Many early surveies on 2nd linguistic communication acquisition ( SLA ) attempted to turn to the cosmopolitan facets of SLA, seeking to detect regularities in the scholar linguistic communication. The chief purpose of these surveies, such as Universal Grammar and mistake types, is to set up how scholars are similar refering 2nd linguistic communication acquisition. However, it is besides of paramount importance to analyze how scholars differ in linguistic communication acquisition and the effects of these differences on linguistic communication accomplishment. Research into single scholar differences ( IDs ) is chiefly concerned with the survey of the contextual factors, psychological and societal, that affect pupils ‘ acquisition.
In fact, SLA research workers have identified a batch of single scholar factors, and proposed theoretical accounts to account for the influence of IDs in 2nd linguistic communication acquisition ( Altman, 1980 ; Skehan, 1989 ; Larsen-Freeman and Long, 1991 ) . By and large talking, learner differences include, among others, the undermentioned factors: age, aptitude, larning manners, personality, and motive ( Ellis, 1994 ) . However, the chief push of this chapter is to supply a elaborate reappraisal of literature and research conducted to look into the function of motive in SLA.
Harmonizing to many theoreticians and psychologists, motive is considered as a cardinal factor in larning success. This anticipation is besides applicable to the field of 2nd linguistic communication acquisition. Thus, many definitions of motive have been put frontward in order to clarify the complex nature of motive and to analyze its beginnings. A significant sum of research has been conducted in the survey of motive in 2nd linguistic communication acquisition, depending, to changing grades, on the research findings available in psychological science. Equally early as the 1950s, theories and theoretical accounts of motive began to look in linguistic communication acquisition literature ( Gardner and Lambert, 1959 ; cited in Gardner, 2001 ) . This of import research was the starting point for many subsequent surveies to explicate the nature of motive and its consequence on the linguistic communication larning procedure ( Schumann, 1978 ; Krashen, 1981 ; Gardner, 1985 ) .
In this chapter, I will show a set of definitions of motive which I have found in the field of psychological science and SLA, followed by a subdivision concerned with the beginnings of motive. After that, theoretical accounts of motive in SLA will be presented. Besides, there will be two subdivisions ; the former trades with the research that addresses motive as causative or caused, and the latter is concerned with the relationship between types of motive and the societal scene.
2.2. Definitions of Motivation
However simple and easy the word “ motive ” might look, it seems in fact really hard to specify. The undermentioned definition of motive which is quoted from the Merriam-Webster ‘s Online Dictionary gives merely the general significance of the word. Harmonizing to the Merriam-Webster ‘s Online Dictionary, to actuate is “ to supply with a motivation, a demand or desire ” that causes a individual to move in a peculiar manner. In this subdivision, I will show a assortment of definitions of motive that I have found in the field of psychological science and 2nd linguistic communication acquisition ( SLA ) .
Motivation has been a fertile country of theory and research throughout the history of psychological science. Psychologists province that motive refers to the ground that causes an being to originate and prevail in certain behaviours as opposed to others ( cited in Encyclopaedia Britannica 2006 ) . Bernard ( 2005, p. 134 ) says that motive is “ purposeful and includes the procedures that guide the general strength and way of an being ‘s activity over clip. ” In other words, motive consists of forces moving either on or within a individual to originate behaviour. In fact, assorted definitions of motive in psychological science have been proposed because of the different positions that emerged and accounted for motive. I shall show brief definitions of motive from three seemingly reciprocally sole positions within psychological science: biological, behavioural, and cognitive.
From a biological position, motive is viewed as mostly or wholly natural. In his Principles of Psychology, James ( 1890 ; cited in Bernard, 2005 ) states that “ inherent aptitudes are defined as a map of genetic sciences, hardwired into the encephalon ‘s construction, and the footing for motive ” ( p. 131 ) . Advocates of biological position of motive do non admit the influence of witting procedures on motive. On the contrary, they believe that behaviour is determined more by unconscious biological inherent aptitudes, demands, or thrusts. In this regard, motivational procedures are viewed as “ mechanistic ” as opposed to cognitive, concentrating on internal demand provinces and unconditioned behaviours.
The behaviouristic position of motive changed the focal point of motive from the internal to the external. In this position, motive refers to the expectancy of wages. Behaviorists demonstrated that behaviour is non purely the consequence of inherent aptitudes but is modified by environmental effects. Thorndike ( 1911 ; cited in Skinner, 1993 ) specified that behaviour that is followed by a hearty province or wages is more likely to be repeated, whereas behaviour that is followed by an disappointing province or penalty is less likely to be repeated. Therefore, human behaviours are strongly affected by external forces.
Refering the cognitive position of motive, it is explained in footings of individual ‘s active hunt for significance and satisfaction in life. The cognitive position positions the person as a witting, rational agent, able to run on the footing of outlooks, programs, and ends ( Brown, 2000 ) . Therefore, motive is interpreted in footings of witting procedures which are thought to be of import influences on human behaviour. For illustration, Ausubel ( 1968 ; cited in Brown, 2000 ) see motive as a cognitive concept of six underlying demands such as the demand for geographic expedition, activity, and cognition.
Not surprisingly, hence, the survey of motive in SLA has more or less been related to the literature available in the field of psychological science. Research workers analyzing motive in SLA have been concerned with the development of constructs specific to linguistic communication acquisition ( Ellis, 1985 ) . Gardner ( 1985 ) defines motive as “ the combination of attempt plus desire to accomplish the end of larning the linguistic communication plus favourable attitudes towards larning the linguistic communication ” ( cited in Ellis, 1994, p. 509 ) . Gardner ( 1985, besides cited in Ellis, 1994 ) states that motive, which refers to the attempt scholars make to larn the linguistic communication, is non the same as “ orientation ” which reflects the implicit in grounds for larning the linguistic communication. Therefore, motive is a desire to larn a 2nd linguistic communication L2, combined with the energy which learners put into larning the L2. It determines the extent of active, personal engagement in L2 acquisition ( Oxford & A ; Shearin, 1994 ) .
By and large, there have been many different every bit good as somewhat different definitions of motive. In fact, “ motive ” is likely really hard to specify. It seems to hold been impossible for psychologists to make a consensus on a individual definition. This debatable issue is slightly reflected in the survey of motive in SLA ( Skehan, 1989 ) . It should be emphasized, however, that research into motive in SLA, particularly that conducted by Gardner ( 1985 ) , has made fruitful efforts in order to suggest a clear definition that comprises the whole dimensions of motive.
2.3. Beginnings of Motivation
Many psychological surveies have been conducted to analyze the beginnings of motive. These surveies refer to a assortment of motivational beginnings owing to the assorted schools in the field of psychological science. Similarly, the survey of motivational beginnings has been of great importance to many SLA research workers every bit good as linguistic communication instructors. In this subdivision, I will show a survey done by a group of educational psychologists to analyze the beginnings of motive in linguistic communication acquisition ( Littlejohn, 2001 ) .
In general, accounts sing the beginnings of motive can be categorized as either extrinsic ( outside the individual ) or intrinsic ( internal to the individual ) . Current research conducted by educational psychologists points to “ three major beginnings of motive in acquisition ( Fisher, 1990 ) . Simply put, these are:
The scholar ‘s natural involvement: intrinsic satisfaction ;
The teacher/institution/employment: extrinsic wages ; and
Success in the undertaking ” ( cited in Littlejohn, 2001 ) .
These three major beginnings of motive are non reciprocally sole in the sense that a pupil could hold a combination of these beginnings.
Refering the intrinsic satisfaction, scholars engage in an activity for its ain interest, without some obvious external inducement or wages ( Deci, 1975 ; cited in Brown, 2000 ) . That is to state, intrinsic satisfaction involves the public presentation of a undertaking for its ain interest and values wagess gained through the procedure of undertaking completion, irrespective of any external wagess ( Crookes & A ; Schmidt, 1989 ; cited in Ellis, 1994 ) . The cardinal word here is the scholar ‘s “ built-in involvement ” in the acquisition undertaking. That is why, intrinsic satisfaction is besides called “ undertaking motive ” ( Ellis 1994 ) .
The 2nd beginning of motive in linguistic communication acquisition concerns the chase of some reward external to the completion of the undertaking, such as good classs, money and awards. Extrinsic wages and its antonym, extrinsic penalty, are viewed as beginnings of actuating pupils ( Brown, 2000 ) . Extrinsic wages is thought to sabotage the built-in involvement of the scholar. In other words, scholars will frequently lose their intrinsic involvement in a undertaking if the undertaking is seen as a agency to an terminal ( Littlejohn 2001 ) . In his “ the Carrot and Stick Hypothesis, ” Skehan ( 1989 ) states that these external wagess affect the strength of the scholar ‘s motive.
Success in the acquisition undertaking is assumed to hold positive effects on the scholar ‘s motive ( Savignon, 1972 ; cited in Skehan, 1989 ) . In other words, scholars who experience success in larning may go more motivated to larn. Hermann ( 1980 ; cited in Skehan, 1989 ) proposed “ the Resultative Hypothesis ” which claims that scholars who do a undertaking well are more likely to make it once more, and set in more attempt. In this instance, their motivational strength is likely to be sustained and developed during the procedure of linguistic communication acquisition.
Obviously, surveies of motivational beginnings in linguistic communication acquisition are extremely demanding because of the complex nature of motive. It is non clear what beginning of motive is more powerful than the others in the learning state of affairs. It is really of import for linguistic communication instructors to be familiar with the beginnings that cause the scholars to be motivated or demotivated. By cognizing where the roots of motive prevarication, instructors can “ H2O ” those roots in order to prolong the motive of their pupils ( Oxford & A ; Shearin, 1994, p. 15 ) .
2.4. Models of Motivation
Having presented the assorted definitions of motive and its beginnings, I am now in a place to give a elaborate history of some of import theoretical accounts of motive in SLA. These theoretical accounts were proposed as a consequence of drawn-out research to analyze the complex nature of the relationship between contextual factors, including motive, and 2nd linguistic communication accomplishment. There are three theoretical accounts which I shall analyze in this subdivision: Gardner ‘s socio-educational theoretical account, Schumann ‘s socialization theoretical account, and Krashen ‘s proctor theoretical account ( specifically the “ affectional filter ” hypothesis ) .
2.4.1. Gardner ‘s Socio-Educational Model ( 1985 )
Gardener ( 1985, cited in Ellis, 1994 ) established a theoretical account of motive in 2nd linguistic communication acquisition called the socio-educational theoretical account. Harmonizing to Gardner, the theoretical account is by and large concerned with the function of assorted single differences in the acquisition of an L2. Basically, Gardner ‘s socio-educational theoretical account reflects the consequences of early research conducted by Gardener and Lambert ( 1959, 1972 ; cited in Skehan, 1989 ) to analyze the function of motive and attitudes in 2nd linguistic communication acquisition in Canada. In the undermentioned paragraphs, I will give a brief description of the early research done by Gardner and Lambert, and so a more elaborate history of Gardner ‘s socio-educational theoretical account ( 1985 ) will be presented.
Gardner and Lambert ( 1959 ; cited in Ely, 1986 ) developed an attack to motive which has influenced assorted surveies in L2 motive to the present twenty-four hours. After carry oning a ten-year survey in Canada and assorted locations in the United States, Gardner and Lambert ( 1972 ) concluded that the scholar ‘s attitudes toward the mark linguistic communication and the target-language civilization play a important function in linguistic communication acquisition motive ( cited in Spolsky, 1989 ) . Gardner and Lambert ( 1972 ) made the differentiation between “ integrative motive ” and “ instrumental motive. ” In their definition, integrative motive reflects the positive attitudes toward the mark linguistic communication group and a willingness to incorporate into the mark linguistic communication community, whereas instrumental motive refers to practical grounds for larning a linguistic communication, such as to derive societal acknowledgment or to acquire a better occupation. As a consequence, they postulated that an integrative motivation is more effectual ( than an instrumental 1 ) because it is profoundly entrenched in the personality of the scholar, and hence, more improbable to alter under external force per unit areas ( cited in Skehan, 1989, p.53 ) .
In position of the research consequences, Gardner ( 1985 ; cited in Gardner, 2001 ) developed a more extended theoretical account to explicate L2 acquisition in “ schoolroom ” scenes, as opposed to “ natural ” scenes. This theoretical account is called the socio-educational theoretical account. The theoretical account exists in several versions ( Gardner 1979, 1983, and 1985 ; cited in Ellis, 1994 ) . The undermentioned history is derived from the 1985 version.
Gardner ( 1985 ; cited in Spolsky, 1989 ) efforts to interrelate four characteristics of 2nd linguistic communication acquisition: the societal and cultural surroundings, single scholar differences, the linguistic communication larning context, and larning results. Harmonizing to Gardner ( 1985 ) , “ the cultural surroundings ” in which scholars grow up forms their beliefs about linguistic communication and civilization. These cultural beliefs influence two attitudinal variables: integrativeness ( the extent to which scholars wish to place with the target-language civilization ) and attitude towards the linguistic communication larning state of affairs ( cited in Spolsky, 1989 ) . Both attitudinal variables affect the scholar ‘s motive in footings of “ its nature ( how integrative it is ) and its strength ” ( cited in Ellis, 1994 ) . In the theoretical account, two categories of variables, integrativeness and attitudes toward the acquisition state of affairs are said to lend to the scholar ‘s degree of motive, and these three categories of variables are said to organize integrative motive ( Gardner, 1985 ; cited in Spolsky, 1989 ) . To Gardner ( 1985 ) , the motive variable together with other variables, such as aptitude and situational anxiousness, are posited to act upon both formal and informal acquisition contexts and, thereby, larning results ( cited in Gardner, 2001 ) . A conventional representation of Gardner ‘s socio-educational theoretical account is shown in Figure 1:
Social Individual differences Language
Milieu acquisition Results
Figure 1: Gardner ‘s socio-educational theoretical account ( cited in Ellis, 1994, p.238 )
Gardner ( 1985 ; cited in Gardner, 2001 ) reiterates that his reformulated socio-educational theoretical account is concerned chiefly with motive and factors that support it. In his conceptualizing of “ motive, ” Gardner ( 1985 ) proposes the undermentioned equation to stand for the constituents of motive ( cited in Skehan, 1989, p. 54 ) :
“ Motivation = Effort + Desire to accomplish a end + Positive Attitudes ”
Skehan ( 1989 ) notes that this equation fits into Gardner ‘s socio-educational theoretical account which suggests a direct relationship between motive and L2 proficiency. ( Gardner, 2001 ) states that “ the motivated single expends attempt to larn the linguistic communication. That is, there is a relentless and consistent effort to larn the stuff, by making prep, by seeking out chances to larn more, by making excess work, etc ” ( p. 12 ) . The leaner ‘s attitude is strongly determined by their cultural beliefs, an built-in portion of the socio-educational theoretical account. Finally, the motivated scholar wants to accomplish the end. An integratively oriented scholar would probably hold a stronger desire to larn the linguistic communication.
To reason, it seems that Gardner ( 1985 ; cited in Gardner, 2001 ) proposes his theoretical account in an effort to explicate how learning scenes are related to L2 proficiency by progressing a set of interceding variables such as attitudes and motive. As Ellis ( 1994 ) provinces, Gardner ‘s socio-educational theoretical account merely considers the relationship between the different variables and ultimate proficiency, without explicating how these variables affect the procedure and the developmental forms of 2nd linguistic communication acquisition.
2.4.2. Schumann ‘s Acculturation Model ( 1978 )
Schumann ( 1978 ; cited in Schumann, 1978 ) proposed a theoretical account to account for social-psychological factors act uponing SLA. This theoretical account is called “ the socialization theoretical account. ” Socialization can be defined by and large as “ the procedure of going adapted to a new civilization ” ( Brown, 1981 ; cited in Ellis, 1994, p. 230 ) . Basically, Schumann proposed his theoretical account to account for 2nd linguistic communication acquisition in natural scenes, unlike Gardner ‘s socio-educational theoretical account which explains L2 acquisition in schoolroom scenes ( Spolsky, 1989 ) . In fact, there are many societal and psychological factors in this theoretical account, but I will concentrate on motive which is categorized by Schumann ( 1978 ) as a psychological affectional factor.
Schumann ( 1978 ; cited in Ellis, 1994 ) believes that 2nd linguistic communication acquisition is merely one facet of socialization, and the grade of acquisition of L2 is governed by the grade to which scholars acculturate to the mark linguistic communication group ; that is to state, by the grade of contact between scholars and the native talkers. As Schumann ( 1978 ) provinces, SLA is determined by the grade of “ societal and psychological distance ” between scholars and the target-language civilization. However, where the societal distance is undetermined, that is, when societal factors have no clear negative or positive consequence on socialization, the psychological factors come into drama which include four affectional factors ( Schumann, 1978 ; cited in Ellis, 1994 ) . The four affectional variables included in Schumann ‘s socialization theoretical account are: linguistic communication daze, civilization daze, ego permeableness, and motive ( Schumann, 1978, p. 166 ) .
Of these four affective variables, merely motive seems peculiarly applicable to the state of affairs involved in my research undertaking. In Schumann ‘s theoretical account, high degrees of motive, both integrative and instrumental, lend positively to 2nd linguistic communication acquisition. As Spolsky ( 1989 ) notes, there are “ of import ” similarities between Schumann ‘s impression of socialization and Gardner ‘s construct of integrativeness. Since socialization refers to the integrating of the L2 scholar into the mark lingual community ( Schumann, 1978 ) , so a scholar who chooses to acculturate and experiences success may be extremely motivated to larn the mark linguistic communication. On the contrary, a scholar who fails to acculturate to the target-language group may experience confused and aghast, and accordingly he or she is improbable to do the attempt necessary to larn the L2, and as a consequence his or her linguistic communication may go fossilised or “ pidginized, ” as Schumann put it ( 1978 ; cited in Ellis, 1994 ) . Furthermore, Schumann ‘s socialization theoretical account predicts that scholars with integrative motive may accomplish higher proficiency than those with instrumental one. An integratively oriented scholar wants to larn the linguistic communication in order to hold contact with the mark linguistic communication group, while an instrumentally oriented scholar “ would be expected to get the 2nd linguistic communication, merely to the point where his instrumental ends are satisfied ” ( Schumann, 1978, p. 167 ) . Furthermore, Schumann ( 1978 ) indicates that the relationship between motivational orientations and L2 proficiency is a petroleum one, depending on research findings of Oller, Baca, and Vigil ( 1977 ) which are conflicting with Gardner ‘s ( see 2.4.1 ) .
Finally, motive is seen as one of a big figure of affectional variables lending to the concept of socialization. The theoretical account suggests that the grade of socialization determines the degree of 2nd linguistic communication acquisition. It is of import to advert that this theoretical account is merely applicable to natural scenes of 2nd linguistic communication acquisition ( Spolsky, 1989 ) . Besides, it seems that Schumann merely presented a taxonomy of societal and psychological factors, and the complex nature of his theoretical account makes it really hard to prove the theoretical account through empirical observation.
2.4.3. Krashen ‘s Monitor Model ( 1981 )
Krashen ( 1981 ) proposed a theoretical account of “ 2nd linguistic communication acquisition ” that aspires to be comprehensive. The proctor theoretical account refers to five hypotheses developed by the applied linguist to explicate “ 2nd linguistic communication acquisition. ” These five hypotheses are the acquisition-learning hypothesis, the proctor hypothesis, the natural order hypothesis, the input hypothesis, and the affectional filter hypothesis. The focal point will be, however, on the 5th hypothesis, viz. the Affective Filter Hypothesis in which motive is an built-in portion.
Stephen Krashen ( 1981 ) hypothesizes that the “ affectional filter ” consists of assorted psychological factors, such as anxiousness, motive, and assurance, which can strongly heighten or suppress “ 2nd linguistic communication acquisition. ” In other words, Krashen stipulates that a figure of “ affectional variables ” play a facilitative, but non-causal, function in “ 2nd linguistic communication acquisition. ” These variables include: motive, assurance and anxiousness. The undermentioned figure illustrates the relationship between affectional factors and linguistic communication acquisition.
Figure 2: The relationship between affectional factors and linguistic communication acquisition ( Krashen, 1981, P. 110 )
Krashen ( 1981 ) contends that scholars with high motive, assurance, a good self-image, and a low degree of anxiousness are well-equipped for success in “ 2nd linguistic communication acquisition. ” On the other manus, “ performing artists with high or strong filters will get less of the linguistic communication directed at them, as less input is ‘allowed in ‘ to the language-acquisition device ” ( Krashen, 1981, p.21 ) . Therefore, low motive, low self- regard, and enfeebling anxiousness can unite to raise the affectional filter and organize a “ mental block ” that prevents “ comprehendible input ” from being used for acquisition ( Krashen, 1985 ; cited in Brown, 2000 ) . In other words, when the filter is “ up ” it impedes linguistic communication acquisition.
Motivation in Krashen ‘s theoretical account is portion of what he calls the affectional filter. Krashen ( 1981 ) believes that scholars with integrative motive are likely to hold a lower affectional filter than those with instrumental one. Krashen goes on to state that a scholar with an “ instrumental motive ” would be expected to get the 2nd linguistic communication, merely to the point where his or her instrumental ends are satisfied. In add-on, Krashen states that instrumental motive, in some state of affairss, may be a powerful forecaster of 2nd linguistic communication acquisition. Furthermore, Krashen ( 1987 ) claims that the affectional filter is the basic ground why people fossilize. Harmonizing to Krashen ( 1987 ) , the effectual linguistic communication instructor is “ person who can supply input and assist do it comprehendible in a low anxiousness state of affairs ” ( p. 32 ) .
Therefore, Krashen, in his theoretical account, points to the importance of motive in “ 2nd linguistic communication acquisition. ” However, his theoretical account has been badly
criticized for its accent on the differentiation between acquisition and acquisition. There is no manner to turn out how the affectional filter plants ( McLaughlin, 1987 ; cited in Brown, 2000 ) . The affectional filter hypothesis besides fails to take into history why a motivated scholar, whose affectional filter should be down, could still hold problem larning a linguistic communication ( McLaughlin, 1987 ; besides cited in Brown, 2000 ) .
In decision, there are a batch of theoretical accounts that histories for the different societal and psychological factors that contribute, to changing grades, to 2nd linguistic communication acquisition. In this regard, motive is no exclusion. The early work of Gardner and Lambert ( 1959 ; cited in Gardner, 2001 ) gave the impulse for other research workers in the field of SLA to further analyze the nature of scholars ‘ motive in linguistic communication acquisition. It must be emphasized, nevertheless, that no general and comprehensive theoretical account of motive has been proposed to account for all the dimensions of motive in the different scenes of SLA.
2.5. Motivation: Cause or Consequence
Many SLA research workers acknowledge the importance of motive in 2nd linguistic communication acquisition. As Ellis ( 1985 ) maintains, motive seems to impact the “ rate ” and the “ ultimate result ” of linguistic communication acquisition, but how motive affects the “ path ” of acquisition is non clear ( Ellis, 1985 ) . Although many surveies on motive in linguistic communication acquisition ( Gardner and Lambert 1959, 1972 ; Gardner, 1968 ; Gardner, 1985 ; Oller et Al, 1977 ) were promising and gave a batch of penetrations into the nature of motive and its effects on linguistic communication acquisition proficiency, these surveies were correlational in nature. That is to state, they merely show a relationship, non the way of this relationship. They suggest that higher motive was correlated with higher accomplishment, but did non demo in which way the causality ran ( Skehan, 1989 ) . Some research workers believe that motive is the cause of linguistic communication success, while others think the other manner unit of ammunition. In the undermentioned paragraphs, I will demo the surveies that addressed this issue.
Some SLA research workers believe that motive is the cause of linguistic communication accomplishment. Both integrative and instrumental motive are believed to play a causative function in 2nd linguistic communication acquisition. Refering research into integrative orientation, Gardner ( 1985 ; cited in Skehan, 1989 )
conducted a survey to back up motivation-as-cause place. He presented the steps of integrativeness, motive, and attitudes towards the acquisition state of affairs, commanding two variables: twelvemonth of survey ( twelvemonth 1 vs. twelvemonth 2 ) and accomplishment ( high or low ) . By the terminal of the 2nd twelvemonth, he found that “ high winners ” did non look to hold developed more positive attitudes. Consequently, Gardner ( 1985 ; cited in Skehan, 1989 ) concluded that it is motive which causes linguistic communication accomplishment, non frailty versa. Spolsky ‘s ( 1989 ) reappraisal of research in this field does non back up the thought that successful accomplishment needfully leads to better larning. Spolsky ( 1989, p. 153 ) says that “ while greater motive and attitudes lead to better acquisition, the converse is non true. ” Similarly, instrumental orientation has an independent, causative consequence on linguistic communication accomplishment. Gardner and McIntyre ( 1991 ; cited in Ellis, 1994 ) found that when they offered a wages for an English-French vocabulary-pairing undertaking, pupils concentrated more, and got better consequences than did those who were non rewarded. Ironically, the behaviour merely lasted every bit long as the wages was offered.
On the contrary, advocates of the motivation-as-result place to a great extent knock the “ Integrative/Instrumental Orientation Dichotomy ” for its accent on merely the causative facets of motive. They believe that it is possible for motive to be the consequence of acquisition ( Skehan, 1989 ) . Hermann ( 1980 ; cited in Ellis, 1994 ) proposed the “ Resultative Hypothesis ” which claims that scholars who do good are more likely to persist and keep or increase motive. Strong ( 1984 ) , looking at Spanish-speaking kindergarten kids larning English as a foreign linguistic communication, found that eloquence preceded an disposition to tie in with the mark linguistic communication group, so that the ability to talk the linguistic communication really led to integrative attitudes, instead than the other manner unit of ammunition ( cited in Skehan, 1989 ) . Furthermore, Savignon ‘s ( 1972 ) and Burstall ‘s ( 1975 ) surveies of pupils larning French would back up the statement that success contributes to motive ( cited in Ellis, 1994 ) . Ellis ( 1994 ) suggests that this line of causing may be peculiarly applicable where scholars have low initial motive.
Therefore, there are conflicting consequences refering the thought whether motive is the cause or the consequence of linguistic communication accomplishment. While Gardner and other research workers advocate motive as a causative variable, others like Hermann ( 1980 ) and Strong ( 1984 ) argue that it is success which causes motive. Ellis ( 1994, p. 515 ) notes that the relationship between motive and success is an “ synergistic ” one. That is to state, scholars with high motive are likely to see success, but perceived success can assist scholars to prolong their motive and even make new types.
2.6. Orientations and the Cultural Setting
To get down with, it is utile to separate between motive and orientation. As I mentioned earlier, Gardner ( 1985 ; in Ellis, 1994 ) states that motive, which refers to the attempt scholars make to larn the linguistic communication, is non the same as “ orientation ” which reflects the implicit in grounds for larning the linguistic communication. Gardner and Lambert ( 1972 ) postulated that there are two discernable orientations that explain an person ‘s motive to get a 2nd linguistic communication, viz. instrumental and integrative. In this subdivision, I shall show the nature of the relationship between orientations of linguistic communication acquisition and the cultural scene in which larning takes topographic point.
Approximately speech production, the nature of the cultural/social scene in which larning takes topographic point is likely determined by the position of the linguistic communication being learned. For illustration, English has a “ 2nd linguistic communication ” position for the Gallic Canadians populating in Canada, which is by and large considered as a bilingual and bicultural state. On the contrary, English has a “ foreign linguistic communication ” position in the Philippines, which is seen as a monocultural community. The differentiation between 2nd and foreign linguistic communication larning scenes may be of extreme importance because of the great differences in footings of what is learned, how it is learned, and why it is learned.
In their ten-year research into linguistic communication larning motive, Gardner and Lambert ( 1959, 1972 ; cited in Skehan, 1989 ) found that in certain state of affairss an integrative orientation may be more powerful in easing successful L2 acquisition than an instrumental one, and frailty versa. For illustration, Gardner and Lambert ( 1959, 1972 ; cited in Ellis, 1985 ) found that Anglophone Canadians larning Gallic in Montreal had really strong integrative orientation which accounted for successful acquisition of Gallic, but that instrumental orientation was believed to be more of import in the Philippines. Gardner and Lambert ( 1972 ; cited in Skehan, 1989 ) conclude that the function of the L2 in these different scenes may account for such findings.
To back up the findings of Gardner and Lambert, Lukmani ( 1972 ; cited in Ellis, 1994 ) shows that instrumental orientation is the dominant tendency in India. He stated that non-westernized female scholars of English in Bombay, who were instrumentally motivated, achieved a high degree of proficiency. In fact, the larning state of affairs Lukmani investigated was “ really similar ” to that in the Philippines investigated by Gardner and Lambert ( Ellis 1985 ) . On the other manus, Oller, Baca, and Vigil ( 1977 ) contend that instrumental orientations are more powerful in 2nd linguistic communication scenes as opposed to foreign linguistic communication 1s. In their survey, they found that topics ( Mexican Americans in Southeast ) were instrumentally motivated to larn English and achieved a high degree of proficiency. These conflicting consequences endanger to sabotage the findings of Gardner and Lambert.
In decision, some research workers like Gardner attempted to analyze the relationship between the type of motive and the societal scenes in which the acquisition takes topographic point. It should be acknowledged that the work of Gardner and his associates has illuminated other research workers to look into more into this relationship. True, the societal state of affairs may assist to find “ what sort of orientation scholars have and what sort is most of import for linguistic communication acquisition ” ( Ellis 1994 ) . As Skehan ( 1989 ) suggests, “ a theory of state of affairss ” that examines the systematic correspondences between motivational orientation and learning scenes is extremely needed.
In this chapter, I have discussed the complex phenomenon of motive in L2 larning which constitutes one of the most to the full researched countries of single scholar differences. The majority of research on motive has focused on the integrative/instrumental duality, with small accent on motive as intrinsic involvement ( Ellis, 1994 ) . Furthermore, it must be emphasized that no general and comprehensive theoretical account of motive has been proposed to account for all the dimensions of motive in the different scenes of SLA. Above all, more research of “ longitudinal and ethnomethodological nature ” is extremely needed, instead than depending merely on trial informations ( Skehan, 1989 ) . Because motive is a really of import, if non the most of import factor in linguistic communication acquisition, it is to be hoped that the different theoretical accounts of motive would be integrated in order to acquire a fuller image of the nature of motive and its influences on the procedure of 2nd linguistic communication acquisition.