Motivation and SLA

Bridgingthegap
EmaUshioda
UniversityofWarwick

MotivationhasbeenamajorresearchtopicwithinSLAforoverfourdecades, yethasenduredamarginalizedpositionwithinthefield,remainingsomewhat isolatedfromitsmoremainstreamlinguistictraditions.TheanalysisofmotivationanditsroleinSLAhaslargelybeenatthelevelofgloballearningoutcomes, andresearchhashadlittletosayabouthowmotivationalfactorsrelatetotheinterimprocessesoflinguisticdevelopment.Thuswhilemotivationisrecognized asaprerequisiteforsuccessfulSLA,therelevanceofmotivationresearchto understandingthefinerdetailofhowSLAhappenshasbeenunclear.Thispaper discussessomestudiesthathaveattemptedtointegratetheanalysisofmotivationwithmorelinguisticapproachesinSLA.Itproposesanagendaforbridging thegapbetweenmotivationandmainstreamSLAresearch,andsuggestshow motivationresearchmaycontributetothedevelopmentofmajorlinesofthinkingwithinthefield.

Introduction: The gap between L2 motivation research and mainstream SLA

Thestarting-pointforthispaperistheargumentthatwithinthefieldofSLAresearch, the study of motivation has flourished for over forty years and yet remainedsomewhatisolatedfromthemoremainstreamconcernsofthefield.This is a curious state of affairs since motivation is a widely recognized variable of importance in SLA, and perhaps one of the key factors that distinguishes first languageacquisitionfromsecondlanguageacquisitionprocesses.Toputitsimply,motivationisnotreallyanissueinthecaseofinfantsacquiringtheirmother tongue.Ontheotherhand,beingmotivatedornotcanmakeallthedifferenceto howwillinglyandsuccessfullypeoplelearnotherlanguageslaterinlife.AsPit Corder(1967:164)famouslywrote:givenmotivation,itisinevitablethatahumanbeingwilllearnasecondlanguageifheisexposedtothelanguagedata.Since
EUROSLA Yearbook 10 (2010),520. doi10.1075/eurosla.10.03ush issn15681491/e-issn15699749JohnBenjaminsPublishingCompany

6

EmaUshioda

the1970s,thehistoryofmotivationresearchinSLAhasbeenarichandvibrant one,spearheadedbythepioneeringworkofRobertGardnerandhiscolleagues inCanada(e.g.Gardner1985;GardnerandLalonde1983;GardnerandLambert 1972),whodrewattentiontothesignificantroleofattitudinal-motivationalvariablesinsecondlanguagelearningandestablishedmotivationasamajorresearch topicinSLA.Overthepastfourdecades,L2motivationresearchhasdeveloped andevolvedthroughdifferenttraditionsofinquiry,andhasgeneratedandcontinuestogenerateasubstantialbodyoftheoreticalandempiricalliterature(fora recentoverview,seeDrnyeiandUshioda2010). However, within the field of SLA itself, motivation research has endured a ratherodd,marginalizedposition,remainingsomewhatisolatedfromthemore mainstreamcognitivelinguistictraditionsthatprevail.Thus,whiletextbooksand handbooksonSLAconsistentlyincludereferencetomotivationasanimportant languagelearnervariable,treatmentofthetopictendstobeself-containedina relativelysmallsection.Forexample,asDrnyei(2003:21)pointsout,Ellis(1994) devotesfewerthantenpages(outofnearly700)todiscussingmotivationinhis book-lengthsurveyofSLAresearch,eventhoughheacknowledgesthatitisakey factorinL2learning(p.508).Similarly,inDoughtyandLongs(2005)Handbook of Second Language Acquisitionspanningsome900pages,discussionofmotivation is confined to around ten pages in a chapter on individual differences. In themorerecentsecondeditionofEllissbook-lengthsurveyofSLApublishedin 2008(nowspanningover1000pages),motivationstilldoesnotmeritachapter initselfbutislargelyconfinedtoa15-pagesectionwithinan80-pagechapteron individuallearnerdifferences.Moreover,incontextualizinghissurveyofmotivationresearch,EllisexplicitlymakesthecriticalobservationthatthestudyofL2 motivationresearchcontinuestolieoutsidemainstreamSLA(p.690). In short, while all of us might acknowledge the truth of Corders famous pronouncement about the importance of motivation in SLA, it seems that this importancedoesnottranslateintomakingtheanalysisofmotivationacentral dimensionofSLAresearch.Theanalysisofmotivationseemstobeaconcernonly for those who, like myself, are specifically interested in issues of motivation in SLA,whilethedegreeofinteractionbetweenL2motivationresearchandtherest oftheSLAfieldseemsonthewholeratherminimal.Wemotivationresearchers donotseemtohavemuchtooffertomainstreamSLA,andissuesofmotivation featureonlyrathertangentiallyinthelinguisticandpsycholinguistictraditions thatdominatetheSLAfield.Ineffect,thereissomethingofagapbetweenmotivationresearchandmainstreamSLA,anditisthepurposeofthispapertoexplore (a)whysuchagapexists,and(b)whatcanbedonetobridgethegapthatis, whatkindsofresearchinquirymightbepursuedintheareaofmotivationwhich wouldusefullycontributetothedevelopmentofmajorlinesofthinkinginSLA.

MotivationandSLA:Bridgingthegap

I will begin by considering the history of motivation research in SLA and discuss how it has been characterized by a lack of interaction with the central preoccupationsoftheSLAfield.

Why is there a gap? History of motivation research in SLA The socialpsychologicaltradition

IreferredearliertothepioneeringworkofGardner,LambertandtheirCanadian colleaguesinthe1970sand1980s,whicheffectivelyestablishedmotivationasa majorresearchareainSLA.Theirworkwaspioneeringinthatithighlightedthe roleofaffectivefactorsattitudesandmotivationassignificantcausesofvariabilityinsecondlanguagelearningsuccess,whichareindependentofcognitive factorssuchasintelligenceorlanguageaptitude.Furthermore,theyfocusedattentionontheinherentsocialpsychologicaldimensionofmotivationinSLA,which distinguishesitfrommotivationinotherdomainsoflearningsince,asGardner and Lambert (1972: 135) put it, language learners must be willing to identify withmembersofanotherethnolinguisticgroupandtotakeonverysubtleaspects oftheirbehavior,includingtheirdistinctivestyleofspeechandtheirlanguage. Fromthissocialpsychologicalprocessofidentificationwasbornthewell-known conceptofintegrative motivation. Inrelationtomyargumentaboutthegapbetweenmotivationresearchand mainstreamSLA,itisworthmakingtwokeypointsabouttheworkofGardner andhiscolleagues.Firstly,itinitiatedandfosteredanempiricalfocusoncausal relationshipsbetweenmotivationandsuccessfulL2learning.ItisworthremindingourselvesoftheoriginalresearchquestionthatlaunchedGardnerandLambert ontheirempiricalquest:Howisitthatsomepeoplecanlearnasecondorforeign languagesoeasilyanddosowellwhileothers,givenwhatseemtobethesameopportunitiestolearn,finditalmostimpossible?(1972:130).Thisfocusonsuccess in L2 learningasthedependentvariablehasmeantthattheanalysisofmotivation anditsroleinSLAhaslargelybeenatthelevelofgloballearningoutcomesormeasuresofproficiency.Ofcourse,overtheyearstheresearchtraditionestablishedby Gardnerhasbeencharacterizedbyincreasinglysophisticatedstatisticaltechniques toexamineandverifythecausalrelationsbetweenattitudinal-motivationalvariablesandlanguagelearningoutcomes(e.g.Gardner1985;MasgoretandGardner 2003).Nevertheless,thefactremainsthattheempiricalfocusisonratherbroad learningoutcomessuchasgeneralproficiencymeasuresorcoursegrades,oron behaviouraloutcomessuchaspersistenceinlearning(e.g.Ramage1990),andnot oninterimprocessesoflinguisticdevelopment.Thisisthefirstpointtobemade.

8

EmaUshioda

However,thesecondpointtobemadeabouttheworkofGardnerandhis colleaguesisthatitinfluencedthedevelopmentofassociatedsocialpsychological theoriesofsecondlanguageacquisitionandcommunicationinsituationsofintergroupcontactinmultilingualsettings.Suchsocialpsychologicaltheoriesinclude, for example, the early work of Schumann (1978) on acculturation theory and linguistic fossilization, the work of Meisel (1977) on elaborative versus restrictivelinguisticsimplificationinthespeechofimmigrantworkers,andthework ofGilesandByrne(1982)onintergrouprelationsandlinguisticaccommodation. WhiletheconstructofmotivationisnottheprimaryfocusintheseassociatedsocialpsychologicalperspectivesonSLA,thisimportantbodyofworkdoesclearly pointtoamorefine-grainedanalysisofhowattitudinal-motivationalfactorsassociatedwithethnolinguisticidentityandsocialidentificationmayshapeprocesses of linguistic development or non-development, and help explain the extent to whichparticulartarget-likefeaturesofthemajoritylanguageareacquiredornot. However,thismorelinguistically-focusedangleofinquiryhasnotbeenacentral preoccupation of motivation researchers in SLA, for whom the rather broader focusongloballearning,achievementandbehaviouraloutcomeshastendedto prevail.Iwillcomebacktothispointaboutissuesofmotivation,identityandlinguisticdevelopmentlaterwhenIdiscusswaysforwardtobridgethegapbetween motivationresearchandmainstreamSLA.

From socialpsychologicaltocognitive/educationalperspectives
Bytheearly1990s,therewasasensethatthesocialpsychologicalanalysisofL2 motivation had somehow run its course and that alternative perspectives were needed,particularlyfocusingmoreonpedagogicalissuesofhowtomotivatestudentsandhowtooptimizeandsustaintheirmotivation(e.g.CrookesandSchmidt 1991).Thuscameaboutagradualtransitiontowardsmoresituatedclassroom-focusedanalysesofL2motivation,drawingoncognitivetheoriesofmotivationin educationalpsychologytocomplementthesocialpsychologicalanalyses.Interms oflinkswithmainstreamSLA,thistransitiondidbringwithitthepotentialfora morefine-grainedexaminationofmotivationinrelationtoprocessesoflearning andlinguisticdevelopmentthatis,whatDrnyei(2002:138)referstoasamicro perspectiveonmotivationalbehavioursduringtheSLAprocess,incontrasttothe broadmacroperspectiveonglobalpatternsofmotivationandsuccessfulSLAin thesocialpsychologicalresearchparadigm. However, the dominant lines of inquiry in this more classroom-focused  andprocess-orientedanalysisofmotivationhavetendedtorevolvearoundthe following:

MotivationandSLA:Bridgingthegap

 typesofmotivation(e.g.intrinsicorextrinsic)andtheireffectsonlearning behaviour(e.g.Noels,Pelletier,ClmentandVallerand2000;Ushioda1996);  factorsthatinfluencemotivation(e.g.WilliamsandBurden1997);  howmotivationcanbesustainedandregulatedthroughteacherstrategies or self-regulatory strategies (e.g. Drnyei and Csizr 1998; Drnyei and Ott1998). Inotherwords,whereSLAprocessesareconcerned,theattentionofmotivation researchers has remained largely limited to the fairly vague notion of engagement that is, how motivation shapes affective engagement or involvement in learning.However,therehasbeenratherlittleanalysisofwhatsuchmotivatedor affectiveengagementinlearningmightentail,howitmightbetheorized,orhow itinfluencescognitiveprocessesoflearningandlinguisticdevelopment. Of course, I am simplifying and generalizing here. For example, there has beensomeinterestingresearchintheareaofintrinsicversusextrinsicmotivation anddeepversussurfaceapproachestolearningingeneraleducation(e.g.Marton andSlj1976;ProsserandTrigwell1998),whichhasbeenappliedtotheanalysis of motivation and reading processes in SLA (e.g. Fransson 1984). This line ofresearchshedslightonwhattypesofmotivationmaypromoteoptimumapproachestolearningthatentailcriticalanalysisofideas,makingconnectionswith existingknowledgeandachievingdeeperunderstandingandlong-termretention ofinformation,asopposedtosuperficialmemorizationapproachestolearning. However,perhapsbecausethislineofanalysisfocusesonhowstudentsdealwith informationcontentratherthanonhowtheydevelopproceduralskills,ithasnot beenamajorareaofinquirywithinmotivationresearchinSLA. AnotherareaofinquirythathasmorepotentialistheanalysisoftherelationshipbetweenmotivationandcognitiveprocessinginSLA,intermsofwhatmight becalledmotivational processingduringengagementinlearning.Thisperspective derivedfromDrnyeiandOtts(1998)processmodelofL2motivation,which elaborated the successive stages of motivation before, during and after engagementinalearningprocess.Thesetemporalstagesaredefinedasthepre-actional, actionalandpost-actionalstagesofmotivation,witheachstageshapedbyspecific cognitive processes such as goal-setting, decision-making, action control, monitoring, causal attributions, and evaluation. As Drnyei (2005: 86) himself acknowledges,however,themodelisdifficulttotestempirically,sinceitisnot easy to define and delimit what a learning process is  e.g. a whole course of study, a course unit, a single lesson, a task, a succession of tasks. One scholar, M  anolopoulou-Sergi(2004),hasattemptedtoelaboratetheprocessmodeleven furtherbydelineatingthepossiblefunctionofmotivationinrelationtothechain ofpsycholinguisticmechanismsintheinput,centralprocessingandoutputstages

10

EmaUshioda

ofinformationprocessinginSLA.However,thisinformation-processingmodel ofmotivation,likeDrnyeiandOttsprocessmodelofmotivation,remainsessentiallyadescriptivemodelonly,attheleveloftheoreticalspeculation,anddifficulttoevaluateempirically. Oneapproachtotheempiricalproblemhasbeentotaketask engagementas theunitofanalysisandfocusonmotivationaltaskprocessing.Thislineofresearch hasbeenledbyDrnyei(e.g.Drnyei2002;DrnyeiandKormos2000;Drnyei andTseng2009;KormosandDrnyei2004),andhasfocusedonoralinteraction tasks.Althoughthestudieshavenotshownclearrelationshipsbetweenmotivationalvariablesandqualityoflanguageperformanceinthetasks(asreflectedin linguisticaccuracy,complexity,lexicalrichnessordiscursivecontent),theyhave pointed to strong relationships between motivational variables and quantitative measuresoftaskengagement(asreflectedinnumberofwordsandturnsproduced, ornumberofargumentsandcounter-argumentsproducedindiscussiontasks).In fact,Drnyei(2002)reportsinonesmall-scalestudythatmotivationalvariables accountfor76percentofthevarianceinnumberofwordsand81percentofthe varianceinnumberofturns.Ashenotes,thesearemuchhigherthanthecorrelationsusuallyobtainedbetweenmotivationandglobalachievementmeasures,and suggestthattheanalysisofmotivationinrelationtospecificbehaviourallearning measuresintaskengagementandperformancemaybeamoreilluminatinglineof inquiry.Iwillcomebacktothisissueofanalysingrelationshipsbetweenmotivationandspecificlearningprocessesandbehaviourslater.

From cognitivetosocioculturalperspectives
Ofcourse,motivationhastraditionallybeenclassifiedasanaffectivevariablein SLA,anditmightbeassumedthatonereasonwhymotivationresearchhasremainedsomewhatoutsidethecentralconcernsofSLAisbecauseofSLAspredominantfocusonlanguagelearningasacognitivepsycholinguisticprocess.In hisbookonacognitiveapproachtolanguagelearning,Skehan(1998:192)briefly acknowledgesthepossiblerelevanceofmotivation,buttheanalysisofmotivation andaffectivefactorsisnotincludedinthiscognitiveapproach. However,theaffectcognitiondivideissomewhatmisleadinginthisregard, giventhatthetheoriesandconstructsshapingmainstreammotivationresearchas wellasmotivationresearchinSLAbelongverymuchinthecognitiveparadigm ofpsychology.Sincethecognitiverevolutioninthesecondhalfofthe20thcentury,motivationresearchhasfocusedpredominantlyoncognitivemotivational processes such as goal-setting, efficacy beliefs, attributions, decision-making, expectancies, self-perceptions, self-determination; and motivational theorizing

MotivationandSLA:Bridgingthegap

11

generallytakestheformofcomputationalmodelsofmentalprocessesandlearningbehavioursandoutcomes.Inshort,thereisnoontologicaldivisionbetween motivationresearchontheonehand,andthecognitiveorientationthatprevails inmainstreamSLAontheother,andtheviewputforwardbyDoughtyandLong (2005)thatSLAbeseenasabranchofcognitivesciencewouldnotgoagainstthe grainofmostmotivationresearchinSLA. Of course, recent years have seen a major debate in SLA about competing ontologicalparadigms,orwhatZuenglerandMiller(2006)callthetwoparallelSLAworldsofcognitiveandsocioculturalperspectives,orthepositivistand relativistparadigms.Tocutalongstoryshort,thereisnowaconsiderablebody ofopinionintheSLAfieldwhichsuggeststhatweshouldviewlanguagelearning asasocioculturalandsociohistoricallysituatedprocess,ratherthanasprimarily acognitivepsycholinguisticprocess(see,forexample,Lafford2007).AkeyargumenthereisthatthetraditionalSLAfocusondecontextualizedinteriorprocesses oflanguagelearningasdistinctfromsocialprocessesoflanguageuselimitsour understandingofhowcognitivestructuresdevelopandevolvethroughengagementinsocialactivity.ThusKramsch(2002),forexample,askshowcanweseparatethedancerfromthedance,oracquisitionfromuse,thecognitivefromthe social,theindividualfromtheenvironment? In short, within the field of SLA in recent years, we have witnessed what Block(2003)hascalledasocialturninsecondlanguageacquisition,whereby thetraditionalcognitiveparadigmofSLAresearchhasbeguntobeinfluenced by or some may say challenged by a variety of more interactionist and sociocontextually grounded paradigms of inquiry. These alternative paradigms include,forexample,Vygotskiansocioculturaltheory(LantolfandThorne,2006), language socialization (Watson-Gegeo 2004), ecological perspectives (van Lier 2004), sociocognitive theory (Atkinson 2002), poststructuralist perspectives (Pavlenko2002),andmostrecentlydynamicsystemsandcomplexitytheoryapproaches(Larsen-FreemanandCameron2008a). Remarkablyperhaps,despiteitsoriginsinsocialpsychology,itisonlyveryrecentlytoothatmotivationresearchinSLAisbeginningtoembracethissocialturn, reflectingtheinfluenceofthesewiderontologicaldebatesintheSLAfield,aswell asageneralZeitgeistinmainstreammotivationalpsychologywheresociocultural andsituatedperspectivesintegratingmotivationandcontexthavebeguntobreak ground(e.g.VoletandJrvel2001;McInerneyandVanEtten2004).Asrecently argued(Ushioda2009),thebulkofmotivationresearchinSLAtodatehastended tofocusonmotivationasanindividualpsychologicalphenomenon,locatedinthe innerworkingsofthemind,andhastendedtosustainthebasicCartesiandualismbetweentheinnermentalworldoftheindividual,andthesurroundingsocial environment.Eachlearnerinterpretsandreactstoherenvironment,butremains

12

EmaUshioda

e  ssentiallydistinctfromitasHarrandGillett(1994:22)putit,hermetically sealed in her own individual and self-contained subjectivity. However, current thinkinginmotivationresearchinSLAistuningintothewiderdebatesaboutthe organicrelationsbetweenindividualandcontext,aboutemergentisminSLA(Ellis andLarsen-Freeman2006),andaboutdynamiccomplexsystemsandnon-linear relations(e.g.Drnyei2009a,2009b;Ushioda2009). Inshort,intermsofmyargumentsinthispaper,theconditionsseemright andthetimeseemsripeforamuchclosersynergybetweenmotivationresearch andmainstreamSLA,giventhissharedpulltowardsdynamicandsocio-contextuallygroundedanalysesoftheprocessesshapingSLA.Somewillargueofcourse that the sociocultural paradigm is not (yet?) mainstream SLA, and clearly the debatesareongoing.Nevertheless,thepositiontakenhereisthatnewdirections inmotivationresearchmaycontributetopushingforwardanddevelopingmajor linesofinquiryinSLAthatcutacrossthesocioculturalandcognitiveparadigms. Thesecondpartofthispapersketchessomepossiblewaysforwardinthisregard, bydrawingonsomerecentstudieswhichmayillustratehowthisclosersynergy betweenmotivationandmainstreamSLAresearchcanhappen.

Bridging the gap: Towards a research agenda

In sketching this research agenda, I will begin with some perspectives that fall squarelywithinthecognitiveparadigm,andconsiderissuesofmotivationinrelationtospecificcognitiveandmetacognitiveprocessesinSLA.Iwillthendiscuss theshifttowardsmoresociocultural,relationalandcontextuallygroundedperspectivesonmotivationandSLA.

Motivation andcognitiveprocesses
Earlier,itwasnotedthatmotivationresearchinSLAhastendedtoadoptarather generalperspectiveonlanguagelearningprocessesandoutcomestypicallyin terms of global achievement outcomes or rather vague notions of engagement orinvolvementinlearning.However,thefewstudiesthathaveadoptedamore sharplyfocusedlensonspecific SLAprocessessuggest thatthis isapromising angleofinquiry.IhavealreadymentionedtheworkofDrnyeiandhiscolleagues inrelationtomotivationaltaskprocessinginthisregard.Bywayoffurtherillustration,IwillhererefertotwostudiesthatfocusonfeaturesofL2 phonological development andL2 pragmatic developmentrespectively.

MotivationandSLA:Bridgingthegap

13

ThesetofstudiesreportedbySegalowitz,GatbontonandTrofimovich(2009) continuesthesocialpsychologicaltraditionofresearchthathasinvestigatedrelationshipsbetweenethnicgroupidentityandsecondlanguagedevelopmentinsituationsofintergroupcontactinmultilingualsettings.Astheyexplain,acommon findinginthisresearchisthatpeoplesrelativedegreesofidentificationwiththeir primaryethnolinguisticgroupversustheirtargetlanguagegroupwillinfluence thelevelsoftargetlanguageproficiencytheyachieve.Typically,thosewhohave strongbeliefsintheroleoflanguageinmaintainingtheidentityoftheirprimary groupwilldeveloplowerlevelsofproficiencyintheirL2.OnepossibleexplanationforthisphenomenonisthatL2speakerswithastrongsenseofaffiliationto theirprimaryethnolinguisticgroupmaydeliberatelyholdbacksomeaspects oftheirL2use,inordertoavoidsoundingtoomuchlikemembersofadifferent ethnolinguisticgroup.Inotherwords,somepeoplemayfeelmotivatedtoretain non-standardspeechpatternsasamarkeroftheirownethnolinguisticidentity, ratherthanaccommodatetothetargetlanguagenorm. However,asSegalowitzetal.(2009)observe,itisunlikelythatdeliberatenonaccommodationorspeechdistancingistheonlyexplanationforalinkbetween ethnolinguisticaffiliationandlanguageproficiency.ItisunlikelybecausesomeL2 speechpatternsdifferfromnative-likespeechinwaysthatarefartoosubtletoreflectconsciousdeliberateattemptstosoundnon-native-like.Acaseinpointthey analyzeintheirseriesofstudiesisthevoicedinterdentalfricative//inEnglish, asacquiredbyFrenchCanadianspeakers,andtypicallyrealizedinnon-standard formasthevoicedalveolar/d/,dependingonphoneticenvironment. Based on detailed analyses of their data, the researchers speculate that the linkbetweenethnolinguisticaffiliationandL2proficiencymaybemediatedby a combination of motivational and psycholinguistic variables. Specifically, they suggest that aspects of ethnolinguistic affiliation are psychologically realized in a persons motivational self-concepts  that is, the degree to which they see themselvesaswantingtoembraceaninclusivedoubleidentityasspeakerofboth FrenchandEnglishandmemberofthelargerCanadianpopulation;orthedegree towhichtheyholdamoreexclusivesenseofidentityasFrenchCanadian.These motivationalself-perceptionswillinturnaffecttheamountandqualityofL2use andexposuretheywillchoosetoengagein.Forexample,theymaychoosetolimit contactwithtargetlanguagespeakers.TheamountandqualityoftheseL2experienceswillinturnimpactonthefine-tuningofthepersonscognitive-perceptual processingmechanismsinrelationto,forexample,importantphoneticdistinctionsinthetargetlanguage.Thesepsycholinguisticvariablesandconstraintswill inturnimpactonultimateskillattainment.

14

EmaUshioda

Inshort,Segalowitzetal.sresearchprovidesagoodillustrationofhowthe analysisofmotivationalvariablesinrelationtospecific psycholinguistic processes andaspectsofSLAmayproveparticularlyilluminating. AnotherseriesofstudiesbyTakahashi(2001,2005)alsoillustratesthevalue of exploring links between motivation and particular aspects of cognitive processing in SLA  specifically the cognitive processes of noticing and attention. TheconnectionbetweenmotivationandattentioninSLAwasfirsthighlighted byCrookesandSchmidt(1991).SubsequentlySchmidt(1993)putforwardthe speculation that language learners who are integratively motivated  i.e. motivatedbyastronginterestinthetargetlanguagecultureandadesiretointegrate intothetargetlanguagecommunityarelikelytopayparticularlycloseattention tothepragmaticaspectsofL2input,sincepragmaticawarenessandcompetence wouldseemanimportantdimensionofsuccessfulacculturation. Inherresearch,Takahashihassystematicallyinvestigatedhowmotivationaffectslanguagelearnersattentionandawarenesswhenprocessingparticularpragmalinguisticfeatures.Specifically,thetargetfeaturesinherresearchcomprised request strategies in English. These included complex bi-clausal request forms (e.g.I was wondering if you could VP; Is it possible to VP ? If you could VP ), classifiedasrequestheadacts;aswellasstructurallysimplerinteractionalfeatures foreffectivefloormanagement(e.g.you know, well, maybe),idiomaticexpressions (e.g.How ya doing?)andnon-idiomaticexpressions(e.g.I dont want to bother you). Participants (who were Japanese college students) were asked to listen to andstudyrole-playtranscriptsofnativespeakersandnon-nativespeakersmakingrequests,andthenwritedownandcommentonnative-speakerexpressions that differed from non-native speaker expressions. Data were also gathered on participantsmotivationandEnglishproficiency. Theresultsshowedthatthecomplexbi-clausalrequestformsweremuchless likelytobenoticedthantheotherpragmalinguisticfeatures,andthatmoreattentionwaspaidtointeractionalfeatures(suchasyou know, well, maybe).Takahashi speculatesthatparticipantsmaybelievethattheyhavealreadymasteredL2requestrealizationwithmono-clausalrequestforms,andsofailtonoticethemore complexbi-clausalforms.However,asubsetofparticipantswhowereclassifiedas stronglyintrinsicallymotivatedtolearnEnglishwerefoundtobemoreattentive tobi-clausalrequestforms,aswellasidiomaticexpressions.Takahashisuggests thatintrinsicallymotivatedlearnersaregreatlyinterestedinlearningthelanguage andenjoyactivitiesthatenablethemtodeveloptheircommunicationskills.They mayperceivepragmalinguisticformsasonesthatwillhelpthemtoachievetheir Englishcommunicationgoalssuccessfully,andsopaygreaterattentiontothese features.Interestingly,nosignificantrelationshipswerefoundbetweenproficiencyandpragmalinguisticawareness,suggestingthatitismotivationratherthan proficiencywhichdirectslearnersattentiontopragmaticinput.

MotivationandSLA:Bridgingthegap

15

Takahashisresearchisilluminating,andpavesthewayforfurtherresearch on motivation and L2 pragmatic development, as well the analysis of whether motivationmaypromoteselectiveattentiontodifferentaspectsofL2input.

Motivation andmetacognition
Anotherareawheretheanalysisofmotivationalsoseemsrelevantisinrelation tometacognition.Therehavebeenquiteafewstudiesthathaveinvestigatedrelationshipsbetweenmotivationanduseofmetacognitivestrategiese.g.MacIntyre andNoels1996;SchmidtandWatanabe2001;Vandergrift2005.Generallyspeaking,however,thisresearchhastendedtorelyonself-reportdatatoassessstrategy useormetacognitiveawareness,andhastendedtoadoptaquantitativeperspectiveonamount,rangeorfrequencyofstrategyuseinrelationtomotivation.Itis arguedherethatthiskindofresearchinquiryoffersaratherlimitedanalysisof howmotivationmayinteractwithmetacognitioninSLA,sinceitcanshedlittle lightonhowmotivationshapesthedevelopmentofmetacognitiveskills.Froma theoreticalpointofview,motivationandmetacognitionarehighlyinterrelated, since the exercise of metacognition can occur only when the ability to control strategicthinkingprocessesisaccompaniedbythemotivationorwilltodoso. Intheliteratureonmetacognitionandself-regulatedlearning,therelevantcatchphrasehereiswhatMcCombsandMarzano(1990)callwillandskill. As SLA researchers, if our interest is in how metacognition develops and howthisinteractswithmotivation,Ithinkafruitfulangleofanalysismaybea V  ygotskiansocioculturalone.Accordingtosocioculturaltheory(Vygotsky1978; LantolfandThorne2006),thegoalofalllearningisself-regulation,whereselfregulationisunderstoodtomeanindependentstrategicfunctioningandmetacognitive control in relation to a particular type of task. A central principle of Vygotskys theory is that the origins of self-regulation are social and dialogic, realizedintheprocessesoftask-focusedinteractionthroughwhichtheteacher scaffoldsthelearners'attemptstoaccomplishthegoal.Thepurposeofscaffolding isnotsimplytohavethelearnercompletethetaskbuttopromoteacapacityto thinkstrategicallyandthustogaincontrol,orself-regulation,ofstrategicmental processes.Researchevidencesuggeststhattheexplicittransferoftheagenticregulatoryroletothelearneriscriticalinthisdialogue(e.g.Diaz,NealandAmayaWilliams 1990), so that the learner is motivated to do the thinking instead of simplyrespondingpassivelytodirectives.Clearly,theresearchprogrammeIam suggestingherewouldthusentailthemicrogeneticanalysisofhowmotivational andmetacognitiveprocessesmaydevelopthroughtask-focusedinteraction.

16

EmaUshioda

Motivation, context,agencyanddynamiccomplexsystems
ThisbringsusofcoursetothequestionofbroadeningtheresearchagendabeyondthetraditionalcognitiveparadigmtoconsiderthedynamicinteractionsintegratingpersonsandsocialcontextintheanalysisofmotivationandSLA.AsI mentionedearlier,motivationtheoryineducationalpsychologyaswellasSLA has been slow to adopt contextual paradigms of inquiry. In the computational modelsofmotivationthathavecharacterizedthecognitiveparadigm,contextis conceptualizedmerelyasanindependentbackgroundvariableorsetofexternal factorswhichmayinfluencemotivation.However,contemporarysituativeperspectivesonmotivationchallengeresearcherstointegratenotionsofself-as-agent andcontextinadynamicandholisticway,andtoexplorehowmotivationdevelops and emerges through the complex interactions between agent and context (VoletandJrvel2001).Moreover,therelationshipbetweenagentandcontextis areciprocalandmutuallyconstitutiveone,sincetheself-as-agentisaninherent partofthedevelopingcontextandcontributestoshapingthatcontext. Thus,inarecentpaper(Ushioda2009),Ihaveputforwardthecaseforwhat Icallaperson-in-contextrelationalviewofsecondlanguagemotivation,where theunitofanalysisisperson-in-context,ratherthanlanguagelearnerorindividual differenceinanabstracttheoreticalsense.Inaninherentlysocialprocesssuch aslanguageacquisition,thepersoncannotbemeaningfullyseparatedfromthe socialenvironmentwithinwhichhe/sheoperates,andsothechallengeistoadopt adynamicperspectivethatallowsustoconsidersimultaneouslytheongoingmultipleinfluencesbetweenenvironmentalandindividualfactors,inalltheircomponentialcomplexity,aswellastheemergingchangesinboththepersonandthe environment(seeDrnyei2009b). Of course, it is clear that the focus of discussion here is not just on motivation but the whole process of SLA, as currently articulated in discussions of emergentism(EllisandLarsen-Freeman2006),anddynamicsystemsandcomplexitytheoryapproachestoSLA(Larsen-FreemanandCameron2008a).These approachesconcernthebehaviourofcomplexsystemsthatcontainmultipleinterconnected components, where development is characterized by non-linear growth as systems adapt and evolve organically in response to contextual processes,andinwaysthatcontributetoshapingcontext.AsDrnyei(2009a,2009b) argues, this dynamic systems perspective on SLA processes renders the notion ofdiscreteindividualdifferencevariables(suchasmotivation)rathermeaningless,sinceprocessesofmotivation,cognitionandemotionandtheirconstituent componentscontinuouslyinteractwithoneanotherandthedevelopingcontext, therebychangingandcausingchangeinnon-linearandunpredictableways,as thesystemasawholerestructures,adaptsandevolves.

MotivationandSLA:Bridgingthegap

1

Inshort,onceweviewmotivationasanintegralpartofthisevolvingorganic andadaptivesystemofcognitive,affectiveandcontextualprocessesshapingSLA, it is clear that the analysis of motivation will no longer be separated from the primaryconcernsofSLAresearch.Moreover,itseemslikelythattheanalysisof motivationmayplayamajorroleinanydynamicsystemsperspectiveonSLA, giventheneedtoconsidertheprocessesofhumanagency,intentionalityandreflexivitythatarefundamentaltothedynamicinteractionsbetweenselfandcontext(SealeyandCarter2004).

Concluding note
Thispapersetouttooutlinehowmotivationresearchmaybebetterintegrated intomainstreamSLA,andcontributetothedevelopmentofmajorlinesofthinkinginthefield.However,itisbeyondthescopeofthepapertoelaboratepossible research designs and methodologies in this regard. The dynamic systems and complexity theory approach to SLA is still new and untried, and presents significantchallengesintermsofdevelopingworkableresearchdesignsandanalyticaltoolstoinvestigatecomplexsystemsinacoherentandsystematicway(see, for example, Larsen-Freeman and Cameron 2008b). But, to adapt that famous pronouncement by Corder cited at the beginning of this paper, perhaps, given motivation, it is inevitable that we SLA researchers will find a way forward.

References
Atkinson,D.2002.Towardasociocognitiveapproachtosecondlanguageacquisition.Modern Language Journal86:52545. Block,D.2003.The Social Turn in Second Language Acquisition.Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress. Corder,S.P.1967.Thesignificanceoflearnerserrors.International Review of Applied Linguistics5(2/3):161169. Crookes, G. and Schmidt, R. 1991. Motivation: Reopening the research agenda. Language Learning41:469512. Diaz,R.M.,Neal,C.J.andAmaya-Williams,M.1990.Thesocialoriginsofself-regulation. In Vygotsky and Education: Instructional Implications and Applications of Sociohistorical Psychology,L.Moll.(ed.),12754.NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress. Drnyei, Z. 2002. The motivational basis of language learning tasks. In Individual Differences and Instructed Language Learning, P. Robinson (ed.), 13758. Amsterdam: John B  enjamins. Drnyei,Z.2003.Attitudes,orientations,andmotivationinlanguagelearning:Advancesin theory,research,andapplications.Language Learning53(Supplement1):332.

18

EmaUshioda

Drnyei,Z.2005.The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition.Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum. Drnyei,Z.2009a.The Psychology of Second Language Acquisition.Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press. Drnyei,Z.2009b.Individualdifferences:Interplayoflearnercharacteristicsandlearningenvironment.InLanguage as a Complex Adaptive System,N.C.EllisandD.Larsen-Freeman (eds),237255.Oxford:WileyBlackwell.  Drnyei, Z. and Csizr, K. 1998. Ten commandments for motivating language learners: Resultsofanempiricalstudy.Language Teaching Research2:203229. Drnyei,Z.andKormos,J.2000.Theroleofindividualandsocialvariablesinoraltaskperformance.Language Teaching Research4:275300. Drnyei,Z.andOtt,I.1998.Motivationinaction:AprocessmodelofL2motivation.Working Papers in Applied Linguistics (Thames Valley University, London)4:4369. Drnyei,Z.andTseng,W-T.2009.Motivationalprocessingininteractionaltasks.InMultiple Perspectives on Interaction: Second Language Research in Honour of S. M. Gass,A.Mackey andC.Polio(eds),11734.Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum. Drnyei,Z.andUshioda,E.2010.Teaching and Researching Motivation.2ndedition.Harlow: Longman. Doughty,C.J.andLong,M.H.2005.The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition.Oxford: Blackwell. Ellis,N.andLarsen-Freeman,D.2006.Languageemergence:ImplicationsforappliedlinguisticsIntroductiontotheSpecialIssue.Applied Linguistics27:558589. Ellis,R.1994.The Study of Second Language Acquisition.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress. Ellis,R.2008.The Study of Second Language Acquisition.2ndedition.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress. Fransson, A. 1984. Cramming or understanding? Effects of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on approach to learning and test performance. In Reading in a Foreign Language, J.C.AldersonandA.H.Urquhart(eds.),86121.London:Longman. Gardner,R.C.1985.Social Psychology and Second Language Learning: The Role of Attitudes and Motivation.London:EdwardArnold. Gardner, R. C. and Lalonde, R. N. 1983. The socio-educational model of second language acquisition: An investigation using LISREL causal modelling. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 2(1):115. Gardner,R.C.andLambert,W.E.1972.Attitudes and Motivation in Second-Language Learning.Rowley,MA:NewburyHouse. Giles,H.andByrne,J.L.1982.Anintergroupapproachtosecondlanguageacquisition.Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development3:1740. Harr,R.andGillett,G.1994.The Discursive Mind.ThousandOaks,CA:Sage. Kormos,J.andDrnyei,Z.2004.Theinteractionoflinguisticandmotivationalvariablesin second language task performance. Zeitschrift fr Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht9(2):119. Kramsch,C.2002.Introduction:Howcanwetellthedancerfromthedance?InLanguage Acquisition and Language Socialization: Ecological Perspectives, C. Kramsch (ed.), 130. London:Continuum. Lafford,B.A.(ed.).2007.Second Language Acquisition Reconceptualized? The Impact of Firth and Wagner (1997). (Focus issue).Modern Language Journal91.

MotivationandSLA:Bridgingthegap

19

Lantolf,J.P.andThorne,S.L.2006.Sociocultural Theory and the Genesis of Second Language Development.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress. Larsen-Freeman,D.andCameron,L.2008a.Complex Systems and Applied Linguistics.Oxford: OxfordUniversityPress. Larsen-Freeman, D. and Cameron, L. 2008b. Research methodology on language developmentfromacomplexsystemsperspective.Modern Language Journal92:20013. MacIntyre,P.D.andNoels,K.A.1996.Usingsocial-psychologicalvariablestopredicttheuse oflanguagelearningstrategies.Foreign Language Annals29:37386. Manolopoulou-Sergi,E.2004.Motivationwithintheinformationprocessingmodelofforeign languagelearning.System32:42741. Marton,F.andSlj,D.1976.Onqualitativedifferencesinlearning.1:outcomeandprocess. British Journal of Educational Psychology 46:411. Masgoret,A-M.andGardner,R.C.2003.Attitudes,motivation,andsecondlanguagelearning: Ameta-analysisofstudiesconductedbyGardnerandhisassociates.Language Learning 53(Supplement1):167210. McCombs,B.L.andMarzano,R.J.1990.Puttingtheselfinself-regulatedlearning:Theselfas agentinintegratingwillandskill.Educational Psychologist25:5169. McInerney,D.M.andVanEtten,S.(eds).2004.Big Theories Revisited: Volume 4 in Research on Sociocultural Influences on Motivation and Learning.Greenwich,CO:InformationAge Publishing. Meisel,J.1977.Linguisticsimplification:Astudyofimmigrantworkersspeechandforeigner talk.InThe Notions of Simplification, Interlanguages and Pidgins in their Relation to Second Language Pedagogy,S.P.CorderandE.Roulet(eds),88113.Geneva:LibrairieDroz. Noels,K.A.,Pelletier,L.,Clment,R.andVallerand,R.J.2000.Whyareyoulearningasecond language? Motivational orientations and self-determination theory. Language Learning 50:5785. Pavlenko,A.2002.Poststructuralistapproachestothestudyofsocialfactorsinsecondlanguage learning and use. In Portraits of the L2 User, V. Cook (ed.), 277302. Clevedon: MultilingualMatters. Prosser, M. and Trigwell, K. 1998. Teaching for Learning in Higher Education. Buckingham: OpenUniversityPress. Ramage,K.1990.Motivationalfactorsandpersistenceinforeignlanguagestudy.Language Learning40(2):189219. Schmidt, R. 1993. Consciousness, learning and interlanguage pragmatics. In Interlanguage Pragmatics,G.KasparandS.Blum-Kulka(eds),2142.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress. Schmidt,R.andWatanabe,Y.2001.Motivation,strategyuse,andpedagogicalpreferencesin foreign language learning. In Motivation and Second Language Acquisition, Z. Drnyei andR.Schmidt(eds),313359.Honolulu,HI:UniversityofHawaiiPress. Schumann,J.1978.Theacculturationmodelforsecondlanguageacquisition.InSecond Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching,R.Gingras(ed.),27107.Arlington,VA: CentreforAppliedLinguistics. Sealey,A.andCarter,B.2004.Applied Linguistics as Social Science.London:Continuum. Segalowitz, N., Gatbonton, E. and Trofimovich, P. 2009. Links between ethnolinguistic affiliation,self-relatedmotivationandsecondlanguagefluency:Aretheymediatedbypsycholinguisticvariables?InMotivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self,Z.Drnyeiand E.Ushioda(eds.),17292.Bristol:MultilingualMatters. Skehan,P.1998.A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

20 EmaUshioda

Takahashi,J.2001.Theroleofinputenhancementindevelopingpragmaticcompetence.In Pragmatics in Language Teaching, K. R. Rose and G. Kasper (eds), 17199. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress. Takahashi,J.2005.Pragmalinguisticawareness:Isitrelatedtomotivationandproficiency? Applied Linguistics26:90120. Ushioda,E.1996.Learner Autonomy 5: The Role of Motivation.Dublin:Authentik. Ushioda,E.2009.Aperson-in-contextrelationalviewofemergentmotivation,selfandidentity.InMotivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self,Z.DrnyeiandE.Ushioda(eds), 21528.Bristol:MultilingualMatters. Vandergrift,L.2005.Relationshipsamongmotivationorientations,metacognitiveawareness andproficiencyinL2listening.Applied Linguistics26:7089. vanLier,L.2004.The Ecology and Semiotics of Language Learning: A Sociocultural Perspective. Boston,MA:KluwerAcademic. Volet,S.andJrvel,S.2001.Motivation in Learning Contexts: Theoretical Advances and Methodological Implications.Amsterdam:Pergamon-Elsevier. Vygotsky,L.S.1978.Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress. Watson-Gegeo,K.A.2004.Mind,language,andepistemology:TowardalanguagesocializationparadigmforSLA.Modern Language Journal88:33150. Williams,M.andBurden,R.L.1997.Psychology for Language Teachers.Cambridge:Cambridge UniversityPress. Zuengler,J.andMiller,E.R.2006.Cognitiveandsocioculturalperspectives:TwoparallelSLA worlds?TESOL Quarterly40:3558.

Copyright of EUROSLA Yearbook is the property of John Benjamins Publishing Co. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.