Page 29 [29]
THE CONVERSATION ÁNALYTICAL (CA) FRAMEWORK
Conversation Analysis (CA)? is to give a local interpretation of language
alternation as a conversational activity relying on interactional evidence rather
than on extra-linguistic assumptions.
Auer claims that code-switching should be taken seriously as a
conversational activity, a “contextualization cue”*. As such, he distinguishes
between two main types of code-switching: participant- and discourse-related
code-switching. Any language alternation therefore provides cues either about
“attributes of the speaker” or “the organization of the ongoing interaction”.
All these cues have to be interpreted at a conversational level, where they first
become relevant".
Auer does not reject the need for a larger-scale extra-conversational
explanation of code-switching instances. However, he claims that analysis of
language alternation should be implemented fin the framework of conversation
analysis, which, taking into account grammatical restrictions where necessary
can work up and relate to larger scale sociolinguistic statements””. In line
with that, according to the CA model, all instances of code-switching have to
be analyzed at a conversational level and, following that, in the wider social
context. However, opponents of this model claim that all interactions and
conversations occur in a social context, therefore no sequential conversational
analysis can be implemented without a simultaneous, extra-conversational
sociolinguistic analysis.
Auer’s CA model has been criticized for ignoring “the texture that aspects
of the wider social context provide to conversational partners” and downgrad¬
ing — or even ignoring — “speaker motivation”.
Although according to Conversation Analysis it is necessary to interpret
the act of code-switching in a wider social context, it primarily focuses on the
local, conversation and interaction specific examination of code-switching.
As such, it demonstrates how the meaning and function of code-switching
can be interpreted in the actual interaction against the idiosyncratic variables
of the individual relevant in the local context of the conversation. As it does
not assume the a priori existence of an objective social reality and categories,
it is also wary of making global interpretations or setting up a normative
framework of code-switching.
Ihe main purpose of the CA approach is to minimize the subjective
interpretation of code-switching against a social reality subjectively constructed
through the perception of the analyst. It focuses on the sequential analysis
33 Auer, Bilingual Conversation
44 Auer, Ibid., 6
45 Auer, Ibid., 12
16 Auer, Ibid., 96
"7 Auer, A conversation analytic approach to code-switching and transfer, 209
18 Myers-Scotton — Bolonyai, Calculating speakers: code-switching in a rational choice model,
Language in Society, 5
+ 27e