OnFourWaysagainstCooperativePrinciple&InherentConversationalImplicatures

白雪松

【Abstract】By using methods of theoretical review，and example analysis，this paper aims at further analyzing Grices 4 ways of against the Cooperative Principle and inherent conversational implicatures in order to prove that once the Cooperative Principle is violated，the conversational implicatures arise.This will benefit the communicational practice.This paper finds out that any way against CP must cause conversational implicatures.There are limitations in this paper.It just covers the four ways of Grice introduced by Jiang Wangqi（2000），and inherent conversational implicatures found by the author.It might have other ways and implicatures as well.

【Key words】Cooperative Principle； ways against CP； conversational implicatures

1.Introduction

From the year 2000 till now，researches are mostly done from perspective of either Cooperative Principle or Conversational Implicatures.Wang Xiangfeng （2002） studied the Conversational Implicature and Language Stucture.Chen Xirong（2003） studied the Conversational Implicature and Metaphors.Zhu Yanli （2009） argued the phenomenon against CP.Grice puts out CP and notes that a participant in a talk exchange may fail to fulfill a maxim in four ways.The earliest written reference to this theory was made in 1961.In his William James lectures delivered at Harvard in 1967.Part of these lectures came out in 1975，entitled “Logic and Conversation”..Jiang Wangqi （2000） mentioned that Grice noted that a participant in a talk exchange may fail to fulfill a maxim in four ways： Opting out，Clash，Violating，and Flouting .

2.Literature Review

In Logic and Conversation （1975），Grice studied the differences and relationships between speakers' meaning and linguistic meaning.A principle proposed by Grice whereby those involved in communication assume that both parties will normally seek to cooperate with each other to establish agreed meaning.（Grice，1975） In order to explain further the CP，Grice borrows from the German philosopher Immanuel Kant four categories： Quantity - as informative as required （no more，no less）； Quality - truth with adequate evidence； Relation - Be relevant； Manner - Be perspicuous （brief，orderly） Jiang Wangqi （2000） mentioned that Grice noted that a participant in a talk exchange may fail to fulfill a maxim in four ways without further analysis.

3.Four Ways against CP & Inherent Conversational Implicatures

CP and its maxims will not be followed by everybody at any time.It results in the discussion of the ways of the violation and its conversational implicatures.（ Hu Zhuanglin，Jiang Wangqi，2002） Grice notes that a participant in a talk exchange may fail to fulfill a maxim in four ways，which are opting out，clash，violating and flouting.The one gives no response.This is a way that violates CP and all of its maxims including maxims of quantity，quality，relation，and manner.e.g.： A： Is C a nice person？ B： Says nothing.One obeys one maxim without obeying another.There is a clash between two maxims （Jiang Wangqi，2000）.In this paper，clash is discussed as that one violates one maxim without violating the other maxims.e.g.1：A： what time is C going to the airport？ B： Sometime tomorrow morning.One violates a maxim in way of failing to do what it requires with reason of misunderstanding or intention of deceiving or misleading the listeners.One flouts a maxim，that is，one may blatantly fail to fulfill it （Jiang wangqi 2000）.Opting out causes conversational implicatures below：a.The listener does not hear the speaker.This only arises when the one gives no response.b.The listener is unwilling to communicate.c.The listener does not know the answer.d.The listener does not agree and does not want to express different idea.e.The listener does not agree and do not want to cause trouble.f.There are other forces letting the one opt out.

There is a clash between two maxims （Jiang Wangqi，2000）.Clash is discussed as that one violates one maxim without violating the other maxims.For flouting，here a flouting of the first maxim of quality is represented as follows： 1）.Irony.X，with whom A has been on close terms until now，has betrayed a secrete of As o a business rival.A and the audiences know this.A says “X is a fine friend”.It is obvious that A has said or has made as if to say is something he does not believe.2）.Metaphor.You are the cream in my coffee.It is not true.3）.Meiosis.Of a man known to have broken up all the furniture，one says that he was a little intoxicated.4）.Hyperbole.Every nice girl loves a sailor.

4.Conclusion

This paper argues that no matter in which way the CP and its maxims is violated，the conversational implicatures must arise.There must be limitations of this paper.This paper just covers the four ways of Grice introduced by Jiang Wangqi（2000），and inherent conversational implicatures found by the author.It might have other ways and implicatures as well.

References：

[1]Grice， H.P.1975.Logic and Conversation.In Cole， P.& Morgan， J.L.（eds.）

[2]Syntax And Semantics.Vol.3， Speech Act， 41-58.New York： Academic Press.