Wei (1998) Provides An Example Of How Important Code-switching Is In

Wei (1998) provides an example of how important code-switching is in contextualisation. Examining the case of Cantonese-English speakers in Tyneside, there are clear examples of the way in which these speakers use their code-switching to identify the elements or topics of the conversation that they are referring to. Code-switching is also found to be extremely important in the structure of the language. Overall the CA analyst argues that it is only through a close examination of the intricacies of the language that an understanding of code-switching can be gained. Meaning is seen to emerge in this framework from the use of language, rather than being imposed from the outside.
Myers-Scotton (2005) explains the difference between CA and the Markedness Model in terms of levels of analysis. CA analysts argue, therefore, that at the conversational level, the production of language is sufficiently separated from the social level that the social analysis becomes redundant. Auer (1995) argues that in one situation a particular code-switch can have one meaning, while in another it might mean something different - the only way to be able to distinguish the two is to carry out an in-depth analysis of the local context of the speaker's production of language. The Markedness Model, then, will implicate meanings into code-switching, giving social interpretations to the way in which speakers change code. CA, meanwhile, does not accept this idea that there are social norms which are widely distributed relating to the way in which code-switching is used, and that bilingual speakers of a particular community understand these meanings. In other words CA analysts do not believe in RO sets. Myers-Scotton (2005) emphasises that the two approaches are not mutually exclusive. CA analysts, like those who accept the Markedness Model, see the social factors as being important, it is the level of analysis that is different. This is most clearly seen in the importance that CA analysts place on where a code-switch occurs in a conversation, whereas the Markedness Model is more interested in the particular choice the speaker makes. Having said that, though, the Markedness Model has proved extremely influential and is probably more widely accepted than CA.
Critics of CA have pointed to its sidelining of socio-cultural factors as its main weakness. Stroud (1998) argues that the social and cultural factors are so heavily involved with code-switching choices that to ignore them leaves an incomplete analysis. Similarly, code-switching occurs within a socio-cultural context specific to a society and so it is difficult to use CA outside of a Western setting.