Page 28 [28]
OCR
CHAPTER 3 LITERATURE REVIEW model is that the act of code-switching is universally meaningful, yet its sociocultural concept varies in different speech communities. By integrating the socioculturally determined linguistic choices of the speakers of a given community into a normative framework posited on the universal dichotomy of marked and unmarked linguistic choices, the Markedness Model has successfully moved away from the static, socio-cultural-political normative models into the direction of a more dynamic, yet universally normative community framework of code-switching. The model premises that there are four factors determining the dynamic variability of linguistic choices, — the relative prominence or salience of factors, the salience of one factor across interactions in a given community, the relative salience of one factor compared to that of another and the negotiation of the salience of situational factors — which act as guidelines. Their actual realization, however, should be subject to profound sociocultural research ina given community. The four factors, therefore, create a theoretical, normative and universal framework that can be flexibly adapted to the specific characteristics of a given speech community. The Markedness Model has attempted to unify the subjective reality, the intentions of the individual speaker; the cognitive aspect, with the markedness metric claimed to be an innate cognitive faculty; and the social reality, through its community specific set of rights and obligations, of code-switching into a normative but dynamically variable framework. However, the subjective aspect of code-switching, the choice of the individual as a social actor to exploit their linguistic repertoire in order to make intentional utterances in line with their personal motivations, is the least elaborated in the model. THE CONVERSATION ANALYTICAL (CA) FRAMEWORK In line with the constructivist, phenomenology-based interpretation of the interaction between language and social reality, Auer claims that the analysis of code-switching should focus on its actual conversational instance specific characteristics rather than on extra-interactional factors determined by the wider social context“. As the extra-interactional rules and regulations of code-switching are open to the subjective interpretation of the analyst, the main focus should be on the sequential turn-by-turn discourse-oriented conversational analysis of language alternation. The main purpose of ®” Auer, Bilingual Conversation; Auer, A conversation analytic approach to code-switching and transfer, 187-213; Auer, Introduction, 1-24 + 26 +
