论文部分内容阅读
【Abstract】Intercultural business negotiation is actually a kind of economic activity through language. Whether it succeeds depends largely on the use of language. Both parties will endeavor to win the most of benefits while maintaining cooperation with the other. To best manage and control dialogues in competitive situations， a linguistic approach—the Cooperative Principle （the CP） would bring significant insights for businessmen. The thesis aims to study the deviation of the cooperative principle in intercultural business negotiation and find two strategies to help the negotiation go smoothly.
【Key words】the cooperative principle； intercultural business negotiation； deviation
【作者簡介】周丹，上海对外经贸大学。
1. Introduction
A perfect intercultural business negotiation （IBN） is far beyond a few rounds of communication or arguments， and actually the toughest phase of an IBN is the actual conduct of the face-to-face communication at the negotiation table. The ultimate goal of the negotiation for either party is to obtain the maximum profit.
Intercultural business negotiation is generally influenced by a wide variety of factors， including cultural， ideological differences and so on. Therefore， to achieve win-win negotiation smoothly is a little bit difficult for both parties in such a complicated environment. To manage dialogues well， the CP is actually important. The main purpose of this thesis lies in studying the deliberate deviation of the CP in business negotiation and offering some strategies to help the negotiation go smoothly.
2. Literature Review
The study on the CP in China began from the 1980s. Scholars such as Cheng Yumin， have done some famous research study. Since then the study on the CP became more and more active， especially in the 1990s. However， up to now there are a few attempts to apply the CP to the study of intercultural business negotiation. The thesis aims to enrich the previous research in this aspect.
The CP is proposed by Paul Grice， an Oxford philosopher， in his lecture delivered at Harvard in 1967. As an essential rule for any successful communication， it assumed that the participants in a conversation would cooperate with each other. Grice thinks the CP has a set of four maxims： quantity， quality， relevance， and manner. Speakers give enough and not too much information： quantity. They are genuine and sincere， speaking “truth” or facts： quality. Utterances are relative to the context of the speech： relevance. Speakers try to present meaning clearly and concisely， avoiding ambiguity： manner. 3. The Deviation of The Cooperative Principle in Intercultural Business Negotiation
Undoubtedly， the observation of the CP helps both parties to achieve win-win situation in business negotiation. However， the deviation of CP is conspicuous in the real intercultural business negotiation and sometimes the deliberate violation of CP can also help the negotiators express their standpoints and avoid misunderstandings.
3.1 The Deviation of the Maxim of Quantity
Quantity Maxim refers to the information the speakers uttering should be as informative as is required. However， in business negotiation， this maxim is always violated for the purpose of being polite or making your reply more persuasive.
Case 1：
Two negotiators are talking about credit standing， A representing the foreign side， while B the Chinese side.
A： What about the credit standing？
B： As for our credit standing， please refer to the Bank of China， Guangzhou Branch. Our enterprise credit is known to all.
In this case， A is asking about the credit standing of B. Actually， it is quite enough for B to answer it by “good” or “well-known” etc. But B deliberately offers more information “please refer to the Bank of China， Guangzhou Branch. Our enterprise credit is known to all”， which obviously violates the maxim of quantity—“Do not make your contribution more informative than is required”. Owing to the redundant sentences uttered by B， A can infer the credit standing of B’s company is truly good， which can be proved by the Bank of China， Guangzhou Branch. It is common in business negotiation for one negotiator （B） to intentionally offer more information so as to let the other side （A） have more knowledge about B， which can enhance trust as well as promoting chances for cooperation.
Case 2：
A： When will the goods reach us， then？
B： The goods will reach you by the end of July， if there is no accident during transportation. In no case would it be later than August 2nd.
In this case， A asks the arrival date of the goods. Obviously， the first part of B’s answer is enough for A’s question so as to well obey the maxim of quantity. B’s answer violates the maxim of quantity in that B adds the vague expression“if there is no accident during transportation. In no case would it be later than August 2nd.” B saying the hedge suggests that he is not sure whether there will be some accident or during transportation， for he cannot control that. But even though the accident happens， he can assure A the deadline. 3.2 The Deviation of the Maxim of Quality
To be honest is the key of the maxim of quality. Try to make your contribution true. Do not say what you believe to be false and do not say for which you lack adequate evidence. However， in real communication， we may be at such situations in which one says the truth， while the other party will not be happy and even be angry with the honest person. Moreover， negotiations are by nature full of confrontations and concessions. Thus， using the hedge will help the negotiation go smoothly.
Case 3：
A： I’m sorry to hear that. But we still find no way to accept your quotation.
B： Sorry， it is the last straw of our company， you know.
At the level of what is said， B’s answer is actually a false statement. He violates the first maxim of quality： “do not say what you believe to be false.” As a matter of fact， B does not hold a straw in his hand at the time of negotiation. B leaves no room for A’s requirements by saying “the last straw of our company.”， which seems block the success of the negotiation to some extent. But actually B does not want to cheat A. The vague word “the last straw of our company” can not be taken literally. In fact， the hedge implies “I will not make concession any more”.
Case 4：
A： We can’t ship them all at once time because it so happens that there is no direct steamer from America to China in these two months. I was informed by our shipping department yesterday that liner space for American up to the end of next month has been fully booked up. I’m afraid we can do very little about it.
B： It is said that the tramps are still available.
A tells B that he cannot ship all the goods at one time for the transportation unavailable. Then B provides A some information that B lacks adequate evidence. It seems that B violates Quality Maxim： “ do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence. ” However， the use of hedge “It is said” here helps B avoids taking full responsibility for the truth of the statements and caution A that B’s information might not be as well founded as would normally be expected. The vague expression “It is said” makes the utterance not so extreme and B will not risk being wrong. That means， if there is not any tramp available， it is not his responsibility in that he has made clear beforehand.
3.3 The Deviation of the Maxim of Relevance
The maxim of relevance requests the information uttered by the speaker to be relevant to the topic of the negotiation. When a speaker gives a response irrelevant to the conversation such as suddenly changing the topic， actually he flouts the maxim of relevance. Case 5：
A： Hello， Mr. Wang， nice to meet you again. How are you？
B： Fine， thanks. And you？
A： I’m fine， we just moved in our new house. Everything is in a great mess. It’s a nightmare. But I’ll appreciate not having to spend so much time commuting to my work every day.
B： Yes， it took me nearly one hour to get here today. Bus service in this area is not so good.
A： Well， will you like a cup of coffee？
B： Thank you. That would be nice.
A： Milk or Sugar？
B： Black will do， thank you.
A： So， how’s business in your section？
B： Not too bad. We have a lot of work to do as far as our contract with George is concerned this time.
A： Then， I think you can say a few words about that first.
（Sheng Xiaoli， 2007）
Americans and Chinese has different thinking patterns. Chinese always express themselves indirectly and use many Chinese formulae. However， logical reasoning and quantitative analysis is Americans’ preference.
In the above intercultural business negotiation， the two negotiators take a rather long time as a “preparation” for the key communication. Thus， they actually violate the maxim of Relevance because so many phatic communications in the beginning is non-relevant to the negotiation. Chinese people usually deliberately flout the maxim of relevance to show their implicative talking style and politeness.
Case 6：
A： Do you really realize that your delay in delivering your goods to our shop results in a great loss to us？
B： The weather report says that the typhoon would last a week.
In this dialogue， A is complaining the great loss caused by B’s delay. But B doesn’t give a direct answer to A and he changes to talk something else about the weather. It is easy to understand that B violates the maxim of relevance， that is， be relevant. But if A thinks B is cooperative to his question， it is easy to understand that B treats the weather as the reason to the delay of the delivery. The typhoon lasts such a long time that the transportation is affected.
3.4 The Deviation of the Maxim of Manner
The maxim of manner requests the information being brief and orderly but not obscure and ambiguous. However， negotiators violate it sometimes.
Case 7：
A： Hello， International Trade Corporation.
B： Hello， May I talk to Ms. Liu， please？
A： Hold on， please.
C： Hello， Liu Xin speaking， Who is calling？ B： Good morning. Ms， Liu. This is Zhang Wei.
C： Zhang Wei？
B： Yes， We met at Mr. Rowley’s office two months ago. Do you remember？
C： Oh， yes， I remember now. So what can I do for you？
B： Well， Ms. Liu， I’d like to make some trading arrangements with your corporation. So I
was wondering if I could come and meet with you at 10：00 a.m. Tomorrow.
C： I’m afraid I have another appointment at ten.
B： Then， how about 3：00 p.m. Tomorrow？
C： I don’t think so. Why don’t I call you back？
B： OK. Let me tell you my telephone number.
C： Oh， that is unnecessary. I can consult telephone directory.
B： When can I expect your call？
C： Maybe in a week or so.
B： I look forward to your call.
C： I have an urgent meeting to attend right now. Thank you for calling. Good-bye.
B： Thank you for your time. Good-bye.
（Sheng Xiaoli， 2007）
It is a typical dialogue of Chinese style. The Chinese always don’t directly express their unwillingness which results in the violation of the maxim of manner ： be brief and orderly.
In this case， Ms. Liu doesn’t directly show that she is unwilling to meet with Zhang Wei. She tries to use some excuses to keep herself from the meeting time referred by Zhang Wei， and she can’t make sure whether or when she will contact with Zhang Wei. Maybe she really doesn’t have time to meet with him， but sometimes the obscurity will bring about misconstruction of insincerity， especially by foreigners， e.g. Americans who are known for their directness.
4. Discussion
Cases of intercultural business negotiation have been analyzed before. Obviously， the four maxims are unavoidably flouted during the course of intercultural business negotiation and the violation of the maxims of the CP does not always lead the negotiators to fail the business. Sometimes， the violation of CP will also enhance the credibility between both parties and boost the progress of the negotiation. Based on the above analysis， there are two strategies for business negotiators.
4.1 Acting Dumb
For intelligent negotiators， smart is dumb and dumb is smart. There is a good explanation for this. Most human beings are inclined to compete with people they see as brighter and help people they see as less bright.
Win-win negotiation depends on the willingness of each side to be truly empathetic to the other side’s position. That is not going to happen if both parties compete with each other all the time. Thus， the reason why negotiators act dumb is that it diffuses the competitive spirit of the other side. This strategy gives away the reason why intelligent negotiators tend to flout the maxim of relevance to let both negotiators to obtain the comparatively satisfactory result and achieve the win-win negotiation. The above case 6 vividly proves the advantage of flouting the maxim of Relevance.
4.2 Being aware of culture
There are many factors contributing to intercultural business negotiations. Among them， culture is of great importance. The above case 5 and case 7 vividly proved the importance of culture in intercultural business negotiation. Take the case 7 as an example， if Ms Liu is aware of the American’s direct thinking pattern， the communication between Ms Liu and Zhang Wei will run smoothly. Therefore， being aware of culture in business negotiation and even in our daily communication is actually indispensable.
5. Conclusion
Intercultural business negotiation as an economic activity plays an important role in business interactions. For the economic interest， both parties have to cooperate with each other as well as being competitive against each other. But a successful negotiation does not mean winning by defeating the counterpart， but by getting each party what they want. To achieve a win-win situation， both parties endeavor to create and keep cooperative relationship by adopting proper languages.
Based on the analysis of the negotiation dialogues， this thesis presents that the deliberate violation of CP will also enhance the credibility between both negotiators and boost the progress of the negotiation. The three strategies for business negotiators are drawn from the thesis， which are acting dumb， using uncertainty to your advantage and being aware of culture.
However， there are still drawbacks in this thesis. First， some cases analyses are subjective because the author did not know the negotiators’ real intention and all the analyses are supposed. Second， the cooperative principle is only one aspect of Pragmatics， sometimes the Politeness Principle is also highly related and should be researched on.
References：
[1]Claire Kramsch.Language and Culture.Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press，2000.
[2]Grice，H.P.Logic and Conversation.Speech acts.New York：Academic Press，1978：41-58.
[3]Grice，H.P.Further Notes on Logic and Conversation.New York：Academic Press，1978.
[4]Leech.Principles of Pragmatics.London：Longman，1983.
[5]Li Fei.On the Deviation of the Cooperative Principle in Business Negotiation.Northeast Normal University，2010.
[6]Thompson.Negotiation Behavior and Outcomes：Empirical Evidence and Theoretical Issues.1990.
[7]高潔英.语用原则在国际商务谈判中的应用研究[J].五邑大学学报，2009，10.
[8]何兆熊.语用学文献选读[M].上海外语教育出版社，1997.
[9]李长栓.汉英口译入门[M].外语教学与研究出版社，1999.
[10]盛小利.商务英语谈判口语[M].中国宇航出版社，2007.
【Key words】the cooperative principle； intercultural business negotiation； deviation
【作者簡介】周丹，上海对外经贸大学。
1. Introduction
A perfect intercultural business negotiation （IBN） is far beyond a few rounds of communication or arguments， and actually the toughest phase of an IBN is the actual conduct of the face-to-face communication at the negotiation table. The ultimate goal of the negotiation for either party is to obtain the maximum profit.
Intercultural business negotiation is generally influenced by a wide variety of factors， including cultural， ideological differences and so on. Therefore， to achieve win-win negotiation smoothly is a little bit difficult for both parties in such a complicated environment. To manage dialogues well， the CP is actually important. The main purpose of this thesis lies in studying the deliberate deviation of the CP in business negotiation and offering some strategies to help the negotiation go smoothly.
2. Literature Review
The study on the CP in China began from the 1980s. Scholars such as Cheng Yumin， have done some famous research study. Since then the study on the CP became more and more active， especially in the 1990s. However， up to now there are a few attempts to apply the CP to the study of intercultural business negotiation. The thesis aims to enrich the previous research in this aspect.
The CP is proposed by Paul Grice， an Oxford philosopher， in his lecture delivered at Harvard in 1967. As an essential rule for any successful communication， it assumed that the participants in a conversation would cooperate with each other. Grice thinks the CP has a set of four maxims： quantity， quality， relevance， and manner. Speakers give enough and not too much information： quantity. They are genuine and sincere， speaking “truth” or facts： quality. Utterances are relative to the context of the speech： relevance. Speakers try to present meaning clearly and concisely， avoiding ambiguity： manner. 3. The Deviation of The Cooperative Principle in Intercultural Business Negotiation
Undoubtedly， the observation of the CP helps both parties to achieve win-win situation in business negotiation. However， the deviation of CP is conspicuous in the real intercultural business negotiation and sometimes the deliberate violation of CP can also help the negotiators express their standpoints and avoid misunderstandings.
3.1 The Deviation of the Maxim of Quantity
Quantity Maxim refers to the information the speakers uttering should be as informative as is required. However， in business negotiation， this maxim is always violated for the purpose of being polite or making your reply more persuasive.
Case 1：
Two negotiators are talking about credit standing， A representing the foreign side， while B the Chinese side.
A： What about the credit standing？
B： As for our credit standing， please refer to the Bank of China， Guangzhou Branch. Our enterprise credit is known to all.
In this case， A is asking about the credit standing of B. Actually， it is quite enough for B to answer it by “good” or “well-known” etc. But B deliberately offers more information “please refer to the Bank of China， Guangzhou Branch. Our enterprise credit is known to all”， which obviously violates the maxim of quantity—“Do not make your contribution more informative than is required”. Owing to the redundant sentences uttered by B， A can infer the credit standing of B’s company is truly good， which can be proved by the Bank of China， Guangzhou Branch. It is common in business negotiation for one negotiator （B） to intentionally offer more information so as to let the other side （A） have more knowledge about B， which can enhance trust as well as promoting chances for cooperation.
Case 2：
A： When will the goods reach us， then？
B： The goods will reach you by the end of July， if there is no accident during transportation. In no case would it be later than August 2nd.
In this case， A asks the arrival date of the goods. Obviously， the first part of B’s answer is enough for A’s question so as to well obey the maxim of quantity. B’s answer violates the maxim of quantity in that B adds the vague expression“if there is no accident during transportation. In no case would it be later than August 2nd.” B saying the hedge suggests that he is not sure whether there will be some accident or during transportation， for he cannot control that. But even though the accident happens， he can assure A the deadline. 3.2 The Deviation of the Maxim of Quality
To be honest is the key of the maxim of quality. Try to make your contribution true. Do not say what you believe to be false and do not say for which you lack adequate evidence. However， in real communication， we may be at such situations in which one says the truth， while the other party will not be happy and even be angry with the honest person. Moreover， negotiations are by nature full of confrontations and concessions. Thus， using the hedge will help the negotiation go smoothly.
Case 3：
A： I’m sorry to hear that. But we still find no way to accept your quotation.
B： Sorry， it is the last straw of our company， you know.
At the level of what is said， B’s answer is actually a false statement. He violates the first maxim of quality： “do not say what you believe to be false.” As a matter of fact， B does not hold a straw in his hand at the time of negotiation. B leaves no room for A’s requirements by saying “the last straw of our company.”， which seems block the success of the negotiation to some extent. But actually B does not want to cheat A. The vague word “the last straw of our company” can not be taken literally. In fact， the hedge implies “I will not make concession any more”.
Case 4：
A： We can’t ship them all at once time because it so happens that there is no direct steamer from America to China in these two months. I was informed by our shipping department yesterday that liner space for American up to the end of next month has been fully booked up. I’m afraid we can do very little about it.
B： It is said that the tramps are still available.
A tells B that he cannot ship all the goods at one time for the transportation unavailable. Then B provides A some information that B lacks adequate evidence. It seems that B violates Quality Maxim： “ do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence. ” However， the use of hedge “It is said” here helps B avoids taking full responsibility for the truth of the statements and caution A that B’s information might not be as well founded as would normally be expected. The vague expression “It is said” makes the utterance not so extreme and B will not risk being wrong. That means， if there is not any tramp available， it is not his responsibility in that he has made clear beforehand.
3.3 The Deviation of the Maxim of Relevance
The maxim of relevance requests the information uttered by the speaker to be relevant to the topic of the negotiation. When a speaker gives a response irrelevant to the conversation such as suddenly changing the topic， actually he flouts the maxim of relevance. Case 5：
A： Hello， Mr. Wang， nice to meet you again. How are you？
B： Fine， thanks. And you？
A： I’m fine， we just moved in our new house. Everything is in a great mess. It’s a nightmare. But I’ll appreciate not having to spend so much time commuting to my work every day.
B： Yes， it took me nearly one hour to get here today. Bus service in this area is not so good.
A： Well， will you like a cup of coffee？
B： Thank you. That would be nice.
A： Milk or Sugar？
B： Black will do， thank you.
A： So， how’s business in your section？
B： Not too bad. We have a lot of work to do as far as our contract with George is concerned this time.
A： Then， I think you can say a few words about that first.
（Sheng Xiaoli， 2007）
Americans and Chinese has different thinking patterns. Chinese always express themselves indirectly and use many Chinese formulae. However， logical reasoning and quantitative analysis is Americans’ preference.
In the above intercultural business negotiation， the two negotiators take a rather long time as a “preparation” for the key communication. Thus， they actually violate the maxim of Relevance because so many phatic communications in the beginning is non-relevant to the negotiation. Chinese people usually deliberately flout the maxim of relevance to show their implicative talking style and politeness.
Case 6：
A： Do you really realize that your delay in delivering your goods to our shop results in a great loss to us？
B： The weather report says that the typhoon would last a week.
In this dialogue， A is complaining the great loss caused by B’s delay. But B doesn’t give a direct answer to A and he changes to talk something else about the weather. It is easy to understand that B violates the maxim of relevance， that is， be relevant. But if A thinks B is cooperative to his question， it is easy to understand that B treats the weather as the reason to the delay of the delivery. The typhoon lasts such a long time that the transportation is affected.
3.4 The Deviation of the Maxim of Manner
The maxim of manner requests the information being brief and orderly but not obscure and ambiguous. However， negotiators violate it sometimes.
Case 7：
A： Hello， International Trade Corporation.
B： Hello， May I talk to Ms. Liu， please？
A： Hold on， please.
C： Hello， Liu Xin speaking， Who is calling？ B： Good morning. Ms， Liu. This is Zhang Wei.
C： Zhang Wei？
B： Yes， We met at Mr. Rowley’s office two months ago. Do you remember？
C： Oh， yes， I remember now. So what can I do for you？
B： Well， Ms. Liu， I’d like to make some trading arrangements with your corporation. So I
was wondering if I could come and meet with you at 10：00 a.m. Tomorrow.
C： I’m afraid I have another appointment at ten.
B： Then， how about 3：00 p.m. Tomorrow？
C： I don’t think so. Why don’t I call you back？
B： OK. Let me tell you my telephone number.
C： Oh， that is unnecessary. I can consult telephone directory.
B： When can I expect your call？
C： Maybe in a week or so.
B： I look forward to your call.
C： I have an urgent meeting to attend right now. Thank you for calling. Good-bye.
B： Thank you for your time. Good-bye.
（Sheng Xiaoli， 2007）
It is a typical dialogue of Chinese style. The Chinese always don’t directly express their unwillingness which results in the violation of the maxim of manner ： be brief and orderly.
In this case， Ms. Liu doesn’t directly show that she is unwilling to meet with Zhang Wei. She tries to use some excuses to keep herself from the meeting time referred by Zhang Wei， and she can’t make sure whether or when she will contact with Zhang Wei. Maybe she really doesn’t have time to meet with him， but sometimes the obscurity will bring about misconstruction of insincerity， especially by foreigners， e.g. Americans who are known for their directness.
4. Discussion
Cases of intercultural business negotiation have been analyzed before. Obviously， the four maxims are unavoidably flouted during the course of intercultural business negotiation and the violation of the maxims of the CP does not always lead the negotiators to fail the business. Sometimes， the violation of CP will also enhance the credibility between both parties and boost the progress of the negotiation. Based on the above analysis， there are two strategies for business negotiators.
4.1 Acting Dumb
For intelligent negotiators， smart is dumb and dumb is smart. There is a good explanation for this. Most human beings are inclined to compete with people they see as brighter and help people they see as less bright.
Win-win negotiation depends on the willingness of each side to be truly empathetic to the other side’s position. That is not going to happen if both parties compete with each other all the time. Thus， the reason why negotiators act dumb is that it diffuses the competitive spirit of the other side. This strategy gives away the reason why intelligent negotiators tend to flout the maxim of relevance to let both negotiators to obtain the comparatively satisfactory result and achieve the win-win negotiation. The above case 6 vividly proves the advantage of flouting the maxim of Relevance.
4.2 Being aware of culture
There are many factors contributing to intercultural business negotiations. Among them， culture is of great importance. The above case 5 and case 7 vividly proved the importance of culture in intercultural business negotiation. Take the case 7 as an example， if Ms Liu is aware of the American’s direct thinking pattern， the communication between Ms Liu and Zhang Wei will run smoothly. Therefore， being aware of culture in business negotiation and even in our daily communication is actually indispensable.
5. Conclusion
Intercultural business negotiation as an economic activity plays an important role in business interactions. For the economic interest， both parties have to cooperate with each other as well as being competitive against each other. But a successful negotiation does not mean winning by defeating the counterpart， but by getting each party what they want. To achieve a win-win situation， both parties endeavor to create and keep cooperative relationship by adopting proper languages.
Based on the analysis of the negotiation dialogues， this thesis presents that the deliberate violation of CP will also enhance the credibility between both negotiators and boost the progress of the negotiation. The three strategies for business negotiators are drawn from the thesis， which are acting dumb， using uncertainty to your advantage and being aware of culture.
However， there are still drawbacks in this thesis. First， some cases analyses are subjective because the author did not know the negotiators’ real intention and all the analyses are supposed. Second， the cooperative principle is only one aspect of Pragmatics， sometimes the Politeness Principle is also highly related and should be researched on.
References：
[1]Claire Kramsch.Language and Culture.Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press，2000.
[2]Grice，H.P.Logic and Conversation.Speech acts.New York：Academic Press，1978：41-58.
[3]Grice，H.P.Further Notes on Logic and Conversation.New York：Academic Press，1978.
[4]Leech.Principles of Pragmatics.London：Longman，1983.
[5]Li Fei.On the Deviation of the Cooperative Principle in Business Negotiation.Northeast Normal University，2010.
[6]Thompson.Negotiation Behavior and Outcomes：Empirical Evidence and Theoretical Issues.1990.
[7]高潔英.语用原则在国际商务谈判中的应用研究[J].五邑大学学报，2009，10.
[8]何兆熊.语用学文献选读[M].上海外语教育出版社，1997.
[9]李长栓.汉英口译入门[M].外语教学与研究出版社，1999.
[10]盛小利.商务英语谈判口语[M].中国宇航出版社，2007.