基于合作原則與禮貌原則的會(huì)話分析——以《東方快車謀殺案》為例摘要本研究以格萊斯（H.P.Grice）的“合作原則”和利奇（G.Leech）的“禮貌原則”為理論基礎(chǔ)，結(jié)合面子理論，對(duì)阿加莎·克里斯蒂的偵探小說(shuō)《東方快車謀殺案》進(jìn)行了文本分析，探討角色如何通過(guò)違反語(yǔ)用學(xué)準(zhǔn)則構(gòu)建懸疑敘事，并反映社會(huì)結(jié)構(gòu)與身份差異。研究選取了30組典型對(duì)話案例，運(yùn)用定性分析法研究?jī)深愓Z(yǔ)用準(zhǔn)則的協(xié)同違反機(jī)制及其在敘事中的功能。研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，角色系統(tǒng)性地違反合作原則的四大準(zhǔn)則（數(shù)量、質(zhì)量、關(guān)聯(lián)、方式），從而制造信息斷層。例如，哈巴特太太通過(guò)冗余敘述（違反數(shù)量準(zhǔn)則）干擾偵探的推理過(guò)程。此外，禮貌原則中的得體、謙遜等準(zhǔn)則被用于身份掩飾。例如，公主使用命令句式（違反得體準(zhǔn)則）來(lái)掩蓋謊言。第三，合作原則與禮貌原則的互動(dòng)揭示了階級(jí)差異：貴族依賴權(quán)威式語(yǔ)言進(jìn)行操控，中產(chǎn)階層使用幽默進(jìn)行防御，平民則采用情感干擾策略。這些語(yǔ)言策略不僅推動(dòng)了情節(jié)的反轉(zhuǎn)，還揭示了20世紀(jì)英國(guó)社會(huì)等級(jí)制度對(duì)交際模式的規(guī)訓(xùn)作用。本研究驗(yàn)證了合作原則與禮貌原則在解碼偵探小說(shuō)懸疑機(jī)制中的效力，證實(shí)語(yǔ)用學(xué)準(zhǔn)則的違反是構(gòu)建“不可靠敘事”的核心手段。同時(shí)，研究也指出了其局限性：?jiǎn)我晃谋痉治隹赡芟魅踅Y(jié)論的普適性，且未涉及影視改編的跨媒介比較。因此，建議后續(xù)研究可以拓展至其他偵探作品，并結(jié)合關(guān)聯(lián)理論探討多模態(tài)語(yǔ)境下的語(yǔ)用策略差異。關(guān)鍵詞：合作原則；禮貌原則；會(huì)話含義；《東方快車謀殺案》；面子理論

AStudyofConversationalImplicatureinMurderontheOrientExpressfromthePerspectivesofCooperativePrincipleandPolitenessPrincipleAbstractThisstudytakesH.P.Grice’s“cooperationprinciple”andG.Leech’s“politenessprinciple”asthetheoreticalframework,combinedwithFaceTheory,toanalyzetheconversationalstrategiesinAgathaChristie’sdetectivenovelMurderontheOrientExpress.Itexploreshowcharactersconstructsuspensefulnarrativesbyviolatingpragmaticnormsandreflectssocialstructureandidentitydifferences.30typicaldialogueswereanalyzedqualitativelytoinvestigatetheco-violationmechanismsandnarrativefunctionsoftheseprinciples.Thefindingssuggestthatthesecharacterssystematicallyviolatethefourmajorprinciplesofcooperation,therebycreatinginformationgaps.Forexample,Mrs.Hubbardinterferedwiththedetective’sreasoningthroughredundantnarration(violatingthemaximofquantity).Second,maximssuchastactandmodestyofthepolitenessprincipleareusedforidentitydisguise.Forinstance,theprincessusescommandsentencestocoverupalie(violatingthemaximoftact).Third,theinteractionbetweentheprinciplesofcooperationandpolitenessexhibitsclassdifferences-thearistocracyreliesonauthoritativeverbalmanipulation,themiddleclassuseshumorforself-defense,andthecommonmanemploysemotionallydisruptivestrategies.Theselinguisticstrategiesnotonlydrivetheplottwists,butalsorevealthenormativenatureofcommunicationpatternsimposedbysocialclassin20thcenturyBritain.Thisstudyverifiedthedecodingefficacyofthecooperationprincipleandthepolitenessprincipleonthesuspensemechanismofdetectivenovels,confirmingthattheviolationofpragmaticnormsisthecoremeanstoconstruct“unreliablenarratives”.Meanwhile,limitationsarepointedout:Single-textanalysismayweakentheuniversalityoftheconclusion,anditdoesnotinvolvecross-mediacomparisonsoffilmandtelevisionadaptations.Itissuggestedthatsubsequentresearchcanbeextendedtootherdetectiveworks,andthepragmaticstrategydifferencesinmultimodalcontextscanbeexploredincombinationwiththerelevancetheory.Keywords:cooperativePrinciple;politenessPrinciple;ConversationalImplicature;MurderontheOrientExpress;FaceTheory

Contents29025摘要 1TOC\o"1-3"\h\u814Abstract 218954ChapterOneIntroduction 42231.1ResearchBackground 4311261.2ResearchPurposeandSignificance 4147231.3ResearchMethodologyandDesign 5139421.4ThesisStructure 66302ChapterTwoLiteratureReview 8311202.1StudiesonCooperativePrincipleandPolitenessPrincipleatHomeandAbroad 8187312.2PreviousStudiesonAgathaChristieandHerWorks 910489ChapterThreeTheoreticalFramework 12276213.1CooperativePrinciple 12208763.2PolitenessPrincipleandFaceTheory 13217633.3TheoreticalIntegration:CP-PPInteraction 1411851ChapterFourPragmaticAnalysisofDialoguesunderCPandPP 15134664.1CaseSelection 15296084.2ViolationsofCooperativePrinciple 16264314.2.1QuantityMaxim 16179564.2.2QualityMaxim 19226984.2.3RelationMaxim 22161074.2.4MannerMaxim 24287644.3FunctionsofPolitenessPrinciple 27139134.3.1PositivePoliteness 271604.3.2NegativePoliteness 2929504.4PragmaticStrategiesandCharacterization 30128874.4.1ClassDifference 3164724.4.2GenderSpecificity 3231862ChapterFiveConclusion 33195455.1FindingsofResearch 33276775.2LimitationsandFutureResearch 3411127Bibliography 3627306Acknowledgement 38ChapterOneIntroductionResearchBackgroundThestudyofpragmatics,focusingonhowcontextshapesmeaningincommunication,hasrevolutionizedlinguisticresearch.Grice’sCooperativePrinciple(CP)(1975)andLeech’sPolitenessPrinciple(PP)(1983)arefoundationaltheoriesexplaininghowspeakersbalanceliteralmeaningandimpliedintentions.WhileCPemphasizestheefficiencyofinformationexchangethroughmaxims(Quantity,Quality,Relation,Manner),PPhighlightsthesocialnecessityofmaintainingfaceandharmony.Theirinterplayisparticularlyevidentinconflict-drivennarratives,suchasdetectivefiction,wherecharactersoftenviolateCPtoconcealtruthwhileadheringtoPPtoavoidconfrontation.AgathaChristie’sMurderontheOrientExpress(1934)exemplifiesthistension.Thenovel’stightlywovendialogues—filledwithevasions,half-truths,andstrategicpoliteness—servenotonlytoadvancetheplotbutalsotorevealsocietalhierarchiesandpsychologicaldepth.DespiteextensivescholarshiponChristie’snarrativetechniques,fewstudiessystematicallyanalyzeherdialoguesthroughthelensofCP-PPinteraction.Thisgapmotivatesthecurrentresearch,whichaimstobridgepragmatictheoryandliterarycriticismbyexamininghowlinguisticstrategiesinthenovelconstructcharacteridentitiesandsocialdynamics.ResearchPurposeandSignificanceTheCooperativePrincipleandthePolitenessPrincipleareembeddedindailydialogues,reflectinghumancognitionandthinking,andareimportanttheoriestohelplinguistsunderstandtherealintentionsofpeople’swords.ByapplyingthetheCooperativePrincipleandPolitenessPrincipletothecharacterdialoguesofMurderontheOrientExpress,wecanuncovertheviolationpatternsofCP(e.g.,withholdinginformation,ambiguity)andstrategicuseofPP(e.g.,deference,indirectness)inkeydialoguesofMurderontheOrientExpress.Atthesametime,itcanexplorehowCP-PPinteractionscontributetocharacterization(e.g.,Poirot’sanalyticalrigorvs.passengers’collectiveguilt)andthematicexpression(e.g.,justice,classconflict).Anditcanalsoproposeapragmaticframeworkforanalyzingdetectivefiction,enrichingbothliteraryandlinguisticscholarship.Thesignificanceofthisthesiscanbesummarizeinthefollowingthreepoints:Firstly,ittheoreticallychallengestheconventionaldichotomybetweenCPandPPbyrevealingtheirdynamiccoexistenceinfictionaldiscourse.Secondly,throughpragmaticsanalysis,itliterallyprovidesafreshperspectiveonChristie’slinguisticcraftsmanship,linkingstylisticchoicestosocialcritique.Inaddition,thisstudycanofferpedagogicaltoolsforliteratureeducatorstodecodeimplicitmeaningsintextsthroughpragmaticstrategies.ResearchMethodologyandDesignInthemethodologyofthisstudy,acombinationoftextualanalysis,qualitativeapproach,andcasestudiesareemployed.Specifically,textualanalysisinvolvesaclosereadingofdialoguesinMurderontheOrientExpresstoidentifyhowtheCooperativePrinciple(CP)isviolatedthroughelementssuchasliesandambiguity,andhowthePolitenessPrinciple(PP)isappliedthroughstrategiessuchasmoderatingthetoneofvoiceandcompliments.ThesepragmaticstrategiesarethencategorizedthematicallyusingaqualitativeapproachbasedontheframeworksofGriceandLeech.Inaddition,keyscenes,suchasPoirot’sinterrogationandthepassenger’salibi,arefocusedonthroughcasestudiestotracethecomplexinterplaybetweentheCPandPPatthesecriticalmomentsinthenarrative.Thiscomprehensivemethodologicalframeworkmakespossibleanin-depthexplorationofpragmaticsinthetext.Theresearchdesignforthisstudyinvolvesasystematicapproachtodatacollectionandanalysis.Fordatacollection,30to40dialogueexcerptsareextractedfromthenovel,focusingonexcerptsofexchangeswithhighdramatictensionorimportantcharacterrevelations.Theanalyticalframeworkisthenappliedinthreesequentialsteps.First,violationsofthefourmaximsoftheCooperativePrinciple(CP)areidentifiedandcodedinselecteddialogues.Second,theapplicationofPolitenessPrinciple(PP)strategies,suchaspositiveandnegativepoliteness,ismappedtothesamedialogues.Finally,theinteractionsbetweenCPandPPareanalyzedtoexplorehowtheyshapepowerrelations(e.g.,authorityvs.obedience)andcontributetothenovel’sthematicimagery.Thisstructuredapproachmakespossibleacomprehensiveunderstandingofthepragmaticdynamicsintheselecteddialogues.ThesisStructureThispaperwillcarryoutananalysisoftheconversationalimplicaturesofthecharactersinAgathaChristie’sMurderontheOrientExpressbasedontheCooperativePrincipleandthePolitenessPrinciple,withtheaimofansweringthefollowingquestions:(1)WhattypesofcodeviolationsexistinMurderontheOrientExpressandwhataretheirrespectivefunctions?(2)Howdoesdeliberatequasi-violationrelatetocharacterizationandidentityinMurderontheOrientExpress?Inaddition,thispaperwillbepresentedinfivechapters.ChapterOneistheintroduction.Thischapterincludesthebackgroundofthestudy,researchquestions,purposeandsignificanceofthestudy,researchmethodologyandthestructureofthethesis.ChapterTwoistheliteraturereview.ThispartwillsynthesizeexistingstudiesonCP,PP,andChristie’sworks,identifyinggapsthisresearchaddressesfromtheperspectiveofdomesticandinternationalstudies.ChapterThreeisthetheoreticalframework.ItwillelaborateonCP,PP,andtheirintegratedmodelforliteraryanalysis.ChapterFouristhepragmaticanalysis.ThischapterwillexaminedialogueexcerptstodemonstratehowCPviolationsandPPstrategiesjointlyconstructcharacters’socialidentitiesandnarrativetension.ChapterFiveistheconclusion.Thispartwillsummarizethemainfindingsandlimitationsofthisstudyandmakeseveralsuggestionsforfutureresearch.

ChapterTwoLiteratureReview2.1StudiesonCooperativePrincipleandPolitenessPrincipleatHomeandAbroadThestudyofconversationalprincipleshasprogressedsignificantlythankstothecontributionsofseveralkeyscholars.PaulGrice(1975)laidthegroundworkthroughhisCooperativePrinciple(CP),whichconsistsoffourmaxims:quantity,quality,relation,andmanner.Thesemaximsprovideaframeworkforanalyzingconversationalimplicaturesandhavebeenwidelyusedinavarietyoflinguisticcontexts.However,Grice’sCPfailstoadequatelyexplainwhypeopleoftenseemtoviolatethesemaximsinordertoconveydeepermeaningsbeyondtheliteral.ThisgapwasfilledbyGeoffreyLeech(1983)byintroducingthePolitenessPrinciple(PP).Leech’sPPincludessixmaxims:tact,generosity,approbation,modesty,agreement,andsympathy.Thisprincipleemphasizestheimportanceof“face-saving”strategiesincommunicationandprovidesacomplementaryperspectivetoGrice’sCPbyexplainingthedynamicinteractionbetweencooperationandpolitenessinlanguageuse.Buildingonthesefoundationaltheories,BrownandLevinson(1987)furtherdevelopedtheconceptoffaceintheirFaceTheory.Theydistinguishedbetween“positiveface”(thedesiretobeacceptedandliked)and“negativeface”(thedesiretobefreefromimposition).Accordingtothistheory,politenessstrategiesareusedtomitigate“Face-ThreateningActs(FTAs)”inordertomaintainsocialharmony.Thisresearchhasbeenparticularlyinfluentialinunderstandinghowlanguageisusedtonegotiatesocialrelationshipsandmanageinterpersonalinteractions.Inrecentdecades,thestudyofpolitenesshasexpandedtoincludeculturalandcross-culturaldimensions.Fraser(1990)emphasizedthatpolitenessisnotjustamatterofpersonalchoice,butaprocessoffollowingsocialnorms.Hisresearchhighlightedtheimportanceofculturaldifferencesinshapingtheuseofpolitenessstrategies.Forexample,whileWesternculturestendtoprioritizethe“tactmaxim”andindividualism,whereasEasterncultures(e.g.,Chinese)aremoreconcernedwith“modestymaxim”andcollectivism.Thisculturaldifferenceleadstodifferentapplicationsofpolitenessstrategies.Forexample,Westernersmayreadilyacceptcompliments,whereasChineseoftenrespondpolitelywithself-deprecation.TheintroductionofLeech’sPPtheorytoChinamarkedasignificantmilestoneinthedomesticstudyofpoliteness.LiuRunqing(1987)andHeZiran(1988)systematicallyintroducedLeech’sPP,butalsopointedoutitslimitationsintheChinesecontext.QianGuanlian(1997)proposedthatinadditiontothe“tactstrategy”,thereare11otherpragmaticstrategiesinChineseculture,suchas“deprecatingoneselfwhilepraisingothers”and“actinginsteadofspeaking”.Thesestrategiesreflecttheprofoundinfluenceofcultureandcontextonpoliteness.SuoZhenyu(2001)introducedthePrincipleofAppropriatenesstointegratethePPintoabroaderpragmaticframework.HearguedthattheCPandPPareapplicabletodirectandindirectcommunicationrespectively.Despitethelargenumberofstudiesthathavebeenconducted,therearestillsomeissues.ExistingstudiesaredeficientintheapplicationofCPandPPtothepragmaticanalysisofdetectivenovels.Ontheonehand,thedynamicgameofCPandPPinunconventionalcontexts(e.g.,lies,interrogation)hasnotbeenfullyexplored;ontheotherhand,theanalysismostlystaysinmechanicallabelingandlacksin-depthexcavationoftheliteraryvalueoflanguagestrategies.Inaddition,thetheoreticalframeworkbasedontheEnglishcontexthaslimitationsincross-culturalanalysis,whichmakesitdifficulttoadapttothestudyofdetectivefictioninotherculturalcontexts.2.2PreviousStudiesonAgathaChristieandHerWorksAgathaChristie’sworkshavelongbeencategorizedaspopularliterature,andthemajorityofresearchhasfocusedonnarrativestructureandcharacterdevelopment.Forexample,her“cozymystery”novelsareknownfortheiruseofconfinedspaces(suchastrainsorisolatedislands)tocreatesuspense.Theinclusionoftimetablesandfloorplansfurtherenhancesthesenseoforderandcontrol.However,somecriticsarguethathercharacterslackpsychologicaldepthandareoftenseenas“functionalsymbols”servingtheplotratherthanfullydevelopedindividuals.Inrecentyears,interdisciplinaryapproacheshaveenrichedthestudyofChristie’sworks.Fromaspatialandethicalcriticismperspective,LuoJunyi(2020)arguesthattheseeminglyidyllicruralsettingsinChristie’snovelsareactuallyarenasofclassconflictandethicaldisorder.Forinstance,inTheBertram’sHotel,thefacadeofanostalgicandeleganthotelconcealsacriminalhub,reflectingthemoraldecayoftheVictorianera.Intherealmoffilmadaptationstudies,WangJie(2016)analyzedthecinematicadaptationsofMurderontheOrientExpress.Shehighlightedhowthevisuallanguageoftheseadaptationsreinforcestheoppressiveatmosphereoftheconfinedspacebutoftendilutestheclass-relatedsubtextsduetoculturaldifferences.DespitethegrowingbodyofresearchonChristie’sworks,thereisanoticeablegapintheanalysisofherdialoguesfromapragmaticperspective.WhiletherehavebeenoccasionalstudiesontheapplicationofCPandPPinotherliteraryworks,suchasDreamoftheRedChamber,similaranalysesofdetectivenovelsremainlargelyunexplored.Christie’snovels,withtheiruniquecontextsof“l(fā)ying”and“interrogation”,providerichexamplesforstudyingtheinterplaybetweenCPandPP.Forinstance,charactersoftenviolatetheCP(e.g.,bywithholdinginformation)toadvancetheplotwhilesimultaneouslyemployingPP(e.g.,througheuphemisticlanguage)tomaintainsurfaceharmony.ExistingliteraturehaslargelyfocusedoneitherCPorPPinisolation,lackingasystematicanalysisoftheirdynamicinteractioninfictionaltexts.StudiesonChristie’sworkshavepredominantlyadoptednarrativeandculturalperspectives,neglectingtheroleoflanguagestrategiesinconstructingcharacters’socialandgenderidentities.ThisstudyaimstofillthegapinpragmaticanalysisofdetectivenovelsbyexaminingtheinterplaybetweenCPandPPinMurderontheOrientExpress,therebyuncoveringthedeepertextualmeaningsandprovidinganewmethodologicalpathforthestudyofdetectivefiction.

ChapterThreeTheoreticalFramework3.1CooperativePrincipleTheCooperativePrinciplewasproposedbyH.PaulGriceinhisseminalpaperLogicandConversation(1975),withthecentralassumptionthat,innormalcommunication,participantsinaconversationfollowacommongoalanddirectionandachieveeffectivecommunicationbyadheringtoasetofconversationalmaxims.GricedecomposedtheCooperativePrincipleintofourbasicmaximsthataimingtoexplainhowpeopleconveyandderiveimplicitmeaningthroughexplicitorimplicitrulesinconversation.Inliterarytexts,especiallydetectivenovels,thedeliberateviolationofCPoftenbecomesakeylinguisticstrategyforbuildingsuspenseandrevealingcharacters’motivations.Grice’stheoryisorganizedaroundfourmaxims:TheMaximofQuantity:Makeyourcontributionasinformativeasisrequiredforthecurrentpurposeoftheexchange;Donotmakeyourcontributionmoreinformativeasitisrequired.TheMaximofQuality:Donotsaywhatyoubelievetobefalse;Donotsayforwhichyoulackadequateevidence.TheMaximofRelation:Makeyourcontributionsrelevant.TheMaximofManner:Avoidobscurity;Avoidambiguity;Bebrief;Beorderly(Beperspicuous,andspecifically).Gricenotesthatviolationsofnormsgenerateconversationalimplicatures.Whenaspeakerclearlyviolatesamaxim,thelistenerneedstodeducehisorherimplicitintention.Forexample,inMurderontheOrientExpress,Hardman’sredundantanswer(“Ioughttoknowsomething.”)impliesthatheisconcealingthetruth,whichconstitutesa“hyper-informative”typeofconversationalimplicatures.3.2PolitenessPrincipleandFaceTheoryAsacomplementtoGrice’sPolitenessPrinciple,Leech(1983)proposedthesixmaximsofthePolitenessPrinciple(PP).Atitscoreisthereductionofface-threateningbehaviors(Face-ThreateningActs,FTAs)throughlinguisticstrategies.Inthecontextofcollectivecomplicity,PPisoftenusedtomaskCPviolations,suchasaristocraticrolesthatassertauthoritywithnegativepoliteness(e.g.,“Youcanwriteit.”)whileblockinginformationflow.TheMaximofTact:Minimizethedamagetoothers;Maximizethebenefittoothers.TheMaximofGenerosity:Minimizeself-interest;Maximizeself-interest.TheMaximofApprobation/Flattery:Minimizeputtingdownothers;Maximizepraisingothers.TheMaximofModesty:Minimizeself-praise;Maximizeself-depreciation.TheMaximofAgreement:Minimizethedifferencesbetweenthetwosidesofthedialogue;Maximizetheagreementbetweenthetwosidesofthedialogue.TheMaximofSympathy:Minimizetheantipathyofbothsidesofthedialogue;Maximizethesympathyofbothsidesofthedialogue.InMurderontheOrientExpress,charactersoftenusePPtacticstocoveruptheirCPviolations.Forexample,anoblemanmightusetheTacticalMaximtopolitelydeclinetocooperatewhilehidingkeyinformation.TheFaceTheoryproposedbyBrown&Levinson(1987)inPoliteness:SomeUniversalsinLanguageUsagedefines“face”insocialinteractionas“thepublicself-imagethatapersondesirestoberecognizedinsocialinteraction”.Thetheorydividesfaceintotwocoreclaims:PositiveFace:Thedesiretohaveone’svalues,behaviors,orattributesrecognizedandpraisedbyothers.Forexample,McQueen’sself-deprecatinghumor(“IfeelI’mjustdefinitelythemostsuspiciouscharacteronthetrain.”)suggestsacommonunderstandingwithPoirot,whichnotonlymaintainshisownimageasa“humorousmiddle-classman”butalsosatisfiesthedetective’sexpectationofa“cooperativewitness”.NegativeFace:Thebasicclaimofdesiringfreedomofmovementwithoutinterference.Forexample,PrincessDragomiroffdrawsclassboundariesbyrespondinginacommandingmanner(“Youcanwriteit.”),andresistsPoirot’scensorshipbyminimizingtheoutputofinformation(byprovidingonlyhernameandaddress),inordertopreserveher“discursiveautonomy”asamemberofthearistocracy.3.3TheoreticalIntegration:CP-PPInteractionInverbalcommunication,CooperativePrincipleandPolitenessPrincipledonotexistinisolation,butareintertwinedandcomplementarytoeachother.CooperativePrincipleprovidesthebasicguidingprincipleforverbalcommunicationandensuresthatcommunicationcanbecarriedoutefficientlyandaccurately.However,intheactualcommunicationprocess,peopleoftenchoosetoviolatetheCooperativePrincipleduetovarioussocial,culturalandpsychologicalfactors,andthenthePolitenessPrincipleplaysakeyroleinregulating.WhileGrice’sPolitenessPrinciplefocusesoninformationalefficiencyandLeech’sCooperativePrinciplefocusesonsocialcohesion,theirinteractionsarecriticalinsituationswherebothdeceptionandthemaintenanceofinterpersonalrelationshipsarerequired.Themaininteractionsincludethefollowingthree.1.PPasacompensatorymechanismforviolatingCPWhencharactersviolateCP(e.g.,bylying),theyoftenusePPtominimizesocialfriction.Forexample,acharacterwhoviolatestheMaximofQualitymaximmightusetheprincipleofmodestytomoderatealie.2.ConflictbetweenCPandPPInhigh-stakesinteractions,adherencetoPPmayrequireaviolationofCP.e.g.,apassengergivesanirrelevantanswer(aviolationoftheMaximofRelation)inordertoavoiddirectlyaccusinganotherpassenger(adherencetotheMaximofTact).3.PowerdynamicsandstrategychoiceSocialhierarchyaffectsCP-PPinteractions.High-statuscharacters(e.g.,princess)tendtousestrategiesandmaximsofagreementtoassertauthority,whilelow-statuscharacters(e.g.,servants)relyonmodestytodeflectsuspicion.BrownandLevinson’sfacetheoryprovidesapsychosocialbasisforthepolitenessprinciple.WhenacharacterviolatestheCP,theirmotivationisoftenrelatedto“FaceThreateningActs,FTA”:Positiveface(thedesiretoberecognized)drivesthecharactertousehumorousorempatheticstrategies(suchasMcQueen’sself-mockery),andnegativeface(avoidingbeingimposed)promptsthecharactertokeepadistance(suchastheprincess’simperativeresponse).TheviolationofCPisbothadualstrategyofinformationmanipulationandmaintainingface.ChapterFourPragmaticAnalysisofDialoguesunderCPandPP4.1CaseSelectionAmongallthedialogues,basedonthenarrativecharacteristicsofdetectivenovelsandtheneedsofpragmaticsanalysis,thecasesshouldbemainlyselectedfromthefollowingthreeplaces:First,keyepisodes,i.e.thedialoguesthatdirectlyaffectthereasoningprocessofthecase(e.g.,alibistatements,discussionofkeyexhibits);Second,dialoguesthatareobviouslyinviolationofthenorms,withprioritygiventoincludingdialoguesthatareobviouslyinviolationoftheCooperativePrincipleorthePrincipleofPolitenessPrinciple;Third,dialoguesreflectingthecharacters’identitiesorpersonalities,coveringdifferentsocialclasses(nobility,middleclassorcivilian)andgendersofmaincharacters,toensuremultipledimensionsofanalysis.Dialoguesthatreflecttheidentityorcharacterofthecharacters,coveringthemaincharactersofdifferentsocialclassesandgenders,ensuringamultidimensionalanalysis.4.2ViolationsofCooperativePrincipleIdeally,peoplewouldconsciouslyfollowthefourmaximsoftheCooperativePrincipleinordertomaketheirconversationsmorefluidandeasytounderstand.However,inactualconversations,peopleusuallyviolatesomemaximsintentionallyforvariousreasonsinordertoproducespecificconversationalimplicatures.ThissectionistocategorizeandanalyzetheconversationalimplicaturesofthedialoguesthatviolatetheCooperativePrincipleinthebook.SinceMurderontheOrientExpressisadetectivenovelinthemodeof“collectiveconspiracy”,allthesuspectsliemostofthetimetodeliberatelysteerthedirectionofthecaseinvestigation.Themosttypicalandrepresentativecaseswillbeanalyzedbelow.4.2.1QuantityMaximGrice’sMaximofQuantityrequiresthattheamountofinformationprovidedbytheinterlocutorneedstosatisfycommunicativedemandsandavoidredundancy,stipulatingthatthespeakermustcontributesufficientinformation(toavoidinformationscarcity)andnotprovidequantitativeinformation(toavoidredundancy).Thatis,inaconversation,thespeakershouldensurethatheorshemeetsexactlythehearer’sneeds,i.e.,provideneithermorenorlessdiscourseinformationthanthehearerrequires.ThedeliberateviolationoftheMaximofQuantitybecomesalinguisticleverinthegameofmisinformationandtruthinsuspensefulnarratives.Inaddition,inexceptionalcases,thespeakerisexpectedtotaketheinitiativetoaddadditionalinformationtoensurethesmoothdevelopmentofthedialog.Example1(AllthefollowingexamplesarefromMurderontheOrientExpress.)Background:PoirotaskedMcQueen,thedeceased’ssecretary,fortestimonyastotheidentityofthedeceased.Poirot:Well,tellmewhatyoudoknow.MacQueen:Theactualtruthis,Mr.Poirot,thatIknownothingatall!Mr.Ratchettneverspokeofhimself,orofhislifeinAmerica.Poirot:Whydoyouthinkthatwas?MacQueen:Idon’tknow.Iimaginedthathemighthavebeenashamedofhisbeginnings.Somemenare.Poirot:Doesthatstrikeyouasasatisfactorysolution?MacQueen:Frankly,itdoesn’t.Poirot:Hasheanyrelations?MacQueen:Henevermentionedany.Intheexampleabove,McQueenprovidedinsufficientinformationandviolatedtheMaximofQuantity.SinceMcQueenwasthesecretaryofthedeceasedRatchettandoneofthepeopleclosesttohim,PoirothopedthathewouldbeabletoprovidehelpwithRatchett’sidentityandassisthiminquicklynarrowingdownthesuspect.ButMcQueen“doesn’tknowathingaboutit”.AndtheMaximofQuantityrequiresthatthespeakerprovidethelistenerwithexactlytheamountofinformationneeded,nottoomuchortoolittle.It