more local approach to meaning in code-switching. It views other explanations of code- switching (e.g. Myers-Scotton’s markedness model, and Gumperz’s metaphorical categorization) as too macrosociological and deterministic, and argue against the tendency in code-switching research to attribute universal macrosociological values to codes and assume intentionality as a response to these universally ‘understood’ values (Wei, 1995, p. 163).
Peter Auer (1984, 1988, 1991) is the leading advocate for conversational analysis theory. Conversational analysis (CA), in line with current studies in anthropology and sociocultural linguistics, argues for a more local approach to explaining code-switching. For CA, the social meaning of code-switching lies within the sequential organization of the interaction. Conversational analysis argues for the role of all participants in conversation, therefore, it does not view code-switching as a phenomenon that can be stripped away from the conversation in which it occurs. Rather, it emphasizes the role of the participants in assigning meaning and orderliness; for instance, it argues that “whatever language a participant chooses for the organization of his or her turn, or for an utterance which is part of the turn, the choice exerts an influence on subsequent language choices by the same or other speakers” (Auer, 1984, p. 5). This statement is
comparable to what it understood in accommodation theory, and it is also emphasized in one of the points of the markedness model when negotiating RO sets13 (Myers-Scotton:
1993, p. 142). Further, rather than solely relying on the interpretation of the linguistic analyst, conversational analysis claims to be a more accurate depiction of social meaning of a switch, and interprets the meaning of switching as it unfolds between speakers, rather than focusing on a single token and assigning meaning outside of its interactional context. Priority is given to the structural organization of talk, in which properties such as turn- taking and adjacency pairs are seen as key to deciphering meaning. Social context is understood as something constructed by participants in interaction, they give shape to the context, but context is not assigned a priori in conversational analysis (see Wei, 1995, p. 163; Auer, 1990, p. 80).
“Our purpose is to analyse members’ procedures to arrive at local interpretations of language alternation.” (Auer, 1984, p. 3)
CA analysts do not believe in asserting direct correlations between identity and language use, but strive to demonstrate how such relations are built through ongoing talk. One of the major strengths of conversation analysis is its emphasis on joint construction of meaning. In doing so, conversation analysis fits in perfectly with identity framework that highlights the importance of self and other in construction and negotiation of meaning. While some have argued that Myers-Scotton’s approach is ‘too macrosociological’, conversation analysis seems to be positioned in the other extreme side of the spectrum as ‘too local’. There is great danger in overlooking the ideological values and linguistic histories that codes possess in a given community. While participants are indeed creative agents of meaning who can make stylistic use of their codes and respond and react to their interactants and the environment accordingly, participants also possess greater knowledge from past experiences of what it means to speak a certain way or employ a certain features in a specific context (as pointed out by Myers-Scotton in her rational choice model). For instance, among adults of a certain profession – e.g. a teacher, a lawyer – there is macrosociological awareness of how they should speak in formal situations, particularly as ‘language models’ in society. This macrosociological awareness or knowledge is what informs the participants of the appropriateness behind
13 In particular, the negotiation principle which states that speakers “choose the form of… [their] conversation contribution such that it indexes the set of rights and obligations which…[they] wish to be in force between speaker and addressee for the current exchange.” (Myers-Scotton, 1993: 113).
speaking a certain way and may encourage a specific way of speaking. A teacher, as a language model, might opt to avoid codeswitching in the presence of his/her students, but among friends he/she might include more instances of codeswitching (see Jaffe, 2007).
Without looking at the social histories, conversation analysis seizes to possess any social theory itself, and could be described more as a linguistic model that operates in an interactional vacuum. CA claims to be more about the procedure and strategies of code-switching and less about the ‘theory’ (cf. Wei, 1995, p.164), but their preference for the local -- at expense of the metapragmatic values and linguistic histories of codes - - positions itself within a framework of theoretical linguistics. The focus in this approach is too concerned in code-switching’s interactional functions, rather than social meaning, when both have been shown to be relevant in code-switching research. Conversation analysis uses the sequential organization of a conversation as point of departure for their analysis of meaning and functions of code-switching; such method pays little or no attention to ideologies of ways of speaking and being, social affiliations and whether they play a role in the distribution language use. And, while social information, in the form of categories, in no way should serve as deterministic explanations to language use, they do provide insight to how speakers have been socialized according to their social backgrounds. Furthermore, while the conversational analytic approach has provided fruitful amount of research in code-switching as an interactional approach, it would not be a useful framework to adopt in order to describe the role of the English language in Puerto Rico, where both codes are imbued with sociopolitical histories and ideologies, and codes are distributed differently across participants.
Auer’s research in conversation analysis marked a change in traditional code- switching studies, and emphasized the need for a more ‘local’ approach to the study of meaning in linguistic variation. Ultimately, it paved the way for much needed micro- analysis in code-switching. However, despite the contribution of conversation analysis and the many researchers that have conducted research under this approach (e.g. Auer 1988, 1995, 1998a; Cashman 2005; Gafaranga 2000, 2005; Wei, 1994, 1998, 2005), it is ultimately a more interactional approach to code-switching than a social one.