Alternative dynamic theories

Ushioda’s (2009) person-in-context model approaches language learning motivation from a slightly different angle from the theories discussed so far. While Dörnyei’s self system (2005, 2009) examines the learner as an actor in a particular learning situation and social milieu,

Ushioda centralizes her conceptualization of motivation on the learner as individual acting in the context (2009). In her model the learner is considered, in addition to his or her learning activity, a complex human being with all the influences that implies. Ushioda criticizes the socio-educational model, arguing that it accommodates social factors merely in the form of social attitudes and to a very limited extent (ibid.). Moreover, the use of self-report data further complicates the achievement of decisive conclusions concerning multi-actor processes at the societal level. She makes a similar point regarding cognitive-situated approaches, since whereas the period put more emphasis on the micro-context of the classroom, it likewise made use of interviews and questionnaire data, which are highly inappropriate for the scientific examination of the learning situation. Furthermore, the analysis of self-report findings is problematic, she claims, because it presents the impact of the context on the individual through learners’ perceptions, while Ushioda (2009) proposes the learner as the focus of her model, investigating the influence of the person on the context. She nonetheless concedes that the dynamic nature of motivation implies that its mechanism is not context-independent. However, along the same lines, participation in the context is also dynamic and influential. Interestingly, from an identity perspective, Ushioda (ibid.) displays revolutionary thinking in the field of L2 motivation when she argues that country-level generalizations oversimplify the context and therefore it needs to be analyzed at a local level. She also favors a multi-framework view of motivation, a relational approach as opposed to linear, which relies on the socio-educational model to identify variables that, unlike cognitive factors, might be affected by the educational context. Therefore, a more intricate model permits the observation of the learner as a complex personality, and to go beyond the limitations of psycholinguistic factors in order to accommodate broader motives in a holistic view, centered around the learner.

The notion of imagined communities constitutes another direction in language learning motivation research that might offer additional insights toward the reinterpretation of the integrative motive (Gardner, 1985) in today’s globalized world. Since for learners of English the global community remains more imagined than real (Lamb, 2009), and, as Pavlenko and Norton (2007) state, the postmodern learning environment undoubtedly transcends the classroom, and, in certain cases, the community of engagement. The importance of such a claim becomes evident upon consideration of the findings mooted earlier, since it might account for integrative dispositions found in FL contexts. The authors explain that through imagination, a natural human trait, learners can see farther than their immediate social networks. Pavlenko and Norton (2007) link the phenomenon to the concept of possible selves, arguing that

imaginary membership influences L2 motivation to the same extent as physically present communities do, with a potential to contribute to learners’ self-concepts. In order to understand this reasoning, it is enough to consider learners’ insistence on the importance of one language or another in a foreign language context, without any real contact with speakers or any hope of traditionally defined integration. As I claimed earlier, this attachment, whether the result of practical or emotional drives, might stem from a wide range of convictions, specific to the particular context but not necessarily reflecting reality. Nevertheless, L2 competence was shown to form an essential part of these learners’ future self, thus supporting claims regarding both identity creation and the motivating power of self-images. As McIntyre et al (2009) explain, by painting a vivid picture of a contact situation, relying on her imagination, the learner interviewed was able to benefit from this experience both in terms of L2 development and as a motivational drive. Imagination certainly provides an affective link to language learning, however, perhaps more importantly, it also helps integrate the L2 element into the learner’s self-concept, which, as I argued, leads to the attainment of higher levels of performance.

On the other hand, it is important to note that, despite learners’ positive attitudes toward English, certain concerns persist as to the dangers its status might provoke. While theorists from very disparate backgrounds continue to voice fears similar to those put forth by Crystal (2000) at the turn of the century, claiming that official languages might come to be displaced by English, in retrospect it can be concluded that in many FL context this is not the case.

Pavlenko and Norton (2007) argue that, even in other forms of multilingualism, where English enjoys a definitely more physical presence, target language use remains subject to personal, ethnic and other aspects of speaker identity. Taking this argument further, I propose that in foreign language environments with little L2 contact, self-expression in the L2 might play an even more important role, due to the lack of pressure to conform to the ideals of a distinctive target group. In these contexts, expressing oneself in the L2, therefore, can be interpreted at a much larger scale, referring not only to lending voice to one’s opinions and views but doing so in a way that reflects one’s identity, with all its inherent elements. I maintain that the image today’s language learner wishes to communicate to the world truly comprises of a local, or L1 specific, element, among the many components that make up the complicated structure of learner identity. Thus, the notion of bicultural identity (cf. Dörnyei, 2009), also discussed above, may shed more light on the phenomenon and offer a more modern approach to the question of identity in FL contexts of the twenty-first century.

Ushioda’s (2009) conclusions regarding the importance of contextual factors in language learning also signaled in new, more contextually sensitive approaches to L2 motivation. A series of studies collected into a volume by Dörnyei and colleagues (2015) explored language learning from a dynamic systems perspective. Dynamic Systems Theory (DST; de Bot, Lowie

& Verspoor, 2007; Larsen-Freeman, 2002), originally a theory of mathematics, can be applied to language learning and provides further insight into the mechanics of learning processes as components of the ecosystem surrounding learners. In order to do so, two main axioms of the theory need to be observed, namely that the contexts surrounding language learners are in constant flux and interaction and that individuals are not only influenced by these spheres and their interplay but also have an active role in shaping both.

De Bot et al. (2007) state that “language can be seen as a dynamic system, i.e. a set of variables that interact over time”, supported by historical perspectives on the relationship between languages and speakers. Secondly, they point out that “language development shows some of the core characteristics of dynamic systems: sensitive dependence on initial conditions, complete interconnectedness of subsystems, the emergence of attractor states in development over time and variation both in and among individuals”. These characteristics further underline two important aspects of L2 learning. On the one hand, they emphasize the interrelatedness of the multitude of contexts that learners interact with, while, on the other, they accord motivated learning behavior, as an attractor state, special importance.

DST offers a more comprehensive view of L2 motivation, but it also presents researchers with a number of challenges. First of all, as MacIntyre et al. (2015) point out, the lack of an established terminology renders some of the concepts of the theory difficult to capture in SLA terms. For instance, they voice concerns about the difficulty of researching attractor states as a motivational phenomenon. These states represent sets of conditions into which the system settles for a length of time, such as learners might settle into a period of motivated learning.

However, as these authors explain, elements of attractor states cannot be easily translated into variables and are therefore hard to measure through traditional research methods. Secondly, the dynamic nature of language learning as a system indicates that it is continually in motion, which means that the method of investigation has to be designed to take these constant changes into account.

While further refinement of both theory and research methods is needed so as to make the DST approach accessible to mainstream research, the studies collected by Dörnyei et al. (2015) have

a few important messages. First of all, the dynamic, interacting, context(s) in which language learning takes place need to be taken into account in the examination of motivational phenomena. Similarly, the reciprocal relationship between learners and contexts is also an essential aspect of language learning and thus has to be accounted for. Last but not least, it is important for motivational frameworks to allow for change and to view L2 learning as a process rather than a product (MacIntyre et al., 2015). The present study builds on these developments, and offers a contextually enriched, relationally enhanced approach to Swiss university students’ language learning motivation.