjects they speak about. However, because their official position gives them unusual opportunities to acquire special knowledge on many subjects, they are often regarded as experts by popular audiences. Lay evidence is provided by persons without any special training, knowledge, or experience in the matter under consideration. Expert evidence is evidence provided by persons with special training, knowledge, or experience in the matter under consideration.

　　Test the Credibility of Evidence

　　Test the credibility of one’s own evidence

　　In the construction of their cases, advocates will discover a great deal of evidence. Before they include any of it in their cases, they must apply the tests of evidence, rejecting what is weak and inconclusive and using only what stands up under examination. By applying the tests of evidence, they may also anticipate the probable refutation of their opponents and prepare to meet it.

　　The tests of evidence must also be applied to pro-blems outside the debate situation. The political leader must weigh intelligence reports, the executive must evaluate reports of market trends, the college student must appraise studies of employment opportunities in various fields. Throughout life, we are all required to formulate propositions, gather evidence of those propositions, and evaluate that evidence as a part of the process of making decision. Intelligent self-interest and our sense of responsibility to those affected by our decisions require that we apply the tests of evidence with care.

　　Test the credibility of the evidence advanced by an opponent

　　While preparing their own cases, advocates must also seek out evidence that will be of value to opponents, apply the appropriate tests to it, and plan refutation. As a debate develops, they will discover the evidence actually used by opponents and be prepared to test and refute it, of possible, during the debate. It should be noted that the responsibility of applying the tests of evidence and of refuting evidence rests on the party whose case is damaged by the evidence. If our case is adversely affected by certain evidence used by opponents and we do not refute it, we may find that the decision reindeers will accept even weak evidence at its face value. Indeed, the absence of refutation may enhance the value of the adverse evidence.

　　Questions for testing evidence credibility

　　In general affirmative answers to these questions imply that the evidence is credible; negative answers imply a weakness in the evidence.

　　Is there enough evidence?

　　Is the evidence clear?

　　Is the evidence consistent with other known evidence?

　　Is the evidence consistent within itself?

　　Is the evidence verifiable?

　　Is the source of the evidence competent?

　　Is the source of the evidence unprejudiced?

　　Is the source of the evidence reliable?

　　Is the evidence relevant?

　　Is the evidence statistically sound?

　　Is the evidence the most recent available?

　　Is the evidence cumulative?

　　Is the evidence critical?

　

　Summary of the Relationship of the Four Elements

　　

四个要素的关系概括

　　1. The proposition is supported by main contentions, called issues.

　　2. The issues, which appear as assertions, are supported by reasoned discourse, called arguments.

　　3. The arguments are supported with the best available evidence.

　

　Exercises练习

　　Determine whether the following passages are definitions, arguments, evidence, explanations, or propositions. Issues are hard to be put in sentences so we use definitions and explanations instead to do exercises.

　　1. There are over 250 million people living in the United States. Most of the people today live in the South or the West. The mid-West and East Coast have been losing population steadily over the past twenty years.

　　2. There are over 250 million people living in the United States because that is what all the standard geography textbooks say and they certainly cant be all the wrong about something so simple.

　　3. The pipes burst because the water froze.

　　4. All people have a natural right to the fruit of their own labor. Therefore it is wrong for government to tax individuals for any reason other than providing for the common defense against criminals from within or aggressor nations from without.

　　5. Statement to a foreign visitor to the Sacramento valley a month after the floods of 1997:“Many houses here are in a terrible mess because of the break in the levees and the consequent flooding.”

　　6. The reason so many people are calling in sick is that there is a new flu virus going around this year is especially mean.

　　7. The great theorist of socialism is Karl Marx. Marx produced his major work on economics almost a century after Adam Smith. In that three-volume work called simply Capital, Marx did not argue that Smith was wrong about the virtues of the free market, the division of labor, and industrialization. His fundamental objection was that Smith’s picture of industrial capitalism was incomplete.

　　8. The reason fish have gills is that they can get oxygen out of the water.

　　9. Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, and oppose any foe to assure the survival and success of liberty.

　　10. Since the introduction of slavery in America, there has been a continuous struggle for equality between blacks and whites. It was hoped that this struggle would end with the civil rights acts of the 1960s. But it didn’t.

　　11.“Dogs”is a fourletter word.“Cats”is a four-letter word.“Pigs”is a four-letter word. Therefore, all four-letter words refer to animals.

　　12. The mind directly perceives only ideas. Material objects are not ideas. These facts prove that the mind does not directly perceive material objects.

　　13. Liberalism is the theory that it is impossible for a person to be both sincere and mistaken about what is good.

　　14. In 1957, among the thirtythree nations that chose not to exercise the death penalty, the number of murders never increased. Thus, capital punishment simply does not appear to serve as a deterrent.

　　15. Song and dancing were parts of the worship of Greek gods. Contests in music and poetry were held at the shrine of Apollo in Delphi. Civic festivals with“games”were similarly developed, notably the festival of Athena at Athens. And all these contests were means of gaining honor.

　　16. When I got home from school, the lights were on and the phone was ringing. The front door was wide open. There were no signs of any forced entry or burglary. Someone must have left the house in a hurry.

　　17. The reason capital punishment is not an effective deterrent is that most murders are“crimes of passion”where the murderer is simply not thinking about the consequences of his or her action.

　　18. No free government, or the blessing of liberty, can be preserved to any people, but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality and virtue, and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.

　　19. Anyone who has ever giggled himselfsintoshiccups knows how the initial giddiness turns to annoyance at the bodys uncontrollable rebellion - and how, after not very long, annoyance can give way to worry that they may never end. No one knows more about this alarming state of mind than 92-year-old Charles Osborne of Anthon, Iowa. One November day in 1922, on a farm near Union, Nebraska, while helping lift a 350-pound hog, Osborne began to hiccup. He hasn’t stopped since.

　　20. Scientists will never succeed in designing a computer that can actually think. Thinking, by its very nature, involves subjectivity. But computers are machines, and machines involve no subjectivity.

　　21. Since the Industrial Revolution, average standards of life in Western Europe and America seem definitely to have been showing a rising secular trend, tending to outstrip the underdeveloped nations.

　　22. Government estimates of the distribution of wealth in the United States in 1972 show that the top fifth owned 76% of the total wealth, the middle threefifths 23%, while the bottom fifth owned only 0.2%. More recently, it was estimated by the Joint Economics Committee of Congress that the top one-half of one percent of the United States households owned 26.9% of the nation’s total wealth.

　　23. Critical thinking is the ability to make good judgments in situations in which the best solution or answer is not to be discovered merely by applying a rule or repeating a memorized answer.

　　24. It is entirely correct ... to speak of the God of Technology-in the sense that people believe technology works, they rely on it, it makes promises, they are bereft when denied access to it, they are delighted when they are in its presence, for most people it works in mysterious ways, they condemn people who speak against it, they stand in awe of it, and in the bornagain mode, they will alter their lifestyles, their schedules, their habits, and their relationships to accommodate it. If this be not a form of religious belief, what is it?

风来疏竹，风过而竹不留声；
雁渡寒潭，雁去而潭不留影。

回复引用

举报顶端

竹影无风

级别: 论坛版主

显示用户信息

11 发表于: 2004-04-03

只看该作者 ┊ 小中大

10：FORMAT & OUTLINE

　　第十章格式和提纲

　　英国牛津式辩论和美国质询式辩论是最知名的辩论形式。前者强调正反双方在发表自己的言论的同时发起反击，后者有单独留出来的质询时间。本章第一部分讨论了这两种辩论形式。由于辩论时气氛紧张、言辞激烈，辩论的胜败往往在于能否在最短的时间内说服观众，抓住观众的注意力，因此，辩论的条理性非常重要。本章第二部分介绍了辩论双方应该怎样列出自己的辩论提纲。

　

　Formats of Debate辩论的格式

　　The various formats of academic debate have certain common elements: (1) Both sides must have an equal number of speakers; (2) both sides must have an equal amount of time; and (3) the affirmative must speak first and last.

　　The standard American procedure calls for what is known as university style debate. In this system, two persons form a team and usually debate both affirmative and negative sides during a tournament. The affirmative begins the debate by presenting a constructive, the first affirmative speech, which makes a case for adopting the resolution. The next speaker is the first negative, who is followed by the second affirmative, and finally, the second negative. Most tournaments also include cross-examination periods between each constructive speech. Without the cross-examination the format is often termed Oxford debate. With the cross-examination periods it is simply termed cross-examination debate or sometimes Oregon style. After a short pause, which is often omitted, the second negative constructive speaker is followed by the first negative rebuttal speaker. In the rebuttal speech, the speaker may attack the opponents- arguments in addition to defense, but may not introduce any new constructive arguments. The speakers then continue to alternate again with first affirmative rebuttal, second negative rebuttal, and finally, second affirmative rebuttal，including cross-examinations.

　

　Outlining the Debate辩论的提纲

　　Why Outlining the Debate

　　The reason why we should outline our debate is based on two considerations: the speaker and the audience.

　　The speaker. Within the above-mentioned time framework, the affirmative tries to compel the audience to agree that the resolution should be adopted. The support for the resolution means that either the audience should accept the affirmative team’s judgments, or it should agree the judgments suggested by the negative team. The negative attempts to prevent the affirmative from succeeding. Since time is limited in a debate, it is literally true that every moment counts. Time is precious to the speaker. No time can be wasted. If you waste a minute aimlessly repeating yourself, it is a minute that can never be made up in that debate.

　　The audience. A debate can be extremely confusing to an audience. Any human being who listens for forty-eight or sixty minutes to four other people arguing is probably going to be swamped by conflicting ideas. To the listener, there is too much time in a debate-that is, so many things are said during the debate that the listener finds it extremely difficult to keep track of what is going on.

　　Think and Speak in Outline Terms

　　For these two reasons-the speaker’s need for time and the audience’s saturation with it-it is imperative that every debate speaker know exactly what to try to do at every instant of the debate. This awareness of what is going on must be communicated to the listeners as well. Therefore, the first principle of successful debate speaking is: think and speak in outline terms.

　　In other words, debate speakers must know what the main ideas are in the debate so they can tell the audience what they are. Obviously, if the debaters do not know their own main arguments, they will never be able to recognize those of the opposition.

　　An affirmative outline. The easiest way to visualize this principle in practice is to see the entire debate as two outlines set alongside each other. To think in outline terms is to view the debate case in terms of its functional parts: issues, arguments, and evidence. For instance, in a debate on a particular policy proposition, the affirmative might outline part of their case as follows:

　　Issue:

　　Ⅰ. The present system of state and federal highways is inadequate, for:Argument:

　　A. United States highways are substandard for present needs, for:Evidence:

　　1. Specific supporting evidence

　　2. Specific supporting evidence

　　3. Specific supporting evidence

　　Argument:

　　B. Expansion under the present system is not adequate for future needs, because:Evidence:

　　1. Specific supporting evidence

　　2. Specific supporting evidence

　　3. Specific supporting evidence

　　4. Specific supporting evidence

　　Argument:

　　C. Present federal help is inadequate, for:

　　Evidence:

　　1. Specific supporting evidence

　　2. Specific supporting evidence

　　Argument:

　　D. Present highway programs do not provide work projects to alleviate unemployment, because:

　　Evidence:

　　1. Specific supporting evidence

　　2. Specific supporting evidence

　　3. Specific supporting evidence

　

　Summary总结

　　The Oxford debate format and the cross-examination format are the most well-known debate formats in which different aspects are emphasized. Due to the tension and high speech in a debate, catching the attention of the audience becomes significant. The clearer the speakers puts ideas sintos an outlining way, the more likely they could win the debate.

风来疏竹，风过而竹不留声；
雁渡寒潭，雁去而潭不留影。

回复引用

举报顶端

竹影无风

级别: 论坛版主

显示用户信息

10 发表于: 2004-04-02

只看该作者 ┊ 小中大

Transformative Mediation变革型调解

　　There are some mediators who see their role not as problem solver but as a person who helps people in conflict to learn and grow from the experience. This approach was called transformative mediation. In transformative mediation, the mediator looks for opportunities for empowerment and recognition. Empowerment occurs when people realize that they have the power to deal with their own conflicts and to speak out in their own voice about what they need. Recognition is the acknowledgment of the other person’s feelings, rights, and empowerment. Recognition does not necessarily as that you agree with the other person, but that you recognize him or her as an individual, not as a piece of the puzzle to be solved.

　　Two Siblings and One Orange

　　People:

　　Mediator - Tony

　　Sibling 1 - Jerry

　　Sibling 2 - Sandy

　　A table and several chairs are available. As the siblings come in, Tony greets them and asks them to take a seat. They sitswheresthey choose. When both siblings are seated, Tony takes a seat.

　　Tony: How can I help you?

　　Jerry: We’re here because of Sandy. We have one orange in the house. This jerk knows that I need it, and ...

　　Sandy: (interrupting) That’s exactly like Jerry! Everything is about what Jerry needs...

　　Jerry: Will you listen to this hysteria! It should be pretty easy for you to figure out what we need to do here.

　　Tony: (interrupting) Let’s wait just a minute, Jerry. Sandy, you too. You need to figure out how I can help you with this. I’m not here to make any decisions for you. This isn’t like courtswheresyou tell me things and I decide for you. This is an opportunity for the two of you sit down together, and really listen to one another as you talk about what’s going on with the orange. How does that sound?

　　Jerry: I have a solution in mind already. We just have to get through to Simple Simon over there.

　　Tony: Right now I need to know that you are both willing to listen to one another. For now, tell me if you are willing to talk this out.

　　Jerry: Sure. I’ll stay if Sandy stays.

　　Tony: Sandy?

　　Sandy: I’ll stay, but Jerry has to stop calling me Simple Simon.

　　Tony: Does that work for you, Jerry?

　　Jerry: Sure.

　　Tony: Okay. (writing)“Jerry won’t call Sandy Simple Simon.”

　　Sandy: Or any other name!

　　Tony: Shall we make that a rule for going forward?The siblings nod their agreement.

　　Tony: How does this sound? Everything you tell me will be confidential. I won’t tell anyone about what here unless you want me to. You may see me take notes so I can keep my thinking straight, but you’ll also see me tear my notes up when we are finished. I won’t take sides but will be here to be sure that you both are represented and to help you find out what is truly important to one another. Sound good?

　　Sandy and Jerry nod.

　　Tony: Who would like to go first?

　　Sandy: It may as well be Jerry. Jerry always goes first.

　　Jerry: All right, I will.

　　Tony: Is that really all right, Sandy?

　　Sandy: Yeah.

　　Jerry: Sandy has this self-image of being a great chef or something. I came home from running and wanted some fresh orange juice. It’s full of antioxidants and vitamin C. I need it after a run, but - no! Sandy has to bake. I’m hot, I’m tired, I’m thirsty. So all I did was pick up the orange and start to walk out of the room...

　　Sandy: I was using it!

　　Jerry: See how Sandy always interrupts and yells? Anyway, I picked up the orange...

　　Sandy: I do not interrupt and yell!

　　Tony: Jerry?

　　Jerry: I picked up the orange and started to go out of the room and Sandy came after me screaming that the orange wasn’t mine, that is was part of some recipe.

　　(There is a pause.)

　　Tony: Anything else, Jerry?

　　Jerry: That’s about all there was to it. All I wanted was to make some orange juice.

　　Sandy: I was using that orange! Jerry just waltzes in and grabs the orange without asking, and I need the entire peel to grate /into/ my special Blue Ribbon Pound Cake. It’s just like Jerry to ignore what I need. It’s not like Jerry isn’t going to get any of the cake, but no! Jerry has to have juice. It’s infuriating!

　　Tony: Anything else, Sandy?

　　Sandy: No.

　　Tony: Do you have questions for one another?

　　Jerry: Yeah. Why does Sandy have to be such a jerk?

　　Sandy:That’s name-calling! You said you wouldn’t call names!

　　Tony: We did agree to not call names, Jerry. Is there another way you can ask Sandy the question?

　　Jerry: Why is Sandy always acting like baking is the most important thing? Why can’t I take the orange and make juice if I’m thirsty?

　　Tony: I don’t know. Why don’t you ask Sandy?

　　Sandy: I know that you want juice, but you want some of my Blue Ribbon Pound Cake, too... If there’s no orange peel, there’s no Blue Ribbon Pound Cake. You just make me so mad when you come in and interrupt everything I have planned and take the orange just because you need juice. Blue Ribbon Pound Cakes don’t grow on trees.

　　Jerry: You make great cakes, but when I come in all hot and thirsty, I really need my freshly squeezed orange juice. I can’t wait to cut that orange open and squeeze the juice out of it.

　　Tony: Sandy, I think that Jerry has said something that you may want to hear. Jerry, what do you think about Sandy’s cakes?

　　Jerry: I think they’re great. You can be a real pain, sometimes, but your cakes are the best.

　　Sandy: Then, why can’t you let me use the orange when I need it?

　　Tony: Please wait, Sandy. Did you hear Jerry talk about your baking?

　　Sandy: What?

　　Tony: Jerry?

　　Jerry: You’re an excellent baker.

　　Sandy: Wow. Thanks. You always seem to be making fun of my baking. If you like my baking so much, why couldn’t you see that I need the orange?

　　Jerry: I didn’t know you needed the orange. I really needed orange juice after my run. You know the electrolytes...

　　Sandy: Right. And the vitamin C.Jerry: That’s right. And the vitamin C. This is very important to me.

　　Sandy: I know.There is an uncomfortable silence.

　　Tony: What else?

　　Jerry: Sometimes Sandy gets excited and interrupts, but it’s really not a problem.

　　Tony: It doesn’t bother you?

　　Jerry: Well, yes, but I know that when I get excited I call Sandy Simple Simon.

　　Sandy: That has to stop, no matter what.

　　Jerry: I’ll be more careful.

　　Sandy: More careful might not be good enough. It really bothers me when you call me names.

　　Jerry: Well, then don’t be so stupid about whether or not I can make orange juice.

　　Sandy: Well, maybe you should open your eyes and see that I’m baking and I have everything laid out that I need. Everything-including the only orange in the house.

　　Jerry: I can’t read your mind, Sandy!

　　Sandy: You know how I bake. Just pay attention once in a while and you would know that if an orange is on the counter with all of my stuff, I’m going to use it. All you think about is what you need at the moment.

　　Jerry: Well, all you think about is what you need to bake your stupid cakes!

　　Tony: Jerry, what do you think about Sandy’s baking?

　　Jerry: I know. Sandy’s cakes are great. I meant that. But there are other things in life.

　　Tony: Can you think of a way to tell Sandy what you mean without starting a fight?

　　Jerry: (after a pause) Not really.

　　Tony: Sandy, what would work for you?

　　Sandy: I think Jerry likes my cakes but thinks that’s all I have in my life. Jerry is wrong. There are many things about me that people don’t know.

　　Jerry: I know what you mean. Sometimes people say that all I do is run.

　　

Comments on the Two Examples关于两个例子的评论

　　In the first example, the meeting was about solving the problem of the orange. If an idea for a solution came up, the mediator helped Sandy and Jerry to zero in on it. Then they would talk through whether or not might work for them. In the second meeting the mediator started by asking Jerry and Sandy what the issue was. This meeting was more of a conversation about their relationship with one another.

　　The first example, problem solving, ended with a truce that let Sandy and Jerry split the orange. The transformative mediator in the second example listened for ways to help Sandy hear what was important to Jerry and vice versa. The transformative mediator’s goal is to help people understand that they can work through their own problems while seeing the importance and value of the other person’s point of view. In the second example, Jerry and Sandy learned about themselves and each other. This gave them a good chance not only of figuring out what to do about the orange, but also of how to deal with other conflicts in the future.

　

　Summary总结

　　The mediator plays an important role in the process of negotiation. The chapter firstly defines the meaning of a mediator, then explains its functions and finally introduces two mediating methods through two comparative examples.

风来疏竹，风过而竹不留声；
雁渡寒潭，雁去而潭不留影。

回复引用

举报顶端

竹影无风

级别: 论坛版主

显示用户信息

9 发表于: 2004-04-02

只看该作者 ┊ 小中大

9：EFFECTIVE MEDIATING
　　

第九章有效调解

　　许多成功的谈判是在调解人的调解下完成的，本章将向您介绍调解人的定位和作用，并利用具体事例说明两种具体的调解方法：问题针对型调解方法和变革型调解方法。

　

　What Is a Mediator?什么是调解人？

　　The mediator is a facilitator, a combination of priest and sorcerer, there to make sure the conversation stays productive and doesn’t deteriorate /into/ name-calling, and finger-pointing, and other assorted destructive patterns.

　

　Functions of a Mediator调解人的作用

　　Project Neutrality: neutrality is easily said, not so easily achieved. Assuming you are human and that your parties are also human, it is the hardest thing to do. It is impossible to like everyone. Sometimes we are asked to help someone who is in a conflict situation. We may be asked to take sides, or we may be asked to get in the middle as a neutral party to help sort things out. Can we truly be neutral? To most of us, the word neutral means not taking sides. And we may be able to do that. We will still believe what we believe, and this may include an opinion about who is right and who is wrong. When we decide not to take sides, we are neutral on the outside, but we still have our beliefs and points of view on the inside. That is, we“look”neutral.

　　Looking neutral might include not voicing an opinion, ensuring that everyone involved in the conflict is heard, and keeping people safe. We might look neutral by carefully choosing words so that they do not support one side or another. Looking neutral might also include keeping confidences-not telling the other side something that someone has told you in confidence.

　　Looking neutral is not dishonest. You are not going to stop being yourself while you help people with their differences. However, you are going to behave in a way that makes people feel sure that you will be as evenhanded as possible.

　　One way to make sure that you look neutral to the people you are trying to help is to check with them. When people ask you to help them as a neutral party, tell them what looking neutral looks like to you and see whether that works for them. If everybody can agree to what neutral looks like, you have a better picture of how you can help.

　　Absorb Conflict: in addition to projecting neutrality in all you do, as a mediator you must absorb conflict at all times. Parties might argue with you or try to evoke a reaction. You must betray no emotion, be as expressionless as possible. You can nod to let them know you’re listening-and in fact, listen-but you must not react. No one can argue for very long with someone who won’t argue with him. It might frustrate a party that you won’t engage them, but they will ultimately give up. Don’t try to convince them or engage them. Just absorb the conflict.

　　Defuse Tension: in any dispute, there is a level of tension. Depending on the nature of the dispute, there can be an enormous amount of tension in the room. It saps energy and distracts the parties from their real goal. If there is more tension when the parties are in the same room, separate them. Perhaps you need to operate with only a small group, one or two from each side, in one room. Don’t be afraid to use humor with the parties, and encourage them to use it with one another.

　

　Problem Solving Mediation

　

　问题针对型调解

　　Two Siblings and One Orange

　　People:

　　Mediator-Tony

　　Sibling-Jerry

　　Sibling-Sandy

　　Situation:

　　Set up a table with three chairs. The chairs for the two siblings face one another across the table. Tony’s chair is between them. As the siblings come in, Tony greets them and asks them to take a seat. When both siblings are seated, Tony takes a seat.

　　Tony: I understand that there is some problem about an orange between you two?

　　Jerry: I’ll say! This jerk knows that I need the orange, and...

　　Sandy: (interrupting) That’s exactly like Jerry! Everything is about what Jerry needs...

　　Tony: (interrupting) Let’s wait just a minute, Sandy. Jerry, you too. I need to tell you how this will work. Most important, you both need to know that I’m not here to make any decisions for you. This isn’t like courtswheresyou tell me things and I decide for you. This is an opportunity for the two of you to sit down together, talk about what the problem is, and figure out a solution that works for both of you. How does that sound?

　　Jerry: I have a solution in mind already. We just have to get through to Simple Simon over there.

　　Tony: Right now I need to know that you are both willing to work together on this problem. You will get a chance to tell your story, Jerry. For now, tell me if you are willing to talk this out.

　　Jerry: Sure. I’ll stay if Sandy stays.

　　Tony: Sandy?

　　Sandy: I’ll stay, but Jerry has to stop calling me names.

　　Tony: Good. In fact, why don’t we make that a ground rule for our meeting?“No name-calling.”The siblings nod their agreement.

　　Tony: Here’s how this will work. Everything you tell me will be confidential. I won’t tell anyone about what we talk about here unless you want me to. You may see me take notes so I can keep my thinking straight, but you’ll also see me tear my notes up when we are finished. I won’t take sides but will be here to be sure that you both are represented and to help you figure this out. We’ll start byshavingseach of you bring me up to date on what the problem is. First one will speak and then the other. During that time, I don’t want you to interrupt - just listen. If there is something you want to be sure to say, write it down and say it during your turn. Once you have had your turns, we can ask questions and talk about different points of view. If we come up with a solution that works for both of you, we’ll write it down and sign it. Sound good?

　　Sandy and Jerry nod.

　　Tony: Who would like to go first?

　　Sandy: It may as well be Jerry. Jerry always goes first.

　　Jerry: All right, I will.

　　Tony: Is that really all right, Sandy?

　　Sandy: Yeah.

　　Jerry: Sandy has this self-image of being a great chef or something. I came home from running and wanted some fresh orange juice. It’s full of antioxidants and vitamin C. I need it after a run, but-no! Sandy has to bake. I’m hot, I’m tired, I’m thirsty. So all I did was pick up the orange and start to walk out of the room.

　　Sandy: I was using it!!!

　　Tony: (calmly) You’ll get your turn, Sandy.

　　Jerry: See how Sandy always interrupts and yells! Anyway, I picket up the orange...

　　Sandy: I do not interrupt and yell!

　　Tony: (still calm, but a little more firmly) Sandy, let’s let Jerry finish. You may want to write down what you were going to say so you don’t forget it.(Sandy writes furiously on the tablet on the table:“I don’t yell!!!”)

　　Tony: Jerry?

　　Jerry: I picked up the orange and started to go out of the room and Sandy came after me screaming that the orange wasn’t mine, that it was part of some recipe.

　　(There is pause.)

　　Tony: Anything else, Jerry?

　　Jerry: That’s about all there was to it. All I wanted was to make some orange juice.

　　Tony: Thanks. Now, Sandy, why don’t you...

　　Sandy: I was using that orange! Jerry just waltzes in and grabs the orange without asking and I need the entire peel to grate /into/ my special Blue Ribbon Pound Cake. It’s just like Jerry to ignore what I need. It’s not like jerry isn’t going to get any of the cake, but no! Jerry has to have juice. It’s infuriating!

　　Tony: Anything else, Sandy?

　　Sandy: No.

　　Tony: Do you have questions for one another?

　　Jerry: Yeah. Why does Sandy have to be such a jerk?

　　Sandy: That’s name-calling! You said you wouldn’t call names!

　　Tony: We did agree to not call names, Jerry. Is there another way you can ask Sandy the question?

　　Jerry: Why is Sandy always acting like baking is the most important thing? Why can’t I take the orange and make juice if I’m thirsty?Tony: I don’t know. Why don’t you ask Sandy?

　　Sandy: I know that you want juice, but you want some of my Blue Ribbon Pound Cake, too... If there’s not orange peel, there’s no Blue Ribbon Pound Cake. You just make me so mad when you come in and interrupt everything I have planned and take the orange just because you need juice. Blue Ribbon Pound Cakes don’t grow on trees.

　　Jerry: You make great cakes, but when I come in all hot and thirsty, I really need my freshly squeezed orange juice. I can’t wait to cut that orange open and squeeze the juice out of it.

　　Tony: Can you explain something to me? Sandy, how do you use the orange in your Blue Ribbon Pound Cake?

　　Sandy: I zest it.

　　Jerry: Oh, brother!

　　Sandy: That’s what it’s called. I have this thing like a little grater, and I rub it all over the orange peel and the peel comes off /into/ the batter. It’s what gives my Blue Ribbon Pound Cake that special something.

　　Tony: Thanks. And Jerry, how do you make juice?

　　Jerry: I cut the peel off and put the orange in the juicer.

　　Tony: Any ideas？

　　Sandy: Yes! If Jerry wants cake, then no juice for Jerry.

　　Jerry: That’s just stupid. I’ll make my juice, and you can dig the peel out of the trash for your stupid cake.

　　(There is a pause.)

　　Sandy:Better idea: I’ll use the zest and when I’m done baking you can have the orange.

　　Jerry: I’m not waiting for you. When I come in I’m thirsty.

　　Tony: So what do we have so far? (checks notes) Sandy, you just need the peel, and Jerry, you just need the fruit.

　　Sandy: But I’m not digging the peel out of the trash.

　　Jerry: You wouldn’t have to. I could leave it on the table for you. But I have to have my juice first.

　　Sandy: In other words, I have to wait for you to come back until I can finish my cake. This isn’t working.

　　Tony: Wait a minute, Sandy. Is there some way that there could be juice ready when Jerry needed it and you wouldn’t have to wait to start baking?

　　Sandy: I’m not making Jerry’s juice, if that’s what you mean.

　　Jerry: Just take the peel, and leave the fruit in the fridge. I’ll make my own juice when I get home.

　　Tony: Will that work?

　　Sandy: Works for me.

　　Jerry: Will I still get some cake?

　　Discussion: When the demonstration is finished, thank the two siblings and let them return to their regular seats. Explain that the next steps in the process would often include writing an agreement for each sibling to sign.“The two siblings finally came to an agreement that worked for them about the orange. Were there any issues other than the orange that we could have talked about?”

　　Some groups will come up with answers to this; some will not. If yoursgroupshas some answers, write then on a flip chart as they say them to you. If you do not, suggest that some other issues were brought up besides the orange, including.One calls the other names.

　　Jerry always goes first.

　　Jerry doesn’t always seem to value Sandy’s baking.

　　Sandy yells and interrupts.

　　Sandy says that Jerry ignores his or her needs.

　　Sandy is very proud of the pound cake.

　　At one point, Jerry says,“You make great cakes.”

　　Sandy and Jerry have slightly different values.

　　Explain that some or all of these things could help or hinder the success of the two siblings- agreement about the orange. Mediators need to decide what issues they should be focusing on.

回复引用

举报顶端

竹影无风

级别: 论坛版主

显示用户信息

8 发表于: 2004-04-01

只看该作者 ┊ 小中大

8：THE MAJOR PART OF NEGOTIATION

　第八章谈判的主要部分

　　做好谈判的准备之后，你就可以轻装上阵，直接面对你的谈判对手了。在这个时候，你就应该注意谈判的策略。有时候对方会虚张声势地故意制造紧张气氛，当对方采取强硬态度时，你要察言观色，看清他们的真实意图，本章第一部分讲述了这些问题。当谈判遇到问题，双方坚守自己的立场各不相让时，你应该透过对方的立场，认清立场背后的利益所在，本章第二部分讲述了这些内容。此外，谈判的时候，你还应该注意自己的语言行为和非语言行为，并利用它们推动谈判的顺利进行，本章第三、第四部分将分别论述这两种行为。

　

　Tactics策略

　　Fifteen Tactics

　　You don’t have to negotiate for twenty years to recognize the tactics that most people use. There are fifteen most common negotiating tactics listed below. You can get used to them as you are learning the most important negotiating skills. In any real deal it’s important that you know all of these tactics before you walksintosthe negotiation and most important, in the negotiating process. If you aren’t familiar with any of them, take the time and review those techniques. The more you know about these techniques and the more adept you are at recognizing them, the more easily you can turn them against the person trying to get you.

　　Tactic 1Good Cop/Bad Cop

　　Tactic 2Higher Authority

　　Tactic 3“Take It or Leave It”

　　Tactic 4The Proliferating Tip

　　Tactic 5The Staller

　　Tactic 6First Draft

　　Tactic 7The Beggar

　　Tactic 8Side-Issuers

　　Tactic 9Fact or Fiction?

　　Tactic 10Pressure Cookers

　　Tactic 11“Or Else”

　　Tactic 12The Non-Negotiators

　　Tactic 13Upping the Ante

　　Tactic 14Exhaustion

　　Tactic 15Rotating Negotiators

　　If you don’t recognize the tactic, you’re not going to know how to disarm it. One way to practice recognizing negotiation tactics is to have a friend try them out on you. You should first identify, then disarm the tactic. The faster you can identify a tactic against you, the more you can turn it to your advantage. Conversely, the longer you let a tactic go on without mentioning it, the more difficult it will be to stop it.

　　Example

　　Read the following excerpts from negotiations and identify what tactic one party is trying to use on the other party.

　　1.“You want an extra ten days to pay on the contract? I can give you the extra days if we double the price.”

　　2.“So I think we’ve come to common agreement on most of the major points. Why don’t I have my office draw up a contract right now so we can get this deal done?”

　　3.“You know, I’d love to make that change, but I’m going to have to run this by my boss, and you know he’s really tough, I don’t think he’ll go for it.”

　　4.“Sorry about all the sunlight, but the window blinds broke yesterday and I haven’t had a chance to get them fixed. Let’s discuss the terms.”

　　5.“Our figures, based on our own careful research, indicate that by the year 1999, seventy-three percent of the American people will be vegetarian, so we see our market for soy burgers increasing by at least 900 percent. Look at the way this graph slopes upward. It’s inevitable.”

　　6.“I know it’s been a long day, but let’s go over this one more time. If we can make one more push on some minor issues, I am highly confident that we can finish up the deal tonight.”

　　7.“I know that were going to have to talk about the rent you want for this apartment and the term of the lease, but I think we have to talk about the nopet clause. I’m a real believer in pets-I’ve had one all my life-but for this apartment I’m willing to give up my pet. I’m willing to install bars on the window to make this building more safe and secure. I also have some plumbing and repair skills, and I can fix up the apartment to make it in excellent condition. Now, let’s talk about rent.”

　　8.“I’m sorry for all the confusion. Larry, the last person you were talking to doesn’t have the authority to negotiate this contract. I’m the person you should have been negotiating with all along.”

　　9.“This is it. Either take it, or else I’ll have to leave you as my supplier.”

　　10.“I’ll tell you what. We need to show some cash up front, so if you sign this deal, I’ll cut you ten-no fifteen-percent off the next deal when we negotiate it next year. If we don’t, I’m not sure we’re going to be around to negotiate anything next year.”

　　11.“You have our offer. If you have problems with it, I suggest you go somewhere else.”

　　12.“Take it easy, Charlie. I’m sure we don’t want to blame David here if his offer wasn’t what we wanted. He was just doing the best he could. Can I get you some coffee, David? I sympathize with your position-you’re just trying to do your job. What I think Charlie means, his screaming aside, is that to do business, we’re going to need a better offer, and I know that with all your creative knowledge, you’ll be able to do better with the next one.”

　　13.“Sure we can accept your timing recommendations. I’ll pass them on to the senior committee and they’ll make a recommendation. Those will be passed along to the vice’president in charge of the division, who will form his own committee and then pass along a recommendation to the president. I don’t see any problems, though.”

　　14.“If you don’t accept our offer, I’ll ruin your name in this business. You’ll be looking for work in another country.”

　　15.“You know, I can sign this deal now if you can give me a custom color on this couch. I couldn’t pay any more, but I’m ready to sign if you can give me a bright red rather than the white one here.”

　　During the negotiation, it may seem awkward to bring to light some of the other side’s tactics. After all, you want to maintain a good relationship with them, and isn’t accusing them of trying to use a tactic on you the same as accusing them of trying to cheat you? Relax. Just because someone tries to use experience to his advantage doesn’t mean he is trying to cheat you, or that he is not worth negotiating with. After all, it’s up to you to respond.

　

　Understand the Problem Fully对问题充分了解

　　Many writers on negotiation have stressed that a key to achieving an agreement is the ability of the parties to get at each other’s interests. Thus, we consider identifying interests an important part in the negotiation process. Interests are different from positions in that interests are the underlying concerns, needs, desires, or fears that motivate a negotiator to take a particular position. Many negotiators argue that although negotiators may have difficulty satisfying each other’s specific positions, an understanding of underlying interests may permit them to invent solutions that meet those interests. In this section, we will first define interests more fully and then discuss how understanding them may be critical to effective negotiation.

　　The following example reveals the essence of the difference between interest and positions:

　　Consider the story of two men quarreling in a library. One wants the window open and the other wants it closed. They bicker back and forth about how much to leave it open: a crack, halfway, three-quarters of the way. No solution satisfied them both. The librarian enters. She asks one why he wants the window open.“To get some fresh air.”She asks the other why he wants it closed.“To avoid the draft.”After thinking a minute she opens wide a window in the next room, bringing in fresh air without a draft.

　　This is a classic example of parties- negotiating over positions and failing to understand underlying interest. Their positions are“window open”and“window closed.”If they continue to pursue positional bargaining, the set of possible outcomes can include only a victory for the one who wants the window open, a victory for the one who wants it shut, or some compromise in which neither gets what he want. The librarian’s solution satisfies both people: get fresh air and avoid a draft. Understanding these interests enables the librarian to invent a solution that meets the interest of both sides-a solution that was not at all apparent when the two men were arguing over their positions.

　　In this description, the key word is why-why they want what they want. When two parties begin negotiation, they usually lay their position or demands on the table, and as we have pointed out, this position or these demands have emerged from a planning process in which the parties decided what they wanted and then specified opening bids, targets, and resistance point. The presumption is that if both parties understand the motivating factors for the other, they may recognize possible compatibilities in interests that permit them to invent new positions that both will endorse. Consider the following dialogue between a company recruiter and a job applicant over starting salary.

　　Recruiter: What were you thinking about as a starting salary?

　　Applicant: I would like＄40,000.

　　Recruiter: We can only offer＄35,000.

　　Applicant: That’s not acceptable.

　　So far, the parties have only laid positions on the table. They are＄5,000 apart. Moreover, the applicant may be afraid to bargain position with the recruiter, whereas the recruiter may be afraid that the applicant-whom he very much wants to hire-will walk out. Now let us extend their dialogue to help them focus on interests.

　　Recruiter:＄40,000 is a problem for our company. Can you tell me why you decided you wanted＄40,000?

　　Applicant: Well, I have lots of education loans to pay off, and I will need to pay for a few more courses to finish my degree. I can’t really afford to pay these bills and live comfortably for less than＄40,000.

　　Recruiter: Our company has a program to help new employees refinance their education loans. In addition, we also have a program to provide tuition assistance for new courses if the courses you need to take are related to your job. Would these programs help you with your problem?

　　Applicant: Yes!

　　Bringing the applicant’s interests-paying off education loans and future education costs-to the surface allows the recruiter to offer a financial package that meets the needs of both the company and the applicant. Similarly, the applicant might have asked why the company could only pay＄35,000 and discovered that it was company policy not to offer more than this to any applicant with the same qualifications. However, the question might also have revealed that the company can pay performance bonuses and would be willing to review the salary after six moths. Thus, the applicant may well make＄40,000 by the end of the first year and so have his financial goal met.

　

　Being Verbally Sensitive语言行为敏感性

　　Words

　　Author Deborah Tannen argues that most of us exist in an argument culture,swheresthe language we use in talking about issues reflects a preference for adversarial relationships. The words we choose to describe our interactions shape our perceptions of he experience. Consequently, when we refer to the“opponent”in a“debate，”we shape our communication as adversarial and are more likely to escalate the conflict.

　　Tannnen proposed the following naming alternative to help defuse the argument culture:

　　Instead of this... Say this...Battle of the sexes Relations between women and menCritiqueCommentFightDiscussionThe opposite sexThe other sexWar on drugsSolving the drug problemProvocativeThoughtprovokingMost controversialMost importantAttackdog journalismWatchdog journalismAutomatic oppositionGenuine oppositionFocus on differencesSearch for common groundWin the argumentUnderstand another point of viewThe opposition partyThe other partyThe argument cultureThe dialogue culture

　　Sentences

　　Offering something in return:“Let’s try to solve the problem in a different way. What can we do to help you? If we made an advanced payment of 30 percent, how much could you come down in price?”

　　Delaying:“Take a careful look at the things I’m asking for. Don’t put yourself under any time pressure. We can arrange for a new meeting.”

　　Signaling your readiness to compromise:“Don’t regard this as an ultimate demand on our part. I’m sure you can improve your offer enough so that we can reach a compromise that’s acceptable to both of us.”

　　Making a request:“We’re giving you the same chance to shorten the delivery time that we’ve offered your competitors. Several of them have said they’d be able to give us a delivery time three months shorter than you’ve offered.shavingsit shortened that much would put us ahead quite a bit economically.”

　　Making a Compliment:“You and I have different views of what your obligations to me are, I know, but you could have tried to spin them more in your favor, but you didn’t. You laid out the facts exactly as they occurred and didn’t play fast and loose with them. You’re an honest man, and I thank you for that.”

　

　Being Nonverbally Sensitive非语言行为敏感性

　　Much of what people communicate to one another is transmitted not only with words and sentences, but also with body language: the way they position their body, their tone of voice, their head movement. Many nonverbal acts are very important in connecting with another person; they let the other know that you are listening and prepare the other party to receive your message. We will discuss three important nonverbal behaviors: eye contact，body position, and nonverbal encouraging cues.

　　Make Eye Contact. Dishonest people and cowards are not supposed to be able to look people in the eye. Poets claim that the eye is the lens that permits us to looksintosa persons soul. These and other bits of conventional wisdom illustrate how important people believe eye contact to be.

　　In general, making eye contact is one way in which you can show others you are paying attention and listening, and that you consider them important. If people do not look at you when you are speaking, you may question whether they are listening. Of course, you may listen very well even when you are not looking at the other person; in fact, it may be easier to look away because you can focus on the spoken words and not be confused by visual information. But the point is that by not making eye contact, you are not providing the other person with an important cue that you are listening.

　　When persuading someone, it is important to make eye contact when you deliver the most important part of your message. This is the equivalent of staring inside the other person, talking directly to his heart and soul.shavingsthe verbal and nonverbal systems in parallel at this point emphasizes the importance of the message that is being sent. Also, you should maintain eye contact not only when speaking but when receiving communication as well.

　　Adjust Your Body Position. Parents frequently advise their children about how to stand and sit, particularly when they are in formal settings such as school, church, or dinner parties. The command“Sit up!”is often accompanied by“And pay attention!”Here the parent is teaching the child another widely help belief-the way you hold your body indicates whether or not you are paying attention to the other party. If you want to make sure that others know you are attentive to them, you should hold you body erect, lean slightly forward, and face the other person directly. If you accept and endorse the other’s message, you need to take care not to show disrespect with your body position by slouching, turning away, or placing your feet on the table. In contrast, crossing your arms, bowing your head, furrowing your brow, and squeezing your eyebrows together all can signal strong rejection or disapproval of the message.

　　Nonverbal Encouraging Cues. You can indicate your attention and interest in what another is saying through a variety of simple behaviors. A head nod, a simple hand gesture to go on, or a murmured“Unh hunh”to indicate understanding all tell the other person to continue, that you are listening. In fact, you can encourage someone to continue to talk about many subjects by simply nodding your head as he or she is speaking.

　

　Summary总结

　　When negotiating, it is vital for you to identify the tactics the other party is using and understand the problems fully. Also, It is equally important for you to use correct verbal and nonverbal messages to the other party to keep the negotiation going smoothly.

风来疏竹，风过而竹不留声；
雁渡寒潭，雁去而潭不留影。

回复引用

举报顶端

竹影无风

级别: 论坛版主

显示用户信息

7 发表于: 2004-03-31

只看该作者 ┊ 小中大

7：PREPARATION FOR NEGOTIATION

　第七章谈判的准备

　　理解了谈判的一些基本要素之后，本章将讲述如何做好谈判前的准备工作。准备工作应主要集中在下面四个方面：收集事实材料；制定谈判大纲；确定谈判时机和地点；分配团队成员在谈判中应该各自扮演的角色。其中，在收集事实材料的过程中，应该注意理性和感性这两方面的材料。在制定谈判大纲时，应该注意自己在哪些方面可以让步，在哪些方面必须强硬。在确定谈判时机和地点时，应该注意利用这两个因素给对方施加压力。在分配角色时，应该注意彼此之间的分工合作。

　　

Collecting Facts收集材料

　　In preparation for any negotiation, it is critical to accumulate as much information as you can, both empirical and empathetical.

　　As for empirical facts, with access to the internet, there is no reason why you can’t be armed with as much empirical data as you want. If you’re buying a car, there are hundreds of Web sites that can give you information on price and on the dealer’s actual cost. If you’re negotiating for a job or a raise, you want to know what others in the organization-or others in similar jobs in other organizations-are earning. In a labor negotiation, you want comparative wage data for the geographic region and for the industry in question. A virtually unlimited supply of information is available to you through the federal government and through the Internet. You should employ all of these sources in advance of your negotiation, so you’re armed with the facts and so you can use these facts to make and bolster your case with your counterpart.

　　Those are the empirical facts. Equally important is the empathy.“Empathy”includes a person’s or an organization’s background, history, drive, motivation, mission, dreams, goals, fears, aversions, hopes, and aspirations. First, get to know the organization. For example, if you are set to negotiate with asgroupsof environmentalists who are angry with your company, who are they? What is their agenda? Talk to colleagues who have dealt with them in the past. Check their Web site. How difficult or reasonable are they? What have been their demands? What did others in your situation do to solve the problem, that is, what did others have to agree to insgroupsto settle the dispute? Are they earnest and interested in reaching an agreement or only in grabbing headlines? You can’t have enough information on the organization goingsintosa negotiation.

　　For example, let’s say you are trying to rent an apartment. Some information you may want to gather before you negotiate would include:

　　1. What other apartments in the building are renting for.

　　2. What comparable apartments in the neighborhood are renting for.

　　3. What comparable apartments are asking as a security deposit.

　　4. What other apartments offer in terms of view.

　　5. The history of maintenance in the building.

　　6. The satisfaction of the other tenants in the building.

　　7. What the other tenants are like in the building.

　　8. If the other tenants have pets.

　　9. If there are stores/facilities near the apartment.

　　10. What the noise levels in the neighborhood are.

　　11. What the parking situation in the neighborhood are.

　　12. If there is a broker, how she is paid.

　　13. If there is a broker, whether she lives in the neighborhood.

　　14. What kind of security the building has.

　

　Working Out a Negotiation Scheme制定谈判提纲

　　Concentrate on factors that will affect the overall outcome, and compare the alternatives in terms of total costs involved. Remember that it should be clear to yourself in advance just what is negotiable on your part, i.e. on what points you will be open to accepting certain changes. These are changes that can affect cost, risk or profit. As an example, suppose you are buying other company’s product and you are willing to be flexible on the following matters:

　　Payment arrangements: You could agree to make an ad vance payment.

　　Delivery times: You would prefer faster delivery, since this would enable you to begin production sooner.

　　Service: You could consider making a service agreement with the supplier.

　　After this, you will need to determine how flexible you can be, and in what areas, as well as how much flexibility you will expect from the supplier:

　　Payment arrangements: You would be prepared to make an advance payment of up to 50 percent.

　　Delivery times: Since getting ready to start the production will take at least six months, there is nothing to gain from an earlier delivery, though you are likely to suffer a loss if delivery is late.

　　Service: You would be willing to sign a service agreement of up to five years.

　　After determining your degree of flexibility, the next problem to anticipate will be the effects such changes might have on you. Would your costs rise or be reduced? Would your gross receipts increase? Would the risk you are exposed to decrease? Attempt if possible to express such consequences in monetary terms:

　　Payment arrangements: Making an advance payment costs you something and involves risk. If making an advance payment of 50 percent means paying the seller＄200,000, plus taking out a 30-day loan for this amount based on 10 percent per annum interest charges, your interest costs would be＄1,667.

　　Delivery times: In the event of a late delivery, you have calculated that each month you have to wait beyond the first agreed upon six months will cost you＄12,500.

　　Service: A service contract with an outside organization would cost you＄25,000 a year. You consider this to be the most that a service agreement with the supplier should cost.

　

　Deciding When and Where确定时间和地点

　　The Timing of Negotiation

　　Many negotiators are not result-oriented. This makes for long, drawn out negotiations, often with no result in the end. Such negotiators can become very much pressed for time. If an agreement is reached, they may feel they have been forcedsintosmaking a poor decision. Time pressure may cause both negotiators to lower their goals. Such negotiation may do more harm than good.

　　On the other hand, you may consciously use a strategy of delay. Creating time pressure is a well-known way of getting the other party to agree. If he is more intent on reaching an agreement than you are, this puts him at a psychological disadvantage. He may then end up reducing his margins or profit simply to meet the deadline.

　　Example

　　“Hey Mike–I’m calling you to see if you’ve made a decision on my offer.”

　　“I’m thinking about it, Carlos. It’s not everything I’d like.”

　　“Well then, make me a counteroffer.”

　　“I made you my first offer. Then you came back at me with this.

　　Why did you think my position would change?”

　　“It’s just that it’s coming up on the end of the year, and I’d like to be able to tell my kids we’ve bought a great skicabin in Vermont.”

　　“I’d love to be able to help you, Carlos, but I’ve really got to think about it.”

　　“I’ll tell you what–I’ll give you three thousand more. But that’s all I can pay.”

　　“That’s great. I’ll think about it.”

　　“You’ll think about it? I’m offering you more money.”

　　“And I’m going to think about it.”

　　“What do you want? What more could you want?”

　　Mike and Carlos are runningsintosa common problem that takes hold of deals and pressures one side or anothersintosmaking a decision. Each side places a different value on the timing of the deal. Timing is one of the most important features of any negotiation and it pays to figure out how to use it to your advantage. Many negotiators make the mistake of assuming that the pace and the timing of their deal has no effect on the outcome. Large-scale and small-scale negotiations alike rely heavily on timing, and the success or failure of many negotiations can be directly related to how smart one side is in using timing to their advantage.

　　The Place of Negotiation

　　Choose an appropriate place to meet for negotiations. Being at your home base can give you a sense of security. You also save time, have better access to expertise and documents, and you do not have to travel anywhere. It also makes it easier for you to take the initiative.

　　At the same time, being at their place would allow you to delay proceedings by indicating that there are certain important documents or information you do not have. If you’re a buyer, there is also the opportunity you will have while there of gaining an impression of the supplier’s production capacity, to what extent the capacity is used, and how much they have in stock. You may also go to meet various people of interest who are not taking part in the negotiations.

　　Assigning Roles to Different Members of Your Negotiating Team分配谈判角色

　　If the matters you are to take up are sufficiently important, you should have a team of negotiators to help representing you. In selecting those who are to participate, you should assign each an appropriate role. It may be too difficult for a single negotiator to not only lead the discussion, but also listen to what others say, observe what goes on, assimilate new information, analyze what has been said, keep track of new angles that appear and be an expert in the various areas involved. However, negotiating as asgroupswill be difficult if thesgroupslacks discipline and the roles assigned are unclear. Asgroupscan only have one leader.

　　The traditional division of roles between a chief negotiator, a technical expert, an economic advisor, and a lawyer, etc. is often not very satisfactory. The chief negotiator has a role somewhat analogous to that of an orchestra conductor. He takes the initiative in discussions, speaks for the group, makes decisions, and determines when other members should be broughtsintosthe discussion. He should assign the following supportive roles to other members of the group:

　　A listener, whose main task is to listen to what is being said, observe what is going on and take detailed notes. During pauses in the proceedings, this person should be able to summarize for the others what has happened, what openings have appeared, how he feels the other party has reacted, what signals he feels the other party is trying to convey, and to what extent negotiations are proceeding as planned. Since the listener concentrates simply on listening and observing, he is in a much better position than anyone else in thesgroupsto form an accurate picture of how things are proceeding.

　　An evaluator, who quickly digests new information that comes up and analyzes what it means, how it can be utilized, what economic implications it has and what solutions to the problems it suggests. This person is basically a navigator.

　　An alternative discussion leader, who can take over as a discussion leader when the need arises. By doing so, the chief negotiator has time to think, to digest information, or simply focus on listening to and observing the other party.

　　Each of these people can have a double or multiple roles, such as being an expert in one or more of the areas involved. However, it is the chief negotiator who calls upon each of the others in whatever role is required when the need arises. It is also he who makes all the important decisions.

　　Members should also agree in advance on how to communicate with each other. They should know how to warn the others if they realize that the chief negotiator isshavingsdifficulties, that he has missed a signal or that he is headed for a trap. Members may decide that, when this happens, they will send notes to each other, kick each other under the table, whisper in each others- ears, suggest taking a break, say,“Just a minute! I don’t agree,”or whatever.

　　Before going from one question to the next, the leader might also turn to thesgroupsand ask,“Do any of you have any thoughts or questions you’d like to express? Can we go on? Are we able to make a decision now or should we take a break?”This will allow the others to get in on the act in an appropriate way.

　

　Summary总结

There are basically four aspects you should pay attention to when preparing for a negotiation. Firstly, you should collect both empirical and empathetical facts. Secondly, you should make a negotiation scheme outlining on what you can make compromises and what you can’t. Thirdly, you should decide when and where. And finally, you should establish a well-coordinated team, in which each member is aware of the role they are supposed to play.

风来疏竹，风过而竹不留声；
雁渡寒潭，雁去而潭不留影。

回复引用

举报顶端

上一主题下一主题

«12 »Pages: 1/2

水之韵论坛 » 英语学习专区

http://sjft.com/bbs
访问内容超出本站范围，不能确定是否安全
继续访问	取消访问

快速回复
	限 100 字节进入高级模式加粗字体颜色背景颜色插入链接图片按"Ctrl+Enter"直接提交	上一个下一个