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?

竹影无风

2004-03-25 19:16

2：QUESTIONING AND LISTENING

　第二章提问和倾听

　　有效的小组讨论要求参与者具有问问题的技巧和听别人讲话的耐心。只有提出合理的问题，才能推动讨论的进展；只有耐心地听取别人的观点，才能理解别人的立场和态度，从而实现小组的目标。本章将讨论参加者该如何积极倾听别人的意见并提出建设性的问题。

　

　Effective Questioning有效提问

　　Questioning

　　An important focus of democratic discussion should be on getting as many people as possible deeply engaged in the conversation. Whatever being said and done should facilitate and promote this level of engagement. As a number of commentators have pointed out, at the heart of sustaining an engaging discussion are the skills of questioning and listening. Of the three, learning to question takes the most practice and skill. Although it is certainly true that the kinds of questions one asks to begin a discussion set an important tone, it is equally true that subsequent questions asked by both thesgroupsleader and the members can provide a powerful impetus for sustaining discussion. Indeed, how we ask questions can make the difference between a discussion that goes nowhere and one that turnssintosa“complex communal dialogue that bounces all around the room.”

　　Types of Questions

　　Once the discussion is moving along, several kinds of questions are particularly helpful in maintaining momentum.

　　Questions That Ask for More Evidence

　　These questions are asked when participants state an opinion that seems unconnected to what’s already been said or that someone else in thesgroupsthinks is erroneous, unsupported, or unjustified. The question should be asked as a simple request for more information, not as a challenge to the speaker’s intelligence. Here are some examples:

　　How do you know that?

　　What data is that claim based on?

　　What does the author say that supports your argument?

　　What evidence would you give to someone who doubted your interpretation?

　　Questions That Ask for Clarification

　　Clarifying questions give speakers the chance to expand on their ideas so that they can be understood by other members in the group. Here are some examples:

　　Can you put that in another way?

　　Would you give us an example on what you are talking about?

　　What do you mean by saying that?

　　Can you explain the term you just used?

　　Could you give a different illustration of your point?

　　Open Questions

　　Questions that are open-ended, particularly those beginning with how and why, are more likely to provoke others- thinking and problem-solving abilities. Here are some examples of open questions:

　　Savage says that when facing moral crises, people who agonize don’t act, and people who act don’t agonize. What does he mean by this?

　　Racism pervaded American society throughout the twentieth century. What are some signs that things are as bad as ever? What are other signs that racism has abated significantly?

　　Why do you think many people devote their lives to education despite the low pay and poor working conditions?

　　Linking or Extension Questions

　　An effective discussion leader tries to create a dialogical community in which new insights emerge from prior contributions ofsgroupsmembers. Linking or extension questions actively engage members in building on one another’s responses to questions. Here are some examples of such questions:

　　Is there any connection between what you’ve just said and what Patrick was saying a moment ago?

　　How does your comment fit in with John’s earlier comment?

　　How does your observation relate to what thesgroupsdecided last week?

　　Does your idea challenge or support what we seem to be saying?

　　How does that contribution add to what has already been said?

　　Hypothetical Questions

　　Hypothetical questions ask others to consider how the circumstances of a case is changing might alter the outcome. Because such questions encourage highly creative responses, they can sometimes cause members to veer offsintosunfamiliar and seemingly tangential realms. But with asgroupsthat is reluctant to take risks or that typically answers in a perfunctory, reutilized manner, the hypothetical question can provoke flights of fancy that can take asgroupsto a new level of engagement and understanding. Here are some examples of hypothetical questions:

　　How might World WarⅡhave turned out if Hitler had not decided to attack the Soviet Union in 1941?

　　In the video we just saw, how might the discussion have been different if the leader had refrained from lecturing the group?

　　Cause-and-Effect Questions

　　Questions that provoke members to explore cause-and-effect linkages are fundamental to developing critical thought. Here are some examples:

　　What is likely to be the effect of raising the average salary from 300 hundred pounds to 500 hundred?

　　How might the salary raise affect production?

　　Summary Questions

　　Finally, one of the most valuable types of questions that can be used invites others to summarize or synthesize what has been thought and said. These questions call on participants to identify important ideas and think about them in ways that will aid recall. For instance, the following questions are usually appropriate and illuminative.

　　What are the one or two most important ideas that emerged from this discussion?

　　What remains unresolved about this topic?

　　What do you understand better as a result of today’s discussion?

　　Based on our discussion today, what do we need to talk about next time if we’re to understand this issue better?

　　What key word or concept best captures our discussion today?

　　Summary

　　By skillfully mixing all the different kinds of questions outlined above,sgroupsleaders or members can control or follow the pace and direction of conversation, keeping others alert and engaged.

　

　Effective Listening有效倾听

　　What Is Listening

　　Listening comprises the steps of hearing and interpreting. Hearing is a physiological process that involves the reception of sound waves by the ear. It is only the first element of listening, which also includes the interpretation of those sound waves (and other signals) to determine what the sender meant. A person with acute hearing may be a poor listener who does not interpret others’statements accurately or respond appropriately. In contrast, someone with considerable hearing loss may be a good listener who is motivated to understand others the way they want to be understood. Suchsgroupsmembers attend closely to the interaction, ask others to speak up, and check the accuracy of their interpretations.

　　How to Be a Good Listener

　　Roach and Wyatt suggest four important things to remember if you want to be a good listener. First, good listeners pay attention to the context of what is said. Have you ever been quoted“out of context?”If so, you know that context can change the entire meaning of what is said. Suppose Mary says she’s not sure the president of your organization will read your group’s entire report right away because she’s in the middle of performance reviews with all the committee heads. Saying“Mary said the president wont bother to read our report”seriously distorts what Mary said and ignores the context of the president being too busy at the moment to give the report full attention.

　　Second, good listeners pay attention to the feelings of the speaker. Remember the affective component of a message? When Tom says,“Yes, that idea is fine”in a resigned, flat tone of voice, he’s probably expressing a negative feeling about the idea, without actually saying so. A good listener will verify that interpretation:“Tom, you said you like it but you don’t sound too enthused. Would you share your concerns with us?”

　　Third, when the organizational pattern a speaker uses is confusing, good listeners help speakers make themselves clear by asking questions to clarify. For example, Shanda is a statistics whiz who completed all the computer analyses for your group’s project. She knows her stats so well that she skips steps in explaining them to the rest of you, who are lost. You can help her communicate more clearly by asking her questions that encourage her to fill in the gaps.

　　Finally, it is important to interpret silence carefully. Silence can mean that people don’t understand what was said, that they don’t agree, that they are apathetic, or that they are hoarding information as a power play.sgroupsleaders often mistake silence for agreement when it is something else. Again, a well-timed question will help interpret silence correctly.

　　Pitfalls to Listening Effectively

　　Our listening is impaired when we are tired, preoccupied, or overloaded with information and noise. But even when we are not bothered by such concerns, we still may listen poorly as a result of bad habits we are not aware of. We either do not pay attention carefully to the speaker, or we pay too close attention-to the wrong things! The following are behaviors that interfere with good listening:

　　1. Pseudolistening.

　　Pseudolistening refers to faking the real thing. Pseudolisteners nod, smile, murmur polite responses, look the speaker in the eye, and may even give verbal support like“right”or“good idea.”But behind the mask, the pseudolistener has“zoned off”on a daydream, a personal problem, sizing up the speaker, or mentally preparing a response. When such behavior is challenged, most pseudolisteners blame the speaker (“That stuff he was saying was boring”) when they really hadn’t given the speaker a chance.

　　2. Sidetracking.

　　Related to pseudolistening is sidetracking,swheresyou allow something another member said to send you offsintosyour own private reverie. Sometimes you sidetrack the conversation in a completely inappropriate direction, thereby wasting the group’s time.

　　3. Focusing on irrelevancies and distractions.

　　Sometimes distractions such as background noises, furnishings, and the temperature make it difficult for us to concentrate on the speaker. At other time, undue attention to speaker characteristics such as dialect, appearance, or personal mannerisms interfere, causing us to miss important points.

　　4. Silent arguing.

　　Many people listen selectively for information that confirms views they already hold. When they hear information that contradicts their chosen positions, silent arguers carry on an internal argument that opposes what they think the speaker has said.

　　You cannot listen both to yourself and a fellowsgroupsmember. You cannot mentally rehearse a reply at the same time you are striving to understand another. If you listen primarily to find flaws and argue them in your mind, you are unlikely to understand the speaker, the context of the remarks, and the meaning the speaker intends. We are not saying,“Don’t argue.”We are suggesting that you make sure you understand others first, well enough to be able to paraphrase their remarks to their satisfaction, before you argue.

　　5. Premature replying.

　　Similar to silent arguing, premature replying need not involve disagreement. Most commonly, a person prepares mentally to make a remark before fully understanding the speaker’s comment or question. It is also common forsgroupsmembers who know each other well to think they know what others are going to say before they say it - but they aren’t always right! Jumping to a conclusion before the other has finished speaking results in a disjointed discussionswheresthe subject keeps switching.

　　6. Listening defensively.

　　When we feel psychologically threatened, we don’t listen well. Feeling vulnerable, we generally quit listening insgroupsto invent ways to defend ourselves and attack the perceived threat. This is called defensive listening.

　　Effective Listening in a Group

　　Smallsgroupsmembers must work at understanding each other while they keep thesgroupsdiscussion structured and organized. Two types of listening are especially helpful for accomplishing this: active and focused.

　　Active Listening

　　A good test of how well you have been listening is a technique called active listening. This technique virtually forces the listener to understand a speaker before replying or adding to a discussion. The main rule is that you must state in your own words, or paraphrase what you understood the previous speaker to mean, then ask for a confirmation or correction of your paraphrase. The following example illustrates the technique:

　　Sender: I don’t know how I am going to solve this messy problem.

　　Receiver：You’re really stumped on how to solve this one.

　　Sender: Please, don’t ask me about that now.

　　Receiver: Sounds like you’re awfully busy right now.

　　Sender: I thought the meeting today accomplished nothing.

　　Receiver: You were very disappointed with our meeting.

　　Another example:

　　Daniel: If every college graduate were required to demonstrate some competence in using a computer, that might help right at graduation. But computers are changing so rapidly that graduates would be no better off in a few years than if they had no such training, unless they kept up to date or had to use a computer all along. (opinion)

　　Taylor: Do I understand you right? Are you saying that a computer science course should not be required to get a degree? (attempted paraphrase of Daniel’s opinion)

　　Daniel: No, just that it should be more than just how to use a computer. You ought to understand computers, and what they do and don’t do. (rejects the paraphrase and attempts to clarify)

　　Taylor: So you think there should be a requirement for a graduate to be able to explain what computers can and can’t do, as well as be comfortable with a computer. (second attempt at paraphrasing Daniel’s opinion)

　　Daniel: Yes, more than a course as such. (confirms Taylor’s paraphrase)

　　Taylor: I agree with that idea, and think we should also have a requirement for ability to investigate, organize, and write a term paper. (His paraphrase was confirmed, Taylor is now free to add his opinion, on a new topic, to the discussion.)

　　Active listening slows the pace of interaction. If you are not used to listening actively, you may at first find yourself with nothing to say for a moment after the other finishes speaking. Keep practicing; soon you will find yourself making spontaneous responses instead of preplanned or irrelevant remarks. Above all, don’t pseudolisten, which often damages trust and cooperation.

　　Becoming an active listener in a smallsgroupstakes practice, but the supportive climate you help create when you listen actively increases cohesiveness and cooperation in your group. You also will learn when this technique is needed, and when it will unnecessarily slow the groups progress.

　　Focused Listening

　　Group members often have problems recalling what was discussed. During the excitement of exploring a new idea, it is easy to forget vital information, even though that is the responsibility of each member. Focused listening helps members recall important information, ideas, and issues discussed during a meeting.

　　Effectivesgroupsmembers maintain their perspective on the discussion as a whole by focusing their listening on the main points of the discussion. They organize the details - specific facts and opinions - by issue. Ironically, focusing on the main points helps them remember details better. If you want to be a productive group，keep track of the main issues by using key words rather than complete sentences, so you can reorient thesgroupswhen someone switches topics before closure has been reached. Focused listeners can serve as process observers who readily keep track of the discussion. They often provide an internal summary, or brief review of what has transpired up to that point in the discussion, thus keeping the discussion orderly and easy for other members to follow. Thesgroupsbenefits greatly from focused listeners who help keep it on target.

　　Summary

　　Listening is a complex process that involves both hearing and interpretation. Many factors, including one’s culture, can affect the interpretation process. Several specific pitfalls on listening include focusing on irrelevancies, pseudolistening, side-tracking, silent arguing, premature replying, and defensive listening. Mutual understanding is helped by active listening, during which a listener paraphrases what the speaker has said insgroupsto try to understand the speaker as he or she wants to be understood. Focusing on main issues and decisions helps members keep discussions structured and organized.

　　Exercises练习

　　Ask a question or make a comment that shows you are interested in what another person has said.

　　Ask a question or make a comment that encourages someone else to elaborate on something that person has said.

　　Make a comment that underscores the link between two people’s contributions.

　　Make this link explicit in your comment.

　　Use body language (in a slightly exaggerated way) to show interest in what different speakers are saying.

　　Make a comment indication that you found another person’s ideas interesting or useful. Be specific as to why this was the case.

　　Contribute something that builds on or springs from what someone else has said. Be explicit about the way you are building on the other person’s thoughts.

　　Make a comment that at least partly paraphrases a point someone has already made.

　　Make a summary observation that takessintosaccount several people’s contributions and that touches on a recurring theme in the discussion.

　　Ask a cause-and-effect question-for example,“Can you explain why you think it’s true that if these things are in place, such and such a thing will occur?”

　　At an appropriate moment, ask thesgroupsfor a minute’s silence to slow the pace of conversation and give you and others time to think.

　　Find a way to express appreciation for the enlightenment you have gained from the discussion. Try to be specific about what it was that helped you understand something better.

　　Disagree with someone in a respectful and constructive way.

竹影无风

2004-03-27 20:23

3：HOW TO BECOME A SUC-CESSFULsgroupsLEADER

　第三章如何成为成功的小组领袖

　　小组中的组员像砖块，小组中的组长像灰泥，砖块是整体不可或缺的材料，但是没有灰泥就不能将它们整合在一起。本章将集中论述在小组讨论中组长的影响和功能。

　

　Introduction介绍

　　Accepting a position of designated leader means taking on special responsibilities and duties to serve the good of the group, as well as the larger organization of which it is a part. This, we believe, should be the central principle of any philosophy of smallsgroupsleadership.

　　The metaphor we suggest is that the members are the bricks and the leader is the mortar that binds them together, the bricks provide the support and substance of the group, but the mortar allows the wholesgroupsto hold its shape - completes the structure, so to speak. This concept of the leader as completer, as articulated by Schutz , suggests that“... the best a leader can do is to observe what functions are not being performed by a segment of thesgroupsand enable this part to accomplish them”or, if necessary, perform them.

　　

Influences of asgroupsLeader小组领袖的影响

　　Effectiveness in achievingsgroupsgoals grows out of leader’s action choices, which influence four dimensions of problem solving: members- perceptions of the leader; members- perceptions of themselves and of each other; members- perceptions of thesgroupsas a whole; members- judgment on substantive issues. True to the systems perspective, these four dimensions interact.

　　Influencing Members- Perceptions of the Leader

　　Consciously or unconsciously, leaders influence how members perceive them. The most effective leaders do this at a conscious level insgroupsto control how they appear and thus how they influence others. Leaders who act informally and socialize with members promote perceptions of themselves as relaxed, unassuming, and part of the team. This can be helpful in putting members at ease and in minimizing status differences between leaders and members. It may also be appropriate when an appointed leader first takes charge and wants to show members he or she is not stiff and does not intend to run the whole show. The leader should be careful, however, not to act so informally that it is not possible to tighten up later if the need emerges.

　　Influencing Members’Perception of Themselves and of Each Other

　　Leader’s actions influence how members perceive themselves and what they regard as appropriate orientations tosgroupswork. Through references to each member’s participation, achievement, and skill, a leader contributes to role development in the group. By appointing people to record, present position papers, a leader enhances their visibility. Punctuality and attendance are encouraged by leadership actions that censor violations. If a member starts dragging in late or skipping meeting, the leader should indicate disapproval quickly before members conclude it is acceptable to miss meetings. Norms form quickly, so a leader must act with dispatch. By putting individuals on the spot, the leader can enforce discipline without resorting to heavy penalties. Also, the leader demonstrates to other members that lateness and absenteeism are not condoned. Remember, the leader is a prime setter ofsgroupsnorms.

　　Influencing Members’Perceptions of the Group

　　The leader can also promote the perception of thesgroupsas a whole by encouraging themes, slogans, or logos for the group. We generally encourage class groups to come up with a name. Slogans help asgroupsto see their purpose as a group.

　　Influencing Subjective Judgments of the Group

　　Generally leaders should try to avoid acting as advocates, because they have strong influence over members. Sometimes, however, advocacy is necessary. When it is, the leader should distinguish between personal views and those associated with the positions of leader - for example,“The executive committee will never accept the plan we’re discussing. They’ve turned down every committee proposal that restricts executive privileges. If we want to have any impact on corporate policy, we’ll need to find the next best plan.”This comment reflects the role of a leader. By contrast, the following is a personal stance, unlikely to win support,“I don’t believe in that, and I want an alternative.”

　

　Functions of asgroupsLeader小组领袖的作用

　　Designing the Agenda

　　An effective leader understands the issues that must be discussed and will organize them in a way that facilitatessgroupsprogress. Leaders who have solid overviews of the task and who distribute a logical agenda to thesgroupsusually provide effective guidance.

　　Competent leader often prepare two outlines: one that is private and one that is distributed to members. The private outline identifies key issues and the leader’s questions or concerns about each. Specific questions or comments may be noted and potential resources may be penciled in. The second outline, known as the public agenda, is for members and should be distributed in advance. The purpose of the public agenda is to inform members of what will be covered at a particular meeting so that they can prepare for productive, informed discussion. Leaders who distribute public agendas in advance of meeting close the door for excuses:“I didn’t know we were going to work on that tonight, so I’m not prepared to report.”

　　The public agenda need not be lengthy; its purpose is to inform every one of the topics that will be covered. Here, for example, is a public agenda for an initialsgroupsmeeting:

　　Agenda for the Opening Meeting

　　1. Why was thissgroupsset up?

　　2. What are we charged to produce or do and for whom?

　　3. How were the members of thissgroupsselected? Do we have special talents, experiences, etc., pertinent to the task?

　　4. How do we want to run this group? What do you expect from me as the leader? What kind of schedule is reasonable for meeting dates and times?

　　Please come prepared to discuss four items at the opening meeting at 4∶00 p.m. on Monday, November 12, in 107 Memorial Hall.

　　Members who receive an agenda like this are more likely to come prepared for productive discussion.

　　Promoting Teamwork and Cooperation

　　Establishing a climate of trust will do more than anything else to develop cooperation and teamwork among members. In addition toshavingsclear, inspiring goals and trust, there are specific things a designated leader can do to promote teamwork.

　　1. Speak of“us”and“we”，rather than“I”and“you.”

　　The leader should convey, verbally and in various other ways, that he or she is a full-fledged, committed member of the group. The designated leader also should ask what it means if another member consistently refers to thesgroupsas“you.”

　　2. Create symbols ofsgroupsidentification.

　　A sense of unity can be fostered by inside jokes, shared fantasies, logos, a name for the group, slogans, T-shirts, and so on.

　　3. Watch for and challenge any hidden agenda item that seems to conflict withsgroupsgoals.

　　If you suspect a hidden agenda item is interfering withsgroupsfunctioning or goal achievement, promptly bring this to the attention of the group:“Roger, you have rejected the suggestion thesgroupshas proposed without examining it fully. As a result, members are becoming frustrated and angry. Is there something going on that we should know about?”Avoidance makes such problems worse.

　　4. Share all rewards with the group.

　　Designated leaders often receive praise from authority figures of a group’s parent organization. Wise leaders give credit to the group, they comment about what thesgroupshas done, express pride in being a part of the group, and acknowledge the service of all members.

　　5. Keep arguments focused on facts and issues, not personalities.

　　Step in at once if any member starts an attack on another’s personality, ethnicity, or character. However, recognize also that members may have strong feelings about some issues, so don’t squelch expressions of feeling, as long as those expressions do not denigrate others.

　　6. Don’t let the discussion get so serious that members cannot enjoy themselves.

　　Humor may help reduce the tensions generated when people work hard together at the job of hammering out ideas. Good task leaders may have trouble with humor. Lee observed, for instance, that many of the most efficient leaders lacked human warmth, but groups need both efficiency and satisfying interactions. If you are not skilled at tension release, enlist the help of members who are. Bring thesgroupsback to task after the joke is over or the fantasy has chained out.

　　7. When asgroupsseems to be deadlocked, look for a basis on which to compromise.

　　Perhaps you can synthesize parts of several ideassintosa consensus solution or you can suggest a mediation procedure. However, to do so you must have been even-handed as the leader. Remaining somewhat detached from the fray, while listening, observing, and maintaining perspective.

　　Keeping the Balance

　　Balance is one of the keys to good discussion. When one or two people dominate the exchange of ideas, the benefits for the wholesgroupsare greatly diminished. Similarly, when groups identifiable by gender, race, class, or ideology completely withdraw from the discussion, the range of ideas being explored is greatly reduced. Of course, perfect balance is impossible, but attention to who’s speaking and who isn’t is one of the crucial elements in making discussion work.

　　We would illustrate this through three scenarios happened during class discussions led by the teacher.

　　Three Scenarios of Balance and Imbalance

　　What follows are three short discussion scenarios that focus on how the leader’s role affects the course of events. They show a teacher who exerts too much control over the discussion, a teacher who is too aloof, and a teacher who comes close to striking roughly the right balance.

　　Scenario 1: Too Much Teacher Control

　　Teacher: The assignment for the day was to read the conclusion of teacher Mike Rose’s remarkable autobiography, Lives on the Boundary. Rose not only concludes his story with some very concrete examples of how to cross cultural and class boundaries but shows us as well the implications of these examples for shaping educational policy. One of the strengths of the book is Rose’s ability to move back and forth between the worlds of classroom practice and national policymaking. What do you think of the way Rose handles this?

竹影无风

2004-03-27 20:24

Student 1: I guess I didn’t notice what you’re talking about, but I was really impressed with what he says on page 222 about being hopeful and assuming that good teaching can make a big difference for students.

　　Teacher: Yes, that’s important, but almost the whole chapter that includes the quote you cite shows Rose going back and forth between practice and policy. Let me show you what I mean. (Reads about a page of material.) Isn’t that impressive? One of the things that makes this book great is that the implications for reform emerge from the particulars of everyday teaching. Anybody want to comment on that?

　　Student 2: I think Rose is a great teacher, but does he really think that every student can learn?swheresdid he get that faith in everybody?

　　Student 3: I have the same question, and I’m also disturbed by the fact that this is a story, that it necessarily has a plot. Doesn’t the need to have a plot affect the incidents Rose relates and how they get resolved? How much does this really help us understand the messy world of day-in, day-out teaching?

　　Teacher:I think you are all missing the point. This is a great story about one person’s successes and failures in teaching. It has a plot, sure, but that plot can still be translatedsintosproposals for reform. I mean, what do you think Rose’s reform proposals would look like?

　　Student 4: I don’t know about school reform, but could we talk about the episode when Rose helps that student make sense of the standardized test she took? With just a little help, she’s able to figure most of it out. How often do you think that happens with our students who regularly do poorly on achievement tests?

　　Teacher:Let’s take a look at that a little. I still want to know what you think Rose can teach us about school reform. (Long silence.)

　　The teacher in this excerpt is much too dominant and controlling. He insists on sticking to his own agenda despite his students- resistance. Moreover, he ignores the excellent questions his students raise, each of which could have led to a productive exchange. The teacher clearly likes the book and wants his students to like it，too. He is also intent on exploring the“big”issues of policy and reform. His students are much more interested in discussing and questioning its specifics. The potential for enlightening discussion is enormous here; students are taking a lot of initiative, and there is a great deal of participation. Unfortunately, the teacher is just too self-absorbed to see it.

　　Scenario 2: Too Little Teacher Participation

　　Teacher: What do you think of the last section of Rose’s Lives on the Boundary?

　　Student 1: I liked it, especially what he says on page 222 about remaining hopeful and using good teaching practices to help even the most poorly prepared students.

　　Student 2: I’m not sure why he’s so hopeful.swheresdoes that faith come from? I’ve been in lots of situationsswhereseven the best and most dedicated teachers couldn’t help their most difficult students.

　　Student 3: I have，too. Also, even though I liked the way Rose tells his story. I’m not sure there’s much to learn from it. Stories are not like day-to-day teaching. There’s no plot of climax in real-life teaching. Just plugging away and trying to make the best of it.

　　Student 4: But aren’t some of the incidents revealing? What about the example of the student who at first does poorly on the achievement test and then does much better with little coaching from Rose?

　　Student 5: I think Rose knows about underachieving students because he was there once himself.

　　Student 6: But he also became a scholarship student. I don’t think he does know what it’s like to struggle with poor preparation, limited skills, and especially racial discrimination.

　　Student 7: Does he still teach writing to students at UCLA, or is he doing something else now?

　　Teacher: He still teaches writing, but he also has an appointment in the School of Education.

　　This scenario seems, superficially, an improvement. Seven rather than four students have spoken, so the level of participation is higher. However, although there is enormous potential for discussion in the issues students raise, there is almost no continuity, no attempt to build on individual comments. Instead, the teacher responds to only one question - the one that is the least interesting and least likely to go anywhere. If the teacher had intervened just once or twice, each of the issues raised by students could have been considered and developed much more fully.

　　For instance, the teacher could have asked the first two students, who appear to disagree, to talk to each other about the citation from page 222. Questions she could have posed are“Does page 222 give any clues to the source of Rose’s hope and faith?”and“Where else would we look in the text to support one view or the other?”The whole issue of plot and story also seems rich. The teacher could ask.“In what ways do stories help us understand everyday experiences and practices?”and“In what ways are stories a flawed source?”The point here is not for the teacher to give her own views but for her to ask a question or raise an issue that gets students talking to one another.

　　Scenario 3: A Better Balance

　　Teacher: The assignment for today was to read the conclusion of teacher Mike Rose’s autobiography, Lives on the Boundary. Rose not only concludes his story with some concrete examples of how to cross cultural and class boundaries but also shows us some of the implications of these examples for shaping educational policy. Could you comment on some of these examples and their value for promoting educational reform?

　　Student 1: The quote on page 222 was especially important. We must assume that students have potential and ability and then act accordingly. That should be the basis for all educational change.

　　Student 2: Maybe, but what makes him so hopeful?swheresdoes that faith come from? I’ve seen lots of situationsswhereseven the best and most dedicated teachers couldn’t help their most difficult students.

　　Student 3: I have，too. Although I like the way Rose tells his story. I’m not sure there’s much to be learned from it. Stories are not like day-to-day teaching. There’s no plot or climax in real life teaching. Just plugging away and trying to make the best of it.

　　Student 4: But aren’t some of the examples revealing? What about the student who at first does poorly on the achievement test and then greatly improves with a little coaching from Rose?

　　Student 5: I think Rose knows about underachieving students because he was there himself.

　　Student 6: But he also became a scholarship student at UCLA. He may have lost touch with those roots. I don’t think he knows what it’s like to struggle with poor preparation, limited skills, and especially racial discrimination.

　　Student 7: Is he still teaching writing to students at UCLA, or is he doing something else now?

　　Teacher: He’s still teaching writing, but now he has an appointment in the School of Education. But I want to get back to the other point. Can Rose teach us some valuable things about educational reform, or is his stance too idealistic, too removed from the realities of real classrooms?

　　Student 5: I still think his background as a student who was mistakenly put in the vocational track gives him a valuable perspective on injustice and on the failure to realize the promise of educational opportunity.

　　Student 6: You know, I forgot about that incident. It probably still has an important impact on his thinking and practice.

　　Student 3: I just don’t trust the story format. He makes it all come out so neatly in the end.

　　Student 1: Does he? I think he’s quite realistic about how much can he accomplish with students who have been neglected and oppressed. All those years of bad education are a great burden, but progress can be made, especially when we retain hope.

　　Student 3: But his determination to create a narrative of hope frees him of the obligation to recount all the failures, all the partial successes.

　　Student 2: And why be so hopeful? What’s the reason for keeping the faith?

　　Teacher: I think there may be at least two reasons for doing so, both of which are in Rose.

　　Student 5: May I?

　　Teacher: Please, go ahead.

　　Student 5: Rose is hopeful because there is no other choice. Despair is not a good basis for change.

　　Student 2: What about revolution?

　　Student 5: Perhaps, but while we wait for the revolution. Rose shows that if you’re patient and try hard to cross boundaries, if you keep looking for abilityswheresothers have only seen deficiency, great strides can be made.Teacher: Rose is like Dewey in a way. He can’t imagine being anything but faithful, but it is not a blind faith. It emerges from experience.

　　Student 2: Well, could we talk about some of those experiences specifically? What are the concrete bases for his educational faith?

　　Teacher: Let’s do that.

　　Perhaps the thing that most clearly distinguishes this scenario from the others is that here the discussion builds. At first students aren’t really conversing, but with a little prompting from the leader, they begin talking and responding to each other. There is clear disagreement, which is tolerated and even encouraged, but with assistance from the teacher, there is also some basis for agreement. The teacher makes six brief comments in this dialogue, but all but two (first and second to last) are intended to foster increased interaction and continuity. The scenario ends with the promise of much more discussion based on close attention to the text. This probably wouldn’t have happened without the teacher’s contributions.

　　Of course, this scenario may come across as a bit too idealistic; good discussions don’t materialize as effortlessly as this one seems to. But it is surprising what a difference a few well-placed questions and comments can make. This scenario shows thatsgroupsleaders don’t have to intervene constantly or absent themselves entirely to make discussion work.

　

　Summary总结

　　A designated leader is expected to perform a variety of administrative, structuring, and developmental activities on behalf of the group. A democratic designated leader encourages members to enact a variety of leadership functions while serving as a completer for functions not being supplied by other members. A leader has great influences on the discussion process and also has many responsibilities to take.

竹影无风

2004-03-27 20:24

4：HOW TO BECOME A SUCCESSFULsgroupsMEMBER

　第四章如何成为成功的小组成员

　　高效的小组讨论对组长提出了很高的要求，同时也要求每个讨论的参与者具有较高的素质。在心态方面，这些素质包括热情、参与、认真、谦虚、欣赏和希望；在其他方面，还要求他们保持对语言的敏感。

　　

Elements to Be a Successful

　

　Group Member

　

　成为成功的小组成员的要素

　　If discussion-based groups are to be crucibles for democratic processes and mutual growth,sgroupsmembers need to practice certain dispositions. There are many such dispositions worth considering. Those that are particularly important for us are hospitality, participation, mindfulness, humility, mutuality, appreciation, hope, and verbal sensitivity.

　　Hospitality

　　Parker Palmer writes about hospitality as one of the foundations for good dialogue. By hospitality he means an atmosphere in which people feel invited to participate.

　　Hospitality implies a mutual receptivity to new ideas and perspectives and willingness to question even the most widely accepted assumptions. There is nothing soft about hospitality. It does not mean that standards are lowered or that heightened concern for one another is taken as an end in itself. Hospitality does not make learning easier or less burdensome, but it does“make the painful things possible, things without which no learning can occur - things like exposing ignorance, testing tentative hypotheses, challenging false or partial information, and mutual criticism of thought.”Taking hospitality seriously also means balancing seriousness of purpose with lightness of tone and employing self-deprecating humor, particularly when the tension becomes too great.

　　Participation

　　In any strong democratic community, everyone is encouraged to participate in significant ways on as wide a range of issues as possible. In other words, democratic discussions work best when a large percent ofsgroupsmembers participate, when they do so on many different occasions and with respect to many different issues, and when what they contribute adds depth and subtlety to the discussion. When a wide variety of members express themselves, other participants are challenged to consider and digest a diverse range of views. This results in a richer and more memorable learning experience for all.

　　Mindfulness

　　In general, mindfulness is a crucial component of any really good discussion. Without learners who are willing to listen carefully and patiently to what others have to say, discussion cannot proceed beyond the most superficial level. Teachers must model a high level of attentiveness to convey the importance of being mindful. When the two of us lead discussions, we strain to hear and to understand, fully and correctly, what is being said. We often ask follow-up questions to make sure that we understand a comment and to affirm that all our attention and our energy are focused on what each student is expressing.

　　Humility

　　Related to mindfulness is humility. Humility is the willingness to admit that one’s knowledge and experience are limited and incomplete and to act accordingly. It means acknowledging that others in thesgroupshave ideas to express that might teach us something new or change our mind about something significant. It is being willing to see all others in thesgroupsas potential teachers. Humility also implies an inclination to admit errors in judgment. Palmer reminds us that acknowledging our own ignorance is simply the first step in the pursuit of truth. Humility helps us remember that learning is always an uncertain, even uneasy quest. If we admit the limits of our knowledge and opinions, we are more likely to work authentically to create greater understanding amongsgroupsmembers.

　　Appreciation

　　Appreciation was mentioned briefly as one of a number of important“emotional”factors in dialogue. Few of us take enough opportunities in everyday life to express appreciation to one another for a thoughtful comment, a powerful insight, or a wise observation. Because democratic situations stress respect, mutuality, and civility, a logical extension of these notions is finding space and time to express our appreciation to one another. When a helpful observation clarifies a key point or an intriguing comment excites further curiosity, the disposition of appreciation inclines us to express our gratitude openly and honestly. Like many of the attitudes already mentioned, appreciation brings people closer together and raises the level of trust. But even more important, openly expressing our appreciation for one another engenders a kind of joyous collaboration that is characteristic of the most productive and most democratic of communities.

　　Hope

　　Without the hope of reaching new understanding, gaining a helpful perspective, or clarifying the roots of a conflict, there is little reason to go on talking and learning. Hope sustains us when we encounter seemingly insurmountable problems or when the amount of time needed to work through a particularly challenging issue grows longer and longer. Hope provides us with a sense that all of the time, effort, and work will benefit us in the long run, even if only in a small way.

　　Verbal Sensitivity

　　As you select your words, remember that language is ambiguous. Meanings are in people, not in the words. When listeners try to understand a message, they may reach a different meaning from what was intended. For instance, if asgroupsmember tells you that she had a big breakfast, what does“big”means? For people who dont eat breakfast,“big”might translate as coffee, juice, and toast. For someone who eats more,“big”might mean bacon, eggs, sausage, and pancakes. As you listen to messages, be aware that you hear the words and interpret them according to your definitions and experiences - which may or may not match those of the speaker. Ask questions and be sure to clarity meaning. When speaking yourself, be as concrete and specific as possible when you choose your words.

　　You can prepare statements in the following categories:

　　You may make categorical statements:“The facts are ...”“The way I see it is ...”“I believe that ...”

　　You may make process statements:“I think we agree that ...”“Aren’t we ready to move to the next point?”“The definition appears complete to me.”

　　You may criticize:“I don’t think that description of the facts is quite complete. May I add ...”“Are we all sure the authority that was just quoted is unbiased?”“Seems to me there were some flaws in the research on which that study was based.”

　　You may question:“Do you believe that for the same reasons he does?”“What evidence does he offer for his position?”“If we added this idea, would you still support the solution?”

　　You may argue:“I believe that ... for the following reasons ... and I do not think that ... is correct because ...”

　　You may reason:“If this is so, then we are obligated to take either this or that, but if that is flawed, then this is our only alternative despite its limitations.”

　　The following samplesgroupsconversations highlight language ambiguity and reveals verbally sensitivity in a comparative way.

　　Insensitive:“I think the problem is worded all wrong.”

　　Sensitive:“The statement‘How can we prevent students from doing vandalism in schools?’targets a particular population. With that wording, I think we rule out the chance that vandals might not be students at the school. I suggest we reword the question as‘how can we detect who school vandals are and what steps are necessary for prevention?’”

　　Insensitive:“You’ve got to be kidding. Only a person who doesn’t know the facts would say that the students weren’t vandals.”

　　Sensitive:“I never thought that there might be anyone other than kids who vandalize schools. Do we have any evidence about this?”

　　None of us can control completely how others see us. They may get upset by what we say or do, or they may like us in spite of what we say or do. Since we can control only our minds and our mouths, the best we can do is make intelligent guesses about the possible effects of our actions and think about what we say and how we say it. By thinking carefully about our audience as we choose our words, we are being verbally sensitive.

　

　An Example as Summary: the Confession of asgroupsMember

　

　举例总结：一个小组成员的自白

　　I am not here to waste my time, to make idle chatter, or to solve my personal and emotional problems. I am not here to make friends or do combat with enemies. I am here for a purpose, and I suspect that the others here have a purpose as well. I do not expect them to agree with me or to support me in all things I do, but I expect them, like me, to be reasonably dedicated to the accomplishment of thesgroupstask that brought us here in the first place.

　　I know I cannot handle this problem alone. If I could have I would have, because I know that working with asgroupstakes time and effort, and like all other human beings, I would prefer to do the best job I can in the easiest possible way. We all have strengths and weaknesses; together we can pool our strengths and overcome our weaknesses.

　　I have the obligation to speak up, to make my point of view known. If I just sit here, I will waste my time and the time of others. I must present my ideas clearly so that others can understand them well enough to criticize them sensibly, and I must listen to the ideas of others in a critical but not hostile way. It is my job to analyze what is said and to report the results of my analysis.

　　I understand thatsgroupsproblem-solving is not a haphazard enterprise. I am prepared to curb my enthusiasm and impatience and to follow the steps that will raise our chances of reaching a logical, effective, and well-reasoned solution.

　　I have the obligation to defend my point of view when necessary. I have no right to be truculent, to polarize the group, or to attack other members. Furthermore, I am not compelled to curb my own personal moral commitments or understanding. Still, I cannot be dogmatic; I cannot demand my way and concede nothing to others. Although I know that agreements are generally imperfect, I must do my share in forging agreements. When I am wrong I must concede it, and I must understand that my ideas may need modification just as must as the ideas of other members. Still, controversy is often useful, and I must respect it and learn from it even though it may take a great deal of time. If we become irrevocably divided, I will recognize that division itself may be an“answer”for us.

　　I have the obligation to embrace diversity in my group. I know that people are different from me; they have different beliefs, different values, and different attitudes. I will fight against thinking of others as wrong when they do not share my beliefs, attitudes and values. I will strive to keep an open mind at all times so that I can listen to what others say. When I still disagree, I will advance my position politely. I will remain rhetorically sensitive as I speak; I will look to find ways to value the diversity in mysgroupsrather than to alienate it.

　　I know that sometimes groups fail. They fail because individuals get impatient, unreasonable, distracted, or bored, I must take care to avoid these particular“deadly discussion sins.”If we do fail, I have the obligation to try to discover what went wrong, but I also know that nothing is gained from accusation and recrimination. We shall simply learn from failure and do better the next time. By the same token, if we succeed I must fight against feeling of overconfidence. Each new group, each new problem, is its own challenge. There is nothing in history or science that will predict the outcome.

　　And that is the pleasure I take in the process, for I know that I can contribute, and to do so makes me feel more of a human being.

竹影无风

2004-03-30 22:04

5：ON THE PROCEDURES OFsgroupsDISCUSSION

　第五章小组讨论步骤的一个完整例子

　　为了完整地呈现小组讨论的画面，我们将小组讨论的全过程融合到一个具体的例子中去阐释。本章介绍了小组讨论的主要步骤。

　

　Procedures ofsgroupsDiscussion小组讨论的步骤

　　The framework of discussion consists of sequential phases of interaction through whichsgroupsleaders lead their members insgroupsto attain objectives. This framework provides discussion with additional structure that the leader uses as a guide to plan for and implement discussion. A sequence of four phases can be generalized as follows.

　　Entry

　　The entry to a discussion generally serves the purpose of focusing participants’attention on the topic, concept, issue, or problem to be discussed, and informing them of the objectives and rationale for the upcoming discussion. Every discussion has an entry although some are more purposeful than others. Some entries, in fact, are hardly discernible as such. A discussion entry should serve as a springboardsintosinteraction by arousing participants- interest.

　　Clarification

　　The second phase may or may not be necessary depending on the extent participants are familiar with the leader’s procedures for conducting discussions. The purpose of clarification is to inform participants of the guidelines for participating insgroupsdiscussions.

　　Another purpose for the second phase is to clarify terms, concepts, or other knowledge related to the problem, issue, or topic under discussion.

　　Investigation

　　The most important phase ofsgroupsdiscussion in terms of accomplishing the objectives of thesgroupsis the investigation. This phase is considered to be the main body of a discussion. In many respects, entry and clarification, if effectively implemented, have served to prepare participants for the investigation phase. Up to this point, participants- interest should have been stimulated and focused, the purpose for the discussion directly or indirectly provided, and any potentially ambiguous or confusing terms or concepts clarified.

　　Closure

　　The closure to a discussion wraps up what the entry initiated. Both phases are essential to effective discussions and complement one another. The leader provides focus and direction for what is to be discussed in the entry; during the closure the discussion is reviewed, and the integration and application of discussions are encouraged. Also, just as the entry serves as a transition from the previous lesson, the closure serves as a transition to the next discussion.

　

　An Integrated Example一个完整的例子

　　Entry

　　T1: What comes to mind when you hear the term“dirty election campaign?”(several students raise their hands)

　　S1: (calls out) Name calling.

　　T2: Andy, you had your hand up.

　　S2: Candidates lying about their experiences and positions on issues. Or making up things about their opponents that they know are false.

　　T3: Okay. Of the campaigns and elections we have Recitation studied up to the 1880’s which do you think was the dirtiest? Leslie (hand raised).

　　S3: If I remember right the text said the dirtiest election was Andrew Jackson’sswhereshis opponent attacked his wife, family and everything else about him.

　　T4: You remember well. It was Jackson’s first election. Pat, who was his opponent in that election and their political parties？

　　S4: (Reading from the presidential election chart in the appendix of his textbook.) In the election of 1828 Jackson was the Democratic candidate running against John Quincy Adams. He was a National Republic. I think Adams was the incumbent.

　　T5: Fine. Today I want to spend some time with you discussing what appears to be an old American election tradition-the emphasis of the campaigns on the candidates themselves rather than issues. It seems that the more elections focus on personalities, the dirtier the elections become as evidenced by the extent of name calling maliciousness, scandalous gossip, dirty tricks and lies.Clarification

　　T6: Before we open up the discussion to share our points of view on this issue，I want to briefly review the election presented in the chapter you read for today because it is a good example of negative campaigning. Some historians have referred to the election of 1884 as one of the dirtiest elections in presidential politics. Who were the candidates and their political parties? (several students raise their hands) Eric?

　　S5: I think it was Chester Arthur for the Republicans and Grover Cleveland for the Democrats.

　　T7: Not quite. Arthur was President at that time but the party passed him over for someone else.

　　S6: (calls out) James G. Blaine-“The continental liar from the state of Maine.”

　　T8: And what was one of the campaign slogans used by the Republicans against Cleveland? Bob (raised hand)?

　　S7:“Ma! Ma! Where’s my pa?”

　　T9: Catchy rhymes get votes many times! Yes, the election focused mostly on mudslinging about the professional and private lives of both the candidates. Can you do as well with identifying the campaign’s issues? Mary (hand raised).

　　S8: I think the major issue was civil service reform.

　　T10: Yes, and also protectionism. We’ll be talking more about these issues later. We know that Grover Cleveland barely wins the election with the vote from New York being essential for his victory. But the critical issues of the day were clearly overshadowed by the dirt, some of which was truthful, that was dug up and used by both parties. By the way, most of the same personal attacks on Cleveland also came up during his reelection campaign in 1888 and some new ones including beating his wife during fits of drunken rage. Even though his wife refuted this rumor, the lie cost him many votes and perhaps the election.

　　Investigation

　　T11: I want to shift gears slightly and have you think about the presidential election we just had. 100 years later. How would you compare the 1884, and to some extent the 1888, and 1988 election campaigns in terms of general dirtiness? (3 second pause) John (hand raised).

　　S9: Both seemed to emphasize personalities rather than issues. Some name calling. I think both candidates also tried to deceive the public.

　　T12: What do you mean?

　　S10: I think they lied about each other in their television ads.

　　S11: (joins in) I don’t think there was much lying. What Bush and Dukakis said about each other was basically true from what I understand. I remember the television ad with Dukakis riding an army tank. In it Bush said Dukakis opposed most of four defense systems and he did.

　　T13: Let’s look at this ad a little more closely as an example of campaign dirtiness. What was Dukakis’s stand on defense systems? David (hand raised).

　　S12: I know Dukakis favored some of our submarine and missile systems because I did a report on his position on the issues. I think he also favored the Stealth Bomber. That ad was completely untrue.

　　T14: Yes. This video ads was a good example of a falsehood. Other Bush ads inferred that nuclear pollutants were in Boston Harbor and Dukakis furloughed hundreds of first-degree murders. These were clearly falsehoods because the information presented was contrary to the facts. Can you think of any examples of Dukakis ads lying about Bush?

　　S13: (calls out) I remember my mother saying that the Dukakis ad claiming that Bush cut social security benefits with his vote in the Senate was not true. I think she said Bush only voted against an increase in benefits.

　　T15:You have provided plenty of evidence that the recent campaign was dirty particularly in terms of falsehoods created by the candidates. Some of the televised ads of both candidates, reaching millions of people every day, were lies designed to influence you to vote against one candidate and for another. Why do you think both parties were allowed to get away with blatant lies? (4 second pause) Vanessa (hand raised).

　　S14: Maybe its because very few knew they were lies. I don’t think the average person on the street knew the issues and candidates- positions.

　　S15: (joins in) That doesn’t make sense to me. Certainly Dukakis knew they were lies. Why didn’t his campaign people do something about them?

　　T16: Good question. They did counteract the false ads and other Bush distortions but not until late October when it was too late. The attitudes of the electorate had already been influenced. It was a case of too little, too late.

　　The other point Vanessa made is even more important. People are not informed about the issues and many just don’t care. Therefore, they are more willing to accept as truth what is being said by the candidates. I think one of the problems is that many of the elections have been focusing on the candidates themselves rather than the issues. Because the emphasis has been on people, and not ideas, they have been more prone to attacks. People are more vulnerable than ideas. This seems to be the case in the two elections we have studied, over 100 years apart.

　　T17: The cornerstone of democracy is an informed public - one that understands the issues confronting them and can use this information to compare the candidates- positions and make a thoughtful decision as to who is most deserving to lead the country for the next four years. Do you agree or disagree with me? (5 second pause) Bob (hand raised).

　　S16: I agree. I think there’s more of an emphasis on the personalities than the issues because of what Vanessa said. Many people don’t understand the issues and are not willing to learn about them except through ads on television. It seems like people are pretty lazy about something so important as a presidential election.

　　S17: (joins in) You know, I think my parents are a little like that. They talked more about the way Bush and Dukakis looked and acted than they did about their stands on issues.

　　S18: (joins in) Mine，too. But I have to admit I wouldn’t know about the issues unless we had studied them in class.swheresdoes that put me?

　　T18: Anyone care to react to Andy’s concern? (3 second pause) Chris (raised hand)?

　　S19: It means he was better qualified to vote in the presidential election than many parents. Too bad you’re only 16 years old, Andy.

　　S20: I also agree with you Mr. Mitchell, but I am not sure how you change things. You can’t require candidates to address issues and you can’t require adults to know the issues before voting. Looks like we’re left with things as they are.

　　T19: Do you think we can improve this situation and, if so, how? (5 second pause) Leslie (hand raised)?

　　S21: Why couldn’t at least one of the social studies, classes, during the next presidential election, serve as a sort of campaign watchdog for our community to make sure that the candidates address the issues and are truthful about what they say in their ads. Students could watch all of the candidates- appearances on television and in the ads and judge whether they are being truthful in what they are saying about themselves and each other.

　　S22: Great idea, Leslie! And if they are being dishonest or misleading the class could send letters to the editors of our local newspapers correcting their lies.

　　T20: Don’t forget the school newspaper. (5 second pause) Clair (raised hand)?

　　S23: The class could do a weekly newsletter for parents reporting the candidates- positions on issues and any misleading information by the candidates.

　　S24: (joins in) How about calling it“The Inquirer”to emphasize the need to search long and hard for the truth? Come to think of it, it is the opposite of what The Enquirer stands for.

　　S25: (joins in) They could also call local radio talk shows.

　　Closure

　　T21: I am very impressed with your ideas! Since we are coming to the end of the period, what I would like to do is write up a summary of your ideas for your review and approval tomorrow. Then I want to save this kind of position paper for the class that will be sitting in your seats four years from now to see if they would be interested in carrying out your suggestions during that presidential campaign.“The Inquirer”could become your legacy to the school’s social studies program!

　　We have been discussing the problems associated with candidate-oriented campaigns as opposed to issue-oriented campaigns. We have also examined falsehoods in presidential campaign television ads and how people may be relying on them too much for information. Most importantly we have concluded that many people are not informed about campaign issues and proposed some practical approaches we as students and teacher can take as citizens concerned with improving election campaigning. Tomorrow I want to look at civil service reform starting to take place in the 1880s and discuss one of the issues facing the civil service system today. We had an interesting discussion today. Thanks.

竹影无风

2004-03-31 21:17

6：INTRODUCTION TO NEGOTIATION

　第六章谈判介绍

　　谈判是利益相关的人们为了解决冲突、满足双方需要而进行协商的过程。权力、自尊和面子是谈判的属性。信用、情感和公正是谈判的核心要素。围绕这些内容，本章将向您介绍谈判的定义、属性和要素。

　

　Definition of Negotiation谈判的定义

　　Negotiating is part of everyday life. You negotiate far more than you realize. In a business or an administrative position, you do so when you’re dependent upon others for getting your ideas accepted, your goals accomplished or your problems solved. You also negotiate on how tasks, rights and responsibilities, resources and risks, and monetary gains and losses should be assigned or divided up.

　　Negotiation is a cooperative undertaking, in which you and the opposing party attempt constructively to find solutions that satisfy both your needs. Successful cooperation results in solutions that are more cost-effective and involve less risk. The needs of others and the needs of the environment are more likely to be given consideration.

　

　Negotiator of Two Extremes两种极端的谈判者

　　We not only negotiate to solve problems, but also how to divide up responsibilities and work, as well as the distribution of costs, risks, profits and gains. Accomplishing this successfully places special demands on you as a negotiator. You need to be businesslike. This requires your finding a happy balance between two extreme behaviors, that of being na’i’ve, and that of being greedy.

　　A na’i’ve negotiator gives away too many advantages and too much potential profit. He accepts too much of the work and responsibility, and too many of the risks. Thus, a na’i’ve negotiator is expensive for the organization. He is easily taken advantage of. Even the parties he negotiates for many have little trust in him.

　　A greedy negotiator wants to get everything without being willing to give. He is unable to accept the idea of the other party gaining anything. He wants to threat the other party and defeat it. A greedy negotiator is also expensive for the organization. No one wants to deal with him. People avoid him if they can. Those he has victimized are likely to seek revenge. A greedy negotiator, just like the na’i’ve one, fails to gain trust and support.

　　

Dynamics of Negotiation谈判的潜在力量

　　The negotiation process is about power, ego, and saving face.

　　Power: At the core, every negotiation is a power struggle, no matter how small. It is one side’s attempt at primacy over the other side’s point of view or position. And, no one ever wants to feel powerless. Even police hostage negotiators know as a first tactic to create the illusion of power or control in the mind of the hostage-taker. If he feels powerless, the situation could erupt. The same is true in even more calm surroundings. In a broad sense, people have power when they have the ability to bring about outcomes they desire or the ability to get things done the way they want them to be done. However, a person could also be described asshavingsinfluence, being persuasive, or being a leader.

　　Ego: Ego also drives many negotiations and lies at the heart of many disputes. Negotiators of all shapes, and sizes, and levels of sophistication have enormous amounts of ego invested in their proposals. Also, people like winning, however they might define it. To lose is a blow to the ego, and no one wants that. Negotiations grow more difficult the more the negotiators are owed to their proposals, to their way of seeing the world.

　　Saving Face: Also tied up in ego and power is the concept of saving face. No one wants be taken advantage of at the end of the day, both parties must be able to save face. The more high-level the dispute, the harder this is, which is one reason why mediators attempt to institute“media blackouts”in very public cases. The greatest decisions are made when no more than two people are in a room. Even mediators must sometimes clear out and let the parties talk directly to one another, because they’ve been busy posturing for the mediator as well. They need to save face even with the mediator.

　　As a negotiator, it is very easy to become caught up in your own point of views and to grow increasingly averse to the point of views of your counterpart. This is natural because you are an advocate after all. In difficult or prolonged negotiationsswherespersonalities clash, it is easy for each negotiator to want unconditional surrender from the other. However, the best negotiators understand that it is their job to make sure their counterpart saves face. You need to give your counterpart a“back door,”a way out, a way to claim even partial victory. If you do, it makes it easier to reach a deal on your terms, which, presumably, is your goal.

　

　Key Elements of Negotiation谈判的关键要素

　　Trust

　　Many researchers have explored trust in negotiation. As one might expect, the research has generally shown that higher levels of trust make negotiation easier, while lower levels of trust make negotiation more difficult. Similarly, integrative processes tend to increase trust, while more competitive processes are likely to decrease trust.

　　There is a three-stage developmental mode of trust: calculus-based trust, knowledge-based trust, and identify-cationbased trust.

　　Calculus-based Trust. Calculus-based trust has to do with assuring consistency of behavior: It holds that individuals will do that they say because (a) they are rewarded for keeping their word and preserving the relationship with others, or (b) they fear the consequences of not doing what they say. Trust is sustained to the degree that the punishment for not trusting is clear, possible, and likely to occur. Thus, the threat of punishment is likely to be a more significant motivator than the promise of reward.

　　How to Increase Calculus-based Trust

　　1. Create and meet the other party’s expectation. Be clear about what you intend to do and then do what you say.

　　2. Stress the benefits of creating mutual trust. Point out the benefits that can be gained for the other, or both parties, by maintaining such trust.

　　3. Establish credibility. Make sure your statements are honest and accurate. Be believable.

　　4. Keep promises. Make a commitment and then follow through on it.

　　5. Develop a good reputation. Help others believe that you are someone who has a reputation for being trusted and acting trustworthily.

　　Knowledge-based Trust. The second form of trust, knowledge-based trust, is grounded in knowing the other sufficiently well so that you can anticipate and predict his or her behavior. Knowledge-based trust relies on information about the other rather than the management of rewards and punishment. It develops over time, largely because the parties develop a history of experience with each other that allows them to predict the other, which contributes to trust. The better you know the other party, the more accurately you can predict what he or she will do.

　　Consider the example of two friends who agree to meet at a restaurant at 6 p.m. Alan fails to show up until 6∶30 and Beth is kept waiting. To the degree that their friendship is based simply on calculus-based trust, Beth will be angry at the high costs she must incur for being“stood up.”She might be upset at Alan’s unreliability, and may be angry enough to terminate the relationship. If they are operating more on knowledge-based trust, however, Beth will tolerate Alan’s behavior to the degree that she can muster some adequate explanation for his behavior-“He must have gotten stuck at work,”or“He is always running behind and that doesn’t bother me because I know he will get here eventually.”

　　How to Increase Knowledge-based Trust

　　1. Have frequent interaction with the other. Meet often. Get to know the other and tell him or her about yourself.

　　2. Build familiarity with the other. See him or her in a variety of situations and context. Learn each other’s thoughts and reactions, likes and dislikes, reasons for doing what you do.

　　3. Be predictable. Help the other understand how you will respond to certain situation, and then act in that manner.

　　Identification-based Trust. The third type of trust is based on identification with the other’s desires and intentions. At this level, trust exists because the parties effectively understand and appreciate each other’s wants; this mutual understanding is developed to the point that each can effectively act for the other. Identification-based trust thus permits a party to serve as the other’s agent in interpersonal transactions. The other can be confident that his interests will be fully protected, and that no monitoring of the actor is necessary.

　　How to Increase Identification-based Trust

　　1. Develop similar interest. Try to be interested in the same things.

　　2. Develop similar goals and objective. Try to develop similar goals, objective, scenarios for the future.

　　3. Act and respond similar to the other. Try to do what you know he or she would do in the same situation.

　　4. Stand for the same principles, values, and so on. Hold similar values and commitments.

　　Emotions

　　A second factor that plays a significant role in negotiation within long-term relationships is emotions. While emotions can certainly be a factor in market-transaction negotiations - parties express delight at another’s offer, parties express anger and outrage at the other’s tactics - emotion is much more of a critical factor when negotiators have an ongoing relationship.

　　At the negotiating table, you’re likely to encounter surprisingly bad behavior. People take negotiations personally and invest a lot of emotion and energysintosthem. Don’t be surprised if people behave irrationally or don’t seem to play by any logical set of rules. The most familiar example of an irrational negotiation emerges in a personal relationship. People have so much invested and so much history with each other that the negotiation is rarely about the purported topic.

　　“So I think California would be a great vacation.”

　　“You would! I think Florida would be much better.”

　　“But California has everything that Florida has - seafood, ocean, sun - and it has the wind region. We could drive down to Mexico, we could go hiking in the mountains-”

　　“It’s not Florida. I like the water in the Atlantic much better than the Pacific.”

　　“The water is just about the same.”“Not true! You just don’t want to go to Florida because I suggested it.”

　　“That’s not true. I just think that California is like Florida plus more stuff. I think it’ll make a better vacation spot.”

　　“I don’t. I guess we have to agree to disagree.”

　　When the negotiation heads down a personal path, you have to find a way to steer it back to the issues at hand without aggravating the personal issues that are already at stake. Again, the use of the question is immensely valuable here. Use questions to open the discussion up.

　　“So I think California would be a great vacation.”

　　“You would! I think Florida would be much better.”

　　“But California has everything that Florida has - seafood, ocean, sun-and it has the wind region. We could drive down to Mexico, we could go hiking the mountains-”

　　“It’s not Florida. I like the water in the Atlantic much better than the Pacific.”

　　“What do you like about the water?”

　　“It’s not as salty.”

　　“You don’t like salty water?”

　　“No, not really.”

　　“What do you want out of a vacation?”

　　“I don’t know, sun, relaxation, some interesting thing to see.”

　　“How about Arizona? It’s warm, there are freshwater streams, there are the desert and Death Valley and all the spots out there.”

　　“Sounds interesting.”

　　By asking questions, one party opens up the discussion and can change the entire negotiating mindset. In emotional situations you have to acknowledge the emotional state of the other party. If you don’t, you are going to runsintosthe illogical negotiator problem, which almost always leads to the end of discussion.

　　Emotions shouldn’t be simply dismissed - after all, even the person you’re negotiating with is human. Take his feelingssintosconsideration. Behave as if you want to make him comfortable. By thinking about the things that drive you crazy, you can avoid driving him crazy. Before you walksintosthat room, think of all the things people have asked you to stop doing, from picking your nose to whistling in an elevator, and make sure you don’t do then during the negotiation.

　　Negotiations create both positive and negative emotions. As we noted above, both the negotiation process and the outcomes create positive and negative feelings. Positive emotions can result from being attracted to the other party, feeling good about the development of the negotiation process and the progress that the parties are making, or liking the results that the negotiations have produced. Thus, a cognitive assessment of a“good outcome”leads parties to feel happy and satisfied. Conversely, negative emotions can result from being turned off by the other party, feeling bad about the development of the negotiation process and the progress being made, or disliking the results.

　　Justice

　　The third key element in negotiation is the question of what is fair or just. Justice has been a major issue in the organizational sciences; individuals in organizations are often debating whether their pay is fair, or whether they are being fairly treated, or whether the organization might be treating somesgroupsof people like women, minorities, or people from other cultures in an unfair manner.

　　Many negotiations will also require a negotiation about which fairness principles should apply to a particular situation. For example, two boys have agreed to paint a neighbor’s garage together and to split the money they get paid. One boy winds up doing about two-thirds of the work. The boy who worked harder will probably argue that he should receive two-thirds of the money; the boy who worked less hard may argue that their initial agreement was to split their pay evenly, and that the rule should not be changed. Many negotiations over the tough issues described above focus on which outcome-distribution rules should apply in a given situation.

　

　Summary总结

　　Negotiation is a cooperative undertaking, in which you and the opposing party attempt constructively to find solutions that satisfy both your needs. Power, ego and saving face are the dynamics of negotiation, while trust, emotions and justice are the key elements of negotiation.

竹影无风

2004-03-31 21:18

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.

竹影无风

2004-04-01 20:28

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.

竹影无风

2004-04-02 21:35

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.

竹影无风

2004-04-02 21:36

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.

竹影无风

2004-04-03 11:27

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.

竹影无风

2004-04-03 11:28

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?

竹影无风

2004-04-03 11:28

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.

竹影无风

2004-04-03 11:29

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.

竹影无风

2004-04-03 11:30

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。)】

查看完整版本: [-- 张翔：掌握英语口语--《超级口语教程》 --] [-- top --]

Powered by PHPWind v7.5 SP3 Code ©2003-2010 PHPWind
Time 0.014790 second(s),query:2 Gzip enabled

You can contact us