In 2015 march, there was an educational experience at the British Bohunt School. Five Chinese teachers teach a temporary class of 50 students in Grade Three. Students were taught six subjects: mathematics, chemistry, ethics, English, Mandarin, and physical education. At the end of the four-week experiment, the Chinese class and the English class took the same exam to see the average score of three subjects (mathematics, chemistry, and Mandarin). Finally, the average score of every subject is higher than in the English classes, particularly mathematics has obvious advantages. 

In addition, the teachers who reprimanded the student and took away the kettle made him confused. The Chinese teacher may diverge from the boy, because of the different linguistic styles and cultural consensus rather than speak at high speed or with a lisp. The boy did not know why the teacher did that and how to respond to her. Therefore, the cognitive motive would be motivated. The reason is that communicative adjustment could be motivated by the desire to improve the efficiency of communication and adjust comprehension (Thakerar et al., 1982). Based on the same cognitive motive, the same linguistic style would improve the efficiency of communication and increase comprehension (Dragojevic et al., 2016).
In this case, we discuss marginalization and cognitive motive from the perspective of both teacher and student. When marginalization happens in a relationship, people would build cognitive motives and motivate accommodation theory to improve the efficiency of communication.

In this scenario, the Chinese teacher imposes herself as an authority position with higher power in the classroom to lead students. Her anger shows students’ reactions do not meet her expectation to be quiet in the class. It is a dynamic process to show the power from her request to ask students to be quiet and then she displays her anger to students. But the students assume themselves as active learners to behave against the teacher which shows they are rejecting the teacher’s imposed positioning and assert their own type of power in defining the teaching method.

The power structure can be analysed by the discourse analysis caused by cultural differences of participants in the interaction. They both have their own cultural norms and cause misunderstanding (Fairclough, 1989). So the teacher feels she is not being respected and the students feel over strict. There is also the negotiation of identities occurring in this context while the teacher finds her cultural and professional identity is questioned in the new culture and the students might question their previous norms of the educational system (Debray & Spencer-Oatey, 2019).

Rapport management refers to the strategic communication and interpersonal skills employed to establish and maintain positive, trust-based relationships between individuals. It involves active listening, empathy, and adaptability to foster connections and facilitate effective interactions in various contexts, such as business, therapy, or personal relationships (Spencer, 2010).

In this case, we discuss social rights and obligations in revisiting rapport management from the perspective of the teacher and the student, respectively. Revisiting rapport is that people generally have some social rights according to their social rights. Behavior and then expect a response from the other person.

From the perspective of the tea-making student, culturally speaking, according to Spencer (2008), we feel offended, uncomfortable, and even angry when someone tries to force us to do something that we feel he has no right to ask. Out of this mentality, the student felt that his actions, such as being criticized in public as a student and having his kettle confiscated, had somehow devalued him. This made him angry and disgraced (Spencer, 2008), leading to his decision to leave the classroom.

From the maths teacher's perspective, why did the teacher confront the tea-brewing student so strongly? The class was disrespectful, with students not listening, using their phones, and playing cards. The confiscation of the student's water bottle triggered the teacher's outburst. These behaviors threatened the teacher, challenged his competence, and, to some extent, affected his professional image (Spencer, 2008). In a public setting, the tea-brewing student's decision to leave the classroom challenged the teacher's social rights, as noted by Spencer (2008).

Dragojevic, M., Gasiorek, J., & Giles, H. (2016). Accommodative strategies as core of the theory. Communication accommodation theory: Negotiating personal relationships and social identities across contexts, 1(1), 36-59.

Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. Longma.

Holmes, J., & Riddiford, N. (2009). Talk at work: Interactional challenges for immigrants. Language for professional communication: Research, practice and training, 217-234.

Moody, S. J. (2019). Interculturality as social capital at work: The case of disagreements in American-Japanese interaction. Language in Society, 48(3), 377-402.

Spencer Oatey, H. (2008). Face, (im)politeness and rapport. In Culturally Speaking: Culture, Communication and Politeness Theory (pp. 11–47). Bloomsbury.

Thakerar, J. N., Giles, H., & Cheshire, J. (1982). Psychological and linguistic parameters of speech accommodation theory. Advances in the social psychology of language, 205, 205-255.

Van Langenhove, L., & Harré, R. (1999). Introducing positioning theory. In R. Harré & L. van Langenhove (Eds.), Positioning theory: Moral contexts of intentional action (pp. 14–31). Blackwell.