A Study on Conversational Implicature in Modern Family from the Perspective of the Cooperative Principle

【Abstract】The American linguistic philosopher Grice proposed the important “Conversational Implicature Theory” in the lecture at Harvard University in 1967， and its related theories reveal language norms to guide the two sides of conversation in the process of communication. It contains a series of maxims which help both sides of the conversation to accomplish the dialogue smoothly. So the Cooperative Principle is one of the important guides for peoples speech communication. Under the guidance of CP， implicating meaning comes out， Grice calls that Conversational Implicature （CI）， when speakers violate the maxims of CP on purpose. CP， as a discipline mediating between linguistics and audiovisual criticisms， has gathered more attention in recent years from scholars in the area of audiovisual criticism as well as audiovisual studies. Application has been wider and wider. Through the analysis of dialogues between characters in the work and discussion about the comprehension of the whole meaning in communications， the listeners could get through the literal meaning to the deeper intention. So the real intention of the speaker violating the Cooperative Principle can be found and the sense of humor can be shown.

【Key words】cooperative principle； violation； conversational implicature

The thesis aims to study the Conversational Implicature from the perspective of Grices Cooperative Principle. His theory has been respected by scholars and made great contributions to both Chinese and English pragmatics. This thesis tried to apply Grices Cooperative Principle to analysis the work Modern Family. Based on the conversation of the work， the implied meaning can be known and the sense of humor also can be shown.

1. Grices Cooperative Principle

American linguistic philosopher Grice put forward the theory “Cooperative Principle” in the late 1960s in his article “logic and conversation”. Cooperative Principle have four maxims and each maxim still has several sub-maxims.

（1） The quantity maxim： Make your contribution as informative as is required（for the current purposes of the exchange）； Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.

（2） The quality maxim： Dont say what you believe to be false； Dont say that for which you lack adequate evidence.

（3） The related maxim： Be relevant.

（4） The manner maxim： Avoid the obscurity of expression； Avoid ambiguity； Be brief（avoid prolixity）； Be orderly.

These maxims show how the participants cooperate with each other： the speaker tries to tell the reality； has content and contacts； to be clear and avoid being ambiguous； to be brief and ordered； also the hearer needs to use the same criterion to understand the words. The point to produce the Conversational Implicature lays on the attitude that both sides hold in the immediate communication.

2. Applications to the Cooperative Principle in Modern Family

The Modern Family focus on three America families， one camera hidden record the daily life. The work adopted pseudo documentary form and most of the spots recorded by handheld video cameras. With the unique perspective， three families emotional life and daily life shows to us. The Modern Family fashion has gone all over America and is now going over China. In the last two years，“Modern Family” has ridden timely premises like this to surging viewership and six Emmys， including outstanding comedy series. It has both mystic plots and a plenty of fantastic moments. While among all those stories and conversations that happened among three families， there are many conversations going against the Cooperative Principle proposed by Grice. This issue will be discussed in the following part.

Example 1

Mitchell： “Im sorry. I know how it feels to have him stick his nose where it doesnt belong.”

Phil： “No biggie. Thats just Jay being Jay.”

Actually， Mitchell is Claires brother. Jay is their father but he always have a talk ignoring others feel. Mitchell understand him so much that console Phils answer is disjunctive question. Its an obvious violation of the Quantity Maxims. On the surface， the sentence doesnt offer much available information. But from the perspective of deep， it can express that Jay is just the guy who like to point a finger at others. The Conversational Implicature makes us understand Jays character better and shows Phils feeling that want to please Jay but can do nothing.

Example 2

Mitchell： “I cant. That…that orphanage was all women. Maybe she just...She cant fall asleep， unless she feels a womans shape.”

Cameron： “I guess thats possible.”

Mitchell and Cameron adopted a Vietnamese baby Lily just now and she is not sleeping in the plane. Cameron dont know why and also hurried. In daily life， when we have not enough envidence， we also said “Maybe it is…” or “I am not sure， but…”. So we can infer that Cameron is loving father. Its an obvious violation of the quality Maxims.

Example 3

Claire：“You dont stand near the car when you get gas？”

Phil：“Yep， but， uh， I went inside to get a soda because I was thirsty， and if I had a sod I wouldnt be thirsty anymore， so I bought one， and then I drank it all right there which is why I dont have the can.”

Claire caught Phil ride others bike and want to stole it and in the dialogue， Claire want to ask him why he stay away from the car when fueling it. But Phil say something that have nothing with the topic. He is afraid of her and doesnt want she know. Its an obvious violation of the relation Maxims.

Example 4

Claire： “Last month， it was the thermostat.”

Phil： “The snowflake button makes it cold， cold， cold. Set temperature makes it hold， hold， hold， the little flame makes it...”

In the dialogue， Phils answer is not brief like Clair expected. Its so long that Clair think he was laughing at her who cant understand high technology. So the humorous effect was shown. The conversation broke the third rule of manner maxims，that is ，be brief.

3. Summary

Through a detailed analysis of the dialogues in Modern Family， we have a lot of findings. The implied or hidden meaning of the dialogues can be inferred on the basis of the conventional meaning of words together with the context. The characters in the work can be recognized， such as their inner feelings reflected like sadness， doubt， anger or hesitation. With the help of the Cooperative Principle， the audience can understand and enjoy the work much better. Besides， it can reaffirm and enrich Grices Cooperative principle. Whats more， in the thesis， the conversation observe the basic rules， especially the “cooperative principle”， to ensure that the conversation can go on smoothly. When one side of the principle doesnt want to lie，conversational implicature was produced. Conversational implicature is a kind of meaning， which is beyond the sentence itself. Generally speaking， people violate the maxims so that produce conversational implicature. They want to express their real mind implicitly. At the same time， the features of conversational implicature enrich the conversation. They make the communication more humorous and diversified. So the observance and violation about the cooperative principle are all necessary to everyone to understand. Although there are a lot of findings， the limitations of the study cant be ignored. Because the thesis just made a tentative study from the perspective of CP， especially from violations of sub-maxims of CP. There are three limitations. The material of this study is limited to the application to the work， which might not be convincing in all kinds of work materials. Humans communication occurs in different fields， so there are a lot of angles to analyze， such as psychological， societal and cognitive points of view.

參考文獻：

[1]胡壯麟.語用學[J].國外語言學，1980（4）.

[2]程雨民.格賴斯的“會話含義”與有關的討論[J].國外語言學，1983（6）.

[3]孫玉.Grice會話含義理論中的幾個問題[J].外語學刊，1994（4）.

[4]Hu Zhuanglin.Linguistics：A Course Book[M].Beijing：Beijing University Press，2011.

[5]Sperber，D&Wilson.D.Relevance：Communication and Cognition[M].Shanghai：Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press，2001.

[6]Widdowson H.G.Linguistic Publishing House[M].Shanghai： Shanghai Foreign Language Education 2000.

[7]Grice，H.P.Logic and Conversation[M].Cambridge：Cambridge University Press，1975.

[8]Grice，H.P.Logic and Conversation[J].Syntax and Semantics， 1975（13）.

作者簡介：楊雯競（1994-），女，滿族，河北承德人，教育碩士，學校：牡丹江師范學院， 學科教學（英語）專業。