合作原则与礼貌原则在语言交际中的关系

The Relationship between Cooperation Principle and Politeness Principle in Verbal CommunicationAbstract: Cooperation principle, a center major theory in pragmatics, is proposed by Oxford linguist philosopher H. P. Grice, but cooperation principle itself converses endless to consummate. Sometimes, because of politeness and different occasions, people violate cooperation principle, which leads to the produce of conversational implicature. English famous linguist G. N. Leech proposed politeness principle theory, and thought politeness principle and cooperate principle may mutually make up for the profit, and politeness principle may save cooperate principle.Key words; Cooperation principle, politeness principle, conversational implicature, relations Introduction: The cooperation principle explained the relations between the words’ literal significant and its practical significant and how the conversational implicature is produced, but cooperation principle had not explained why people did have to violate the conversation criteria to implicitly, indirectly express our own intention. In order to make up this kind of insufficiency, G. N. Leech put up with politeness principle to “rescues” the cooperation principle. This article will introduce the relations between cooperation principle and politeness principle, with the insufficiency of cooperation principle as well as the daily conversation which actually observe politeness principle but violate cooperation principle to achieve arts of speaking.ⅠCooperation principle and politeness principleIn daily life, people don’t usually say things directly, but tend to imply them. In Grice’s theory, the two participants of the conversation communicate with each other smoothly because they keep some basic principles, which make them cooperate with each other and understand each other. Our talk exchanges do not normally consist of a succession of disconnected remarks, and would not be rational if they did. They are characteristically, to some degree at last, cooperative efforts; and each participant recognizes in them, to some extent, a common purpose or set of purpose, or at least a mutually accepted direction.（胡壮麟，2006，P191）In other words, we seem to follow some principle like the following: “Make your conversational contri bution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged.”To specify the cooperation principle, Grice introduced four categories of maxims as follow:QUANTITY:1、Make your contribution as informative as is required (for the current purposes of the exchange).2、Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.QUALITY:Try to make your conversation one that is true.1、Do not say what you believe to be false.2、Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.RELA TION:Be relevant.MANNER:Be perspicuous.1、A void obscurity of expression.2、A void ambiguity.3、Be brief (avoid prolixity).4、Be orderly.Only keeping the four maxims, can a conversation go on smoothly. If one participant tells lies on purpose, but the other participant is not aware of this, then the conversation is actually cheating, not cooperating. If one participant comes up with a topic, but the other participant answers something unrelated, which will end the conversation. Besides, more asking and less answering, obscure language, as well as talking ambiguously all hinder the continue of a conversation. So, keeping the four maxims of cooperation principle is the basic foundation for two participants to sincerely cooperate with each other.（任铁平，2006，P181）Grice’s main contribution was he found the violation of the maxims would produce conversational implicature. He distinguished the violation of the maxims into four situations.1、The speaker violates one of the maxims by stealth. In this situation, he or she may cheat or misleads the other participant.2、The speaker publicly claims that he or she will not cooperate with the other participant. For example, “I have no comment to make” or “I do not want to talk”. This is an extreme condition, which certainly lead to the interruption of the conversation. So, it won’t produce conversational implicature.3、The speaker confronts conflicts among the maxims, and in a dilemma. He or she may satisfythe maxim of quantity, but violate the maxim of quality. This condition may produce conversational implicature.4、The speaker look down upon a certain maxim, and doesn’t carry out it. Although some maxims are violated on the surface, to a deeper extent, they still take effect. It’s the real condition that will produce conversational implicature.Grice has also noticed that in daily conversation, people often don’t keep these maxims, and sometimes even violate maxims deliberately. Then, the listener should guess the speaker’s real meaning through the literal meaning of words.For example, ①A: What do you think of my new glasses? B: It is quite beautiful. ②A: What do you think of my new glasses? B: The color of the spectacles frame looks beautiful. In the example ①, B observes cooperation principle; however, in the example ②, B violates the maxim of quantity. In fact, B means that the color is beautiful, but it doesn’t suit A. Grice thought it was participants didn’t comply with cooperation principle that produced conversational implicature –hiding the real meaning under the literal meaning, which can be called overtones in conversation.But, why do people violate cooperation principle and converse their real purposes indirectly? Though Grice proposes cooperation principle and conversational implicature for the violation of maxims, he doesn’t give the answer. In 1978, Professor Brown, Levinson and Leech proposed politeness principle. They all had the view that people violated cooperation principle in daily communication as the result of politeness.Politeness principle is not equal to polite language, such as “Hello”,“Sorry”,“Goodbye” and so on. People are certain to use polite language when keep politeness principle, but polite language isn’t the whole of politeness principle. Relative to CP, the core of politeness principle is place, relation and manner. Place decides what to say, relation decides who to say, manner decides how to say. Generally, politeness principle has the feature of altruism.（刑福义，2002，P239）Politeness principle proposed by Leech includes six maxims:APPROPRIA TENESS:1、Make others loose the least.2、Make others benefit the most.GENERSITY:1、Make oneself benefit the least.2、Make oneself loose the most.PRAISE:1、Try to reduce the disparagement to others.2、Try to exaggerate the praise to others.MODESTY:1、Try to reduce the praise to oneself.2、Try to exaggerate the disagreement to oneself.AGREEMENT:1、Try to narrow the divergence between oneself and others.2、Try to magnify the agreement between oneself and others.SYMPA THY:1、Try to narrow the antipathy to others.2、Try to magnify the sympathy to others.For example:③ A: Jim is to disgusting, he is always drinking my drinks. Doesn’t he buy i t himself? B: Maybe he is to busy.④ A: How tall your son is at the age of 13! B: He is only tall in height.In the example③, B gives up the maxim of quality, and keeps the maxim of sympathy. In the example④, B violates the maxim of quality, but keeps the maxim of modesty. In our daily life, as long as we pay more attention to our words, we are surprised to find that we often talk insincerely on account of politeness. Politeness is a social phenomenon.ⅡPoliteness principle complements and develops cooperation principleThe use of terms such as “principle”and “maxim”doesn’t mean CP and its maxims will be followed by everybody all the time. People do violate them and tell lies. Pragmatic principle, especially CP, is the basic foundation to make sure the conversation goes on smoothly. However, in real social activities, people don’t keep CP strictly. The speaker may say something false, but according to CP, the listener maybe not aware the speaker is telling lies, and incorrectly thinks that the speaker keeps CP as well. But, the speaker doesn’t keep CP not for the reason of telling lies, but for politeness and occasion.Grice thought people deliberately violate maxim, told lies, said ambiguously, or talked indirectly in order to achieve some social purposes. Leech’s politeness principle makes a complementary for CPand greatly develops the theory of conversational implicature. Mostly, CP and politeness principle can’t be totally given consideration at the same time. When other factors are the same, people would weaken the impolite thoughts to the lowest points. The analysis of Leech is reasonable. In daily conversation, the examples of people violating CP to keep polite are not rare of ordinary occurrence. Then, I will take examples to explain it.⑤ John: would you like go to a dancing party with me tonight?Marry: There will be an exam tomorrow.In this conversation, Marry refuses the invitation. But if Marry refuses directly, it will hurt John. Saying that she will have an exam tomorrow violates the maxim of relation, but she keeps the maxim of appropriateness.⑥ Having ridden for several hours, Ms Li is very hungry.Parent: Ms Li, would you like stay here to have supper, please?Ms Li: No, thanks! I came here after having diner.Parent: Y ou meant you have had lunch, don’t you?Ms Li: I meant supper, it was supper. But, her stomach kept rumbling at that time.In fact, Ms Li doesn’t have super, but she says she has had super before she came out, which violates the maxim of quality–make your conversation is true. As a teacher in charge of class, she comes to make a visit to the parent of students, it is not right to stay for diner. So, her words keep the maxim of appropriateness.There is another example. Owing to different social purposes, two participants keep and violate opposite maxims.⑦ Ms Li: Li lei, since you have come back, you can come to talk with us. My opinion may be not right. It is only for you reference.Li lei: Since you yourself think it may be wrong, why do you still want to say?Ms Li is in a daze, but after a while she still goes on her talking.What Ms Li says to Li lei violates the maxim of quality of making true contribution, that is to say, Ms Li doesn’t think her opinion is wrong. She makes the maxim of modesty. While, Li lei’s response violates the maxim of agreement of politeness principle, he doesn’t try to narrow the divergence between himself and Ms Li. He keeps the maxim of truth of CP, expressing his opinion directly and clearly.In daily communication, the situation that people keep CP not for the reason of politeness is also quite common. There is a living example in life.⑧ A and B are good friends. As the saying goes on, distance produce leads to beauty. Any two people who stay together for a long time will cause contradiction. If one felt he or she paid more than the other, he or she would feel imbalance in the heart. A studies very hard and she is so busy that she doesn’t have time having dinner and buying hot water. At the beginning, they made a agreement t hat no matter who has time, she would food and hot water for another one. In the morning, A finds that there is breakfast on her desk.A: I am so sorry to having you buy breakfast for me.B: There are so many people in the canteen. It is so crowd. (In fact, there aren’t so many people in the canteen,)A: How much is the breakfast?B: There are too many people there, so the cook collects two Y uan more carelessly. (In fact, the cook doesn’t collect more money.)A: I am sorry. I was so sleepy that I went sleep after class.B: It is only you who are sleepy. Aren’t I sleepy? (In fact, B is quite energetic.)In the conversation, the meaning of B is that she takes more effort and money for A. The words of B certainly violate the maxim of quality, but what B says is not on account of politeness, because the basic meaning of politeness principle is making oneself suffer losses and others benefit from the conversation. B exaggerates the truth, it certainly makes herself get benefits and make A suffers losses. But as a matter of fact, she pays much less than she says, and that makes A feel guiltier.Leech holds the view that CP is necessary, but CP can not full explain conversational implicature. Politeness principle explains what CP can not explain. It is the complementary of CP, and it can explain conversational implicature. Politeness principle saves CP.However, from the example ⑤ to example ⑧, we can get a conclusion: Leech’s words are too absolute. Although politeness principle complements CP, we can neither say politeness principle solve the problem that CP can not do, nor politeness principle saves CP, because the two principles are not in the same level. In our daily conversation, there are many reasons for people to violate CP. Politeness principle is only one of them. Though people violate CP for the majority reason of politeness, examples of both violation of CP and impoliteness can be found everywhere. This phenomenon can not beignored, and can not be imposed on politeness principle. Or it seems inadequate and also not beneficial for the study of conversational implicature.ⅢThe relation between politeness principle and cooperation principleIn the conversation, the cooperation of the two participants is very important. It’s said that, “酒逢知己千杯少，话不投机半句多。