【Abstract】Cooperative principle has been long put forward. Through analyzing their dialogues in the movie Sherlock based on violations of cooperative principle， we can further appreciate the humor caused by language use.

【Key words】Cooperative principle； Sherlock； humor

【作者簡介】劉珊珊（1993.11.21- ），女，漢族，西安外國語大學(xué)2016級商學(xué)院碩士研究生，主要研究方向：外國語言學(xué)及應(yīng)用語言學(xué)。

1. Intruduction

Humor effect plays an important part in TV series which aims at entertaining the audience. Since it is mainly achieved through dialogues， a linguistic analysis is necessary to be carried out in order to better appreciate the humor as well as its production.

2. Framework of Analysis

Cooperative Principle was originally proposed by H.P.Grice in 1967. It is believed that people have the consciousness to cooperate with others in communication by following the maxim of quality which requires the participants to say things true， maxim of quantity which requires the participants to offer an appropriate amount of information， maxim of relation which requires the participants to say things relevant and maxim of manner which requires the participants to say things in an appropriate manner.

Discussion

2.1 The Violation of Maxim of Quantity in Sherlock

Sherlock： What are you typing？ Watson： Blog. Sherlock： About？ Watson： Us Sherlock： You mean me？ Watson： Why？ Sherlock： Well， youre typing a lot. Watson： Right， then.

In this case， Watson was typing in order to write his blog when Sherlock Holmes asked questions， it is clear that Watson has been offering a limited amount of information where “blog”， “us” are quite obscure answers which indirectly tells us that John Watson was not willing to tell Sherlock the business he was engaging in detail. While Sherlock is a detective and he is very intelligent， he could find out by himself. Humor could be perceived until the last question when Sherlock wanted to identify his judgment by questioning Watson whether he was typing things about him， by answering “ Well， youre typing a lot ”， a sense of humor could be felt by the audience who might be attracted by the smart and pride detective - Sherlock Holmes.

2.2 The Violation of Maxim of Quality in Sherlock

Watson： Oh， theyre just a pair of sh...trainers. Sherlock： Good. Watson： Theyre in good nick. Id say they were pretty new， except the sole has been well worn， so the owner must have had them for a while. Er， very 80s， probably one of those retro designs. Sherlock： Youre on sparkling form. What else？ Watson： Theyre quite big， so a mans. But， but theres traces of a name inside in felt-tip， adults dont write their names inside their shoes， so they belong to a kid. Sherlock： Excellent， what else？ Watson： Thats it， how did I do？ Sherlock： Well， John， really well. I mean， you missed almost everything of importance， but， you know...

In this case， we can appreciate the humor being created from the feedback of Sherlock Holmes who encourages John Watson to make an analysis of a pair of shoes. Watson clearly did not do a good job in the analysis， but Sherlock had been constantly giving his positive feedback which misled John and the audience to believe that John did well. Until finally when John asked Sherlock to make an evaluation， we know that he wasnt doing well. Sherlocks evaluation which says that John has done well in almost missing all the details. It is firstly due to Sherlocks intended lies， then due to Sherlocks final evaluation， their dialogue succeed in ending up humorously.

2.3 The Violation of Maxim of Relation in Sherlock

Watson： What the bloody hell was that about？ Sherlock： You dont understand. Watson： Go after her and apologize. Sherlock： John， I envy you so much. Watson： You envy me？ Sherlock： Your mind， its so placid， straight-forward， barely used. Mines like an engine， racing out of control. A rocket， tearing itself to pieces， I need a case.

In the case， the humor can be conveyed by violating the maxim of relation which requires the participant to say things relevant. John Watson and Sherlock Holmes are close partners and friends who share the same apartment. The conversation took place when the boring Sherlock Holmes made some inappropriate speech towards their landlady Mrs. Hudson， John Watson was a soldier and he has a more polite and decent personality compared with Sherlock Holmes， John wanted Sherlock to apologize to the lady， while Sherlock refused by offering an indirect answer to Johns requirement. By violating the maxim of relation， humor effect was achieved. First， it created an interesting atmosphere for the audience who will be in a very relaxed state and who will in turn be more loyal to the charming actor. Second， from Sherlocks statement about the humorous description of John Watsons head which is plain and simple， it can be deduced that Sherlock has a comparatively high IQ thus indirectly making himself more superior， moreover it conveys knowledge to the audience that the mysterious detective Sherlock Holmes is far from common people.

2.4 The Violation of Maxim of Manner in Sherlock

Sherlock： Most people knock. But then I suppose you are not most people， I suppose. Kettles just boiled. Moriarty： Johann Sebastian would be appalled. You know when he was on his deathbed， Bach， he heard his son at the piano playing one of his...pieces. The boy stopped before he got to the end. The dying man jumped out of the bed， ran to the piano and finished it. Sherlock： Couldnt cope with an unfinished melody. Neither can you， thats why youve come. Be honest， youre tiny bit pleased.

The conversation took place after James Moriarty- Sherlocks old enemy was released from an accuse of several attempts of burglary in three of the most secure places in England from banks to prison. Sherlock Holmes and James Moriarty are enemies all along， without considering the context， we have no idea of the content of their conversation which violates the maxim of manner under which ambiguity and obscurity are not advocated. By violating the manner maxim， their dialogue appears to be humorous at a higher level which can gave the audience to some extent of surprise and satisfaction. The violation of the maxim can be perceived from the underlying meaning which refers to later fight in the aspect of strength and intelligence between them.

3. Conclusion

Through the analysis of the violations of Cooperative Principle in Sherlock， it is clear that the violations of Cooperative Principle can generate funny， interesting and humorous conversations which is also one of the reasons for Sherlocks popularity among the audience worldwide. It is hoped that the analysis could improve the audiences ability to better use and appreciate language.

References：

[1]Stephen C.Levinson Pragmatics.[M].Cambridge University Press. 2001.

[2]陳春話.會話幽默的語用分析[J].解放軍外國語學(xué)院學(xué)報，1995， 22（1）：22-24.