A brief history of early L2 motivation theory

The earliest attempts at a unified model followed a top-down approach in the sense that they examined L2 motivation from a socio-psychological point of view, focusing on the general characteristics of the society where language learning takes place. This line of investigation, however, failed to account for the influence of the immediate learning environment. Nor, as this dissertation argues, did it address issues raised by the growing global presence of English, thus inviting revision from both an individual-oriented perspective and a holistic one. The two subsequent phases of motivational theories arose from these two incentives respectively. My view is that in order to fully understand motivation, this powerful force that directs learner’s choices, strengthens their resolve and guides them through the tedious process of language learning, all three aspects must be taken into account.

In their introductory chapter to a volume covering the most influential orientations in L2 motivation research over a decade, Dörnyei and Ushioda (2009) elaborate on a number of novel

perspectives. Among other questions concerning the reconceptualization of language learning motivation, they ask, for instance, whether the concept of identity can be applied to provide satisfactory explanations to long-investigated motivational phenomena. I believe that the answer lies partly in thorough examination of previous and existing theoretical perspectives as well as thoughtful consideration of contemporary research findings. While the present study demonstrates the importance of extensive empirical investigation into the particularities of specific local contexts, no such project can be carried out without sound theoretical foundations. Arguably, L2 motivation constitutes a special field as regards its theoretical heritage, as it boasts a long history of continuity and perpetual development.

2.2.2.1 The socio-educational model

Modern L2 motivation research originates from 1959, when a group of Canadian researchers conducted a series of studies on learners’ cognitive characteristics, attitudes and motivation in order to investigate correlations with performance (Gardner & Lambert, 1959). Their final paper, published in 1972 (Gardner & Lambert, 1972), was a decisive reference in the field during the next two decades, and the subsequent model developed by Robert Gardner and his associates has been considered influential ever since. The report established motivation as a factor worthy of investigation in its own right and a predictor of achievement equally powerful as aptitude. Although later developments in SL motivation research rendered the reliability of the Canadian findings questionable in many contexts, their importance has never been disregarded.

The pioneer nature of these studies lay in the fact that they examined SL motivation from a socio-psychological point of view, putting special emphasis on the learning environment as a contributor to the learning outcome. Gardner’s original socio-educational model (Gardner, 1985) is centered on the construct of integrativeness, or integrative motivation, as the principal inspiration behind motivated learning behavior. Integrativeness denotes the wish to learn a language in order to facilitate integration into the target community, which, as Gardner (2006) later explains, is not so dissimilar from a child’s intention to learn the language spoken by the parents. In the case of the Canadian studies, this target language (TL) community was very much physically present, since English mother tongue learners of French had daily contact with the French-speaking community. While it easy to see that the fact that the model was based in such a peculiar bilingual learning context might have stood in the way of generalizability, it

took scholars the better part of two decades to voice their concerns and initiate a shift in paradigm.

Nonetheless, although their definitions and applications have changed, several of the concepts introduced in the socio-educational model are still influential today. Integrativeness is only one of these notions, albeit it is undoubtedly the most often cited and discussed. The subject of a series of theoretical discussions questioning its power in learning situations different from the Canadian one, integrative orientation can be considered, nevertheless, an intriguing instance of identification. MacIntyre et al. (2009) highlight the fundamentally human aspect of the construct, which made Gardner’s model stand out in its time and point further than traditional laboratory-oriented theorizing. Whether examined in its strong form (aspiration to complete identification with and integration into the target community) or its weak variety (positive attitudes toward the language and a sense of affiliation with its speakers) (Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2009), it inevitably involves a change in one’s self concept. And it is exactly this aspect of the construct that prompted theorists in the early years of the twenty-first century to reconsider integrativeness.

The other key concept that has since been studied from various perspectives is instrumentality.

As Dörnyei (2010) argues, later theoretical considerations regarding instrumentality have been falsely attributed to Gardner’s original model. Despite the fact that Gardner merely mentions the construct in his 1985 book, it has nevertheless been regarded as part of his famed legacy.

Instrumentality refers to the perception learners have of the usefulness of the target language from various aspects. While integrativeness has been the target of much debate, instrumentality has enjoyed more acceptance and has been studied by researchers from different theoretical backgrounds (cf. Csizér & Dörnyei, 2005).

In addition, already in the earliest description of the model Gardner pointed out the importance of affective variables, such as learners’ attitudes toward the target community and the learning process, and their innate desire to learn the language (1985). I will consider this last, as a direct reference to the intrinsic dimension, in more detail in the last section of this chapter. It is important to note that these factors have maintained their relevance over the successive phases of language learning motivation research even though other aspects of the theory were challenged by later developments in the field.

2.2.2.2 Cognitive-situated theories

The first of these challenges came in the form of what is known as the cognitive revolution in SLA research. In the early 1990s many authors argued that the socio-psychological approach, introduced by Gardner and his colleagues, did not provide satisfactory explanations and that alternative directions were to be explored in order to enlarge the scope of inquiry and the generalizability of the findings (for an overview see Dörnyei, 2005). Ushioda and Dörnyei (2012) explain in their discussion of the period that this shift toward cognitive perspectives was mainly a result of new developments in mainstream motivational psychology (cf. Dörnyei, 1998). Nevertheless, the more apparent novelty that characterized the studies of the cognitive-situated era, from a theoretical perspective, was the emphasis on the immediate learning context, for instance the classroom, instead of the larger social environment. Dörnyei (1998) highlights the importance of the fact that these studies did not reject the claims of the socio-educational model, but aimed instead at investigating the elements that arouse motivation instead of focusing on the direction of motivation once aroused, lending special significance to the educational situation in which the learning takes place.

This approach allowed for a more generalizable view of L2 motivation, where the notion stood for both second and foreign language contexts, but with more attention dedicated to the latter.

The introduction of the L2 concept, a language acquired later than one’s mother tongue, removed the requirement for the presence of an easily distinguishable target community, thus bringing L2 motivation research in line with modern socio-cultural and ethno-linguistic trends.

While the socio-educational model primarily targeted second language (SL) contexts, where, similarly to Canada, the language in question is accorded a certain level of official status, the global spread of English created an abundance of L2 contexts with dim boundaries and foreign language learners beyond the number of SL or L1 speakers (Graddol, 2006).

To address these issues, cognitive-situated research proposed to investigate different instructional contexts, in the most varied geographical locations, especially where a distinct target language group was only vaguely characterizable or altogether non-existent.

Furthermore, the shift of perspective away from the macro level meant that the investigation of the learning environment became key to understanding learners’ motives. An essential consequence of these new developments was the emergence of novel elements so far unaccounted for in motivation theories.

One such notion was the dynamic nature of motivation, which, at the time, manifested itself in situation- and task-specific considerations. Situation-related motives became central to models

that relied on the specifics of the language learning context to account for differences in the level and composition of learners’ motivation. This meant that the flow motivation, closely linked to the learning experience, could be further analyzed, rendering the conclusions of L2 motivation research more easily accessible to teachers and at the same time more worthy of their attention. As Oxford and Shearin explain, understanding ‘the source of motivation is very important in a practical sense to teachers who want to stimulate students' motivation’ (1994, as cited in Dörnyei, 1998). Therefore, it is thanks to this wave of studies that the need for practical considerations was born and became a fundamental requirement of L2 motivational research.

As important as this shift in focus was in the history of L2 motivation theory, so was the emergence of standardized quantitative tools in mainstream research practice. Similarly to some theoretical perspectives, borrowed from contemporary psychology, the data collection methods of the period became instrumental in the development of motivation research.

Accordingly, the principal conclusions of the cognitive-situated era emerged through large-scale research projects conducted in a number of countries both in and outside of Europe (Dörnyei, 1998).

One particular series of studies, which later became the definition of these standards, relates the findings of a longitudinal nation-wide survey of Hungarian primary school students. The final paper (Dörnyei & Csizér, 2002) addressed issues relevant to the situated paradigm, focusing on learners’ attitudes and preferences as regards the five target languages: English, German, French, Italian and Russian, as well as regional, age- or gender-specific variation. The research investigated motivation both from a static and dynamic point of view, applying language choice and intended effort as criterion measures, while learners’ motivational profiles (i.e. snapshots of their momentary disposition) were established through multivariate analysis of a complex set of variables. Thus, it not only provided a link with earlier theories in the form of a cross-sectional, almost static, view of motivation, but the project also conformed to the multi-stage definition of motivation as proposed by later theorists (cf. Dörnyei, 1998) and cited earlier. The longitudinal method employed supported the latter approach, while it also enabled the researchers to access instantaneous data contributing to the above mentioned cross-sectional perspective of motivation.

Interestingly, one of the motivational dimensions included in the analysis was integrativeness,

“a general positive outlook on the L2 and its culture, to the extent that learners (…) would like to become similar to the L2 speakers” (Dörnyei & Csizér, 2002), indicating theoretical

continuity with Gardner’s model, even though respondents’ contact with the L2 community in this case was of a different nature than in the Canadian studies. Instrumentality, the pragmatic benefits associated with the language, was another of the factors examined, as was direct contact, cultural interest and vitality of the L2 community, which last essentially denotes the perceived financial and cultural power attributed to the speakers. Milieu and linguistic self-confidence emerged through factor analysis and accounted for the role of the immediate social environment and learners’ level of anxiety respectively.

Thus the Hungarian study played an important role in synthetizing formerly influential motivational constructs with a new set of variables, building on the rich heritage of motivation theory on the one hand, and forecasting the coming paradigm shift on the other. From a theoretical point of view this change manifested in the widening range of variables included in the analysis, while, from a methodological view, the project relied on thorough statistical analysis of the quantitative data obtained, conforming to contemporary trends in psychological research.

Table 2.1 Correlations between independent variables and intended effort (Dörnyei & Csizér, 2002)

* p = .001

Based on the correlational results the study concluded that the strength of integrativeness as a predictor of language choice gradually diminished in the case of English over time, while the figures in Table 2.1 indicated that the construct remained a prevalent factor in influencing the actual effort learners were willing to invest in learning the language. Besides integrativeness, instrumentality and direct contact were shown to have an impact on learners’ initial motivation.

However, an integrative disposition overtook the role of direct contact in every subset of data, which showed that in FL contexts learners’ attitudes were a stronger driving force than firsthand experience. Gardner’s (2001) extended model refers to this type of integrative

disposition as a general openness to the L2 community, and even to other language groups, which notion foreshadowed the research directions of the next decade and hinted at a potential broadening of the theoretical horizon. The question that these results raise is how the discrepancy between the importance of the integrative dimension prior and during language learning can be explained. The authors claim that participants’ initial decision might have been influenced by the growing relevance of English in various contexts, while one can also hypothesize that continued involvement in learning promotes certain cultural aspects related to the language. On the other hand, the striking strength of L2 speaker vitality and the marked significance of integrative tendencies prompted the authors to reconsider the pertinence of the Gardnerian definition in settings such as the Hungarian one.

Considering the sociolinguistic context of the Hungarian study, integrativeness found by Dörnyei and his colleagues (2006) undoubtedly differs from that observed in Canada (Gardner, 1985) due to the contrast in the distance and accessibility of the L2 community. Since Hungarians lack the same L2 experiences Canadian learners possess and their prospects of any physical integration are insignificant, the distinct presence and apparent power of an integrative element required further theoretical consideration in order to account for the consistent albeit unexpected appearance of the phenomenon.

Moreover, these intriguingly similar results achieved in the two countries clearly highlight a need for change in perspective, since they indicated that differences in the learning situation alone could not account for motivational levels. The potential key to the interpretation of such results, however, was soon proposed in the form of approaching the data through the notion of the learner’s self concept. An attempt at redefining integrativeness thus implied a broadening of its definition in order to permit a wider field of application, which transformed integration from a willingness to become part of a community into accommodating some of the characteristics of that group in one’s identity. Dörnyei and Csizér argued that ‘the motivation dimension captured by the term is not so much related to any actual, or metaphorical, integration into an L2 community as to some more basic identification process within the individual’s self concept” (2002, author’s formatting).

The developments in L2 motivation theory that unfolded due to the Hungarian findings aimed further delineating such an identification process and its results. Considering that process as the drive behind motivated learning behavior, new theories also started to move away from a static image of motivation toward a dynamic view, in quest of a flexible framework that would

allow not only for differences in context but also for the ebbs and flows of motivation throughout the learning process. In addition, questions related to the characteristics, and indeed the existence, of a particular target L2 group at which learners’ attitudes could be directed were the basis of the next stage of research in language learning motivation. Therefore, with this new wave of theories theorization of the internal-external dichotomy underwent considerable changes. Motives traditionally regarded as external influences maintained their source of origin, however as motivational factors were hypothesized to undergo certain filtering through learners’ self concept or identity. As a consequence, the formerly strictly intrinsic dimension became enriched with internalized motives, which, nonetheless, constituted important and influential aspects of the self – the prime source of motivation according to the novel approach.

2.2.2.3 Toward dynamic approaches to motivation

As the above overview of the first two phases of L2 motivation theory illustrates, while perspectives have changed in order to accommodate theoretical developments and new directions of investigation, a continuity can be observed as regards fundamental research paradigms. The cognitive theories of the early 1990s addressed the need to adjust the conceptualization of the constructs introduced by Gardner’s (1985) model to the emergence of new socio-cultural and ethno-linguistic trends as well as the notable revival of foreign language education (c.f Dörnyei, 1998; Graddol, 2006). Moreover, whereas the original socio-educational model was designed to explain a top-down process, where powerful motives, encompassing several factors each, provide an explanation for learning effort, the studies in this second phase of motivation research applied a more flexible method. Their findings (cf.

Dörnyei & Clément, 2001; Dörnyei & Csizér, 2002; Dörnyei et al., 2006; Warden & Lin, 2000) revealed a complex set of individual factors that could either be grouped together under the motives identified earlier or were shown to interact with those motives in addition to the extensive links between said factors. The orientation and strength of these relations, in turn, can account for the differences among the learning contexts examined.

This shift of perspective toward individual personality traits and the particularities of the learning situation proved to be an important step in the direction of establishing a unified model that can explain learners’ motivation regardless of their socio-cultural and regional background or the educational context. Such a model, however, would have to accommodate a dynamic view, to take into account the ebbs and flows of motivational drives throughout the learning process and from one situation to another. Therefore, a flexible set of key variables would be

needed, which would allow for free interaction of a larger plethora of subordinate factors.

Similarly to previous developments in the field, a potential model emerged, among others, as a result of thorough examination of extensive survey data.

In their final report of the extended longitudinal study discussed earlier Dörnyei et al (2006) submitted the data obtained in three stages, from 1993 to 2004, to structural equation modeling (SEM). The results of this complex statistical procedure revealed not only the correlations among the different variables but the way they could be organized to form a composite model.

With language choice as the dependent variable, the researchers aimed to explain the links among various factors and how their collective force influences learners’ decision to learn a particular language. Interestingly, although completely in line with former research, they found that integration, along with attitudes, was by far the prime predictor of language choice. This, as Dörnyei later explains, “did not make much theoretical sense” (2010). Given the complete lack of substantial target communities that the learners of these languages could integrate into, integration seemed an odd concept in the Hungarian linguistic environment, unaccounted for by the arguments offered by either socio-educational or cognitive-situated theories.

These findings called for new theoretical explanations and urged Dörnyei and his team to reconsider the meaning of integrativeness. On the basis of the data, one option is to conclude

These findings called for new theoretical explanations and urged Dörnyei and his team to reconsider the meaning of integrativeness. On the basis of the data, one option is to conclude