A model of bilingual conversation Two basic category pairs provide the ‘underlying’ procedural apparatus for arriving at local interpretations of language alternation embedded in their individual contexts.These are the category pairs transfer vs.

A model of bilingual conversation Two basic category pairs provide the ‘underlying’ procedural apparatus for arriving at local interpretations of language alternation embedded in their individual contexts.These are the category pairs transfer vs.
A model of bilingual conversation
Two basic category pairs provide the ‘underlying’ procedural apparatus for arriving at local interpretations of language alternation embedded in their individual contexts.These are the category pairs transfer vs.code – switching and participant-related vs.discourse-related language alternation.From a hearer’s point of view,the speaker has to indicate solutions to the following problems corresponding to the two category pairs:
1 Is the language alternation in question connected to a particular conversational structure
( for instance,a word ,a sentence,or a larger unit) ( transfer ),or to a particular point in conversation (code- switching)?
2 Is the language alternation in question providing cues for the organization of the ongoing interaction (i.e.is discourse – related),or about attributes of the ongoing interaction (i.e.is discourse – related),or about attributes of the speaker (i.e.is it participant – related )
In answering these questions,and in providing indications that make them answerable,bilingual participants operate a basic category grid which provides a fundamental four – way differentiation of the signaling device under investigation.It is important to keep in mind that ‘discourse – related code – switching’,‘participant – related code – switching’ ,‘ discourse- related transfer ‘ and ‘ participant – related transfer’ are not generic categories grouping language alternation types; that is ,they are not superordinates to subordinated alternation types such as addressee selection,citations,and son on.Instead,the latter should be seen as situated interpretations arrived at in context,whereas the former are generally available procedures designed to carry out these local interpretations.It is these more general procedures and not the types of language alternation which are used as interpretive resources by participants in the first place.
Let us begin by taking a look at the dichotomy discourse – related vs.participant related code – switching.In the organization of bilingual conversation,participants face two types of tasks.First ,there are problems specifically addressed to language choice.A given conversational episode may be called bilingual as soon as participants orient to the question of which language to speak.Second,participants have to solve a number of problems independently of whether they use one or more languages; these are problems related to the organization of conversation in general,e.g.to turn- taking,topical cohesion,‘key’ (in Hymes’ sense; see Hymes,1974 ),the constitution of specific linguistic activities.The alternating use of two language may be a means of coping with these problems.For illustration ,let us turn to some data extracts:3

A model of bilingual conversation Two basic category pairs provide the ‘underlying’ procedural apparatus for arriving at local interpretations of language alternation embedded in their individual contexts.These are the category pairs transfer vs.
一个模型双语的谈话
对两种基本范畴提供的潜在的程序装置,在当地的语言解释到变更嵌入式他们各自的语境.这是对vs.类别转移代码-交换和participant-related vs.discourse-related语言变化.从增长的角度来看,表明说话等问题的解决方案对相应的两种类型:
1是语言的攻防连接到一个特定问题会话结构
(例如,一个字、一个句子,或大单元)(转会),或到某一特定点过他谈话(代码-交换)吗?
2是语言问题提供线索攻防在组织进行互动(即话语-关联),进行互动的属性(即话语——相关,或是差不多属性的发言人(即是参与者-关联)吗?
在回答这些问题,并提供迹象表明,使参与者,双语负责操作的基本范畴提供了一个基本四网格-的方式分化的信号装置在调查中.它要牢记的话语——相关代码-开关',参与者-相关代码-交换”、“话语——相关转移”和“参与者-相关的不是常规的分类转移交替分组语言类型;也就是说,他们不是superordinates到次级变更类型诸如收件人的选择、引用、和儿子.相反,后者应该被视为坐落解释,而到达下前都提供既定程序执行这些地方的解释.正是这些更一般的程序而不是种语言的交替作为诠释资源的参赛者放在第一位.
让我们从现在开始通过做一看dichoto