Communication accommodation theory (CAT) is a theory of communication developed by Howard Giles. It argues that “when people interact they adjust their speech, their vocal patterns and their gestures, to accommodate to others”[1]. It explores the various reasons why individuals emphasize or minimize the social differences between themselves and their interlocutors through verbal and non-verbal communication. This theory is concerned with the links between “language, context and identity”[2]. It focuses on both the intergroup and interpersonal factors that lead to accommodation as well as they ways in which power, macro and micro-context concerns affect communication behaviors[2]. There are two main accommodation processes described by this theory. Convergence refers to the strategies through which individuals adapt to each other’s communicative behaviors, in order to reduce these social differences.[3] Meanwhile, Divergence refers to the instances in which individuals accentuate the speech and non-verbal differences between themselves and their interlocutors.[3] Sometimes when individuals try to engage in convergence they can also end up Overaccommodating, and despite their good intentions their convergence can be seen as condescending
This theory assumes that people bring in their backgrounds and fields of experience into their interactions through their speech and behaviors, and that therefore speech and behavioral similarities exist in all conversations.[1]. It also assumes that accommodation is influenced by the way in which people perceive and evaluate what takes place during a conversation, that is: how people interpret and judge the messages exchanged in conversation.[1] Moreover it departs from the premise that “language and behaviors impart information about social status, and group belonging between communicators”.[1] It is for this reason, that in their desire to identify with the group that has a higher social standing, individuals engaged in conversation with some one from a higher status group will usually accommodate to their interlocutor.[1] Finally this theory assumes that accommodation varies according to social norms and the appropriateness of the situation.[1]
Contents |
The Communication Accommodation Theory was developed by Howard Giles, professor of linguistics and psychology at the University of California, Santa Barbara.[2]. It evolved from the Speech Accommodation Theory (SAT), but can be traced back to Giles’ Accent Mobility Model of 1973.[1] The Speech Accommodation Theory was developed in order to demonstrate the value of social psychological concepts to understanding the dynamics of speech.[3] It sought to explain “the motivations underlying certain shifts in people’s speech styles during social encounters and some of the social consequences arising from them”[2].Particularly, it focussed on the cognitive and affective processes underlying individuals’ convergence and divergence through speech. The Communication Accommodation Theory has broadened this theory to include not only speech but also the “non-verbal and discursive dimensions of social interaction”.[3] Thus, it now encompasses other aspects of communication. In addition CAT has moved in a more interdisciplinary direction than the previous Speech accommodation Theory.[3]. It now also covers a wider range of phenomena.[4]
Like Speech accommodation Theory, Communication Accommodation Theory continues to draw from social psychology, particularly from four main socio-psychology theories: similarity-attraction, social exchange, causal distribution and intergroup distinctiveness. These theories help to explain why speakers seek to converge or diverge from the language, dialect, accent and behavior of their interlocutors. CAT also relies heavily in Social Identity Theory. This later theory argues that a person’s self concept is compromised of a personal identity and a social identity, and that this social identity is based in comparisons people make between in groups (groups to which they belong) and out groups (groups to which they don’t belong).[1] According to Social Identity Theory, people strive to maintain a positive social identity by either joining groups where they feel more comfortable or making a more positive experience of belonging to the groups to which they already belong. Since speech is a way to express group membership, people adopt convergence or divergence in communication in order to “signal a salient group distinctiveness, so as to reinforce a social identity”[2]. Communication accommodation thus, becomes a tool to emphasize group distinctiveness in a positive way, and strengthen the individual’s social identity.
Four Main Socio-Psychology Theories
Similarity-Attraction
The similarity-attraction theory posits that “the more similar our attitudes and beliefs are to those of others, the more likely it is for them to be attracted to us".[5]}. Convergence through verbal and non-verbal communication is one of the mechanisms that we can use to become more similar to others, and hence increase their attraction towards us.[5] For this reason, it can be said that one of the factors which leads individuals to use convergence is a desire to obtain social approval from his or her interlocutor [6]. It could hence be concluded that “the greater one’s need for social approval, the greater will be one’s tendency to converge.”[5]. Natalé (1975), for instance, has found that speakers with high needs for approval converge more to another’s vocal intensity and pause length than those with low needs for approval”[6].
Social Exchange Process
The social exchange process theory “states that prior to acting, we attempt to assess the rewards and costs of alternate courses of action”[6], and that we tend to choose whatever course of action will bring greater rewards and less costs. Although most often convergence can bring forth rewards, there are some occasions when it can also bring forth costs such as “increased effort to converge, a loss of perceived integrity and personal (and sometimes group) identity”.[5] Hence when choosing whether or not to use convergence people assess these costs and rewards.[5]
Causal Attribution Process
The causal attribution theory “Suggests that we interpret other people’s behavior, and evaluate the persons themselves, in terms of the motivations and intentions that we attribute as the cause of their behavior”[6]. It applies to convergence in that convergence might be viewed positively or negatively depending on the causes we attribute to it: “Although interpersonal convergence is generally favorably, and non-convergence generally unfavorably, received, the extent to which this holds true will undoubtedly be influenced by the listeners attributions of the speaker’s intent”.[5] Giles and Smith provide the example of an experiment that they conducted amongst French and English speaking Canadians, in order to illustrate this. In this experiment, when individuals believed that the person from the different group used language convergence in order to reduce cultural barriers it was more positively evaluated than when they attributed convergence to the pressures of the situation, which forced them converge. “ When French Canadian listeners attributed an English Canadian’s convergence to French as due to his desire to break down cultural barriers, the shift was viewed favorably. However, when this same behavior was attributed to pressures in the situation forcing the other to converge, positive feelings were not so strongly evoked”[6].
Intergroup distinctiveness
The process of Intergroup Distinctiveness, as theorized by Tajfel argues “that when members of different groups are in contact, they compare themselves on dimensions which are important to them, such as personal attributes, abilities, material possessions and so forth” [6]. In these “intergroup social comparisons” individuals seek to find ways in which they can make themselves positively distinct from the out-group in order to enhance their social identity.[5] Because speech style and language is an important factor in defining social groups, divergence in speech style or language is often employed in order to maintain intergroup distinctiveness and differentiate from the out-group, especially when group membership is a salient issue or the individual’s identity and group membership is being threatened.[6]
Convergence refers to the process through which an individual shifts his speech patterns in interaction so that they more closely resemble the speech patterns of his interlocutor(s)[5]. People can converge through many features of communication such as their use of language, their “pronunciation, pause and utterance lengths, vocal intensities, non verbal behaviors, and intimacy of self disclosures”(Giles and Smith, 1979, 46), but they do not necessarily have to converge simultaneously at all of these levels. In fact people can both converge at some levels and diverge through others at the same time [3]. People use convergence based on their perceptions of others, as well as what they are able to infer about them and their backgrounds.[6] Attraction (likability, charisma, credibility), also triggers convergence. As Turner and West note, “when communicators are attracted to others they will converge in their conversations”[1]. On the other hand, as the similarity attraction theory highlights, when people have similar beliefs, personality and behaviors they tend to be more attracted towards each other. Thus when an individual shifts his speech and non-verbal behaviors in order to assimilate to the other it can result in a more favorable appraisal of him, that is: when convergence is perceived positively it is likely to enhance both the conversation and the attraction between the listener and the speaker.[5] For this reason it could be said that convergence reflects “an individual’s desire for social approval”[3] from his interlocutor, and that the greater the individual’s need for social approval, the more likely he or she is to converge. Besides attraction, other factors which “influence the intensity of this”need of approval and hence the level of convergence “include the probability of future interactions, the social status of the addressee, and interpersonal variability for need of social approval”[3]. Other factors that determine whether and to what extent individuals converge in interaction are their relational history, social norms and power variables [1]. Because individuals are more likely to converge to the individual with the higher status it is likely that the speech in a conversation will reflect the speech of the individual with the higher status[1]. Converging also increases the effectiveness of communication, which in turn lowers uncertainty, interpersonal anxiety, and increases mutual understanding. This is another factor that motivates people to converge.
However, although people usually have good intentions when they attempt to use converge in conversation, some interlocutors can perceive convergence as patronizing and demeaning and hence just as it can enhance conversation it can also detract from the processes of communication [1]. Overaccommodation can exist in three forms: Sensory Overaccommodation, Dependency Overaccommodation, and Intergroup Overaccommodation [1].Sensory Overaccommodation is when an individual thinks that he is being accommodative to someone’s linguistic or physical disability but overdoes it, so that the other person perceives his behavior as patronizing [1]. Dependency Overaccommodation refers to the situations “when the speaker places the listener in a lower-status role so that the listener is made to appear dependent on the speaker and he or she gets the impression that the speaker is controlling the situation in order to communicate a higher status" [1]. And finally Intergroup Overaccommodation involves treating individuals according to group stereotypes and not as distinct people with their own background and character [1].
Divergence is a linguistic strategy whereby a member of a speech community accentuates the linguistic differences between his or herself and his interlocutor.[3] In the most part it reflects a desire to emphasize group distinctiveness in a positive manner and it usually takes places when an individual perceives interaction as an intergroup process rather than an individual one."Given that communication features.. are often core dimensions of what it is to be a member of a group, divergence can be regarded as a very important tactic of displaying a valued distinctiveness from the other.",[7] This helps to sustain a positive image of one’s in-group and hence to strengthen one’s social identity. Divergence can thus be a way for members of different groups to maintain their cultural identity, a mean to contrast self images when the other person is considered a member of an undesirable group, and a way to indicate power or status differences, as when one individual wishes to render another one less powerful [1].
Further research conducted by Gallois et al. in 1995 has expanded the theory to include 17 propositions that influence these processes of convergence and divergence. They are categorized into four main components: the sociohistorical context, the communicators’ accommodative orientation, the immediate situation and evaluation and future intentions.[8] These components are essential to Communication accommodation Theory and affect the course and outcome of intercultural conversations.
The sociohistorical context refers to way in which past interactions between the groups to which the communicators belong influence the communication behaviors of the communicators. It includes "the relations between the groups having contact and the social norms regarding contact"[8]. These relations between the different groups to which the communicators belong, influence the communicators’ behavior. Amongst these socio-historical factors which influence communicators are: political or historical relations between nations, the different religious or ideological views between possessed by the two groups participating in the conversation, amongst others.
Accommodative orientation refers to the communicator's "tendencies to perceive encounters with out group members in interpersonal terms, intergroup terms, or a combination of the two"[8]. There are three factors that are crucial to accommodative orientations: (1) “intrapersonal factors” (e.g. personality of the speakers), (2) “intergroup factors” (e.g. communicators’ feelings toward outgroups), and (3) “initial orientations” (e.g. perceived potential for conflict)[8]. The issues which influence this last factor include: collectivistic culture context or whether the culture is collectivistic or individualistic; distressing history of interaction, the possible tensions that exist between groups due to past interactions; stereotypes; norms for treatment of groups; and high group solidarity/ high group dependence, how dependent the person's self worth is in the group [9].
The immediate situation refers to the moment in which the actual communication takes place. It is shaped by five aspects which are interrelated: (1) “sociopsychological states”, (2) “goals and addressee focus” (e.g. motivations and goals for the encounter), (3) “sociolinguistic strategies” (e.g. convergence or divergence), (4) “behavior and tactics” (e.g. topic, accent) and (5) “labeling and attributions” [8].
This aspect deals with how communicators perceive their conversational partners’ behavior and its effects on future encounters between the two groups. Positively rated conversations will most likely lead to further communication between the interlocutors and other members of their respective groups [8].
Since Communication Accommodation Theory applies to both interpersonal and intergroup communications one of the fields in which it has been most applied has been in intercultural communications. Within this field it has been applied to explain and analyze communication behaviors in a variety of situations, such as interactions between non-native and natives during second language acquisition processes, and interactions between interethnic groups.
Non-Native Language Speakers
The input that non-native speakers (NNS) obtain from their interlocutors during second language acquisition is crucial in their process of language learning [10]. It has been noted, for instance, that as the similarity attraction theory predicts, non-native speakers (NNS) are more likely to converge towards the native speaker’s (NS) language when they identify him or her as similar to themselves: “When an NNS and an NS share important social identities, ethnic or not, the NNS will be more likely to converge towards the NS’s language use”[10]. In a study conducted by Young (1998) for instance, high proficiency Chinese English Language Second Speakers interviewed by individuals with a higher degree of social convergence in terms of ethnicity, sex, occupation, educational level, place of origin, and age were significantly more likely to converge to their interlocutor’s standard English plural conjunction than those who were interviewed by subjects that differed more in terms of these social characteristics.[10] Unlike previous studies that focussed mostly in ethnic solidarity to explain language variations in second language learners (Beebe and Zuengler, 1983), this later study proved that “it is not interlocutor ethnicity alone that causes linguistic variation, but a collection of attributes (of which one is ethnicity) by which interlocutors assess their relative similarity to each other... providing clear support for the similarity-attraction aspect of CAT”.[10]
On the other hand, like the Intergroup Distinctiveness Theory argues, several studies have revealed that when second language learners feel their social identity is threatened due to patronizing behavior towards their ethnic group they are more likely to engage in divergence. In a study conducted by Zuengler (1982) amongst Spanish and Greek speakers learning English, subjects were asked both ethnically threatening and neutral questions by a native English speaker. Those subjects that answered the ethnic-threatening question in a more personal form were noted to decrease the “native English-like pronunciations of the sounds” in their answers[10]. Similar results were obtained in a study conducted by Giles and Bourhis conducted in Wales. In this study Welshmen with strong ties to their nation and their language who were learning Welsh were asked questions about methods of second language acquisition. In this study the questions were asked by an English speaker with an RP-sounding accent “who at one point arrogantly challenged their reasons for what he called ‘a dying language which had a dismal future’”[6]. In response to this question, which greatly threatened their identity and intergroup distinctiveness, the informants diverged considerably by strengthening their Welsh accents and using Welsh [6].
Native Language Speakers
Meanwhile it has been noted that native language speakers frequently engage in “Foreign Talk” (FT) when interacting with second language learners. In this type of talk native speakers adopt features such as “slower speech rates, shorter and simpler sentence, more question and question tags, greater pronunciation articulation” amongst others.[10] This is done in order to increase efficiency, specially when the native speakers perceive the non-native speakers as less competent communicators,[10] or (as the similarity-attraction theory predicts), in order to increase attraction. In fact, Foreign Talk often contains features that mirror the mistakes made by non-native speakers in order to make speach more similar, and hence “NS may include ungrammatical features in their FT”[10]. As predicted by the Intergroup Distinctiveness Theory, native speakers might also choose to refrain from engaging in FT or might use divergence, whenever they wish to maintain group distinctiveness, either because they have a lower perception of the other group, they feel threatened by them, or they wish to display ethnocentricity.[10]
Immigrants tend to converge according to what they perceive to be the prototypical behaviors of their new group, or according to the norms that they infer make part of their new environment [11]. Meanwhile their new communities “also may hold norms, about how immigrants do and/or should use the majority language” and “convergence that is perceived by members of the host community as inappropriate to the speaker’s status, the relationship, or the norms of the situation, may be labelled as ingratiating, condescending or gauche” [11]. This might lead to a negative appraisal of the immigrant speaker. For this reasons, Gallois and Callan (1991) suggest that it is important to teach immigrants about the norms that govern convergence in each community. Although other personal motives govern immigrant’s linguistic choices later on, their expectations and the situational norms that they are able to perceive are what guide their linguistic choices when they are new to a culture.[11]
In Sonia S’hiri’s “Speak Arabic please!: Tunisian Arabic Speakers’ Linguistic Accommodation to Middle Easterners” she describes how speakers of Tunisian Arabic converge to the “Sharqi” or “ Middle Eastern Arabic” of their co-workers.[12]
One of the many ways to divide the Arab world is between the West “Maghreb” and the East “Sharq”. Although there is no official “Sharqi Arabic”, the varieties that are usually associated with “Sharqi Arabic” are Egyptian, Levantine, and Gulf/Iraqi Arabic. Due to Egypt’s dominance of the media and arts, the “Sharqi” Arabic spoken in the region has come to be “perceived by Tunisians, as “lighter”, more poetic and artistic, more humorous, more romantic and even more beautiful than the local [Tunisian] variety”.[12] Again, because of its dominance in the media and the arts, Arabic speakers throughout the Arab world are much more familiar with “Sharqi” varieties than they are with “Maghrebi” varieties. A common yet incorrect belief about speech interactions in the Arab speaking world is that when speakers of different varieties of the language come into contact with one another, the default language for communication is fusha, (Modern Standard Arabic).
In her study conducted in London, S'hiri examined the social reasons for Tunisian Arabs to converge linguistically to speakers of "Sharqi Arabic". The data she found also gave ample evidence to show that code-switching into pure fusha for communication is a misconception. S’hiri recorded five Tunisian Arabic speakers (M1, M2, W1, W2, and W3) who worked at two different broadcasting companies and found that they did indeed converge linguistically to their Sharqi co-workers. They did not however, resort solely to fusha. S’hiri found that when interacting with speakers of “Sharqi” Arabic, her Tunisian informants used linguistic features and lexical items characteristic of the "Sharqi" variety, some English words, (instead of the French words often used in Tunisian Arabic speech) in addition to switching to fusha. S'hiri found that many of her informants were proud of both their Tunisian variety of Arabic as well as their ability converge linguistically and even posits the idea of "showing off" as a goal of linguistic convergence".[12] Her findings lead to an interesting sort of paradox. Although the Tunisian Arabs abandon their own variety of the language, they do not experience a feeling of loss of identity, because the ability to code-switch, perceived as prestigious in their culture, makes part of their positive identity. Despite their inner feelings of pride for their own group, by accommodating to the Sharqi speakers the Tunisians are setting aside their ingoup identity in order to "promote their extended ethnicity as members of an Arab nation instead of just as Tunisians."[12] In terms of Accommodation Theory, Tunisians in London can be seen as the “ingroup” trying to assimilate to the “outgroup”.[12]
When her informants were asked why they had switched to the “Sharqi” variety, they all agreed it was psychologically motivating, because it allowed them to get closer to their interlocutors. M1 added that this allowed him to convey friendliness to his interlocutors, to reduce differences and avoid rejection.[12] Informant W2 “Found that using TA [Tunisian Arabic] is an obstacle to getting closer to people. She felt excluded especially at the beginning since Sharqis seemed to avoid her because they believed she would be difficult to understand”.[12] W2 also “Claims that the level of readiness of Sharqis to understand her determines whether she uses TA with them or not. She wants to avoid ridicule”.[12]
Giles has studied the interaction of young and elderly persons in business settings using communication accommodation as a theoretical framework. Findings demonstrated that elderly persons tend to be less accommodating than their younger counterparts. While several other factors came into play, convergence, and divergence portions of this theory were used in interpreting and explain this phenomenon.[13]
Giles has also looked at the actions and attitudes in the public's interaction with police officers, using Accommodation theory. Relational and identity aspects of this theory help to illustrate the interaction patterns that exist between the public and the police in the various situations in which these interaction take place.[14] This study looked at both the accommodation patterns of the officers and the public with whom they were dealing.
Gallois, Cynthia, and Callan, Victor, J. Interethnic Accommodation: The Role of Norms. Contexts of Accommodation. Ed. Giles, Howard, Coupland, Justine, and Coupland, N. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
Gallois,Cindy, Ogay, Tania, and Giles, H. Communication Accommodation Theory: A look Back and a Look Ahead. Theorizing About Intercultural Communication. Ed. Gudykunst, William B. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2005.
Giles, Howard and Coupland, Nikolas. Accomodating Language. Language: Contexts and Consequences. Great Britain: Open University Press, 1991.
Giles,Howard, Coupland, Joustine and Coupland, N. Accommodation Theory: Communication, Context, and Consequence. Contexts of Accommodation. Ed. Giles, Howard, Coupland, Justine, and Coupland, N. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
Giles, Howard and Smith, Philip. Accomodation Theory: Optimal Levels of Convergence. Language and Social Psychology. Ed. Giles, Howard and St. Clair, Robert N.. Baltimore: Basil Blackwell, 1979 Giles, Howard and Ogay, Tania. Communication Accommodation Theory. Explaining Communication: Contemporary Theories and Exemplars. Ed. Whaley, Bryan B. and Samter, Wendy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2007.
Turner, Lynn H. and West, Richard.Communication Accommodation Theory. Introducing Communication Theory: Analysis and Application. 4th Edition. new York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2010.
Zuengler, Jane. Accomodating in Native-Nonnative Interactions: Going Beyond the "What" to the "Why" in Second-Language Research. Contexts of Accommodation. Ed. Giles, Howard, Coupland, Justine, and Coupland, N. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1991.