合作原则与礼貌原则

《合作原则与礼貌原则》由会员上传分享，免费在线阅读，更多相关内容在行业资料-天天文库。

TheApplicationoftheCooperativePrincipleandthePolitenessPrincipleinConversationMaLixiaClass4,Grade2007EnglishDepartmentAbstract:Toaccomplishthecommunicationefficientlyandsuccessfully,peopleusuallyfollowsomecertainprinciplesinconversation.Inmakingconversation,theparticipantsmustfirstofallbewillingtocooperate;otherwise,itwouldnotbepossibleforthemtocarryonthetalk.GricenamedthisprincipleastheCooperativePrinciple.However,theCooperativePrinciplealonecannotfullyexplainhowpeopletalk:itexplainshowconversationalimplicatureisgivenrise,butitdoesnottelluswhypeopledonotsaydirectlywhattheymean.ThePolitenessPrinciplethatLeechhasdevelopedcanexplainsomephenomenonfromadifferentperspectivethattheCooperativePrinciplecannot.TheCooperativePrincipleandthePolitenessPrincipleareimportantcontentsofpragmatic.InthispaperthewritermakesasystematicexpositionofwhataretheCooperativePrincipleandthePolitenessPrincipleandhowtheyareappliedandinteractwitheachotherinpeople’sconversations.Keywords:cooperativeprinciple,politenessprinciple,maxim,violation,conversationalimplicature合作原则和礼貌原则在会话中的应用外语系英语专业2007级4班马利霞摘要:为了更有效更成功地完成交流活动，在会话中，人们通常会遵循一些特定的准则。进行对话，参与者必须首先有意愿去合作，否则，会话将难以进行下去。Grice将这个准则叫做合作原则(CooperativePrinciple)。然而，仅合作原则却并不能完全解释人们是如何进行会话的。它解释了会话含义是如何产生的，却并没有告诉我们为什么人们总是不直接说出他们想要表达的意思。Leech提出的礼貌原则能够从另一个不同的角度解释合作原则所不能解释的现象。合作原则和礼貌原则是应用学中的重要内容。在这篇文章中，作者对什么事合作原则和礼貌原则，它们如何被应用在人们的会话当中，以及它们之间是如何地相互作用等做全面的阐述。关键词:合作原则；礼貌原则；准则；违反；会话含义13 1.IntroductionPragmaticsisarelativelynewsubjectinlinguistics.Itdealswithhowutteranceshavemeaningsinsituations.Studyingpragmaticsisveryimportant.Itenablesustounderstandwhatthenatureoflanguageitselfisandhowlanguageisusedincommunication.Inordertocreataneffectiveconversation,peopledofollowsomeprinciplesduringtheirconversation.AndtheCooperativePrinciple(CP)andPolitenessPrinciple(PP)areamongthosemostfamiliarones.TheCPmeansthatweshouldsaywhatistrueinaclearandrelevantmanner.ThefollowingarebriefinquiresintotheCooperativePrincipleandPolitenessPrinciple,andtherelationbetweenthesetwoprinciples.2.TheCooperativePrinciple(CP)Weknowthatquiteoftenaspeakercanmeanalotmorethanwhatissaid.Theproblemistoexplainhowthespeakercanmanagetoconveymorethanwhatissaidandhowthehearercanarriveatthespeaker’smeaning.H.P.Gricebelievesthattheremustbesomemechanismsgoverningtheproductionandcomprehensionoftheseutterances.Hesuggeststhatthereisasetofassumptionsguidingtheconductofconversation.ThisiswhathecallstheCooperativePrinciple(CP).2.1MaximsoftheCPTheCooperativePrincipleisasetofsuppositionalmaximsthatspeakersshouldobserveifthespeakershopetounderstandeachotherbetterandavoidvariousinterpretationsintheirconversation.AccordingtotheAmericanLinguisticPhilosopherGrice'sconceptoftheCP,itcanbedividedintofourcategoriesofmaxims(Leech,1989:21).Theyareexpressedasfollows.①TheMaximofQuantity●Makeyourcontributionasinformativeasisrequired(forthecurrentpurposeoftheexchange).●Donotmakeyourcontributionmoreinformativethanisrequired.②ThemaximofqualityTrytomakeyourcontributiononethatistrue●Donotsaywhatyoubelievetobefalse.●Donotsaythatforwhichyoulackadquateevidence.③TheMaixmofRealition●Berelevant④TheMaixmofMannerBeperspicuous●Avoidobscurityofexpression.●Aviodambiguity.●Bebrief(aviodprolixility).●Beorderly.Fromabovewecanseethesefourmaximsspecifywhatspeakershavetodointheirutterancecommunication,thatistheyshouldspeaksincerely,relevantlyandclearly,andprovidesufficientinformationintheirtalking.ButactuallyonobservingthemaximsofCP,differentpeopleindifferentsituationshavedifferentemphases.Forexample(LiuRunqing,1999:87),anEnglishteachersaystoaChinesestudent:13 “Oh,whatbeautifulhandwriting!”Thestudentissoembarrassedtohearthepraisethatshehurriestosay:“No,no,notatall.Youarejoking”.Onhearingthis,theteacherhasnothingtosayandleaveswithashrugoftheshoulders.ThisexampleshowsthedifferencesinobservingtheCPbetweentheteacherandstudent.TheEnglishteacherconsiderstheMaximofQuantity,butinreplythestudentlaysstressontheModestyMaximofPolitenessPrincipleandignorestheMaximofQuanlity.Asaresult,theirmutualobservingoftheCPisdisturded.Andtheteacher’strueremarksarenotacceptedbythestudent,soheleavesunhappily.Inshort,thesemaximsspecifywhatparticipantshavetodoinordertoconverseinamaximallyefficient,rational,andcooperativeway:theyshouldspeaksincerely,relevantlyandclearly,whileatthesametimeprovidingsufficientinformation.Itisbelievedthatifparticipantsarefollowingthesemaxims,theyarecooperatingwithoneanotherincreatinganeffectiveconversation.ThefactthattheCooperativePrincipleanditscomponentmaximsareexpressedintheimperativehasmisledmanyreaderstoregardthemasprescriptive:tellingspeakershowtheyoughttobehave;whilethetruthisthattheCPismeanttodescribewhatactuallyhappensinconversation.Thatis,whenwespeakwegenerallyhavesomethingliketheCPanditsmaximsinourmindtoguideus,thoughsubconsciously,orevenunconsciously.Wewilltrytosaythingswhicharetrue,relevant,aswellasinformativeenough,andinaclearmanner.Hearerswillalsotrytointerpretwhatissaidtotheminthisway.2.2ViolationofthemaximsTheuseoftermssuchas“principle”and“maxim”doesnotmeanthattheCPanditsmaximswillbefollowedbyeverybodyallthetime.Peopledoviolatethemandtelllies.Andactually,peopleoftentendtoviolateoneorsomeofthemaximsoftheCPinordertoobeyothermaxims,ortosuggestsomespecialimplicatures.2.2.1ViolationoftheMaximofQuantity⑴Makeyourcontributionasinformativeasisrequired:Ex.1-1A:昨天上街买了些什么?B:就买了些东西。>>Idon’twanttotellyouwhatIbought.Ex.1-2A:Yourkidbrokethewindow.B:Boysareboys.>>Boysarenaughtyandmischievousbynature.⑵Donotmakeyourcontributionmoreinformativethanisrequired:Ex.1-3Aunt:HowdidJimmydohishistoryexam?Mother:Oh,notatallwell.Teachersaskedhimthingsthathappenedbeforethepoorboywasborn.>>Hersonshouldnotbeblamed.Ex.1-4A:WhereisX?13 B:He’sgonetothelibrary.Hesaidsowhenheleft.>>BmayimplicatethatheisnotsurewhetherXhasreallygonetothelibrary.2.2.2ViolationoftheMaximofQuanlity⑴Donotsaywhatyoubelievetobefalse.Ex.2-1Heisatiger.>>Hehassomecharacteristicsofatiger.⑵Donotsaythatforwhichyoulackadequateevidence.Ex.2-2A:BeirutisinPeru,isn’tit?B:AndRomeisinRomania,Isuppose.>>It’sridiculous.2.2.3ViolationoftheMaximofRelationBerelevant.Ex.3-1A:Prof.Wangisanoldbag.B:Niceweatherforthetimeofyear.>>Idon’twanttotalkaboutProf.Wang.2.2.4ViolationoftheMaximofManner⑴AvoidobscurityofexpressionEx.4-1A:Let’sgetthekidssomething.B:Ok,butIvetoI-C-E-C-R-E-A-M-S.>>Don’tgivethemicecreams.⑵AvoidambiguityEx.4-2A:Nameandtitle,please?B:JohnSmith,AssociateEditorandprofessor.⑶BebriefEx.4-3A:Didyougetmyassignment?B:Ireceivedtwopagesclippedtogetherandcoveredwithrowsofblacksquiggles.>>B’snotsatisfied.Ex.4-4MissXproducedaseriesofsoundsthatcorrespondedcloselywiththescoreof“Homesweethome”.>>MissX’sperformanceissopoorthattheword“sing”cannotbeapplied.Thoughsometimesthemaximsarebreached,thehearerstillassumesthatthespeakerisbeingcooperativeandtheninfersthatthespeakermusthavemeantorimplicatedsomethingelsewhichisdistinctfromtheliteraltivemeaning.Thatis,thespeakermusthavehadsomespecialreasonsfornotobservingthemaxims.2.3ConclutiontotheCPThecooperativeprinciplegoesbothways:speakers(generally)observethe13 cooperativeprinciple,andlisteners(generally)assumethatspeakersareobservingit.Thisallowsforthepossibilityofimplicatures,whicharemeaningsthatarenotexplicitlyconveyedinwhatissaid,butthatcannonethelessbeinferred.Forexample,ifAlicepointsoutthatBillisnotpresent,andCarolrepliesthatBillhasacold,thenthereisanimplicaturethatthecoldisthereason,oratleastapossiblereason,forBill'sabsence;thisisbecauseCarol'scommentisnotcooperative—doesnotcontributetotheconversation—unlessherpointisthatBill'scoldisormightbethereasonforhisabsence.(ThisiscoveredspecificallybytheMaximofRelation;seeGriceanmaxims).However,itisclearthatGrice’sworkhasmajorlimitations.Itisbasedonintrospectionratherthandata,andtakesnoaccountofinterpersonalfactors.Howeveritispartofthefoundationsofthedisciplineofpragmatics,andassuchitispartofwhatweallbuildon.Thereforecareshouldbetakeninitsinterpretation.TheCooperativePrincipleaccountsfortherelationshipbetweentheliteralmeaningandactualmeaning,explaininghowthe“ConversationalImplicature”isproducedandunderstood,butitdoesnotexplainwhypeopleviolatetheconversationalmaximssoastoexpressthemselvesinavagueoranindirectway.AndLeech’sPolitenessPrincipleisproposedasthecomplementarytoGrice’sCooperativePrinciple.2.4ConversationalImplicaturesAmericanlinguisticsH.P.Griceoncegavespeechesin1967.Inthespeech,Gricesaid,thetwosidesoftheconversationmustobeysomebasicrules,especiallythe“cooperativeprinciple”,toensurethattheconversationcangoonpropitiously.Hebelievedthatthetwosidesoftheconversationshouldhaveasamewish:thetwosidescanunderstandeachother.Sobothofthemobeysomecooperativeprinciplestoachievetheaim.However,Gricealsosaid,notallthepeopleintheconversationobeytherules.Onceonesidefindstheothersidenotobeythecooperativeprinciple,hewillmakehimselftryhisbesttounderstandtheunsaidmeaningintheconversation.Sotheconversationalimplicaturecomesout.Grice’sbasicideaisthatincommunication,speakersaimtofollowtheCPanditsmaxims,andthathearersinterpretutteranceswiththesemaxmsinmind.AccordingtoGrice,utteranceinterpretationisnotamatterofdecodingmessage,butratherinvolves(a)takingthemeaningofthesentencestogetherwithcontextualinformation,(b)usinginferencerules,and(c)workingoutwhatthespeakermeansonthebasisoftheassumptionthattheutteranceconformstothemaxims.Inshort,CPismeanttodescribewhatactuallyhappensinconversation.PeopletendtobecooperativeandobeyCPincommunication.However,CPisoftenviolated.SinceCPisregulative,CPcanbeviolated.ViolationofCPanditsmaximsleadstoconversationalimplicature.Conversationalimplicatureisakindofextrameaning,whichisnotliterallycontainedintheutteranceandbeyondthesentenceitself.Generallyspeaking,peopledonotusuallysaythingsdirectlybuttendtoimplythemandpeopletendtoviolatethemaximofquality,quantity,relationandmannertoproduceconversationalimplicature,whichsendtheunsaidmeaningofthewords.ConversationalImplicatureasatypeofimpliedmeaning,whichisdeducedonthebasisoftheconversationalmeaningofwordstogetherwiththecontext,undertheguidanceoftheCPandits13 maxims.Inthissense,implicatureiscomparabletoillocutionaryforceinspeechacttheoryinthattheyarebothconcernedwiththecontextualsideofmeaning,or言外之意inChinese.Andthesetwotheoriesdifferonlyinthemechanismstheyofferforexplainingthegenerationofcontextualmeaning.2.4.1Thesortsoftheconversationalimplicature:Generallyspeaking,conversationalimplicaturecanbedividedintotwokinds:generalizedimplicatureandparticularizedimplicature.Particularizedimplicaturereferstotheimplicaturethatviolatessomeofthecooperativeprincipleandmakesthemeaninginsomespeciallycontext.Intheconversation,onesideviolatesthecooperativeprincipleobliviously.Andtheothersideisforcedtoconcludingthemeaningofthewordsmeansontheparticulartime,placeandperson..Ex.4-1A:WheredoesClive?B:SomewhereintheSouthofFrance.>>Bdoesnot,forsomereasonorother,wanttorevealX’spreciselocation.(insomecontexts)Generalizedimplicaturereferstoanimplicature,whichobeysthecooperativeprincipleandalsohastheunsaidmeaning.Ex.4-2A:wouldyouliketojoinusforthepicniconSunday?B:I’mafraidI’vegotaclassonSunday.>>BdoesnotwanttojoinAforthepicniconSunday.2.4.2TheCharacteristicsoftheconversationalimplicature:⑴Calculability----可推导性Thefactthatspeakerstrytoconveyconversationalimplicaturesandhearersareabletounderstandthemsuggeststhatimplicaturesarecalculable.Theycanbeworkedoutonthebasisofsomepreviousinformation.Griceliststhenessarydataasfollows：＊Theconventionalmeaningofthewordsused,togetherthatmaybeinvolved.＊TheCPanditsmaxims＊Thecontext,linguisticorotherwise,oftheutterance.＊Otheritemsofbackgroundknowledge＊Thefactorsupposedfactthatallparticipantsandbothparticipantsknoworassumethistobethecase.⑵Cancellability----可取消性CancellabilityCancellabilityisalsoknownasdefeasibility(可废除性).Theconversationalimplicaturesrelyonsomefactors,suchastheconventionalmeaningofworsused,theCP,thelinguisticandsituationalcontexts,etc.Soifanyofthemchanges,theimplicaturewillalsochange.Ifthelinguisticorsituationalcontextschanges,theimplicaturewillalsochange.Andifweputsomelimitsorpreconditionontheinherewords,somemeaningscanbecanceled.Thisisthemostimportantfeatureofconversationalimplicature.13 Ex.4-3A:Doyouwantsomecoffee?B:Coffeewouldkeepmeawake.>>Idonotlikecoffee./Coffeewouldkeepmeawake.Iwanttostayup.Inthefollowingexample,(a)usuallyimplicates(b).Butifthespeakeradds“ifnotmore”to(a),tochangeitto(c),thenthepreviousimplicature(b)iscancelled,ordefeated.And(c)means(d).a.Johnhasthreecows.b.Johnhasonlythreecows.c.Johnhasthreecows,ifnotmore.d.Johnhasatleastthreecows.⑶Non-detachability----不可分离性Non-detachabilitymeansthataconversationalimplicatureisattachedtothesemanticcontentofwhatissaid,nottothelinguisticform.Implicaturesdonotvanishifthewordsofanutterancearechangedforsynonyms.Ex.4-4A:Shallwegothecinematonight?B:There’llbeanexamtomorrow./I’lltakeanexamtomorrow./Isn’tthereanexamtomorrow?>>Idonotwanttogotoseemoviestonight.Intheex.4-4,thoughBmayreplyindifferentways,heisimplyingthesameimplicature:I’mnotwillingtogotoseemovieswithyoutonight.Thishasshownthenon-detachabilityofconversationalimplicature.⑷Non-conventionality-----非规约性Implicatureisindeterminate,whichvarieswiththecontext.Conversationalimplicatureasatypeofimpliedmeaning,whichisdeducedonthebasisoftheconventionalmeaningofwordstogetherwiththecontext,undertheguidanceoftheCPanditsmaxims.Itnotonlyexistsintheliteralmeaningofthewordsbutalsolaysinthatthesentencespeakersay.Thatis,implicatureisiscontext-dependent.Ex.4-5A:Thehostessisanawfulbore,don’tyouthinkso?B:Therosesarelovely,aren’tthey？>>It’snotpolitetotalkaboutthehostessthisway.3.ThePolitenessPrinciple3.1IntroductionofthePPWhiletheGriceantheoryofconversationalimplicatureisregardedasabreakthroughinpragmaticstudyoflanguageuse,thecooperativeprinciple(CP)isfoundinadequateinexplainingtherelationbetweensenseandforce.Leech(1983:80)pointsoutthatCPinitselfcannotexplainwhypeopleareoftensoindirectinconveyingwhattheymean.TheCooperativePrinciplealonecannotfullyexplainhowpeopletalk.Itexplainshowconversationalimplicatureisgivenrisetobutitdoesnottelluswhypeopledonotsaywhattheymean.Why,forinstance,dopeoplesay“Couldyougivemealift?”insteadof“Givemealift”?Thereasonhastodowith13 anotherprinciplewhichappliestoconversationinadditiontotheCooperativePrinciple—thePolitenessPrinciple(PP).Grice'stheoryofCPis,fundamentallyspeaking,logic-oriented.Conversationalinteractionisalsosocialbehavior.Besidesbeingcooperative,participantsofconversationsnormallytrytobepolite.Thespeakersconsiderthematteroffaceforthemselvesandothers.Politenessisuniversaltoallcultures,accordingtoBrownandLevinson,largelybecauseallpeoplehavetheneedtobeappreciatedandprotected.SoinconversationweshouldfollowPP.AccordingtoLeech,PPtellsustominimizetheeffectsofimpolitestatementsorexpressionsandtomaximizethepolitenessofpoliteillocutions;allthetime,ofcourse,respectingtheintentionsthatdirecttheongoingconversations.Basedonthisobservation,Leech(1983:13,2)proposesthepolitenessprinciple(PP).HedividesthePPintosixmaxims,eachofwhichconsistsoftwosub-maxims(Leech,1983:79-83).Theyareasfollows:3.1.1ThesixmaximsofthePP:①MaximofTact(indirectiveandcommissives⑴Minimizecostofother⑵Maximizebenefittoother②MaximofGenerosity(indirectivesandcommissives)⑴Minimizebenefittoself⑵Maximizecosttoself③MaximofApprobation(inexpressivesandassertives)⑴Minimizedispraiseofother⑵Maximizepraiseofother④MaximofModesty(inexpressivesandassertives)⑴Minimizepraiseofself⑵Maximizedispraiseofself⑤MaximofAgreement(inassertives)⑴Minimizedisagreementbetweenselfandother⑵Maximizeagreementbetweenselfandother⑥MaximofSympathy(inassertives)⑴Minimizeantipathybetweenselfandother⑵Maximizesympathybetweenselfandother(Leech,1983:132)Theabovemaximsareacost-benefitanalysisofPPandmaybeformulatedinageneralwayfromthetwokeyaspects:tominimize(otherthingsbeingequal)theexpressionofimpolitebeliefsandmaximize(otherthingsbeingequal)theexpressionofpolitebeliefs,Leech(1983:133)notesthatinhispolitenessprincipleandmaxims,thereisamoregenerallawthatpolitenessisfocusedmorestronglyonotherthanonselfandwithineachmaxim.Briefly,thisprinciplerequiresspeakersto“minimizetheexpressionofimpolitebeliefs”.Thesemaximscanhelptoexplain,amongotherthings,whycertainformsaremoreacceptablethanothers.InBritishculture,forexample,thePolitenessPrincipleprobablyaccountsfortheuseof“whitelies”inconversation.Forinstance,ifsomeoneinvitesanotherpersontoapartyandthatpersonwantstodeclinetheinvitation,ratherthansaying“No,Idon’twanttocome”13 thepersonmightpretendtohaveanotherengagementandsay“Thankyou,butI’mgoingoutthatevening”.Ofcourse,afterrepeatedinvitationswhicharerepeatedlydeclinedwithstatementslike“I’mafraidI’mbusy”or“Ihaveanotherengagement”,theinviterwillprobably“getthemessage”andstopinviting.Whiteliesmustofcoursebeproperlydeceptive.Imaginesomeonewhodeclinedaninvitationfordinnerthefollowingweekendbysaying“IthinkI’mgoingtohaveaheadache”.Initstransparencythis“whitelie”isafailure—itbreaksthePolitenessPrinciple—andisperhapsevenmoreimpolitethanasimpledirectrefusal.3.1.2TheapplicationofthePPTheMaximofApprobationwillexplainwhyacomplimentlike“Whatamarvelousmealyoucooked!”ishighlyvaluedwhile“Whatanawfulmealyoucooked!”isnotsociallyaccepted.Thuswhencriticismisinevitable,understatementispreferredasashowofreluctancetodispraise(Cf.“Hercompositionwasnotsogoodasitmighthavebeen.”).TheMaximofModestyaccountsforthebenignnatureofutteranceslike“Howstupidofme!”andtheoffensivenatureof“Howcleverofme!”Regulatedbythemaximofagreement,peopletendtoexaggeratetheircommongroundfirst,evenwhenmuchdifferenceistofollow:⑴A:Thebookisverywellwritten.B:Yes,wellwrittenasawhole,buttherearesomeratherboringpatches,don’tyouthink?Inthefollowingexample,noticehowmucheffortspeakerBputintotryingtohidethefactthatspeakerAthinksonething(thefemalebeingdiscussedis“small”)andhethinkstheopposite.⑵A:She’ssmall,isn’tshe?B:Well,she’ssortofsmall...certainlynotverylarge...butactually...Iwouldhavetosaythatsheislargeratherthansmall.Thisconversationisverydifferentindeedfromthefollowingsimpleexpressionofdisagreement:⑶A:She’ssmall,isn’tshe?B:No,she’slarge.Ifexpressingdisagreementisinevitable,thenspeakersattempttosoftenitinvariousways,byexpressingregretatthedisagreement(“I’msorry,butIcan’tagreewithyou”).Noticeinthisexample,theuseofthewordcan’t.Thisseemstoimplythatthespeakerwouldliketoagree.Speakersmayevenshowreluctancetospeakatallwhentheyknowtheywillbedisagreeing—theyuseexpressionssuchaswellatthebeginningoftheirutterancesorthey“humandhaw”.TheMaximofSympathyhassucharegulativeforcethatweinvariablyinterpret(4)asacongratulationand(5)asacondolence:(4)I’mdelightedtohearaboutyourcat.(Mostlikelythecathasjustwonaprizeinthecat-show.)(5)I’mterriblysorrytohearaboutyourcat.(Probablythecathasjustdied.)3.2PolitenessWhilethesyntacticformisthesame,theillocutionvariesinthese13 utterances.Ascaleofpolitenesscanalsobeillustratedbyutterancesthathavethesameproposition:Thepurposeofthespeakeristhesame,butthedegreeofpolitenessincreasesasindirectnessofthespeechactascends.“Indirectillocutionstendtobemorepolite,(a)becausetheyincreasethedegreeofoptionality,and(b)becausethemoreindirectanillocutionis,themorediminishedandtentativeitsforcetendstobe.”(Leech1983:108)Thisisoftenemployedasastrategyinspeech,apointtobemadeinthenextpart.Theexistenceofdegreeofpolitenessallowsforchoiceonthepartofthespeaker.Asalinguisticinteractionisnecessarilyasocialinteraction,thechoiceislargelydeterminedbysuchsocialfactorsassocialdistanceandpower.Themoreremotethesocialdistancebetweentheinterlocutors,themorepolitethelinguisticexpressionstendtobe.Thisphenomenonisalsoatopicinsociolinguistics.Veryoftenasuperficialviewistakenofpolitenessinspokenlanguage—itisassociatedwithbeingsuperficially“nice”,andwithformal,mechanicalextrassuchasthewordsplease,andthankyouandtheuseofspecialconstructionssuchaswouldyoumind...orcouldyou...orIwonderifyoucould...Butpolitenessisapervasiveprincipleandalsoinvolvesthecontentofconversation.TofollowPP,wehavesomestrategies,thepositive-politenessstrategy,thenegative-politenessstrategyandtheindirect-politenessstrategy.Forinstance,supposethatRobandJuliaarestandingbythewatercoolerchatteringabouthowemployeesarebeingtreatedwhenRobsays,“Youknow,we’veallbeenabitpeevedathavingtokickintwenty-fivedollarstobrightenupourconferenceroom.”IfJuliaviolatestherelevancemaximandsays“Thewaterjustdoesn’tseemascoldasitshouldbe.”Robwillinfersomethingaboutherresponse,suchas“Shemustnotwanttotalkaboutit,andwhatsheisdoingistellingmeinanicewaythatit’snoneofmybusiness.”Here,Juliatakestheindirect-politenessstrategy.3.3ThefacetheoryWhentalkingaboutthePP,wemustmentionthefacetheoryorthefacesavingtheory,whichwasproposedbyBrownandLevinson.Actingcooperatively,peopletrytobuilduptheirinterlocutors’positiveface,whiletryingtoavoidposingthreatenstotheirnegativefaces.BrownandLevinson,they“treattheaspectsoffaceasbasicwants,whicheverymemberknowseveryothermemberdesires,andwhichingeneralitisintheinterestsofeverymembertopartiallysatisfy(ibid,1987)”.Thatis,faceisthepublicself-imagethateveryonewantsandexpectseveryoneelsetorecognize.(ibid,61)Theyholdthat“facecanbe,androutinelyis,ignored”,“incaseofsocialbreakdown(affrontery)”,“incaseofurgentcooperation,orintheinterestsofefficiency”(ibid,1983).Therefore,theydefinefaceaswantsandclassifythenotionoffaceintotwotypes:thenegativefaceandthepositiveface.Theystatenegativefaceas“thewantofevery‘competentadultmember’thathisactionsbeunimpededbyothers.Itreferstotheneedtobeindependent,tohavefreedomfromofaction,andnottobeimposedonbyothers.Bycontrast,thepositivefacereferstotheneedtobetreatedasamemberofthesamegroup,andtoknowthatone’swantsaresharedbyothers.Sotheydefinepositivefaceas“thewantofeverymemberthathiswantsbedesirabletoatleastsomeother(ibid,1987:67)”.BrownandLevinsonarguethatconversationismuchmoreconcernedwith13 observingpolitenessexpectationsdesignedtoensurethe“redressoffacewiththeexchangeofinformation(ibid,1987:68)Thus,thenotionofpositiveandnegativepolitenessarederived.Bynegativepoliteness,itismeantthattheparticipantstendtoshowdeference,emphasizetheimportanceoftheparticipants’righttofreedomorindependenceintheirsocialinteractions.Positivepolitenessisconcernedwithparticipants’positiveface.Theywilltendtoshowsolidarity,emphasizethatboththespeakerandthehearerwantthesamething,andthatappealtoacommongoalandevenfriendshipormembership.Therefore,BrownandLevinsonstatethat“positivepolitenessisorientedtowardthepositivefaceofH,thepositiveself-imagethatheclaimsforhimself.(ibid,1987:68)”.Theystatethatnegativepoliteness“isorientedmainlytowardpartiallysatisfying(redressing)H’snegativeface,hisbasicwanttomaintainclaimsofterritoryandself-determination.(ibid)”.Theyproposethattorealizethenegative-politenessstrategies,thespeakermustbeassuredtorecognizeandrespect“theaddressee’snegativefacewantsandwillnot(orwillonlyminimally)interferewiththeaddressee’sfreedomofaction(ibid,1987:68)”.SoaccordingtoGu,BrownandLevinsonadvocatethepositionthat“faceandpolitenessholdameans-to-endrelationbetweenthem”(1990:241).Yulealsoholdsthatpolitenesscanbeunderstoodasthemeansemployedtoshowawarenessofanother’sface.Thatistosay,thefunctionoflinguisticpolitenessistoprotectthe“face”frombeingdamagedortominimizethedamagingdegreeoftheface-threateningacts.3.4ThedrawbacksofthePPItisapitythatLeech’sPolitenessPrincipleignorescontext,becauseittakesmuchinconveniencetothespecificuseandexplanationofthetheory.Thenarrowestunderstandingofthecontextisthelanguageenvironment.Butthiskindofunderstandingcannotexplainsomephenomenainthelanguageuse,becausethelanguageactivitiesalwayscarryoninthespecifictime,thespecificspace,thespecificcircumstances,andbetweenthespecificpersons.Sowemustconsidertheseelementsoutsidethelanguagetounderstandthecontextexactly.InobservingthePP,peopleshouldbealwayspolitetoothers—minimizecosttootherandmaximizebenefittoother,soastomakeagoodimpressiononotherandwinmutualrespect.Butthisisnotforallthecases.Thingsaredifferentwhileinthesituationofbusywork,intheheatofadebateorinthetalkoftwointimatefriends.ThePPgiveswaytothecontentofwords.4.TherelationbetweentheCPandthePPThenwhatistherelationbetweentheCPandPP?Asweknow,theCPhelpstoaccountfortherelationbetweensenseandforce.However,theCPinitselfcannotexplainwhypeopleareoftensoindirectinconveyingwhattheymean,andwhatistherelationbetweensenseandforcewhennon-declarativetypesofsentencearebeingconsidered.And,inmostcases,theindirectnessismotivatedbyconsiderationsofpoliteness.Politenessisususllyregardedbymostpragmatistsasameansofstrategywhichisusedbyaspeakertoachievevariouspurposes,suchassavingface,establishingandmaintainingharmonioussocialrelationsinconversation.Leech(1983b:80)looksonpolitenessascrucialinaccountingfor“whypeopleareoftensoindirectinconveyingwhattheymean”.HethusputsforwardthePolitenessPrinciple13 soasto“rescuetheCooperativePrinciple”inthesensethatpolitenesscansatisfactorilyexplainexceptionstoandapparentdeviationsfromtheCP.Therefore,hisPolitenessPrincipleisnotjustanadditiontoGrice’sCP,butanecessarycomplementneededforcaseswheretheCPfailstoofterareasonableexplanation.ThefunctionofthePolitenessPrincipleisthatspeakersshouldtrytoexpressthemselvesinapoliteway,inanindirectwayandletthehearerssensetheirimplicature.ThefollowingareexampleswherethePPrescuestheCP:Ex.4-1A:小李和小王人都不错，是吧?B:是的，小李人不错。Ex.4-2Wang:有人动我的吉他了。Li:不是我。Inex.4-1,BapparentlyfloutstheMaximofQuantity.WhenAasksBtoconfirmA’sopinion,Bonlyconfirmspartofit,andpointedlyignorestherest.Fromthiswederiveanimplicature:BisoftheopinionthatWangisnotagoodguy.Butonwhatgroundsistheimplicaturearrivedat?NotsolelyonthebasisoftheCP,forBcouldhaveadded“……butnotWang”withoutbeinguntruthful,irrelevant,orunclear.Theconclusionisthatwouldbeatcostofbeingmoreimpolitetoathirdparty:thatBthereforesuppressedthedesiredinformationinordertoupholdtheAgreeementMaximofPP.Inex.4-2,itistypicallyanexchangebetweenWangandLi.ThereisanapparentfloutoftheMaximofRelationinLi’sreply.Wangsubstitutesanimpersonalpronounsomeoneforthesecond-personpronoun“you”.ThusWang’sremarkisinterpretedasanindirectaccusation;WhenLihearsthisassertion,Lirespondsitashavingimplicationthat:Limaywellbeguilty,soLideniesanoffencewhichhasnotbeenovertlyimputedandsays,“Itwasn’tme”.WhatthissuggeststhenisthattheapparentirrelevanceofLi’sreplyisduetoanimplicatureofWang’sutterance,Lirespondstothatimplication,theindirectnessofwhichismotivatedbytheApprobationMaximofPP,ratherthantowhatisactuallysaid..Incertaincircumstances,PPtakesthebackseattoCP.Forexample,insomecooperativeactivities,suchassomebusinessnegotiation,thetransferofinformationisthemostimportantthing.Theconversationalistsonlycaretheinformation,andhowtotransferinformationmosteffectively.NowCPcomesfirst.SoitcanbeconcludedthatwhenCPisthoughtaboutmore,PPhastobethoughtaboutless,andviceversa.ItisarguedthatwhentheCPandPPareincontradiction,itisgenerallytheCPmaximsthatgetsacrificed.Whenthetruthcannotbetoldforpolitenesssake,awhiteliemaybeoffered.InfactthePPissopowerfulthatpeopleareoftenencouragedtoviolateitsmaximinordertoensureacooperativediscourse(“Don’tbetoomodest.Telluseverythingyou’veachieved.”“Ifyoufindanythinginadequateinthepaper,don’thesitatetopointitout”).IronyisameanstosolvetheconflictbetweentheCPandPP—whenthetruthistoooffensivetobetold,anironicutteranceassumesapolitesurfacewhiledeliveringanunpleasanttruemessageunderneath.13 Insummary,solongaswecombinetheCPwiththePPproperly,wecangoonquitewellwithourcommunicationandachievethemutualunderstandingandrealizethemutualcooperationdesire.5.ConclusionThere’snodoubtthatGrice’sCooperativePrincipleandLeech’sPolitenessPrinciplearetwomajorprinciplesthatguidethewayspeoplecommunicatewitheachother.However,principles,unlikerules,arenotblackandwhite;youcanobeythemtosomeextentandviolatethemtosomeextent.Forexample,oneprinciplesaysweshouldtellthetruthandanothersaysweshouldbepoliteinourspeech.Butsometimesthesetwoprinciplesareincontradiction.IfItellyouthetruth,Iwon’tbepoliteandifIwanttobepolite,Ican’ttellyouthetruth.Whatwedounderthesecircumstancesisthatwetendtostrikeabalancebetweemthetwo—expresssomepolitebeliefsandthentellthetruthinverysoft,gentlewords.Anyhow,thenatureofthesetwoprinciplesistohelppeopletomakesuccessfulcommunication.Bibliography[1]R.H.Robins.GeneralLinguistics[M].ForeignLanguageTeachingandResearchPress,2000[2]Yule.G.Pragmatics[M].London:OxfordUniversityPress,1996[3]XiXiao.AComparativestudyofCooperativeandPolitenessPrinciplesbetweenChineseandEnglishCultures.[J].SCIENCE&TECHNOLOGYINFORMATION,2008[4]GeofferyLeech..PinciplesofPragmatics[M].Longman,LondonandNewYork,1983[5]姜望琪.语用学－理论及应用[M].北京大学出版社,2001[6]胡壮麟.Linguistics.ACourseBook[M].北京大学出版社,2001[7]刘润清,文旭.Linguistcs:ANewCoursebook[M].外语教学与研究出版社,200613