A ppt presentation on the summary of accommodation theory developed by Giles et al. (1973), and expanded later on.

1. Accommodation
Theory

2. Accommodation
Theory
Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT) is
a theory of language use that seeks to examine
the attitudes, motivation, intentions, and
identities that mediate between objective social
and contextual variables and an individual’s
language use (Jones et al., 1999).
CAT was developed by Giles et al. (1973) to
explain the cognitive and affective processes
underlying speech convergence, divergence, or
maintenance.

3. Major
assumptions of
the theory
 While communicating there will be similarity and difference in
the speech and behaviour. The characteristics that people exhibit
are based on our experiences and the cultural backgrounds that
we grew up in.
 A conversation is evaluated by understanding the perception of
the speech and behaviour of the other. Through evaluation
people decide to accommodate and fit in.
 The social status and belonging is determined by language and
behaviours. While people communicate, they tend to
accommodate the behaviours of those who are in the higher
social status than them.
 Norms guide the accommodation process which varies in the
degree of appropriateness. Norms define the behaviours of
people, and they are expected to act accordingly.
Taken from: https://www.communicationtheory.org/communication-accommodation-theory/

4. Suppose
speaker A
wishes to gain
speaker B’s
approval
A then
1. Samples B’s speech and
(i) draws inferences as to the personality
characteristics of B (or at least the characteristics
which B wishes to project as being his)
(ii) assumes that B values and approves of such
characteristics
(iii) assumes that B will approve of him (A) to the
extent that he (A) displays similar characteristics
2. Chooses from his speech repertoire patterns of
speech which project characteristics of which B is
assumed to approve.
Giles et al. (1973)

5. Bilingual
Accommodation
(Giles et al.,
1973)
French Canadian (FC) stimulus speaker provided a message
to bilingual English Canadians (EC) in either French (no
accommodation), a mixture of French and English (partial
accommodation), or English (full accommodation)
FC was perceived more favorably in terms and
considerateness and of his effort to bridge the cultural gap
the more he accommodated to the EC listeners.
When the opportunity to return a communication to their
FC partner, subjects who were spoken to in English
accommodated most.
Such patterns are in evidence when the roles of the two
ethnolinguistic groups are reversed (Simard, Taylor, & Giles,
1976).

6. Types of
accommodation
processes
Convergence: convergence is a process where
people tend to adapt the other person’s
communication characteristics to reduce the
social differences
Divergence: the process contradicts the
method of adaptation and in this context the
individual emphasize is on the social difference
and nonverbal differences between the
interactants.
Maintenance: the process of maintaining the
communicative style so that the speaker does
not move toward or away from the
interactants.

7. Reasons of Convergence
Similar beliefs,
personality or
behaviours
Desired social
distance
Social approval
Enhanced
conversation &
effective
communication
Relational history Social norms Power relations
Lower
interpersonal
anxiety

8. Reasons of Divergence
Showing distinctiveness from others
Strengthen one’s social identity
Keeping dominance & power

9. When do you
think we can
observe instances
of convergence &
divergence in a
speech?

10. Overaccommodation
Overaccommodation due to sensory/physical handicaps
Dependency-related overaccommodation
Age-related divergence
Intergroup overaccommodation

11. Underaccommodation
Self protective underaccommodation
Age self-handicapping
Self-stereotyping
Intergroup divergence

12. The
Expanded
Version of
the Theory
 Includes a number of conversation strategies
 Provides a model for the overall
communication process
Coupland et al. (1988) also added additional
processes:
approximation
interpretability
discourse management
interpersonal control

13. Accommodative strategies
Approximation Interpretability
Discourse
Management
Interpersonal
control

14. Accommodative
Strategies
Approximation: The behaviors in focus of
approximation are turn length, response latency,
speech rate, interruptions, simultaneous speech, short
and long pauses, head nods, gesturing while speaking
and while listening, laughing, smiling, and dominant
posture.
Interpretability: The tendency to participants’ adapting
their speech behavior to facilitate understanding—for
example, by using a slower speech rate, longer
response latency, or higher rate of pausing, topic
management, checking understanding, summarizing,
asking others’ opinions.

15. Accommodative Strategies
Discourse Management: This diverse set of discursive options facilitates a
partner’s own contribution to ongoing talk and includes who makes decisions
about the discourse and what decisions are made.
Field refers to the ideational content of the talk
Tenor focuses on the management of interpersonal position and face
Mode relates to the procedures used for structuring

16. Accommodative
Strategies
Interpersonal control: Focuses on the role relations
between conversational partners. These strategies
either increase or decrease the discretion of the
other person to change roles (Gallois et al., 1988).
Interpersonal control can be positive when it allows
people the freedom to leave roles or it is implicated
in a shared group identity, by keeping a person in
role.
On the other hand, interpersonal control can be
negative. Interactants can use linguistic devices to
place a person in a role and control the person.

17. Gallois et al. (1995)
•Sociohistorical context
•Accommodative orientation
•Immediate situation
•Evaluation and future intentions
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:

18. References
Acton, E. K., & Potts, C. (2014). That straight talk: Sarah Palin and the sociolinguistics of demonstratives. Journal of
Sociolinguistics, 18(1), 3–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12062
Cavallaro, F., Seilhamer, M. F., Chee F. Y. T., & Ng, C. B. (2016). Overaccommodation in a Singopore eldercare facility.
Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 37(8), 817-831.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2016.1142553
Coupland, N., Coupland, J., Giles, H., & Henwood, K. (1988). Accommodating the elderly: Invoking and extending a
theory. Language in Society, 17(1), 1-41. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500012574
Gallois, C., Giles, H., Jones, E., Cargile, A. C., & Ota, H. (1995). Accommodating intercultural encounters:
Elaborations and extensions.
Giles, H., & Coupland, N. (1991). Language, context and consequences. Cole Publishing.
Giles, H., & Powesland, P. (1997). Accommodation Theory. In N. Coupland & A. Jarowski (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: A
Reader (1st ed., pp. 232-239). Macmillan Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-25582-5_19
Jones, E., Gallois, C., Callan,V., & Barker, M. (1999). Strategies of accommodation: Development of a coding system
for conversational interaction. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 18(2), 123-152.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X99018002001
Mougeon, R., & Rehner, M. (2015). Stylistic and discursive functions of French negative particle ne in an
educational context. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 19(5), 585–611. https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12164
https://www.communicationtheory.org/communication-accommodation-theory/