违反合作原则下《老友记》的会话含义研究

ChapterTwoOverviewofCooperativePrincipleInthe1970s,theAmericanphilosopheroflanguageGricedevelopedthetheoryoftheCooperativePrinciple.Hearguedthatwhenpeoplecommunicatelinguistically,thedialoguebetweenthecommunicatingpartiesshouldbeacoherent,logicalconstructionofdiscourseinwhichbothpartieschangeaccordinglyinorderforthedialoguetoflow.TheCooperativePrincipleconsistsoffourmaxims,whichfocusondifferentaspectsofdiscourse.Thesefourmaximsdonotmeanthatthefourmaximscannotbebroken,orthatabreachofthemwillnotleadtosuccessfulcommunication.Thelistenerneedstodeterminetherealintentionofthespeakertoviolatearulebasedonthecontext,andtoguesswhatismeantbythewordsandwhatisnotmeantbythem,inordertocorrectlyinferthehiddenmeaningofthecommunication.Linguisticinferenceisanimportantconceptinunderstandingtheeffectofhumour,bydeducingthemeaningofadiscoursefromthelinguisticfactsinthediscourseandthefunctionexpressedbythediscourse.Indifferentcontexts,thesamediscoursemayproducedifferentpragmaticinferences,andthespeakermayexpressdifferentintentions.2.1DefinitionoftheCooperativePrincipleTheCooperativePrinciplewasintroducedbythefamousAmericanphilosopheroflanguage,Grice,inalectureatHarvardUniversityin1967.AccordingtoGrice,people’stalkdoesnotconsistofaseriesofincoherentanddisorganizedwords;peoplemakemoreorlessefforttocooperatewhentheytalk.Thisisbecausetheparticipantsinaconversationhave,tosomeextent,acommonpurposeorasharedpurposeoramutuallyacceptabledirection.Thispurposeanddirectionmaybeclearatthebeginningoftheconversationwhentheinitialproposalisdiscussed;itmaybelessclear,likesmalltalk;itmaybecomeclearerinthecourseoftheconversation.Inordertoachievesuccessfulcommunication,peoplealwaysconsciouslyorunconsciouslyadheretoabasicprinciple,thatis,“providetheappropriatewordsintheconversationaccordingtothechangeinthepurposeordirectionoftheconversationinwhichyouareengaged”.[2]2310Thistheoryprovidesanimportantguidingtheoryforthestudyofhumancommunicativebehavior.Intheactualprocessofconversation,ifthepurposeordirectionoftheconversationdiffersbetweenthetwoparties,theconversationwillnotachievetheexpectedeffect,orevenleadtotheconversationnotbeingcarriedout.2.2TheMaximsofCooperativePrincipleTheCooperativePrinciplewasproposedbythefamouslinguistGriceasasetoftheoriesabouthowhumansuselanguage.ThecontentoftheCooperativePrincipleconsistsoffourmainmaximsforcooperation,namelymaximofquantity,maximofquality,maximofrelation,andmaximofmanner.AccordingtoGrice,inorderforcommunicationtoworkproperlyineverydayinteractions,peopleshouldconsciouslyfollowthesefourmaxims,andoncetheyviolatethem,conversationalimplicationswillarise.Theprincipleofquantitymeansthatduringaconversation,thespeaker’swordsshouldbewhatthelistenerneeds,withenoughinformation,butnotmorethanthelistenerneeds.Thequalitycriterionrequiresthatthespeakershouldbesincereandshouldsaywhatisrealistic;thespeakermustnotsaywhatlacksevidence;thespeakermustnotsaywhatheorsheknowstobefalse.Theprincipleofrelationshiprequiresthatthespeaker’sverbalexpressioniscloselyrelatedtothetopic;ifitappearsthatsomeinformationisirrelevanttothetopicatthetime,thelistenerwillnotknowwhattosayandtrytofindtheconnectionbetweentheconversation.Themodalityprinciplerequiresthespeakertospeakasconciselyandclearlyaspossible,andanylanguagethatisintendedtomakethelistenerfeelobscureisaviolationofthisguideline.

ChapterThreeAnAnalysisofConversationalImplicaturefromthePerspectiveofViolatingtheCooperativePrincipleinFriendsSinceGrice’stheCooperativePrinciplewasproposed,ithasbeenwidelyappliedandanalysed,andtheviolationoftheCooperationPrincipletoachievehumorousconversationalmeaningsisacommonmeans.Studiesinthefieldofcorpusanalysisathomeandabroadhavebeenrelativelyhomogeneous,mainlyfocusingontheconversationalanalysisoffilmandtelevisiondramasandliteraryworks,butnotmuchontheanalysisoftheconversationalmeaningofsitcoms.Therefore,thefamoussitcomFriendsisselectedastheobjectofthisstudy,andtheconversationalmeaningsoftheconversationsbetweentheunfamiliarandfamiliarstagesareanalysedbyapplyingthefourguidelinesoftheCooperativePrinciple,soastoappreciatetheprofoundmeaningsoftheconversationsviolatingtheCooperativePrinciple.3.1ConversationalImplicatureGeneratedbyViolatingMaximofQuantityViolationsofquantitativeMaximscanbesummarizedasoverstatementorunderstatement,wherethespeakerprovidestoomuchortoolittleinformation.Inlayman’sterms,thismeans“makeyourwordscontaintheinformationneededforthepurposeoftheconversation,anddonotmakeyourwordsmoreinformativethanrequired”.[1]23083.1.1BiasfromInsufficientInformationThefirstruleofquantityrequiresthatwhatthespeakersayscontainstheinformationnecessaryforthepurposeoftheinterview.Ifthespeakerdoesnotprovideenoughinformation,thisruleisbroken.Thisleadstoabiasintheunderstandingofthecharactersintheconversation.Thefollowingaresomeanalysesofspecificverbalconversations:(1)Example1Rachel:Allright.Whatisyournews,Amy?Amy:Oh!Umm...that...I’mgettingmarried.Rachel:What?OhmyGod!Towho?Amy:Thisguy!InthisclassicFriendsdialogue,RachelsuddenlylearnsthathersisterAmyisgettingmarried.Rachelaskshersisterwhosheisgettingmarriedto.Ifyouknowthatyoursisterisgettingmarried,youshouldaskhernameandage.Shemarriedhimbecausehehasmoneyandacar,soAmydoesn’tcareaboutotherinformationabouthim.Amy’ssisteranswerdoesnotprovideenoughinformationneededforconversation.Heranswerisequivalenttonotsayinganything,whichviolatedtheprincipleofquantity.Althoughthisdialoguecausesthedeviationofspeech,itproducesquiet.Theeffectofsilence.(2)Example2Joey:Ithinkthatgotabookcasehere.Chandler:It’sabeautifulthing.Joey:What’sthis?Chandler:IwouldhavetosaythatisanL-shapedbracket.Joey:Whichgoeswhere?Chandler:Ihavenoidea.JoeyandChandlergotoRoss’snewhousetohelphimassemblethenewfurniture.Afterpackingupthebookcase,JoeynoticesanextrapieceandasksChandler,(1)“Whatisthis?”Chandlerreplies,(2)“ItshouldbeanL-shapedbracket.”andJoeyasks,(3)“Whereshoulditgo?”Chandlerhadtosayhehad“noidea.”Accordingtothefirstruleofquantity,whatthespeakersaysshouldcontaininformationnecessaryforthepurposeoftheconversationatthetime.Joeyfindstheextrapartandasks(4)“Whatisthis?”Thegoalistoask(5)“Whatisthisfor?”or(6)“Whereshouldthisgo?”Chandlerrespondsbysaying,(7)“It’sanL-shapedbracket,”whichdoesn’treallyanswerJoey’squestionorservethepurposeoftheconversation.SoitcouldbearguedthatChandler’sanswerviolatesthequantityruleanddoesn’tprovidetheinformationnecessaryforthepurposeofconversation.3.1.2ClutterfromOver-informationThesecondruleofquantityrequiresthespeakertoprovidenomoreinformationthanisnecessaryforthecurrentconversation.Promptingustospeakinmoderation,whichcanleadtocomplicationsifthereistoomuchinformation,thefollowingaresomeanalysesofspecificverbalconversations:(1)Example1Joey:Youneedanything.YoucanalwayscometoJoey.MeandChandlerliverightacrossthehallandheisawayalot.Monica:Joey,stoppinghittingonher.It’sherweddingday.Joey:What.Likethereisaruleorsomething?RacheltookrefugeinMonica’sapartmentaftersheranawayfromhermarriage.AtthistimeshewasrestingonthecouchwhenJoeycameoverandputhishandonhershoulderandsaidsomethinglike,“Ifyouneedanything,justcometome.IliveacrossthestreetfromChandler,andhe’snothomemuch.”[3]168AtthesametimegaveRachelateasinglook.Fromthedialogue,peoplecanseethatafterJoeysaid(1)“ChandlerandIliveacrossthestreet”,headded(2)“andhe’softennothome”.Fromapragmaticpointofview,Joey’sstatementviolatesthequantitativecriterionoftheCooperativePrinciple.Heprovidesmoreinformationthanneeded,makingthemessageredundantandcreatingahappycomedicatmosphere.(2)Example2Sheldon:Oh,Iguesslwaswrong.Leonard:Youokay?Sheldon:AmIokay?Leonard,I’monalifelongtrajectorythatincludesaNobelPrizecitiesnamedafterme,allfourwisdomteethfitcomfortablyinmymouthwithoutneedofextraction,andallmybowelmovementsrunlikeaGermantrainschedule.Huh,AmIokay?Thisconversationtakesplaceinacomicbookstore,whereSheldonandLeonardlearnthatSheldon’sgirlfriendAmyisdatingsomeoneelse,andLeonardtriestocomfortSheldon,butSheldon’slonglistofresponsesclearlyexceedsLeonard’sexpectedresponse.Sheldon’swordsviolatetheruleofquantity,andthatcanthusseethattheexcessofconversationalinformationnotonlygeneratesredundancy,butalsogainshumorandreflectsSheldon’ssomewhatparanoidscientistcharacterwhodoesnotcareaboutanythingotherthanhisscientificcareer.3.2ConversationalImplicatureGeneratedbyViolatingMaximofQualityViolationsofthequalitymaximscanbesummarizedastellingliesorprovidinginformationthatisnotsupportedbyevidence.Thequalitymaximsrequirethatpeopledonotsaysomethingpeopleknowtobefalseormakeunsubstantiatedstatements.However,thespeakerdeliberatelyviolatesthequalityMaximsinordertoachievesomepurpose.3.2.1MisleadingfromFalseStatementsThefirstruleofquantityrequiresthespeakertoprovidetruthfulinformationfortheconversationathand.Thisruleisviolatedifthespeakerprovidesfalseinformationthatcanbemisleading,andherearesomeanalysesofspecificverbalconversations:(1)Example1Monica:Ross,areyouOK?Doyouwantmetostay?Ross:That’1lbegood.Monica:Really?Ross:No!Goon!It’sPaul,thewineguy!MonicahadaskedPaul,thebartender,tojoinherfordinner,butwasconcernedthatherbrotherRosshadjustgottendivorcedandwasinabadmood.Sosheaskedwithconcern,(1)“Areyouokay,doyouwantmetostaywithyou?”Rosswentalongwithitandsaid,(2)“Thatwouldbenice.”Butinfact,Rosswantedhissistertogoonadate,andherehewasjustlyingtoteaseher.So,whenMonicaaskedagain,(3)“Really?”Hebreakshisownlieforfearofmisleadinghissister.Fromapragmaticpointofview,Ross’sanswerviolatesthequalitativenorm.Heknowsfullwellthatheislying,andheintendstodosoinordertoteasehissisterandtogiveeveryoneasuspense.Thislittlehurdlemakestheaudience’semotionsriseandfall,creatingastronghumorouseffect.(2)Example2Monica:Howdidyougetthroughit?Paul:Hemaytryaccidentallybreaksomethingvaluableofhers.Sayher···Monica:Leg?Paul:That’sonewayofdoingit.Me,Iwentforthewatch.WhenMonicaandPaulweredating,Paulsaidhecouldtrytobreakhervaluablesafterbeingdumpedbyhisgirlfriend.Monicablurtedout,“Likelegs?”Thiscommentprovokedlaughterfromtheaudience.Fromapragmaticpointofview,Monicaknewthatitwasimpossibletobreakherex-girlfriend’sleg,whichmeansthatshedidnotbelieveinthisstatementherself,butsaiditanyway.ThisshowsthatMonicaviolatedtheprincipleofqualitybysayingwhatshethoughtwasfalseinformationandcausedmisinformation.However,theexaggeratedexpressionofMonica’sstatementcreatesacertainhumorouseffect.3.2.2AbsurdityfromLackofEvidenceThesecondprincipleofqualityrequiresthatspeakersdonotsaythingsthatlacksufficientevidence.Ifthespeakerdoesnothavesufficientevidence,thisprincipleisviolated.Thefollowingaresomeanalysesofspecificlinguisticconversations:(1)Example1Monica:Hewasmybestfriendinfifthgrade.Oneday,Iaskedhimtobemyboyfriendandhesaidno.Doyouknowwhy?Chandler:Becauseyoukepttalkingtohimwhilehewastryingtogotothebathroom?Chandlerusesthebathroomathome,andthroughthebathroomdoorMonicaspitsoutastoryabouthowsheoncecourtedaguyandherejectedher,thenstopsandasksChandler,(1)“Doyouknowwhy?”Chandlerreplied,(2)“Becauseyoukeptnagginghimwhenhewenttothebathroom?”Obviously,Chandler’sanswerisaviolationofqualityMaxims,andpeoplecertainlywon’tbelievethataboyrejectsagirlsimplybecauseshetalkstohimwhenhegoestothebathroom,norwillChandlerhimself,creatinganexaggerationhere.Infact,Chandlerisnotignorant,thereasonwhyhebreaksthemaximofqualityistopolitelyremindMonicathroughthistechniquethatsheisinthebathroomanditisnotconvenienttotalktopeople,andMonica,whoreadsthemeaningoftheconversation,willthusrealizetheabsurdityofherbehavior.Thus,itisChandler’sviolationoftheQualityPrinciplethatcreatesthehumorouseffect.(2)Example2Joey:Everybodyisdoingstuff!Chandler:Andthatjustsithere.Look,thathavetodosomething.Okay?Somethinghuge!Joey:(snapshisfingers)thatcouldclimbMt.Everest!Chandler:No-no,notsomethingstupid,somethinghuge.JoeyandChandlerwereboredandChandlersuggestedsomething“big”,soJoeysaid“thatcouldgoclimbEverest!”Obviously,thisresponseisanill-informedandfancifulone,andJoeyknowsthatthisisnotpossibleandthattheywillnotactuallydoit;hesaysitwithoutthinkinginordertogiveChandleraresponse,thusviolatingtheprincipleofquality,andthehumorouseffectiscreatedbythis.3.3ConversationalImplicatureGeneratedbyViolatingMaximofRelationViolationoftherelationshipcriterioncanbesummarizedasonepartydeliberatelychangingordeviatingfromthetopic,givingtheotherpartytheimpressionthattheyare“off-topic”.Therelationshipcriterionrequiresthatspeechberelevantandrelated,andthatitnotbeirrelevanttothetopic.3.3.1ExaggerationfromOverstatementThefirstruleoftheprincipleofrelationshiprequiresthespeakertobeuncompromisinglyfactual.Ifthespeaker,onpurpose,exaggeratesthefactsviolatesthisrule.Thefollowingaresomespecificverbalconversations:(1)Example1Monica:Whatdidtheydotoyou?Phoebe:It’snothing,it’sjust-okay.I’mgoingthroughmymail,andIopenuptheirmonthly,youknow,STATEMENT-Ross:Easy.Phoebe:-andthere’sfivehundredextradollarsinmyaccount.Inthisconversation,insteadofbrieflyexplainingtoMonicawhatthebankhaddonetoher,Phoebetalkedaboutthemonthlynoticefromthebankandsoundedextremelyemotionalandintriguing.AsfriendsandviewerstriedtoguesswhatthebankhaddonetoPhoebe,theresultsemergedanditturnedoutthatshehadanextra$500inheraccount.Seeingthiswillmakepeoplecryandlaugh.Theextramoneyinherbankaccountissomethingthateveryonewouldlovetohave,butPhoebeissoeccentricthatsheisfuriousaboutit.ItisclearthatPhoebehasviolatedtherulesofassociationinthisconversation,andPhoebe’sexaggeratedlanguagecreatesahumorousatmospherethatmakesyoulaugh.(2)Example2Phoe:Paolomadeapassatme.Phoe:Areyouokay?Rach:Ineedsomemilk.Phoe:Ok,I’vegotmilk.Oh!Better?Inepisode12,Rachelhasanewboyfriend,PaolofromItaly,whoharassesPhoebewhenPaologoestotheclubwheresheworksforamassage,andPhoebefinallydecidestotellRachelaboutitandcomforther.WhenPhoebeaskedRachel,(1)“Areyouokay?”Rachelreplies(2)“Ineedmilk”,whichisahumorousexaggerationofthetruth,butithasahumorouseffect.WhatmakesthishumorouseffectevenmoreobviousisthatPhoebeactuallyhasmilkinhand,makingpeoplelaughathowprescientPhoebeis.3.3.2DoubtfromIrrelevantAnsthatrsThesecondruleoftherelationalprinciplerequiresthespeakertosaysomethingrelevanttothetopicandnottosaysomethingirrelevant.Ifthisruleisviolated,doubtsmayariseandthefollowingaresomeanalysesofspecificverbalconversations:(1)Example1Phoebe:(toMonica)Sohaveyoudecidedonabandforthewedding?Becauseyouknow,Iamkindofmusical.Rachael:Phoebe,shejustgotengagedacoupleofhoursago.Idoubtsheevenhastimeforthis.Phoebe:Speakingofchimingin,rememberthetimeyouburneddownmyapartment?Rachael:(toMonica)Yeah,youareonyourown.Phoebeisverykeentoplaytheguitarandindulgesherselfinwritingandplaying,buteveryoneagreesthatherworkisnotcomplimentary,butistooembarrassedtotellherthetruth,andinmostcases,peoplehastouseobjectivecircumstancestopolitelyrefusetoseeherperform.Inthisscenario,whenMonicaannouncesherengagementtoeveryone,Phoebeiseagertooffertoplayatherwedding,andRachelsays(1)“Monicaonlygotengagedafewhoursago,soIdon’tthinkthatcandiscussmusicyet”.Instead,shesaidtoRachel,(2)“Rememberthelasttimeyouburneddownmyflat?”Thisstatementmaynotseemtohaveanythingtodowiththetopicofconversation,butitisanindirectbutpowerfulretorttoRachel.Theimplicationis,(3)“Youburneddownmyapartment,youoweme!Youoweme!I’llleaveyoualone,butinsteadofbeinggrateful,you’regoingtoruinitforme?WhenRachelheardthis,sheimmediatelyfeltwrongedandbackedoff,thentoldMonica.”(4)“Forgetit,you’lljusthavetodealwithheryourself.”Rachel’sresponsetothisconversationseemstohavenothingtodowithPhoebe’squestion,butitisbybreakingtherelationshipprinciplethatshehelpsMonicatopolitelyrebuffPhoebe’srequest,anditisPhoebe’sseemingly“non-answer”thatentertainstheaudience.(2)Example2Joey:Ross,letmeaskyouonequestion.Shegotthefurniture,thestereo,thegoodTV,whatdidyouget?Ross:Youguys.AfterJoeyandChandlerfinishedhelpingRosssetupthefurniture,theyaskedRoss,whohadjustgottendivorced,(1)“Shegotthefurniture,thestereo,theniceTV,whatdidyouget?”(2)Rosssaid“Igotyouguys”withoutknowingwhattosay,whichpromptedthetwomentocurse.AccordingtorelationshipMaxims,thespeakershouldsaysomethingrelevant.Joey’sintentioninaskingthisquestionwastofindoutwhatRosshadgottenfromthefamilyafterthedivorce.InsteadofansweringJoey’squestion,Ross’s“Ihaveyouguys”seemedlikeanirrelevantanswerbybringingthemattertoanother,unrelated,level.Therefore,Ross’sanswerviolatesthemaximofrelation.3.4ConversationalImplicatureGeneratedbyViolationgofMaximofMannerViolationsoftheMannerCriterioncanbesummarizedasalackofconcise,logical,disorganizedandvagueinformationprovidedbythespeaker.TheModalityCriterionrequiresspeakerstobeasconciseaspossibleduringcommunicationtoavoidAmbiguityArisingfromSpeciousness,andpeopledeliberatelyviolatethisprincipleinconversationstohidecertainreasons.3.4.1AmbiguityfromSpeciousnessThefirstruleofthemodalityprinciplerequiresthatspeakersshouldspeakclearlyandinawell-organizedmanner,andifthisruleisviolated,ambiguitymayarise,asinthecaseofsomeanalyticalconversationsaboutspecificconversations,asfollows:(1)Example1Chandler:Therewassomethingthatwantedtotellyouaboutthewedding.Itisgoingtobeasmallceremony.Monica:Itisactuallygoingtobejustfamily.Janice:Wait.Youtwothinkofmeasfamily?ChandlerandMonicaaregettingengaged,andbecausetheyareavoidingChandler’sex-girlfriendJanice,theyaretryingtodenyherfromcomingtotheirwedding,butinordertoprotectherpride,theydon’ttellherdirectlyandexplicitly,butpolitelysay(1)“Thatarehavingasmallweddingandonlyfamilymembersareinvited”.Theyhopedthattheotherpartywouldunderstandtheimplicationsoftheirreplyandwithdrawautomatically.However,Jennydidnotunderstandtheimplicationsanddidnotknowthattheirrealintentionwastokeepheroutoftheengagementceremony,soshesurprisinglysaid,(2)“Ican’tbelieveyoutreatmelikeyourfamily”andthenmadeashowofgratitude.Jenny’sresponseisthusaviolationofthePrincipleofModality,andhermisunderstandingofthemeaningoftheconversation,andtheresultingambiguity,leavestheMonicasSpeechlessandSpeechless,andtheaudiencelaughing.(2)Example2Rachel:Isn’tthisamazing?Ihavenevermadecoffeebeforeinmylife.Chandler:Thatisamazing.Joey:Congratulations.Rachel:Youknow.Ifigure,ifIcanmakecoffee,thereisn’tanythingIcan’tdo.Chandler:Ithinkit’sifIcaninvadePoland,thereisn’tanythingIcan’tdo.Joey:Listen,whileyouareonaroll,ifyoufeellikeyougottamakelikeawesternomeletorsomething···(JoeyandChandlertastethecoffee,grimaceandpourItintoaplantpot.)AlthoughactuallyI’mreallynotthathungry···Joey’swordsdeliberatelyviolatedtheMaximsofMannerintheCooperativePrinciple,andsinceRachelwasmakingcoffeeforthefirsttime,shewasveryexcited.ChandlerandJoeywerenaturallydelightedwithherprogress.Butwhentheytastedalittle,Joeythensaidhewasnothungry.Thisstatementdoesnotseemtocooperatewiththepreviousarticle,andtheambiguousanswerprovokesambiguity.Buttheimplicationisclear:Rachel’scoffeeisnotdelicious.3.4.2DisorderfromVerbosityThesecondruleofmannerrequiresthatthespeakershouldbeconciseandorganisedandthatthespeakershouldnotbeverbose.Ifthisruleisviolated,theremaybeaplethoraofcontent.Thefollowingaresomeanalysesofspecificconversations:(1)Example1Joey:Y’okay,Phoebe?Phoebe:Yeah-no-I’mjust-it’s,Ihaven’tworked-It’smybank.Monica:Whatdidtheydotoyou?Here,Phoebeviolatesthewaycode.JoeyseesthatPhoebeisinabadmoodandasksheraboutit.Obviously,whatshesaidwasmorethantheamountofinformationJoeyneeded.Toasimplequestionlike“AreyouOK?”,onejustneedtoanswer“yes”or“no”,butPhoebe’sreplyismuchmorethanthat,andtheexcessofwordsseemstedious.(2)Example2PhoebeSr.:Well,Idon’tknow.Imeanitsnotlikethatdon’thaveanythingincommon.ImeanIlikeuh,pizza.Phoebe:I-Ilikepizza!PhoebeSr.:Youdo?!Wait,Ilikeumm,theBeetles.Phoebe:OhmyGod,sodoI!PhoebeSr.:Iknewit,wow!!Phoebe:Wait-wait-wait,wait!Puppies.Cuteorugly?PhoebeSr.:Ohh,socute.Phoebe:Uh-huh,well!Butumm,stillI’m-I’mmadatyou.PhoebeSr.:Iknow.I’mmadatmetoo.Phoebeandherbirthmothermeet,whichshouldbeahappyoccasion,butshehatesherbirthmotherforabandoningherbackthen,soshedoesn’twanttoseeher,butmissesher.Theytrytofindsomethingincommonwitheachotherinordertofindthelong-standingmother-daughterbond.Whenshelearnsthathermotherlikespizza,Phoebehesitatesforamoment,buttogoalongwithher,shestatesthatshelikesittoo,andthenwhenitcomestoBeetles,Phoebeexcitedlyexclaims“metoo”,andthensherepeats“wait!”andcouldn’twaittosayshelikedthecutepuppy.Fromthesethreedifferentresponsesandexpressions,itisclearthatshedoesnotadheretotherulesofmannerandthatherspeechisconfusedanddisorganised.ItisclearthatPhoebe’sanswersviolatetheRulesofManner,andpeoplecanstillunderstandwhatsheistryingtoconvey.Theyhavealotincommonasmotheranddaughter.Butthewayinwhichsheanswersisasourceofamusement.ChapterFourTheSignificanceofConversationalImplicatureinViolationofCooperativePrincipleAsuccessfulsitcominevitablycombinesclevercharacterdesign,plotdevelopmentandwittydialogue.ViolationsoftheCooperativePrincipledonotmeanthatcommunicationcannotproceedsmoothly;violationsofdifferentrulescanhavedifferenteffects.InconversationswherethespeakerdeliberatelyviolatestheCooperativePrinciple,thelistenerhastomakeaguessastothespeaker’strueintentionsinthecontextofthesituationandunderstandthespeaker’shiddenmeaning.Whenspeculating,itisimportanttotakefullaccountofthepremisesofthediscourse,whicharethelogicalability,context,andmeaningofthediscourseonwhichtodrawinferences.Theaudienceofasituationcomedyisneitherthespeakernorthelistener,butathirdpartywhoisnotpresent.Thedeliberatelyuncooperativewayinwhichthetwopartiesspeakisagoodwayofattractingtheaudience’sattention,andtheaudience’sspeculationabouttherealintentionsofthediscourseinthecontextofthedialogueiscarriedoutwithdueregardfortheprerequisites.ThecomiceffectarisespreciselyfromtheviolationoftheCooperativePrinciple,thusinferringthepresenceoffuninplainlanguageandproducingasurprisingpragmaticeffect.4.1EnhancingtheSenseofHumorinInterpersonalCommunicationSinceitispremisedonadherencetotheCooperativePrinciple,theproductionofconversationalmeaningisnotconveyedbyviolatingalloftheCooperativePrinciple,butratherbyviolatingoneormoreoftheminordertomaketheconversationalmeaningknowntothelistener.AdetailedanalysisoftheverbalhumourinthelinesoftheAmericansitcomFriends,basedonGrice’sfourCooperativePrinciple,demonstratestheimportantroleofcooperativenormsintheproductionandinterpretationofhumorousdiscourse.Inoureverydaylives,theviolationoftheCooperativePrincipleisthemostcrucialaspectofourproductionandappreciationofhumour.Firstofall,inlife,inordertomaketheconversationcolorful,peopleoftendeliberatelyviolatetheCooperativePrinciple,potentiallyconveyingtheirrealintentionsandformingtheso-calledconversationalmeaning.OncethelistenerrealizesthatthespeakerisnotfollowingtheCooperativePrinciple,thelistenerwillgodeeperintothesurfacemeaningoftheconversationtodetecttherealmeaningexpressedbythespeakeratadeeperlevelanddeduceitsconversationalmeaning.Second,conversationalmeaningisoftenanimportanttoolusedinlifetocreateverbalhumor,sohumorisactuallyamanifestationofconversationalmeaningthatisbeneficialtobothlanguagelearnersandparticipantsininterculturalcommunication.Inaddition,bylearninghumorousconversations,l