Problem caused by the Host in the Context of Communication Accommodation Theory

Although the literature mentioned above indicate the difficulty to bring international and students together or adaptation of international students, few focuses on the role that home

students played in intercultural interaction and what they can do for successful intercultural communication. According to the relational model (1989), to achieve communication

effectiveness and relationship satisfaction, the host-national (here as home students) also have equally the same responsibility as international students. Here it is important to clarify again the terms involved here: although host-national, home students, native speakers are defined differently according to different contexts, in this thesis, they all termed as home students who are mainly educated in the UK. Similarly, sojourner, international students and non- native speakers are termed as international students who are not mainly educated in the UK.

In the book English-Only Europe? Challenging Language Policy (2003), Phillipson points out the negative role that native speakers played in intercultural communication. He argues that “although native speakers have an edge in many types of intercultural

communication, tend to talk more, and may succeed in influencing outcomes more, native speakers can in fact be the cause of communication problems” (p. 167). The idea behind this statement is that language proficiency is not equivalent to intercultural competence. Although native speakers have greater facility in speaking the language, they may not necessarily have greater sensitivity in using it appropriately. According to Phillipson, competent speakers of English as second language are more comprehensible than native speakers in many

intercultural settings. For the second language speakers, they may be better at adjusting their language for the people from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Such ability may be regarded as a form of communication accommodation (Gallois & Giles, 2015), on which studies state that speech convergence between interactants is positively related to the perception of competence (Gallois & Giles, 2015).

Communication accommodation theory (CAT) initially termed as speech

accommodation theory (SAT) was introduced by Giles (1973) in the field of language

or the way they communicate according to different people, about different topics and in different contexts (Gallois & Giles, 2015). However, Giles (1973) argued that such

adjustment/accommodation is not only (or even instead of) determined by the context, but also shows our attitude towards one or more conversational partners. Such an attitude could be liking, disliking, admiration and disdain. In the initial formulation of SAT, Giles (1973) noted that there are three types of accommodation. People may converge—make their speech more like that of the partner such as switching to the partner’s language, speaking style, accent or non-verbal communication. They may also diverge—make their speech more different from the partner. And lastly there is maintenance, which means people do not make any changes in their communication (Gallois & Giles, 2015). According to Giles (1973), convergence as taken as sign of liking whereas divergence and maintenance as dislike.

In its initial formulation, CAT was used in the context of interpersonal communication as it explores the relationship between people and their motivation to show friendliness and admiration or the opposite (Soliz & Giles, 2014). The theory was then broadened in the intergroup context—the interaction between people with different social identities (e.g., different ethnic groups, gender, professions etc.). Taking the example of gender, men and women often communicate using speech patterns of their own gender in order to show liking for each other. For example, men use deeper pitch and more assertive gestures, whereas women soften and raise their pitch and use less assertive communication (Gallois & Giles, 2015). In terms of intergroup or interethnic communication, CAT seems to be highly appropriate to use in the field of intercultural communication. Back in 1973, Giles was already predicting the impact of convergence and divergence in the context of English-Welsh interaction. It was found that when faced with an exaggerated English accent speaker, the Welsh participants diverged their language by broadening their Welsh accents.

However, Gallois and Giles (2015) argue that the approach of CAT researchers and intercultural communication researchers is different—“whereas the latter emphasized intercultural communication competence and short-term interactions by sojourners and immigrants, CAT researchers are more likely to concentrate on long-standing intergroup context, where communication skills are less important than intergroup attitudes” (p.12). However, whatever short or long-term interactions are focused on, the importance of communication accommodation in intercultural communication cannot be neglected. After all, intercultural communication is a way of interpersonal communication. As Gallois and Giles pointed out, “if we like or admire someone, we can overcome a negative intergroup history and converse with the person as an individual” (2015, p. 6). Such positive attitudes and motivation are signaled by accommodation behaviour. Using other person’s language, style, accent or paying attention to the person’s needs and desires in the conversation could certainly demonstrate the high intercultural competence of the speaker. That might be the key for successful intercultural communication.

Along with the communication accommodation theory, Samovar, McDaniel and Roy (2015) propose several considerations for the native speaker while interacting with a non- native speaker such as adjusting their speech rate, vocabulary and monitoring non-verbal feedback. Crowther and his colleagues’ (2000) paper on “internationalisation at home” also recognises that the home student can and should take an equal place in the international learning community without leaving home and that this entails the development of sensitivities, skills and abilities just as complex as those deployed by students studying outside their home culture. However, the literature does not show how these techniques or policies could be applied into classroom setting. In all, previous studies of ICC competence have mainly employed individually focused measures of competence with an emphasis on sojourners’ competence alone (Imahori & Lanigan, 1989). It seems there is a gap in the

literature and there is a need to explore the development of intercultural competence from the perspective of home students.