1Application of Conversational Implications in English Audio-visual Course1. IntroductionNowadays, it is gradually emphasized that we should foster English major students with integrated skills. As a result, considerable attention has been devoted to English audio-visual course. However, the teaching effect of this course has been unsatisfactory, which has led to a central question in research about how to improve students listening comprehension by watching English movies. In the past twenty years, this question has been the focus of many studies, for example, Yan Canxun (2005: 56) proposes a teaching method that oral English practice substitutes for listening training in listening classes while students learn autonomously after class; while Guo Suihong (2004: 45) advocates teaching rather than testing, paying more attention to authentic input and basing on the learner-centered approach, so that students listening comprehension can be developed; and recently, Lu Guojun and Wu Xingdong (2007: 25) focus on the structure inferences and the role of discourse intonation in listening, and try to improve the students listening comprehension by reading and intonation training.The researches above are meaningful in some ways, but one thing they often ignore is the importance of comprehension. According to Keith Johnson (2002: 254), there are strange phenomena in text comprehension. Sometimes it is possible to understand every word of a text and still not know what it is about, and sometimes it is possible to understand a message even when there is no evidence for your interpretation of the actual words on the pages. That is just the case in English audio-visual course. No matter how good ones listening skill may be, he can never make thorough and authentic comprehension if he just stops at the literal meaning. This paper makes an attempt to use the conversational implicature, proposed by Paul Grice, to analyze the conversations in English movies, and get the real and correct understanding of these seemingly strange conversations. For example:(1) Doctor: I need to give you an anesthesia.Teddy: Do I look really that stupid?Doctor: I cannot do an operation like this without an anesthesia.2(From Prison Break)Judging the conversation above from its literal meaning, Teddys answer did not show any sign of rejection or acceptance of an anesthesia. It seems that he made his reply totally unrelated to the doctors words. But if we make a little analysis of it, it is very easy for us to understand that he actually refused the doctor. His way of answering is an indirect way of refusal with much stronger force.How does the reply of Teddy mean “I know that you want to make me unconscious by giving me an anesthesia. And youd better stop your plan because Im not a fool.”? And how does the doctor understand, through the literal meaning, what Teddy indicates? The conversational implicature theory can give us convincing explanations. The above conversations frequently appear in English movies. If teachers do not employ the theory to explain them, students may often fail to understand them.2. Cooperative Principle and conversational implications2.1 Cooperative PrincipleIt is known that quite often a speaker can mean a lot more than what is said. The problem is to explain how the speaker can manage to convey more than what is said and how the hearer can arrive at the speakers meaning. Grice (1975: 45) believes that there must be some mechanisms governing the production and comprehension of these utterances. He suggests that there is a set of assumptions guiding the conduct of conversation. This is what he calls the Cooperative Principle. He formulates the principle and its maxims as follows:Make your conversational contribution as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the exchange in which you are engaged. (Yule, 2000: 145)To specify the Cooperative Principle further, Grice introduced four categories of maxims as follows:The maxim of quantity:1. Make your contribution as informative as required (for the current purpose of the exchange).2. Do not make your contribution more informative than is required.The maxim of quality:1. Do not say what you believe to be false.32. Do not say that for which you lack adequate evidence.The maxim of relation:Be relevant.The maxim of manner:1. Avoid obscurity of expression.2. Avoid ambiguity.3. Be brief (avoid unnecessary prolixity).4. Be orderly. To put it very simply, the CP means that we should say what is true in a clear and relevant manner. It is important to take these maxims as unstated assumptions we have in conversations. We assume that people are normally going to provide an appropriate amount of information, and that they are telling the truth, being relevant, and trying to be as clear as they can. Speakers rarely mention these principles simply because they are assumed tacitly in verbal interactions (刘润清、文旭，2006：154).2.2 Conversational