【正文】 He knows what the customer needs, what the customer should be told (plete understanding the listeners or askers). That’s why he succeeds in this conversation.Thus, in business negotiations, sometimes one party intends to provide some extra information to the other party, which can make the other party understand their situation in a muftifaceted, muftiangled way. Negotiating in this way can not only increase the trust on each other, but also express their sincerity in cooperation. Violating the Quality MaximThe quality maxim requires the speaker to make a true contribution. If a speaker says something that he believes to be untrue or something for which he has no sufficient evidence, then he may implicate something, and consequently conversational implicature appears. In business English conversation, participants always use rhetoric to violating the Quality Maxim.Firstly, Irony is used to violate the quality of the quality maxim. G. Leech, in his A Survey of the Interpersonal Rhetoric, pays much attention on irony. In 1983, Leech proposes: The Irony Principle (IP) takes its place alongside Cooperative Principle and the Politeness Principle in the interpersonal rhetoric. Nevertheless, the Irony Principle is parasitical on the other two and is a secondorder principle which enables a speaker to be impolite while seeming to be polite。 it does so by superficially breaking the Cooperative Principle, but ultimately upholding it. By using irony, we are ironic at someone’s expense, scoring off others by politeness that is obviously insincere, as a substitute for impoliteness. The insincerity may be more or less obvious。 it may take the form of a breach of the Quantity Maxim or more often of a breach of the Quality Maxim [8].Miss Chen: Look, everyone is beautifully dressed tonight!Miss Pan: Yes, different from working days.Miss Chen: And Yang is more beautiful today!Miss Pan: Yes! More beautiful than before! She is really dressed to the teeth!Here, Miss Pan violates the quality maxim by saying “She is really dressed to the teeth”! She truly means: Miss Yang is dressed so showy or gorgeous that even her teeth in mouth will be dressed. And in this context, Miss Pan’s words implicate her internal feelings like envy or sarcasm. The conversational implicature cannot be correctly deduced without a right understanding of the conversational environment or context. If Miss Chen finds Miss Pan’s jealousy about Miss Yang, she would get the implied meaning, something ironic。 otherwise she would lose this point. Context is also a factor to affect conversational implicatures. Secondly, hyperbole is used to violate the submaxim of the quality maxim. Leech describes hyperbole as “a case where the speaker’s description is stronger than is warranted by the state of affairs described”[8].Mr. Sun: One customer phones us that the consignment we sent were 2 days later than the date signed on the contract and something worse, while unloading, that the quality of the goods is not Class A，that is, our workers have made some mistakes.Mr. Kann Doble: What! They drive me up a wall.Mr. Kann Doble must be very disappointed about his employees or maybe he really cannot understand why this kind of mistakes occurs again and again. Therefore, he uses “drive me up a wall” to express his helplessness. At this time, Mr. Sun may clearly know the difficulty of his pany and work harder to gain some help of the other party such as coordinating with the customer, promising that the same mistake will not be made in future, calling for all the employees to do their endeavor to regain credit. Effective business conversations need the speaker to understand the listeners pletely and also be wellprepared to act as good listeners.Considering this situation, Mr. Kann Doble is more likely to try dealing with this matter instead of being up a wall. Thirdly, Metaphor can also produce conversational implicature by violating the Quality Maxim. The following are the examples:Mr. Wang: It’s not our price which as you said is low, but it’s your price which is too high. We’re climbing the hill, you know. We’re doing that in a very difficult way and we have made it. But you are just standing there high up on the top and not willing to descend.Mr. Scott: We’ve tried to get closer to you several times and we’re halfway down the hill waiting for you already.Obviously, the two sides during this session have adopted the metaphor of the Rhetoric. The speaker’s words of the session violate the quality criteria. Because the use and understanding of metaphor involves factors such as context and background knowledge that both parties had been consulted on the price, the unreasonable price. At the same time, the use of metaphor is based on the similarities between the two types of things, so we can derive the literal meaning of words the meaning of the session, that is, cooperation in order to deal, Mr. Wang is very difficult to raise price and hopes that Mr. Scott cuts price, while Mr. Scott is also justified on try that Mr. Wang can accept the current price. Thus, the use of rhetorical language can be more subtle in order to achieve a more intense tone, more vivid expression. Violating the Relation MaximThe relation maxim requires that the words should be associated with the topic, if not, they would violate this maxim. In some cases, what the speaker says is irrelevant to the topic for some reasons. If the speaker violates this maxim intentionally, he may intend to convey some conversational implicatures. He may not say something which is explicitly related to the topic of the conversation. And this requires the hearer to search for an interpretation of the possible relevance to the conversational topic. When the speaker tries to reach his conversational aim, he may deliberately avoid some embarrassing or awkward topics and transfer from the topic under discussion to something not relevant so as to distract