Добавил:
ivanov666
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Английский язык. Учебное пособие по деловой коммуникации для студентов бакалавриата, обучающихся по направлению 38.03.01«Экономика», профили «Мировая
.pdf
Linking words
1. Match the synonyms from two columns below
1. regarding a) as a result
2. moreover b) on the whole
3. therefore c) actually
4. in particular d) in relation to
5. in fact e) overall
6. in general f) nevertheless
7. however g) above all
8. clearly h) furthermore
9. on balance i) in other words
10. i.e. j) of course
2. Complete the sentences below with either ‘e.g.’ or
‘i.e.’
1) Fossil fuels, ____ oil, gas and coal, are likely to play a
smaller role in the overall energy mix.
2) Fossil fuels, ____ oil and gas, are likely to play a smaller
role in the overall energy mix.
The words e.g. and i.e. have Latin origins (exempli
gratia and id est). They can be used in speech as well
as writing.
3. Complete these four paragraphs taken from a report
by a Chief Information Offi cer. Read carefully to see how
each sentence and each paragraph links to the one before.
Write a capital letter where necessary
clearly, in particular, regarding
__1)__ the longer term, there have been several requests
by employees to change our offi ce computers from Microsoft
to Apple. __2)__ this is something that we have to consider, as
Apple has some signifi cant advantages. __3)__, Apple offers a
better operating system and is less vulnerable to hackers and
viruses.
in fact, moreover, on the whole
81
__4__, Apple computers are already in use in our organization - the two graphic designers in the Communications department use them.
__5__, we’ve noticed that many other people bring to work
the Mac laptops that they use at home. __6__, this does not
seem to create any serious problems - the Offi ce suite runs per-
fectly well on a Mac.
for example, however, secondly
__7__, there are some serious obstacles to adopting Apple as the standard platform throughout the organization. Firstly,
there is the question of price. Apples are signifi cantly more ex-
pensive - they’re targeted at the consumer market where fashion
and design bring a premium price. __8__, there are some serious technical issues. SAP, __9__, doesn’t run on Macs, and our
IT support staff are unfamiliar with the Mac operating system.
on balance, so, whereas
__10__to sum up, Microsoft offers familiarity and ease of
technical support at a reasonable price, __11__Apple offers design and greater security at a higher price. What conclusions
can be drawn?
__12__, it seems that the best option is to continue using
Microsoft PCs for the majority of staff. We will of course continue
to monitor the situation, particularly as the Internet replaces Windows as a day-to-day software platform.
3. Choose one of the tasks and write a business pro-
posal in about 200-250 words
1. You represent ‘Adidas’ company. Due to the fact your
boss is discontent about the physical state of the employees,
you have been given the task to propose to the nearest gym’s
manager to rent one of its halls for two hours on Fridays. Write a
proposal report in support of your request.
2. You represent the ‘Coca Cola’ company and have submitted a request to the council asking to rent and old unused prem-
82
ises in the suburbs of the city. Write a proposal report in support
of your request, outlining what you intend to do.
3. You represent the ‘Players’ drama company and have
submitted a request to the council asking to rent an old unused
theatre. Write a proposal report in support of your request.
READING II
1. Read the text and provide the message of it
Charles Craver is a Professor of Law, George Washington
Which styles are used by most negotiators? Which styles
are associated with more profi cient negotiators and with less ef-
fective bargainers?
Most negotiation books divide bargainers into two stylistic groups: Cooperative/ Problem-Solvers and Competitive/
Adversarials. Cooperative/Problem-Solving negotiators move
psychologically toward their opponents, try to maximize the joint
returns obtained by the bargaining parties, look for reasonable
results, begin with realistic opening positions, behave in a polite and sincere manner, rely upon objective standards to guide
discussions, rarely resort to threats, maximize the disclosure of
relevant information, are open and trusting, work meticulously
to satisfy the underlying interests of themselves and their opponents, are prepared to make unilateral concessions, and attempt
to reason with people on the other side. Competitive/Adversarial
negotiators move psychologically against their opponents, try to
maximize their own returns, strive for extreme results, begin with
less realistic opening offers, behave in an adversarial and insincere manner, focus mainly on their own positions rather than rely
on objective standards, frequently resort to threats, minimize the
disclosure of their own information, are closed and untrusting,
endeavour to satisfy the interests of their own side, try to make
minimal concessions, and manipulate opponents.
Cooperative/Problem-Solvers readily disclose their critical
information, explore the underlying interests of the respective
parties, and seek results that maximize the return to both sides.
83
They often consider alternatives that may enable the bargainers to increase the overall pie through tradeoffs that simultaneously advance the interests of both sides. For example, when
money is involved, they may agree to future payments or in-kind
payments that realize the underlying interests of the different
participants. Competitive/Adversarials engage in disingenuous
games-playing. They cloak their negative information, and try to
manipulate opponents into providing them deals that maximize
the returns for themselves. They may even ignore alternative
formulations that might benefi t their opponents if those alterna-
tives do not clearly advance their own interests.
When Cooperative/Problem-Solving bargainers interact with
other Cooperative/Problem-Solvers, their encounters are generally cooperative. The participants are relatively fl exible with
their critical information, and they seek to achieve terms that
maximize the joint return of the parties. Interactions between
Competitive/Adversarial negotiators are usually competitive,
with minimal information disclosure and the use of manipulative
tactics to advance each side’s own interests.
When Cooperative/Problem-Solvers negotiate with Competitive/Adversarials, their transactions lean towards more competitive than cooperative. If Cooperative/Problem-Solvers are
naively open with less forthcoming Competitive/Adversarials,
information imbalances develop which favour the more strategic Competitive/Adversarials. As a consequence, Cooperative/
Problem-Solving participants must use a more competitive approach to avoid exploitation. These cross-style interactions generate less effi cient agreements than encounters involving only
Cooperative/Problem-Solvers, and they increase the likelihood
of a non settlement.
In their studies, Professors Williams and Schneider discovered that certain traits are shared by both effective Cooperative/
Problem-Solving negotiators and effective Competitive/Adversarial bargainers. Successful negotiators from both groups are
thoroughly prepared, are perceptive readers of others, and wish
to maximize their own client’s return. Since client maximization
is the quintessential characteristic of Competitive/Adversarial
84
negotiators, this common trait would imply that many effective
negotiators who are identifi ed by their colleagues as Coopera-
tive/Problem-Solvers are really wolves in sheepskin. They exude a cooperative style, but seek competitive objectives.
Most successful negotiators join the most salient traits associated with the Cooperative/Problem-Solving and the Competitive/Adversarial styles. They seek to maximize client returns,
but strive to achieve this objective in a congenial and seemingly
ingenuous manner. Unlike less profi cient negotiators who regard
bargaining encounters as ‘fi xed pie’ win, effective bargainers re-
alize that in multi-item interactions the parties value the various
terms differently. They may try to claim more of the distributive
items desired by both sides, but they also seek shared values.
They recognize that by maximizing the joint returns, they are
more likely to maximize the settlements achieved for their own
clients.
Despite the fact that effective bargainers generally aspire
to attain as much as they can for themselves, they are not “winlose” negotiators. They never judge their own success by asking
how poorly their opponents have done.
They recognize that the imposition of bad terms on their
adversaries does not necessarily benefi t themselves. All other
factors being equal, they endeavour to maximize opponent satisfaction. They realize that if they are pleased with what they
obtained, they have had successful encounters -- even if their
opponents are equally satisfi ed.
Profi cient negotiators do not seek to maximize opponent
returns for purely altruistic reasons. This approach effectively
permits them to advance their own interests. First, they have to
provide adversaries with suffi ciently generous terms to entice
them to accept agreements. Second, they want to be sure opponents will honour the deals agreed upon. If they experience
post-agreement “buyer’s remorse,” they may try to get out of the
deal. Finally, they acknowledge the likelihood they will encounter
their adversaries in the future. If those persons remember them
pleasantly as courteous and professional negotiators, their future bargaining interactions are likely to be successful.
85
Effective Cooperative/Problem-Solvers and effective Competitive/Adversarials understand that people tend to work most
diligently to accomplish the needs of opponents they like personally. Overtly Competitive/Adversarial bargainers are rarely perceived as likeable. They exude competition and manipulation,
and they generate likewise responses from opponents. Seemingly cooperative negotiators, however, seem to seek results
that benefi t both sides. Since others enjoy interacting with them,
these individuals fi nd it easier to induce unsuspecting opponents
to lower their guard and make greater concessions.
Over the past several decades, lawyers and business people have become less polite toward one another. Many have
become more win-lose oriented. They seem to fear that if their
opponents obtain what they want, they will be unable to achieve
their own goals. Negotiators who encounter rudeness from opponents should recognize that such inappropriate behaviour is
not a sign of negotiator profi ciency, but just the contrary.
Uncivilized behaviour is a substitute for bargaining competence. Skilled negotiators do not utilize offensive conduct. They
recognize that such behaviour is unlikely to induce adversaries
to give them what they desire.
Another critical reason for behaving professionally during
bargaining encounters pertains to recent studies suggesting
that people who commence negotiations in positive moods bargain more cooperatively, while individuals who begin in negative
moods bargain more adversarial. As a result, negotiator pairs
who commence bargaining interactions with positive moods
achieve larger joint gains than negotiator pairs who begin with
negative moods.
http://www.negotiations.com/articles/negotiation-style/
2. Are the following statements in reading right, wrong
or not given?
1. Problem-solvers try to solve the problem taking into ac-
count the demands of both sides.
2. Competitive negotiators and Problem-Solvers have com-
mon goals, but different methods.
86
3. Negotiations between Problem-Solving bargainers are
the most fruitful ones.
4. Due to some common features between the two types of
negotiators, opponents are often misled taking one type for the
other.
5. If the negotiator is dishonest with his opponent, fi nally he
may get out of the deal due to the remorse.
6. The less the opponent has got in the course of negotiations, the more skilled negotiator their rivals are.
7. Since people tend to understand the necessity of polite
negotiations, they try to be more agreeable to each other.
What do you personally think of the two types of negotiators? Which way do you think may lead to more fruitable
cooperation and better results? Is win-lose the best result
for the winner?
Grammar Workshop
Modal forms
1. The modal verbs are can, may, might, must, should, will,
shall and would. They differ from main verbs in several ways.
— They have the same form for all subjects: I can, he can,
they can.
— The negative form is just not; we do not use do/does not:
You shouldn’t say this.
— They do not have infi nitive forms (to...), so to make an
infi nitive, we use a different verb: I want to be able to sing per-
fectly.
— They do not have participle forms (-ed, -ing), so to make
them continuous or perfect we change the main verb. I must be
going soon. She might have had the results by now.
— They are followed by the infi nitive without to: They would
visit you if you asked them.
2. The verbs need (to) and dare (to) are occasionally used
in two forms:
87
MAIN VERB FORM MODALVERB FORM
You don’t need to turn
the computer off.
I don’t know if I dare
to tell her what’s
happened. We don’t
dare (to) go there after
dark.
You needn’t turn the
computer off.
I don’t know if I dare tell her
what’s happened. We daren’t
go there after dark.
Basic uses of modal verbs
USE MODAL
VERB
ability/lack
of ability/
possibility
possibility
(present or
future)
obligation must
prohibition mustn’t/
speculation can’t/
can/can’t
could/
couldn’t
may/
might
(strong)
should/
ought to
can’t
(strong)
shouldn’t
could/
must/
may/
might
EXAMPLES
She can speak
Spanish but she can’t
speak Italian. Only
amateur athletes
could compete.
Mr Andrews may be
in his offi ce. I’ll just
check. The shops
might be busy
tomorrow as it’s a
public holiday.
The governing bodies
of individual sports
must decide who is
eligible.
We should/ought
to change some
currency soon.
You mustn’t/can’t
cross the road here;
it’s dangerous.
We mustn’t/can’t use
the pool after 7.00
p.m.
You shouldn’t eat
while you’re driving.
Sandra must be in the
school; her bag’s in
the staff room. Brian
can’t have been
driving the car; he
doesn’t drive.
88
predictions/
decisions
made at time
of speaking
will/won’t He’s been found guilty
of murder. He’ll be in
prison for a long time.
You must work hard
for this exam. It won’t
be easy. I’ll fi nish this
essay later.
Has to (obligation) is not a modal verb: it is grammatically
the same as a main verb.
You don’t have to do this.
1. Read the information, identify examples of modal
verbs and explain their meanings
The Modern Olympic Games were established by Baron de
Coubertin in 1894. Athletes from countries all over the world can
compete to try to prove who the best is in their sport. Until the
1970s only amateur athletes could compete, but since then the
rules have been relaxed and now the governing bodies of individual sports must decide who is eligible. Only boxers have to be
amateur now. In football, only three players over 23 are allowed
to participate in each team - to maintain a level of amateurism.
2. Choose the correct variant. In one sentence two vari-
ants are possible
1. This console is so simple that it is able to be/can be oper-
ated by anyone.
2. Ewan fell off his horse last week but luckily he managed
to/ could get back on and ride home.
3. There can/may be water on the moon’s surface.
4. If the weather’s bad tomorrow, the race could/might not
go ahead.
5. My present from Stephan didn’t come in the post, so he
must be/is delivering it by hand.
6. We’d better leave soon. It’s Friday evening and there
should/will be a lot of traffi c.
7. Eugene must/should have been training very hard to de-
velop muscles like that!
8. Do you know if we must/have to have visas for South
Africa?
89
9. What a state my football shirt is in! It needs/must be wash-
ing.
10. There wasn’t anyone in the main gate so we didn’t need
to show/needn’t have shown our tickets.
11. We have to/are supposed to put our bags in the lockers,
but most people take them into the gym.
12. Polite notice: children do not have to/ are not allowed to
play on the grass.
13. The newspaper shouldn’t/ mustn’t have printed the ru-
mour without evidence.
14. ‘I wonder where Peter is.’ ‘He is/will be driving to the
airport, I should think.’
15. ‘Oh dear. The lecture starts at nine o’clock. I’m late!’
‘Don’t worry. This lecturer’s always late. He won’t have/hasn’t
started yet.’
16. Paul always helped us out/would always help us out
fi nancially when we were at university however diffi cult it was
for him.
17. The police interrogated the suspect for more than four
hours, but she would not reveal/mustn’t have revealed the
names of her co-conspirators.
18. Hang on a minute - can/might you repeat what you just
said?
19. You won’t have to/had better not tell Diana what you saw
- it will only upset her and she’ll blame you.
20. ‘It looks as though the fuel crisis is over.’ ‘I wouldn’t/won’t
be too sure.’
SPEAKING
Role play
The Celebrity Endorsement contract
Team 1
You are the legal team for the Archer Group, an international
consortium of property developers and entertainment companies who are currently building a hotel and leisure complex in
Bangkok, The Elysium Resort. The development includes res-
90
Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]