Link – Linguistic World Blog

Best Negotiating Strategies from Women Who Shaped America.

A gift in honor of International Women’s Day. Wednesday March 8, 2017

http://womenwatch.unwomen.org/international-womens-day-history

You want to learn from people who have achieved success on a path similar to yours. You can be encouraged by people who have faced and overcome obstacles that you fear. I learned a lot and I was very inspired and encouraged reading the in depth accounts of women who ultimately shaped my country, The United States. The lessons I learned from the trailblazers of the past were reinforced by the interviews of women who are trailblazing today. The toughest part of success is negotiating successfully. My gift to all women in business are these best negotiating strategies by a few women for whom negotiating became pivotal in American history. I quote directly from this fabulous book:

American Heroines. The Spirited Women Who Shaped America by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson https://www.amazon.com/American-Heroines-Spirited-Shaped-Country/dp/0060566361

Ann Legendre Armstrong: First woman US Ambassador to the Court of St. James.

“Learn as much as you can about the person you are negotiating with and then look at things from his or her point of view.”

Dr. Antonia Novello: First woman and first Hispanic American to serve as Surgeon General.

“I use the element of surprise as my best negotiating strategy – knowing the pros and cons of an issue before I even enter the room”.

Jackie Joyner-Kersee: Track and Field Olympian and Sports Illustrated Woman Athlete of the 20^th Century.

“Always go in there with a game plan and know what outcome you want.”

Geraldine Ferraro: First woman to win the nomination for Vice President of a major political party.

“I think the most important thing is to listen to both sides. You’re trying to be the person in the center.”

Sandra Day O Connor: First woman Justice appointed to the Supreme Court.

“I think the most important thing there is to learn is how to listen to people with an open mind and then weigh things subjectively and see what you can put together.”

Condoleezza Rice: First African American woman to serve as National Security Advisor.

“Be absolutely certain where you want to come out. Know where your true red lines are and don’t keep moving them.”

Questions that Sink and Questions that Float

Your question is hanging in midair and the witness, in the sworn proceeding is looking at you, gape mouthed. Was the question clear? Or maybe the witness is deciding what part of it to answer. You could be facing a cycle of delays and frustration. This occurs whether the proceeding is interpreted or not. But it does seem that as the interpreter, I can see the disconnect happen before the questioning attorney catches on.

The fault lies in the broad wording of the question that allows for a flexibility in responsiveness. Add a nervous, reluctant, or even impatient witness and you have Q&A chaos. I’ve even got a name for it: the “Who’s On First” scenario after the famous Abbott and Costello comedy sketch.

It’s no fun for any of us to go down that bumpy road. Sometimes the lawyers get irritated at each other as the objection, “Non Responsive” triggers the objection: “Asked and Answered” over and over. Other times I’ve seen the questioning attorney instruct that the question be certified because the opposing counsel will refuse to allow the question to be repeated after several attempts. Fact witnesses and Pro Se witnesses, who are unfamiliar with the questioning process, can quickly stymie whatever progress has been made when the “Who’s On First” routine starts up.

In such cases that there is an interpreter, professional interpreters know to simply be patient, show no reaction and continue interpreting accurately and completely. These situations are not a challenge to an interpreter.

In 1999, Claims Magazine, the national publication of the Insurance industry, published my article titled, What do You Mean by That? Specific Terms in a Q&A Produce Direct Responses. You can find the article on my website here http://www.linguisticworld.com/books_and_articles.html. At the date of this blog post it is a full 17 years later and I still see many of these examples of questions that sink.

The most common culprit is the compound question. This is a question that contains two or more questions being asked. Often it offers alternative responses much like a multiple choice question. This kind of question is standard for casual conversation but in a Q&A setting, where the person is under oath, a single yes or no to such a question encompasses more factors. Another form is when the subject action is maintained but extra dates, times and persons are added to the single event.

Unfortunately, even a seemingly simple question can be compound. The Yes or No to “Do you know if the light was red for the other driver?” could be responsive to the light being red or not, or it could be responsive to the witness knowing or not. Several clients of mine offer a follow up question to that one with a “No, you don’t know or no, the light wasn’t red?” And surprisingly, the response is the complete answer that contains the question.

The solution is to break down the question as soon as you see the witness is not able to transition to compound questions smoothly. Limit high register legalese terminology that will trigger confusion. The result will be more concise responses and a well-connected communication.

Wording Trends: The Motorized Vehicular Accident, Discovery and Litigation

Questions about cell phone use are now standard in these kind of cases. I say motorized because people driving heavy machinery use their cell phones while driving. I’ve seen park landscapers on the phone while driving commercial sized mowers. I’ve seen people on their cell phones while driving combines in fields. Vehicular-pedestrian accidents happen when the pedestrian is on their cell too.
Cell phone use is so common now that we reference it in the comprehensive phrase “being on your cell phone” that includes all the functions performed on a cell phone. People can do any of these tasks with their cell phone: talk, text, read emails, respond to emails, listen to voice mail messages, view maps and other content and listen to music. Did I forget anything? If so, please let me know. I want to be ready to interpret those words.
Attorneys word their questions in a variety of ways. But as accident causes evolve, new vocabulary and phrasing appears. In order to provide the best representation of their clients, lawyers get more and more specific in their questions so the respondent doesn’t overlook a fact not referred to in the question. So, I am already seeing the trend of the all-encompassing question “Were you on your cell phone?” or “Were you using your cell phone?” being rephrased by specifying cell phone functions. Interpreters should become familiar with all the different service providers, the different brand names and styles of phones and the and setting options.
Additional vocabulary for this line of questioning includes, distraction, line of sight, paying attention and focus. All of these terms would be conjugated into the simple past, the present, imperfect indicative, and the conditional tenses. You are going to use the subjunctive for the questions about instructions, necessity, urgency suggestion, preference, possibility, regret and doubt. For examples of accidents and the process of resulting lawsuits and comprehensive training take a look at this excellent book.
The Interpreters Guide to the Vehicular Accident Lawsuit. By Josef F. Buenker
http://www.multilingualmatters.com/display.asp?k=9781853597817