I’m sorry I can’t say it to you. Privacy area. Yo mama is so dumb, when she wear a yellow raincoat everyone will yell, Taxi

29 phenomena can be explained by the cooperative principle e.g. humor from physical behavior and even when we are dealing with the conversational jokes e.g. humor at lexical or phonetic levels. Nevertheless, several linguists Attardo, 1997; Norrick, 1993; Raskin, 1985 have been trying to make a general pragmatic explanation on humor with reference to Grice’s theory. Raskin 1985 suggested that joke-telling mode of communication non bona fide is still governed by the cooperative principle because he believed that humor is communicative functions. This research takes the pragmatic view to discuss humorous conversational interaction. Thus, conversation is to be the model of interpretation. Fundamentally, this research put the language into a context-through with a more full contextual analysis of humor which the context of conversation is given. Although, the built characters in recorded data of conversation vary in characterization, background knowledge, interests and concerns, still, conversation is a flexible text negotiated between the various participants in a conversation as found in the data. In this research, laughter serves as the most identifiable signal for identifying humor in the text cf. Archakis Tsakona, 2005. Hay 2001, p. 56 adds that the presence of laughter is used to characterize an utterance or a text as humorous. Since the humor in situation comedy lays on its narration, the script is styled and fashioned to be so much alike with natural language in order to illustrate daily life conversation. The amusement itself is found from conversational interaction among the characters. Accordingly, it is necessary to hire conversation theories: cooperative principle from Paul Grice and basic structure of conversation. The cooperative principle, which derived into four maxims principle, helps to evaluate 30 the conversations that is humorous. In this research, the conversation will be placed and situated at the basic rules within conversation and how the characters negotiate and exchange the information which give arise to humor in form of comedy and intend to amuse the audience. This involves noting the role of joking regarding 1 language games: turn taking, intruding, parting, greeting, closing, questioning, bridging uncomfortable gaps, “winding down the conversation”, encouragement, warning, etc. 2 intention of the speaker, e.g. to relieve embarrassment, save face, etc. With the knowledge of Grice maxims, the humorous conversations are evaluated by using known building blocks: adjacency pairs, turns and other standpoints from basic structure of conversation. Since the research focuses its concern in humorous conversation resulted from the violation of cooperative maxims, it is oblique to examine how the speakers violate those maxim. Here, the categories of the non-observance maxims take place. Those set of theories are helpful to explain phenomena of violation maxims in humorous conversation and answer the first research question. It is noted that humor depends on the interactants’ negotiation of values in a similar to Veatch’s description of verbal humor. Veatch 1998 determines a funny violation of normal situation or a subject moral order by incorporating an affective component into his theory. One important vehicle for humor production is the generation of conversational implicature originating in some form of flouting or violation of maxims Grice, 1978: in humorous talk, speakers code and decode messages and publicly display their knowledge of what is going on. This complex interactional work or, as Grice calls it, “Conversational game” is also visible on