An Evaluation of the Aramaic and Greek Language Criteria... 47 apparently indignant attitude and antagonistic response of Jesus when dealing with the Pharisees and the teachers of the law in contrast to his own disciples and the public may signal the way he wanted various social groups to view him (see Matthew 9, 23). People also switch codes because they want to accommodate themselves to the expectation that others have of them, the needs of their audience, or the social norm of a community53. Street and Giles’s Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT)54 explores some of the cognitive reasons for code-switching during social interaction and observes that language users have the normal tendency to either converge or diverge their speech to that of their conversation partners depending on what they want to achieve in a social situation55. A convergence behavior happens when a person sacrifices something to gain social approval56. Alternatively, a divergence behavior occurs when one wants to be judged negatively, and the behavior is seen to be breaking away from the group’s behavior57. An obvious example of such convergent and divergent behaviors can be seen in Jesus’ apparently antagonistic at- titude to the Pharisees which may indicate that he wanted to dissociate from their group by refusing accommodate to them in any manner (e.g. Luke 20,1-8; Matt 21,23-27; Mark 11:27-33). From these principles, it can be seen that code-switching not only shows one to be a cooperative person, but it also reduces possibilities of situational conflicts58. 53 See Finlayson ‒ Slabbert, “‘I’ll Meet You Half-Way with Language’”, in M. Pütz, Lan- guage Choices: Conditions, Constraints, and Consequences (Philadelphia 1997) 381-421. 54 Accommodation Theory was developed by Howard Giles in the 1970s. For further reading of Giles, see H. Giles ‒ R. Street, “Speech Accommodation Theory: A Social Cogni- tive Approach to Language and Speech Behavior”, in M.E. Roloff ‒ C.R. Berger (eds.), Social Cognition and Communication (Beverly Hills 1982) 193-226; Giles ‒ Coupland, Language, 60-92; H. Giles ‒ P.F. Powesland, Speech Style and Social Evaluation (London 1975). 55 Giles ‒ Coupland, Language, 60-1; cf. R.B. Le Page, “The Evolution of a Sociolinguistic Theory of Language”, in F. Coulmas (ed.), The Handbook of Sociolinguistics (Oxford 1997) 28. 56 Evidence for people’s motivations in “converging” to another group is convincing within the domain of language and dialect choice. On language and dialect assimilation of immigrant groups in foreign dominant cultures, see J.A. Fishman, Language Loyalty in the United States: The Maintenance and Perpetuation of Non-English Mother Tongues by American Ethnic and Religious Groups (The Hague 1966); D.M. Taylor ‒ L.M. Simard ‒ D. Papineau, “Perceptions of Cultural Differences and Language Use: A Field Study in a Bilingual Environment”, Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science 10 (1978) 181-191. 57 Wardhaugh, An Introduction to Sociolinguistics, 114; cf. Holmes, An Introduction to Sociolinguistics, 232-33. For a list of the types of situations where people accentuate their differences between themselves and others, see Street and Giles, “Speech Accommodation Theory”, 208. 58 Finlayson ‒ Calteaux ‒ Myers-Scotton, “Orderly Mixing and Accommodation”, 417.