其次，质量准则强调的是交际双方信息量的可靠性、可借鉴性和可参考性。但在

Second, the quality guidelines emphasize that both sides of communication reliability of information, can learn and be informative. But in the session, even if the speaker said knowing false, then the surface meaning of words is not necessarily exhibit uncooperative. For example, scammers always try to speak with the scammers, but he knew that if most of them are false lie; accustomed to talking in terms of those who jumped on the bandwagon, tend to make every effort to cooperate in terms of words, but such expression often lie mostly; the life of many well-intentioned lie not far from uncooperative, but also not to mention immoral. Sometimes say deliberately tell lies, and also try to think through some contexts allow the listener to understand what he is saying. In this case, may the meaning of his words implied session. But leave specific context, the listener may not know what to say who is deliberately telling lies, and therefore it is difficult to launch its session thus meaning. The main factors to infer the meaning of the session is the context, and the lie itself does not have such a feature. To say the least, even if the speaker were the contextual cues and the listeners did not understand the hint, it will not necessarily affect the Cooperative; listener in the case of not understanding the meaning of the speaker sessions, conversations can still proceed under the premise of mutual cooperation. Grice when people talked about the meaning of words in passing conversation by means of the principles of cooperation specifically to "pretend to say," This case is included in the "say" in. Since the "speak" the words are not always pass the session meaning, then "pretend to say," then obviously not necessarily pass the session meaning of words. E.g:

Secondly, the quality criterion emphasizes the reliability, reference and reference of the information volume of both sides of communication. But in conversation, even if the speaker says something that he knows falsely, the superficial meaning of the discourse does not necessarily show a non-cooperation. For example, fraudsters always talk to the victim as much as possible, but most of his words are self-aware falsehoods; Sometimes the person who speaks deliberately tells the truth and tries to make the listener understand what he is talking about in certain contexts. In this case, it is possible that his words imply conversational implications. But away from a particular context, it is impossible for the listener to know that the person being deliberately telling a falsehood, so it is difficult to derive its conversational meaning. The main factor in inferring the meaning of a conversation is context, which in itself does not have. To take a step back, even if the speaker has a contextual cues and the listener does not understand the implication, it does not necessarily affect conversational cooperation; Grice specifically included "pretending to say" the situation when he spoke of people passing on conversational meanings through the principle of cooperation. Since "say" is not necessarily the meaning of the delivery session, then "pretend to say" words obviously are not necessarily the meaning of the delivery session. For example:

Secondly, the quality criterion emphasizes the reliability, referentiality and referentiality of the amount of information between the two parties. But in conversation, even if the speaker said the self-knowledge false words, the surface meaning of the discourse does not necessarily show that it is not cooperative. For example, the swindler always tries to cooperate with the swindled, but most of his words are self-knowledge and false lies; those who are used to being in the driver's seat in conversation often try their best to cooperate in speech, but most of these expressions are false; many good-natured false words in life are neither uncooperative nor immoral. Sometimes the speaker intentionally tells lies and tries to make the listener understand what he is saying through certain context. In this case, his words may have conversational implications. However, without the specific context, it is impossible for the hearer to know that the speaker is deliberately speaking falsehood, so it is difficult to deduce its conversational meaning. The main factor of inferring conversational implicature is context, but lies do not have such function. To put it another way, even if the speaker makes contextual cues but the listener doesn't understand the cues, it doesn't necessarily affect the conversation cooperation; the listener can continue the conversation on the premise of mutual cooperation without paying attention to the interpreter's conversation meaning. When Grice talks about people's use of cooperative principle to convey conversational implicature, he specifically includes the situation of "pretending to say" in "saying". Since "utterance" does not always convey conversational implicature, it is obvious that "pretended utterance" does not always convey conversational implicature. For example: