论文部分内容阅读
【Abstract】The Cooperative Principle proposed by Herbert Paul Grice is used extensively in negotiation. However， in practice， the Cooperative Principle sometimes is violated out of need. This paper analyzes that how negotiators violate the CP in intercultural business negotiation and what Conversational Implicature is produced through the content analysis of Chinese and foreign business negotiation. The goal of this paper is to provide some linguistic strategies for intercultural negotiators and drive negotiation triumphantly.
【Keywords】culture； intercultural business negotiation； Cooperative Principle； Conversational Implicature
I. Introduction
In intercultural business negotiation， negotiators always encounter kinds of cultural barriers like these due to the difference in culture， custom， history and so like which will prevent business negotiation from going smoothly. In view of this， negotiators should apply different linguistic strategies and develop intercultural awareness. The Cooperative Principle is one of the efficient ways. Nevertheless， in practice， negotiators often choose to violate the four maxims to produce some Conversational Implicature and drive negotiation smoothly. This paper analyzes the violation of the four maxims in intercultural business negotiation to guide successful intercultural business negotiation.
II. Theoretical Framework
2.1 The Cooperative Principle
The Cooperative Principle （CP） was originally put forward by Herbert Paul Grice. Grice defined the CP as “Make your conversational contribution 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 （Grice， 1975）.” Grice noticed that in daily conversations people do not usually say things directly but tend to imply them.
To specify the CP， Grice borrows from the German philosopher Immanue Kant four categories. Here we will introduce two of them：
The Maxim of Relation The Maxim of Manner
2.2 Conversational Implicature
The Conversational Implicature focus its attention on the phenomenon of conveying more than what is said. He claims that the theory is realized through the violation of the four maxims of the CP. In other words， it is the CP that keeps the Conversational Implicature going.
2.3 Cultural Dimension
2.3.1 Individualism Versus Collectivism
This dimension refers to how people define themselves and their relation with other people. In an individualist culture， the interest of individual prevails over that of the group. In an collectivist culture， the interest of the group is more important than that of the individual. 2.3.2 Long-time Versus Short -time Orientation
The dimension of Confucian work dynamism is now called long-term orientation versus short-time orientation commonly. Long-term orientation encourages thrift. Short-term orientation is consistent with less savings， and a concern with face.
III.The Violation of The CP in Intercultural Business Negotiation
3.1 The Violation of the Relation Maxim
A： Competition has become sharper than ever before. I’m afraid your price is to high to be acceptable.
B： Everyone in trade ought to know that he has to cope with competition from different quarters.
A： Don’t be so sure. As a matter of fact， we’ve obtained a quotation from Japanese supplier.
B： Our price is indeed a litter higher than our competitor’s， but I think you will agree that it gives much value for money.
（Zhang Cuibao &Ji Han， 2013）
A complained that the price was too high and that it was bad for market competition and wanted B to lower its price. If B opposed A directly by “No， it’s impossible for us to lower the price.” or something like that， apparently， the atmosphere between them would be embarrassed and the negotiation had the possibility to broke up. Here， B didn’t answer what A had said， instead， he responded by saying “I don’t know how you can make this conclusion” and turned the argument from price to quality of goods which B had more advantages to avoid direct dispute. Though B violated the maxim of relation--Be relevant， it was obvious that he held the upper hand of this negotiation through the violation of maxim of relation.
3.2 The Violation of the Manner Maxim
A： How about a 9% discount on per unit？
B： You know， we don’t get many profits on the price.
C： If we can make a deal this time， we will give you larger quantity in the future.
（Huang Yulan， 2003： 60）
A and B were talking about the price. B wanted a discount on the price. It was apparent that A didn’t agree with B. In lieu of insisting on the discount without any comprise， B made a promise that they will “give a larger quantity in the future”. B violated the maxim of manner by offering a obscure concept about the word “larger”. In this sentence， the Conversational Implicature was that B can give A much more profits in the future by larger quantity order. Maybe neither A nor B could give a certain number about how much on earth “larger” quantity refers to. In saying this sentence， B assured A the profits in the future so that a 9% discount could be permitted this time as a return and their negotiation developed along the right track.
Conclusion
This paper analyzes the violation of the four maxims from eight case study in intercultural business negotiation. Through the analysis， this paper aims to provide some widely performed suggestions for intercultural negotiators. According to the study， I want to put forward some suggestions for future research. First， more studies should been done from the perspective of intercultural communication； Second， more studies should been qualitative and quantitative based， even in the field of linguistics and literature.
【References】
[1]Grice， H. P. （1967）. Logic and Conversation. Harvard.
[2]黄玉兰.合作原则和会话含义的产生[J].江苏外语教学研究，2002（3）.
[3]张翠宝，计晗.模糊语在跨文化商务谈判中的应用研究[J].海外英语，2013（4）.
【Keywords】culture； intercultural business negotiation； Cooperative Principle； Conversational Implicature
I. Introduction
In intercultural business negotiation， negotiators always encounter kinds of cultural barriers like these due to the difference in culture， custom， history and so like which will prevent business negotiation from going smoothly. In view of this， negotiators should apply different linguistic strategies and develop intercultural awareness. The Cooperative Principle is one of the efficient ways. Nevertheless， in practice， negotiators often choose to violate the four maxims to produce some Conversational Implicature and drive negotiation smoothly. This paper analyzes the violation of the four maxims in intercultural business negotiation to guide successful intercultural business negotiation.
II. Theoretical Framework
2.1 The Cooperative Principle
The Cooperative Principle （CP） was originally put forward by Herbert Paul Grice. Grice defined the CP as “Make your conversational contribution 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 （Grice， 1975）.” Grice noticed that in daily conversations people do not usually say things directly but tend to imply them.
To specify the CP， Grice borrows from the German philosopher Immanue Kant four categories. Here we will introduce two of them：
The Maxim of Relation The Maxim of Manner
2.2 Conversational Implicature
The Conversational Implicature focus its attention on the phenomenon of conveying more than what is said. He claims that the theory is realized through the violation of the four maxims of the CP. In other words， it is the CP that keeps the Conversational Implicature going.
2.3 Cultural Dimension
2.3.1 Individualism Versus Collectivism
This dimension refers to how people define themselves and their relation with other people. In an individualist culture， the interest of individual prevails over that of the group. In an collectivist culture， the interest of the group is more important than that of the individual. 2.3.2 Long-time Versus Short -time Orientation
The dimension of Confucian work dynamism is now called long-term orientation versus short-time orientation commonly. Long-term orientation encourages thrift. Short-term orientation is consistent with less savings， and a concern with face.
III.The Violation of The CP in Intercultural Business Negotiation
3.1 The Violation of the Relation Maxim
A： Competition has become sharper than ever before. I’m afraid your price is to high to be acceptable.
B： Everyone in trade ought to know that he has to cope with competition from different quarters.
A： Don’t be so sure. As a matter of fact， we’ve obtained a quotation from Japanese supplier.
B： Our price is indeed a litter higher than our competitor’s， but I think you will agree that it gives much value for money.
（Zhang Cuibao &Ji Han， 2013）
A complained that the price was too high and that it was bad for market competition and wanted B to lower its price. If B opposed A directly by “No， it’s impossible for us to lower the price.” or something like that， apparently， the atmosphere between them would be embarrassed and the negotiation had the possibility to broke up. Here， B didn’t answer what A had said， instead， he responded by saying “I don’t know how you can make this conclusion” and turned the argument from price to quality of goods which B had more advantages to avoid direct dispute. Though B violated the maxim of relation--Be relevant， it was obvious that he held the upper hand of this negotiation through the violation of maxim of relation.
3.2 The Violation of the Manner Maxim
A： How about a 9% discount on per unit？
B： You know， we don’t get many profits on the price.
C： If we can make a deal this time， we will give you larger quantity in the future.
（Huang Yulan， 2003： 60）
A and B were talking about the price. B wanted a discount on the price. It was apparent that A didn’t agree with B. In lieu of insisting on the discount without any comprise， B made a promise that they will “give a larger quantity in the future”. B violated the maxim of manner by offering a obscure concept about the word “larger”. In this sentence， the Conversational Implicature was that B can give A much more profits in the future by larger quantity order. Maybe neither A nor B could give a certain number about how much on earth “larger” quantity refers to. In saying this sentence， B assured A the profits in the future so that a 9% discount could be permitted this time as a return and their negotiation developed along the right track.
Conclusion
This paper analyzes the violation of the four maxims from eight case study in intercultural business negotiation. Through the analysis， this paper aims to provide some widely performed suggestions for intercultural negotiators. According to the study， I want to put forward some suggestions for future research. First， more studies should been done from the perspective of intercultural communication； Second， more studies should been qualitative and quantitative based， even in the field of linguistics and literature.
【References】
[1]Grice， H. P. （1967）. Logic and Conversation. Harvard.
[2]黄玉兰.合作原则和会话含义的产生[J].江苏外语教学研究，2002（3）.
[3]张翠宝，计晗.模糊语在跨文化商务谈判中的应用研究[J].海外英语，2013（4）.