The theoretical foundation of the new analysis is communication accommodation theory, or CAT, the framework Giles and colleagues developed over more than fifty years and which is widely regarded as the most robust account of how people align—or fail to align—their speech with others in interpersonal and intergroup contexts. CAT holds that accommodation is a ubiquitous feature of social interaction serving two goals: keeping exchanges coherent and managing social distance. Speakers calibrate their adjustments according to motivation, ability, and expectations about what counts as situationally appropriate behavior, expectations shaped by sociohistorical context, interpersonal histories, and idiosyncratic preferences. Crucially, the theory’s sixth principle states that when accommodation is poorly calibrated—including being over-accommodative—it produces negative cognitive and affective outcomes: increased social distance, dissatisfaction, reduced mutual understanding, and a cascade of misattributions and communication failures.

Yet communicative adjustments, the authors emphasize, carry no inherent value. The same behavior—speaking more slowly, adopting an exaggerated affective tone—can be measured objectively, but its social meaning depends entirely on how interlocutors appraise it. One recipient may hear consideration; another may hear paternalism. Viladot and Giles argue that this appraisal hinges on who is speaking, to whom, in what situation, within what relationship, with what intentions attributed to the speaker, and inside what institutional and social framework. To sharpen the analysis, they distinguish conceptually between levels often homogenized in the literature: elderspeak as a discursive practice of simplified, infantilizing speech; paternalism as a relational dynamic that limits or substitutes a person’s autonomy under the justification of care; individual ageism as interpersonal stereotyping and assumptions of incompetence; and institutional ageism as structural discrimination embedded in services and policies, such as digital-only banking systems that exclude by design.

The empirical record on patronizing talk in institutional settings has consistently linked such communication to negative outcomes, including resistance to care, irritation, and reduced cooperation among older recipients. Training interventions aimed at reducing infantilizing language among younger people and healthcare professionals have demonstrated significant improvements in interaction quality and residents’ wellbeing. But much of this evidence derives from experimental and vignette-based designs with well-known methodological limitations, including social desirability and moral bias. Participants in such studies may respond not as they would actually behave but in accordance with normative judgments about what is socially appropriate—particularly when scenarios depict clearly inappropriate communication, potentially overrepresenting critical responses. These approaches, the authors contend, do not capture how overaccommodation is produced and interpreted in natural everyday interaction, nor how recipients respond in context.

Indeed, several studies indicate that certain forms of communicative adjustment associated with patronizing talk may be perceived positively under specific conditions—particularly when recipients interpret the behavior as communicatively suboptimal but well-intentioned. A qualitative study by Pierquet based on interviews with older adults found that participants identified as paternalistic those forms of communication that ignored their desires, needs, or beliefs, beyond the presence of specific linguistic features. Grammatical simplification, basic vocabulary, or exaggerated intonation may contribute to the perception of paternalism, but they are not a necessary condition for it. Potentially paternalistic behaviors may instead be read as attempts to help or facilitate interaction when benevolent intentions are attributed to them. Notably, the more effort older adults perceive in a speaker’s adaptation—even over-adaptation—of speech, the more positively they tend to evaluate it, particularly in intercultural encounters where such effort may signal respect or willingness to understand.

Here the article makes its most striking theoretical move: the first integration of system justification theory, SJT, with CAT. SJT, formulated by John Jost and Mahzarin Banaji in 1994, rests on a counterintuitive proposition: people do not only protect their self-esteem or favor their ingroup; they also tend to defend and legitimize the social system in which they live, even when that system is unequal or places them at a disadvantage. The theory distinguishes the system justification motive from ego justification, maintaining a positive self-image, and group justification, favoring one’s in-group, because it is oriented toward defending the social order itself. This motive is grounded in epistemic needs for order, coherence, and predictability; existential needs for security and reduced uncertainty; and relational needs to share a common understanding of reality with others. When individuals experience tension between perceived inequality and the need for a stable social world, cognitive dissonance emerges—and according to SJT, the response that frequently prevails is not to challenge the system but to reinterpret reality in ways that render it more coherent and acceptable.

Applied to intergenerational communication, this framework explains the gap between evaluation and acceptance that CAT alone cannot fully account for. Recipients may experience discomfort or perceive communicative practices as suboptimal while nevertheless accepting them, leaving them unchallenged, or interpreting them as appropriate within the interactional context. Assumptions circulate that it is normal to speak more slowly to older adults, that protective communication reflects respect and consideration, and that professionals are better positioned than others to determine what older patients need. Recipients may avoid confronting paternalistic communication to preserve relational harmony or avoid interactional costs. Under these conditions, certain forms of overaccommodation gradually come to be regarded as ordinary, appropriate, or expected. The authors propose a fine-grained distinction between affective evaluation, cognitive interpretation, behavioral response, and normative acceptance—showing how recipients may negatively evaluate communicative practices while simultaneously interpreting them as well-intentioned, leaving them unchallenged, or accepting them as socially legitimate.

The article then articulates this dissociation across three interconnected levels. At the micro level, recipients interpret language behaviors not merely in formal terms but in relation to the need to maintain a coherent, legitimate, and predictable representation of the social world; accepting overaccommodation as well-intentioned may serve functions of psychological regulation, reducing the dissonance that would arise from perceiving it as unjust or degrading, particularly when it is widely normalized. At the meso level, individual interpretations are embedded within networks of social norms that define what is considered communicatively appropriate in intergenerational contexts; from the perspective of SJT, these normative frameworks may be internalized and perceived as legitimate by the very individuals subject to them, so that their reproduction depends not only on external imposition but on processes of internal legitimation. At the macro level, overaccommodation may incorporate a broader status-regulatory function: practices such as anticipating needs, speaking on behalf of older adults, or redefining their capacities may contribute, not necessarily intentionally, to displacing older adults from positions of autonomy, authority, or social relevance. These levels operate through continuous feedback rather than linear causation, with repeated enactment of accepted communicative practices consolidating normative expectations and reproducing the age system.

Qualitative evidence supports this integrated reading. A meta-synthesis of healthcare professionals’ experiences found that patronizing communication is frequently enacted with caring intentions to facilitate care delivery, cooperation, and organizational routines, while simultaneously risking the erosion of older adults’ autonomy and personhood. Rather than describing elderspeak as a deliberate expression of ageism, professionals portray it as a communicative resource that facilitates care and organizational efficiency despite acknowledging its potential impact on residents’ dignity. The authors also note that these processes vary across structural contexts: the relationship between age and subjective wellbeing differs across countries and cohorts, and it is plausible that in contexts with higher levels of resources, autonomy, and social recognition of older adults, tolerance of overaccommodation is lower, whereas in more precarious settings such practices may be more easily legitimized and normalized.

The analysis carries implications that extend well beyond the nursing home. Age does not operate in isolation but intersects with other axes of inequality: older women tend to disappear earlier from the public sphere and are more rapidly infantilized than men, while older men may be perceived as less credible than middle-aged men, and studies show older men and women are evaluated differently when they challenge paternalistic stereotypes. The authors propose a modification to CAT’s sixth principle: when poorly calibrated overaccommodation is inferred by recipients to be motivated by compassionate or well-intended motives and is construed as normative and legitimate in the social system at hand, it may cause some communicative discomfort but can be accepted and lead to non-confrontational avoidance. Because elderspeak appears embedded in organizational cultures and everyday care routines, interventions should promote institutional reflection, person-centered communication, and organizational support for healthcare professionals if sustainable change is to be achieved. Intervening in communicative practices, recent work suggests, contributes not only to improving the quality of intergenerational interactions but also, gradually, to transforming social norms related to age. Understanding overaccommodation as a space in which evaluation and acceptance may diverge, the authors conclude, offers a key entry point for examining how age-based inequalities are subtly reproduced—and how, ultimately, they may be transformed.

Subject of Research: Psychology

Article Title: Overaccommodating language toward older adults: an interpretation based on theories of communication accommodation and system justification

Article References: Viladot, M. À., & Giles, H. (2026). Overaccommodating language toward older adults: an interpretation based on theories of communication accommodation and system justification. Frontiers in Language Sciences, 5, Article 1880735. https://doi.org/10.3389/flang.2026.1880735

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.3389/flang.2026.1880735

Keywords: elderspeak, communication accommodation theory, system justification theory, ageism, intergenerational communication, patronizing talk, overaccommodation, aging, social norms, psycholinguistics, Overaccommodating, language