Henkel Beatrix
The attitude and motivation of learners of Ukrainian and English in Transcarpathia
Doctoral thesis
2012
Eötvös Loránd University Faculty of Education and Psychology
Author: Henkel Beatrix
Title: The attitude and motivation of learners of Ukrainian and English in Transcarpathia
Supervisor: Csizér Kata, Phd
Doctoral school: Doctoral School of Education Head of the doctoral school: Szabolcs Éva, PhD Doctoral programme: Language pedagogy
Head of the doctoral programme: Medgyes Péter, CSc, DSc Members of the doctoral committee:
Head of the doctoral committee: Medgyes Péter, CSc, DSc Secretary: Tankó Gyula, PhD
Members: Edwards Melinda, PhD
Józsa Krisztián, Phd
Heitzmann Judit, Phd
Opponents: Kormos Judit, Phd
Ottó István, Phd
Date of submission:
“Do not be afraid, I shall help you.”
Isaiah, 41:13
Table of contents:
Acknowledgements ... 9
List of tables ... 10
List of figures ... 13
Chapter I. Introduction ... 14
I.1. Background to the study ... 14
I.2. Rationale for the study ... 15
I.3. Overview of the dissertation ... 16
Chapter II. Theoretical background ... 18
II.1. Language learning motivation ... 19
II.1.1. Definitions of language learning motivation ... 19
II.1.2. Theoretical frameworks of second language motivation... 22
II.1.3. Dörnyei’s L2 Motivational Self System Theory ... 34
II.1.3.1. The Ideal L2 Self and the integrative motive ... 40
II.1.3.2. The Ought-to L2 Self and the instrumental motive ... 46
II.1.3.3. L2 Learning Experience ... 50
II.1.4. Further components of second language motivation ... 51
II.1.4.1. Parental encouragement... 51
II.1.4.2. Anxiety ... 55
II.1.4.3. Intercultural contact .... ... 57
II.1.4.4. Attitude towards language learning ... 59
II.1.4.5. Cultural interest ... ... 63
II.1.4.6. Friendship orientation ... 64
II.1.4.7. Perceived importance of the language... 65
II.1.5. Motivation to learn several languages ... 67
II.1.6. Perceptions of learners’ motivation ... 70
II.1.6.1. Motivation: Learners’ perceptions... 70
II.1.6.2. Motivation: Teachers’ perceptions ... 74
II.2. Language education policy of minority groups in Transcarpathia ... 76
II.3. Ukrainian language teaching for Hungarians in Transcarpathia ... 79
II.4. English language teaching for Hungarians in Transcarpathia ... 86
Chapter III. Research questions ... 91
Chapter IV. Research design: Questionnaire study... 95
IV.1. Description of the questionnaire study... 95
IV.2. Participants... 96
IV.3. Instrument ... 100
IV.4. Methods of data collection and analysis ... 105
IV.5. Results and discussion of Study #1... 107
IV.5.1. Reliability indices of the scales... 107
IV.5.2. The latent dimensions and their mean values ... 109
IV.5.3. Correlations among the scales... 111
IV.5.4. Results of the regression analysis ... 114
IV.5.5. Conclusions and limitations of Study #1 ... 118
IV.6. Results and discussion of Study #2... 120
IV.6.1. Reliability indices of the scales... 120
IV.6.2. The latent dimensions and their mean values ... 122
IV.6.3. Correlations among the scales... 124
IV.6.4. Results of the regression analysis ... 126
IV.6.5. Conclusions of Study #2 ... 127
IV.7. Results and discussion of Study #3... 128
IV.7.1. Reliability indices of the scales... 128
IV.7.2. The latent dimensions and their mean values ... 130
IV.7.3. Correlations among the underlying dimensions... 133
IV.7.4. Results of the regression analyses... 137
IV.7.4.1. Motivated Ukrainian language learning behaviour and the Ideal Ukrainian Self ... ..137
IV.7.4.2. Motivated English language learning behaviour and the Ideal English Self ... 142
IV.7.5. Conclusions of Study #3 ... 145
IV.8. Synthesis of questionnaire findings ... 148
IV.8.1. Comparison of mean scores of scales referring to both Ukrainian and English ... 148
IV.8.2. Comparison of correlation of scales referring to both Ukrainian and English ... 151
IV.8.3. Comparisons of regression analyses referring to both Ukrainian and English ... 153
Chapter V. Research design: interview study ... 155
V.1. Description of the interview study ... 155
V.2. Background to the study... 155
V.3. Research instrument: the interview schedule ... 159
V.4. Participants ... 160
V.5. Data collection... 162
V.6. Methods of data analysis ... 163
V.7. Results ... 164
V.7.1. English language learning motivation ... 164
V.7.1.1. Reasons for studying English ... 164
V.7.1.2. English language teaching in Transcarpathia ... 165
V.7.1.3. English language learning ... 168
V.7.1.4. Perceived elements of English language motivation... 170
V.7.1.5. Perceived English language proficiency level of the learners... 173
V.7.2. Ukrainian language learning motivation ... 174
V.7.2.1. Reasons for learning Ukrainian ... 174
V.7.2.2. Ukrainian language teaching ... 176
V.7.2.3. Ukrainian language learning... 179
V.7.2.4. Perceived components of Ukrainian language motivation... 181
V.7.2.5. Perceived Ukrainian language proficiency level of the learners ... 184
V.8. Conclusions ... 185
Chapter VI. Results ... 188
VI.1. Research question #1 ... 188
VI.2. Research question #2 ... 190
VI.3. Research question #3 ... 192
VI.4. Research question #4 ... 194
Chapter VII. Conclusions ... 196
Chapter VIII. Limitations, pedagogical implications and future research directions ... 200
Chapter IX. Bibliography ... 203
Appendices ... 226
Appendix 1. Initial list of questionnaire scales and items... 226
Appendix 2. Pre-final version of the motivation questionnaire ... 228
Appendix 3. Final list of the questionnaire scales and items ... 232
Appendix 4. Final version of the motivation questionnaire ... 234
Appendix 5. The interview schedule (in Hungarian) ... 239
Appendix 6. The interview schedule (in Ukrainian) ... 241
Acknowledgements:
I would like to express my thanks to my consultant, Csizér Kata, for her continuous support and constructive feedback throughout my doctoral research. I also owe gratitude to the Dissertation Proposal Committee, Holló Dorottya, Károly Krisztina and Medgyes Péter for their invaluable feedback. I wish to thank Kontráné Hegybíró Edit and Kormos Judit for providing active encouragement from the very beginning of this research project. I am very grateful to my teacher colleagues who helped in establishing contact with schools and also in delivering questionnaires.
I wish to thank the opponents of the present doctoral thesis for their constructive and helpful comments. I am deeply indebted to my family for their tremendous help, encouragement and understanding. Finally, I am really grateful to all secondary school-leavers, educational specialists who were willing to participate in my research projects.
List of tables
Table 1. Dörnyei’s Three-Level Framework of L2 Motivation ... 31 Table 2. Williams and Burden’s Framework of L2 Motivation (1997). ... 32 Table 3. Common Dimensions among Theoretical Frameworks and Empirical
Research Reports Regarding Language Motivation... 33 Table 4. The Rising Number of Pupils Enrolled in Schools with Ukrainian
Language Instruction... 80 Table 5. Profile of Teachers of Ukrainian in the Transcarpathian Region... 83 Table 6. Hungarian, Ukrainian, and Russian Language Knowledge of the
Transcarpathian Hungarian Community ... 84 Table 7. Number of English Language Classes per Week in Hungarian Schools ... 87 Table 8. Perceived Foreign Language Knowledge of Hungarian Minority Group
Members in the Carpathian Basin ... 89 Table 9. Research Design of the Present Investigation ... 94 Table 10. Distribution of Participants in Each Questionnaire Survey ... 98 Table 11. Internal Consistency Indices of the Questionnaire Scales Referring to
Ukrainian and English (N=147) ... 107 Table 12. Descriptive Statistics of the Questionnaire Scales Referring to Ukrainian
and English (N=147) ... 109 Table 13. Significant Correlations among the Scales Referring to the Ukrainian Language
in the Questionnaire (N=147)... 112 Table 14. Significant Correlations among the Scales Referring to English in the
Questionnaire (N=147)... 113 Table 15. Results of the Regression Analysis Regarding Motivated Ukrainian
Language Learning Behaviour (N=147) ... 114 Table 16. Results of the Regression Analysis Regarding Motivated English Language
Learning Behaviour (N=147) ... 116 Table 17. Internal Consistency Indices of the Questionnaire Scales Referring to
Ukrainian (N=211) ... 121 Table 18. Descriptive Statistics of the Questionnaire Scales Referring to
Ukrainian (N=211) ... 122 Table 19. Significant Correlations among the Scales Referring to the Ukrainian Language
in the Questionnaire (N=211)... 125 Table 20. Results of the Regression Analysis Regarding Motivated Ukrainian
Language Learning Behaviour (N=211) ... 126 Table 21. Internal Consistency Indices of the Questionnaire Scales Referring to
Ukrainian and English (N=219) ... 129 Table 22. Descriptive Statistics of the Scales Referring to Ukrainian and
English (N=219) ... 131 Table 23 Significant Correlations among the Scales Referring to the Ukrainian Language
in the Questionnaire (N=219)... 135 Table 24. Significant Correlations among the Scales Referring to the English Language
in the Questionnaire (N=219)... 135 Table 25. Results of the Regression Analysis Regarding Motivated Ukrainian
Language Learning Behaviour (N=219) ... 138 Table 26. Results of the Regression Analysis Regarding the Ukrainian Ideal Self
(N=219) ... 140 Table 27. Results of the Regression Analysis Regarding Motivated English Language
Learning Behaviour (N=219) ... 143
Table 28. Results of the Regression Analysis Regarding the Ideal English Self
(N=219) ... 144 Table 29. Comparison of Means of Questionnaire Scales in Study #1 and Study #3
with Reference to English ... 149 Table 30. Comparison of Means of Questionnaire Scales in Study #1, Study #2, and
Study #3 with Reference to Ukrainian. ... 150 Table 31. Comparison of Correlation Coefficients of the Questionnaire Scales with
Reference to English ... 151 Table 32. Comparison of Correlation Coefficients of the Questionnaire Scales with
Reference to Ukrainian... 152 Table 33. Bio data of the interview respondents. ... 162
List of figures
Figure 1. Gardner’s socio-educational model ... 23 Figure 2. Schematic representation of the findings of Dörnyei, et al.’s (2006)
national motivation survey ...35 Figure 3. Schematic representation of Gardner’s (1985) conceptualization of the
integrative motive... 41 Figure 4. The demographic situation of Transcarpathian Hungarians ... 97
Chapter I. Introduction
I.1. Background to the study
The present thesis describes the development of project that is based on a mixed method research design. On the one hand, the outcomes of several questionnaire studies investigating the language motivation of secondary school-leavers are discussed. On the other hand, the outcomes of a small-scale qualitative research inquiry are introduced that are supposed to provide a deeper understanding of the questionnaire results. The previous study included ethnic minority learners, whereas the respondents of the latter study were educational specialists both from the language majority and minority group living in the same region, i.e. Transcarpathia.
The Transcarpathian region is situated in the Western part of Ukraine. According to the latest national census in Ukraine, which was carried out in 2001, 151,500 Hungarians live in Transcarpathia which constitutes 96.8% of Hungarians in Ukraine (Molnár & Molnár, 2005). The Hungarians populate four districts in the region, but there is only one town with a relatively higher proportion of Hungarians in its population, i.e. Beregszász. The Hungarian minority group in Transcarpathia forms a territorial unit as most of the Hungarian settlements are situated in the immediate neighbourhood of each other. There are 104 Hungarian schools in Transcarpathia, 73 of which has Hungarian as the medium of instruction, while 31 can claimed to be bilingual, as they offer both Hungarian and Ukrainian as the medium of instruction for Hungarian learners.
Among the 104 schools, 33 are secondary schools (Bagu, 2001).
I.2. Rationale for the study
The Hungarian minority group in Transcarpathia is an indigenous group that has lived in its present territory for more than a thousand years. Besides, the Hungarian minority group in Transcarpathia has lived through more than fifteen regimes in the twentieth century, and belonged to various countries during this period. It remained within the borders of present-day Ukraine after 1945. In 1991 Ukraine has announced its independence and the status of Ukrainian language began to emerge to the national level. This process explains why researching how people and learners in particular relate to learning the official language of a newly independent state is a novel issue worth to be explored.
Second, as the two languages under scrutiny hold quite different status (second vs. foreign language; world language vs. language of local relevance), constructing the motivational self systems of learners in reference to the two languages will definitely provide new insights into the recently validated Motivational Self System theory of Dörnyei (For a series of studies dealing with the theory, see Dörnyei & Ushioda, 2009a).
Third, as mentioned above despite the definite emphasis to enhance learning the state language at schools, Ukrainian language competence of the learners has not improved (see, e.g.:
Beregszászi & Csernicskó, 2003). Mapping the terrain of attitudes and the elements of motivation might shed light on the deficiencies the current framework of Ukrainian language teaching for ethnic minorities possesses, and might foreshadow points for reconsideration and/or alteration in the present approach.
In the case of English, the situation is a bit more promising in terms of educational aids and trained teachers. Availability of teaching materials, assessment techniques and opportunities for professional development are all due to the widespread use of English. English language proficiency of the learners, though, cannot be claimed to reach a higher level than that of
Ukrainian after finishing secondary schools. Therefore viewing and researching motivation from the self-perspective might point forward to elements on which the motivational capacity of English learners can be built upon.
Fourth, in spite of the differences between English and Ukrainian, there is one thing they held in common, i.e. they are both introduced in the first forms of elementary schools in Transcarpathia. This commonality offers the opportunity to examine the construct of first and second foreign language learning motivation after having studied Ukrainian and English for an approximately equal number of years. Via this line of thinking this investigation might develop new perspectives into the study of second and third language learning motivation, too.
I strongly believe that the findings of the present research project might contribute to the field of language motivation, by exploring the motivation construct(s) of ethnic minority learners. Besides, the findings might also benefit the members, organizers of the educational process for ethnic minority learners. Finally, I think that the four reasons presented above provide a strong foundation for the need of the current investigation.
I.3. Overview of the structure
The present doctoral thesis consists of nine chapters. The first chapter includes a brief overview of the background of the study and the rationale for the present piece of research. The second chapter provides an overview of some relevant aspects of second language motivation from the point of view of the research aims. At the same time it also gets the reader familiar with the current language education policy of Transcarpathia and with the state of English and Ukrainian language teaching in the region. The third chapter contains the leading research questions of the investigation. The fourth chapter includes the details of the conducted questionnaire studies, while the fifth chapter comments on the role and procedure of an interview study. The sixth
chapter tries to provide answers to the four research questions formulated at the outset of the study. The seventh chapter discusses the outcomes of the study. The eighth chapter comprises the final conclusions. The last chapter contains the list of reference materials applied throughout the study.
Chapter II. Theoretical background
The present chapter of the dissertation consists of two main parts. The first main part deals with language learning motivation and discusses conceptualizations and theoretical frameworks of the concept with special focus on Dörnyei’s (2005) L2 Motivational Self System Theory, which was chosen to be the main underlying framework of the present investigation. Besides the chapter also contains sections dealing with some influential components of motivation, i.e. parental encouragement, language contact, anxiety, attitudes, friends, cultural interest, and perceived importance of the language that were supposed to affect the language motivation of the target population. Studies dealing with motivation to study several languages were also examined to find out more about the common core elements of motivation constructs. Finally, a literature review on perceptions of learners’ motivation will be reviewed as they were also expected to have a huge impact on motivation in line with previous findings (e.g.: Kormos, et al., 2011).
The second main part of this chapter deals with the language learning context of Transcarpathia. Thus, it includes a brief description of the current language education policy issues and a report on the state of both Ukrainian and English language teaching in the region so as to help the understanding of the respondents’ specific language learning context. It is supposed that getting familiar with the language learning environment of the learners in general and with the peculiarities of the current language education system is inevitably necessary to become able to draw adequate conclusions from the findings.
II.1. Language learning motivation
II.1.1. Definitions of language learning motivation
Motivation is a concept to which dominant roles are attached in the fields related to psychology and in the recent decades in the field of applied linguistics and language pedagogy, as well. In what follows an attempt will be made to overview some motivation definitions that were found to be important from the point of view of research focus. Motivation descriptions in terms of achievement, goal, process, and as an element of individual and social interaction will be provided.
Gardner, who is the dominant representative of the socio-educational view of motivation, perceived motivation as a state of the individual which is embedded in the social context of the learner. He claimed that motivation is “the extent to which an individual works or strives to learn the language because of a desire to do so and the satisfaction experienced in this activity”
(Gardner, 1985, p. 10). Gardner and his associates argued that the construct of motivation is made up of three elements. It consists of effort expended to achieve a certain goal, the desire to learn the language, and finally the satisfaction experienced in the activity of language learning.
Effortful behaviour to attain a goal (which can be learning a target language) is also part of Williams and Burden’s (1997) definition, but they also included a cognitively and emotionally affected ‘conscious decision’ on the side of the learner “which gives rise to a period of sustained intellectual and/or physical effort in order to attain a previously set goal (or goals)” (p. 120).
Similarly, Oxford and Shearin (1994) added that the prolonged period of effort expanded during the language learning process is overwhelmingly determined by motivation. The goal-related side of motivation also forms part of Dörnyei’s (1998) definition who claimed that motivation is
“responsible for determining human behaviour by energizing it and giving it direction” (Dörnyei, 1998, p. 117).
All the above cited quotes describe motivation as a state comprising effortful, goal- directed behaviour, but there are also definitions that look at motivation as a dynamically changing variable being in constant interaction with both internal and internal factors. Pintrich and Schunk’s (1996) conceptualization of motivation also emphasizes the goal-driven nature of the learning process, where the process is what they call motivation. Thus, they claimed that motivation is “a process whereby goal-directed activity is instigated and sustained” (p. 4).
The active involvement of learners in the learning process is what is demonstrated by motivation according to Dörnyei and Csizér (1998). But in their research on teachers’ motivating strategies the authors already made a difference between the initial interest and the persistence phase, and emphasized the dominant role of motivation in both phases by claiming that it
“provides the primary impetus to initiate learning the L2 and later the driving force to sustain the long and often tedious learning process” (p. 203). Dörnyei and Ottó (1998) also elaborated on the different phases of motivation as a dynamically changing variable and concluded that “in a general sense, motivation can be defined as the dynamically changing cumulative arousal in a person that initiated, directs, co-ordinates, amplifies, terminates, and evaluates the cognitive and motor processes whereby initial wishes and desires are selected prioritised, operationalised and (successfully or unsuccessfully) acted out” (p. 65).
The dynamic view of motivation inspired the implementation of interaction-related issues into the system of definitions. McGroarty (1998), for instance, described motivation as being
“constructed and expressed in and through interaction” (p. 600). Thinking along the same lines, Julkunen (2001) narrowed down the scope of interaction processes to the classroom context, in which “motivation can be seen as a continuous interaction process between the learner and the environment” (p. 29). In a similar vein, Ellis and Larsen-Freeman (2006) also looked at
motivation as a ‘process of interaction’, but they highlight the “processes of interaction of many agents, internal and external, in the ever-changing complex world of the learner” (p. 563).
Specifically, Csizér, Kormos and Sarkadi (2010) claimed that motivation is “in constant interaction with student internal factors and the learning environment” (p. 469). As it can be seen, one of the novelties of the last four definitions, compared to the afore-mentioned ones, is the appearance of internal and external factors and their elaborated interaction in the learners’
environment specifically in the language classroom.
To sum the above referred to definitions, Dörnyei’s (2000) definition might be quoted who claimed that “motivation to learn a foreign language involves all those affects and cognitions that initiate language learning, determine language choice, and energise the language learning process. Due to the complex nature of language itself-- it is at the same time a communication code, an integral part of the individual’s identity, and the most important channel of social organisation - L2 motivation is a highly eclectic and multifaceted construct, consisting of a range of different motives associated with certain features of the L2 (e.g. various attitudes towards the L2), the language learner (e.g. self confidence or need for achievement), and the learning situation (e.g. the appraisal of the L2 course or the teacher)” (p. 425).
After looking at various definitions of motivation, Dörnyei’s (2000) was chosen, as it seems to contain each aspect of motivation relevant from the point of view of the focus of the present research. Thus, it contains reference to identity, to the nature of the language-specific issues, to the learning environment and to the complex interaction of the three. In other words, Dörnyei defines motivation as an integral part of the individual’s identity which contains all those affective and cognitive dimensions that influence his/her effort expanded to learn the language, and influence language choice, as well. Besides, it is said to be associated with certain properties of the second/foreign language, and with the language learning context that surrounds the learner. These are important aspects of motivation to be considered, as in the present work all
the three elements play central roles. Because of its suitability for research purposes, was Dörnyei’s (2000) conceptualization was chosen to be the guiding principle of L2 motivation.
II.1.2. Theoretical frameworks of second language motivation
The first decades of language motivation research were mainly affected by Gardner’s and his colleagues’ pioneering activity in the field at that time (for an overview of L2 motivation research see Dörnyei, 2001a). This period of motivation research was dominated by Gardner’s socio-educational model and by the frequent and widespread use of his Attitude/Motivation Test Battery in research projects. Therefore, first of all, Gardner’s theory of motivation will be overviewed briefly. It will be followed by four models constructed by supporters of the
‘educational shift’ in motivation research (i.e. Crookes & Schmidt, 1991; Dörnyei, 1994b;
Oxford & Shearin, 1994; Williams & Burden, 1997). Finally, reference will be made to Dörnyei (1996) who listed several common dimensions underlying thirteen second language motivational frameworks.
The theoretical framework that has dominated motivation research tradition for decades is Gardner’s socio-educational model. The model is “concerned with the role of various individual difference characteristics of the student in the learning of a L2” (Dörnyei, 2001b, p. 51). The criterion measure against which each element of the model is measured is achievement. Other studies of the time also dealt with integrative motive (including motivation) as a predictor variable of language achievement (Clément, 1980; Ely, 1986; Gardner, 1985; Gardner &
Lambert, 1972; Gardner & MacIntyre, 1991, 1993; Gardner, Tremblay, & Masgoret, 1997), since Gardner and Lambert’s (1959) influential study on motivational variables has been published.
Achievement in the socio-educational model is assessed in the form of linguistic and non- linguistic outcomes (See Figure 1 for the socio-educational model). Linguistic outcomes refer to
the actual knowledge of the language and language skills, while non-linguistic outcomes reflect the learner’s attitudes towards members of the target language community regarding cultural values and beliefs (Gardner, 1985).
Figure 1. Gardner’s socio-educational model (Gardner, 1985, p. 153)
Gardner claimed that levels of achievement are mainly influenced by two independent individual characteristics, language aptitude and motivation. Motivation then is affected by attitudes towards the language learning context and integrativeness. On the one hand, attitude can be assessed by “atmosphere in the class, the quality of the materials, availability of materials, the curriculum, the teacher, etc.” (Gardner, 1985, p. 248). On the other hand, Gardner’s conceptualization of the integrative motive seems to be an elaborate construct, one element of which is motivation (See section 2.3.2. for details on the integrative motive).
Regarding its system, the socio-educational model comprises four different aspects of the language learning process. They are: the antecedent factors, individual difference variables,
contexts of language acquisition and outcomes (linguistic and non-linguistic). It was in line with the theory and on the basis of research findings that Gardner and his associates developed the Attitude/Motivation Test Battery (Gardner, 1985). This research instrument has widely been used in both foreign and second language learning contexts, among learners belonging to various age groups in varying stages of their language learning process (for a review of those studies see Gardner, 2006; Masgoret & Gardner, 2003). In addition to investigating language learning motivation and attitudes, it also covers learner variables such as intelligence, language aptitude, language learning strategies, and language use anxiety (Dörnyei, 2001b, p. 52).
Taken together, Gardner’s socio-educational theory really endured the test of time as it
“has developed over more than 30 years of research and is concerned with the role of various individual difference characteristics of the student in the learning of a second language” (Gardner
& MacIntyre, 1993, p. 158). Masgoret and Gardner (2003) carried out a meta-analysis that included 75 independent datasets and 10489 individuals. Each dataset was based on the socio- educational model and on the Attitude/Motivation Test Battery, respectively. They drew three major conclusions: “First, the five classes of variables, attitudes toward the learning situation, integrativeness, motivation, integrative orientation, and instrumental orientation are all positively related to achievement in a second language. Second, motivation is more highly related to second language achievement than either of the other four variables. Third, these findings are not moderated to any great degree by the availability of the language in the immediate environment or by the age of the learners” (Masgoret & Gardner, 2003, p. 205).
It is not only the socio-educational model which is very often connected with Gardner and his associates’ research activity, but the instrumental/integrative motivation dichotomy, as well.
However, Dörnyei (2010) claimed it to be an inaccurate understanding of their research activity
“who did indeed introduce these terms but whose theoretical motivation construct was much more elaborate than this simplistic duality” (p. 74). It was Gardner and Lambert (1959) who first
provided a basic definition of both integrative and instrumental orientations, much earlier than the socio-educational model was even introduced. They claimed that instrumental orientations are “reasons that reflect more utilitarian value of language achievement” whereas integrative orientation dominates “where the aim in language study is to learn more about the language group, or to meet more and different people” (p. 267). Although it was just a simplification of an elaborated model, the integrative/instrumental dichotomy was applied in several pieces of L2 motivation research (e.g. Carreira, 2005; Hernandez, 2008; Norris-Holt, 2001; Warden & Linn, 2000).
Dörnyei (1994b) named two reasons for the relative popularity of the dichotomy. One reason for it is that “broadly-defined ‘cultural-affective’ and ‘pragmatic-instrumental’
dimensions often emerged in empirical studies of motivation” (p. 520). Another reason is that the integrative/instrumental dichotomy is indeed a part of the orientations section of the AMTB. But due to the lack of consensus on standard definitions of motivation and orientation, the borderline between the two concepts has been diminished and allowed the widespread use of the dichotomy of instrumental/integrative motivation (Dörnyei, 1994b).
Alongside with the dominance of the socio-educational model of L2 motivation and the related instrumental-integrative dichotomy, the beginning of the 1990s brought about a change in researchers’ attitude towards the social-psychological approach. The need for change in motivation research was attested by a professional debate that was published in consecutive numbers of the Modern Language Journal in 1994. The studies of Dörnyei (1994a) and Oxford and Shearin (1994) initiated the discussion which was taken up by Gardner and Tremblay (1994a, 1994b) and was followed by Dörnyei (1994b) and Oxford (1994). The following claims have been articulated by the critiques of the socio-educational approach.
First of all, a need for more education-friendly approaches was requested (Crookes &
Schmidt, 1991; Skehan, 1991). Dörnyei (1994a) claimed that the main emphasis in the
Gardnerian model “is on general motivational components grounded in the social milieu rather than in the foreign language classroom” (p. 273). He also asked for a more classroom friendly interpretation of research results. Thus, his request indicated the need for a type of research the results of which can directly be applied in the formal language learning environment of learners.
Second, Dörnyei (1994b) pointed out some problematic terminological, conceptual and measurement issues regarding the Gardnerian model. In terms of terminology, he found it confusing that in the construct of integrative motive, the term ‘integrative’ appears three times at three different levels, i.e. integrative orientation, integrativeness, and integrative motive/motivation. Another terminological issue concerns the relationship between integrative motive/motivation and motivation itself. In the Gardnerian model the earlier seems to comprise the latter, i.e. motivation appears to be part of the integrative motive, which did not make much sense for Dörnyei (1994b) because he perceived this relation in a reverse direction. Thus, for Dörnyei (1994b) and since then for several researchers, integrative motivation was a dominant constituent of motivation (e.g. Csizér & Dörnyei, 2005a ; Lamb, 2004).
In terms of measurement issues, Dörnyei (1994b) claimed that the items in the AMTB are very closely related to the social psychological theory, and from a theoretical point of view he found “it difficult to place the L2 motivation measured by the AMTB in the ‘motivation-causes- behavior-causes-achievement’ chain”. A second measurement issue he names concerns the items in the AMTB that are considered to illustrate the three constituting components of motivation, i.e. motivational intensity, desire to learn the L2, and attitudes towards learning the L2. After carefully examining these three scales that make up the motivation construct, Dörnyei (1994b) concluded that “the actual items in the AMTB do not coincide exactly with clearcut content specifications of ‘desire’, ‘intensity’, and ‘attitudes’ but rather concern a mixture of intended and actual L2 learning behavioural measures as well as general attitudes towards L2 learning” (p 518).
Regarding conceptual issues, Dörnyei (1994b) claimed that despite Gardner’s straightforward definition of ‘orientation’ and ‘motivation’ there appears to be controversies in the literature concerning their use, which can be due to two reasons. On the one hand, orientations do not form part of the motivation component, but they are part of the integrative motive, which in turn is a strong predictive variable of language learning motivation. On the other hand, orientation as an everyday word is closely related to motivation, as ‘one’s motivation to do something’ is very often understood as ‘one’s reasons for doing something’. The two points raised might easily lead to the misuse of the terms and to other misunderstandings and contradictions.
Third, Crookes and Schmidt (1991) stated that the socio-educational model lacks cognitive aspects of motivation, which proves that there is a discrepancy between mainstream psychological and L2 motivation theories. That is why they argue that psychologically grounded theories should be implemented in the L2 field. Their study shows an example by including a new conceptualization of motivation as a ‘multi-faceted construct’, by introducing prominent motivation researchers from the fields of psychology and by promoting a cognitive aspect of language motivation (Dörnyei, 2001b).
Fourth, the puzzling nature of motivation and orientation in the socio-educational model also contributed to the reexamination of the socio-psychological approach. The number of orientations also needed expansion. Clément and Kruidenier (1983) found knowledge, friendship, and travel orientations when analyzing their data pool. Dörnyei (1994a) added that in foreign language settings a fourth sociocultural orientation was also identified. He claims that these orientations “had traditionally been lumped together in integrativeness” in Gardner’s model. A need for including new orientations was articulated.
In response to the named four requests, Gardner and Tremblay (1994b) critiqued the emerged constructs offered by the authors of the ‘reform’ articles for not having an elaborate
structure (cf. the socio-educational model) and lacking empirical findings supporting it (Dörnyei, 1994b). Alongside with these drawbacks the new models were designed with the aim of
‘expanding the research agenda’ by suggesting education-friendly approaches, by integrating theories from mainstream psychology, and by offering alternative theoretical frameworks to the socio-educational model.
Both Crookes and Schmidt (1991) and Dörnyei (1994a) offered a new construct to understand motivation. These models include elements from Gardner’s model and at the same time propose and education-friendly approach to understand the concept. Both models are important from the point of view that they made distinction between the macro and micro environment of language learners and included classroom, language group and language course- related elements in their L2 motivation conceptualizations.
Crookes and Schmidt’s (1991) theoretical construct of motivation was adopted from Keller’s (1983) four-component system that included interest, relevance, expectancy, satisfaction. Keller looks at interest, as a personal curiosity of the learner, similarly to intrinsic motivation, which “refers to doing something because it is inherently interesting or enjoyable”
(Deci & Ryan, 2000, p. 55). Relevance refers to the importance learners attach to the value of the instruction. Dörnyei (2001b, p. 110) said that “at a macro level, this component coincides with instrumentality; at the level of the learning situation, it refers to the extent to which the classroom instruction and course content are seen to be conducive to achieving the goal, that is, to mastering the L2”. Expectancy is related to the learners’ perceptions of likelihood of success at tasks, at language classes. The fourth element is satisfaction that refers to the feelings of learners experienced after an activity. The motivational construct offered by Keller is an “example of a successful educational construct. It draws together motivational psychology and synthesizes them in a way that the outcome is relevant to and accessible for classroom application” (Dörnyei, 2001b, p. 110).
As it was noted, Crookes and Schmidt embedded the components of Keller’s construct at the classroom level into their framework of motivation. The other levels are the micro level, the syllabus/curriculum level, and the extracurricular level. The micro level deals with the
“motivational effects on the cognitive processing of L2 stimuli” (Dörnyei, 2001b, p. 109). The syllabus/curriculum level addresses the indirect influence of decisions made on the content of the language learning process on motivated learning. The extracurricular level (long-term learning) refers to learners’ long term goals with respect to language learning.
Dörnyei (1994a) incorporated Crookes and Schmidt’s model at one level in his tripartite model of motivation which was the result of findings coming both from primary and secondary research. Namely, after a careful and thorough analysis of research literature for motives dominant in language motivation, and including the results of Clément, Dörnyei and Noels’
(1994) questionnaire project, Dörnyei drew up his framework of L2 motivation. It is made up of the language level, the learner level and the learning situation level (Table 1).
The three levels of the model accurately capture the three dimensions of motivation that Dörnyei (1994a) often differentiated as the individual, the social and the educational dimensions, respectively. The ‘language level’ is composed of two subsystems and is related to the L2. The integrative motivational subsystem comprises affective predispositions that are connected with the L2, i.e. speakers of the L2, target community and culture-related issues. The instrumental motivational subsystem, on the other hand, involves internalised extrinsic motives that can be career-related motives, as well.
The second ‘learner level’ includes two individual characteristic features as components of motivation, namely the need for achievement and self-confidence. The latter concept is thought to include anxiety experienced during language encounters, perceived language proficiency of learners, perceived influence of past experiences, and perceptions of one’s own ability and skills.
The third level is the ‘learning situation level’, including course-, teacher- and group- specific motivational components. Course-specific elements include the syllabus, course book, organization of the course its perceived relevance from the point of view of the learner. Besides, four course-specific elements are named (cf. Crookes & Scmidt (1991) four- component system of motivation). The affiliative motive that is learning to please the teacher is among the teacher- specific motives. The teacher’s personality type, his/her behaviour, and teaching style are also among the teacher-specific motives. The third group at the learning situation level relates to the motivational impact of the group, i.e. the norm and rules of the learning community, the goals and degree of cohesiveness of the group as a community.
Table 1. Dörnyei’s. Three-Level Framework of L2 Motivation (Dörnyei, 1994a, p. 280)
LANGUAGE LEVEL Integrative motivational subsystem
Instrumental motivational subsystem
LEARNER LEVEL Need for achievement
Self-confidence
* Language use anxiety
* Perceived L2 competence
* Casual attributions
* Self-efficacy LEARNING SITUATION LEVEL
Course-specific motivational components Interest
Relevance Expectancy Satisfaction Teacher-specific motivational components Affiliative motive
Authority type
Direct socialisation of motivation
- modelling
- task presentation
- feedback
Group-specific motivational components Goal-orientedness
Norm and reward system Group cohesion
Classroom goal structure
It is this third ‘learning situation’ specific level that shed light on issues related to the immediate learning environment of the learner. In particular, the model attributed explanatory power to issues related to the language teacher, to the group and to the language course itself in the motivation of individual learners which brought the concept closer to participants of the
learning/teaching process. Besides, the model also inspired further research endeavours (e.g.:
Dörnyei, 1997; McIntyre, et al., 1998) investigating group dynamics and the role of teachers’
communicative style on learners’ willingness to communicate.
Dörnyei (2001b) in his concise book on Teaching and researching motivation, referred to two other models representing the expanded ‘research agenda’ of the 1990s. One of them was Oxford and Shearin’s (1994) construct of L2 motivation. The other was Williams and Burden’s (1997) social constructivist model.
In the process of looking for a new paradigm that can effectively be used in various language learning environments, Oxford and Shearin (1994) surveyed motivation constructs in several fields of psychology to obtain a broad perspective and to become able to find the most influential theories to be implemented into a prospective model of language motivation. They found need theories, expectancy-value theories, equity theories, reinforcement theories, social cognition theories, achievement goal theory, Piaget’s cognitive developmental theory, and Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory to be the most influential approaches that could meaningfully contribute to emerging L2 motivation frameworks.
Table 2. Williams and Burden’s Framework of L2 Motivation (Dörnyei, 2001b,, p. 14).
Williams and Burden’s (1997) framework is also a result of a thorough secondary search in the available motivation literature which approaches motivation from the learner’s point of view. As it was referred to earlier, several motivation definitions regard motivation as interaction between the individual and the social, between internal and external factors (Atkinson & Birch, 1978; Csizér, et al., 2010; Ellis & Larsen-Freeman, 2006; Julkunen, 2001). Williams and Burden’s (1997) definition of motivation has the same emphasis: “an individual’s motivation is also subject to social and contextual influences. These ‘influences’ then will include the whole culture and context and the social situation, as well as significant other people and the
individual’s interaction with these people” (p. 121). This definition guided the researchers to develop a framework that contains a detailed enumeration of several internal and external factors considered to affect language motivation (see Table 2 for details).
Table 3. Common Dimensions among Theoretical Frameworks and Empirical Research Reports Regarding Language Motivation.
1. Affective/integrative dimension: Csizér and Dörnyei (2005a, b); Csizér and Kormos (2008, 2009); Dörnyei and Clément (2001); Dörnyei and Csizér (2005); Gardner, Masgoret, and Tremblay (1999); Humphreys and Spratt (2008); Li (2006)
2. Instrumental/pragmatic dimension: Csizér and Dörnyei (2005a, b); Dörnyei and Clément (2001); Dörnyei and Csizér (2005); Gan (2009); Humphreys and Spratt (2008); Csizér and Kormos (2008, 2009).
3. Macro-context related dimension: Dörnyei and Clément (2001); Humphreys and Spratt (2008); Kim (2009); Li (2006).
4. Self-concept-related dimension: Csizér and Dörnyei (2005a, b); Dörnyei and Clément (2001); Dörnyei and Ushioda (2009a); Gardner, et al. (1999); Humphreys and Spratt (2008); Gan (2009); Csizér and Kormos (2008, 2009); Li (2006).
5. Goal-related dimension: Dörnyei and Clément (2001); Lemos (1999); Li (2006); Phalet, Andriessen and Lens (2004).
6. Educational context-related dimension: Csizér and Dörnyei (2005a, b); Dörnyei and Clément (2001); Gan (2009);
Gardner, et al. (1999); Humphreys and Spratt (2008); Csizér and Kormos (2008, 2009).
7. Significant others-related dimension: Csizér and Dörnyei (2005a, b); Dörnyei and Clément (2001); Gardner, et al.
(1999); Humphreys and Spratt (2008); Csizér and Kormos (2008, 2009); Li (2006).
Dörnyei (1996) also made a deep investigation, specifically among second language motivation constructs to find commonalities among them in terms of their components. He found seven broad dimensions that were found to be common among the examined frameworks.
Research findings that were published after 1996 prove that the named dimensions still form part of the motivation construct of learners (see Table 3 for details). Added to each dimension references to some language motivation projects are added that confirm the presence of the dimension according to their results.
The main reason for selecting the motivation frameworks introduced above was that they were found to contain some relevant pieces of information regarding both language-, learner-, and learning context-specific issues. However, most of them have more context-specific
references than elements related to the self and identity of the language learner which is supposed to be a dominant element in the present study. This is one of the reasons why the next chapter will focus on a more self-oriented framework which at the same time also allows the learning environment to take shape in learners’ language motivation.
II.1.3. Dörnyei’s L2 Motivational Self System Theory
Dörnyei (2005) claimed that on the basis of his observations he established three goals when developing the framework. Dörnyei said that language learning is not just learning a subject, but is also part of the individual’s core identity. Therefore, his aim was to integrate the language learner’s whole personality into an emerging motivation model. Second, needs emerged that asked for the reinterpretation of Gardner’s concept of integrativeness (see Chapter II.1.3.1. for details). One possible way of fulfilling this need was to develop a construct that is able to provide more explanatory power to the concept of integrativeness. Third, empirical findings of a national representative survey carried out in Hungary (see Dörnyei, et al., 2006) pointed to a consistent relationship between integrativeness, instrumentality, attitudes towards L2 speakers and criterion measures of language learning behavior, which finding also pointed to the need to integrate the variables into one cohesive theoretical framework of second language motivation (see Figure 2.
for a schematic representation of the results).
Figure 2. Schematic Representation of the findings of Dörnyei, et al.’s (2006) national motivation survey.
(Dörnyei, et al., 2006, p. 77).
As one of the first supporters of the education shift in motivation research, Dörnyei did not only suggest that new theories should be adopted from mainstream psychology, but actually did so in his L2 Motivational Self System theory (2005). His theory relies on two main psychological constructs, namely, the idea of possible selves offered by Markus and Nurius (1986) and on Higgins’ (1987) self-discrepancy theory. Besides, it was affected by the conceptualization of motivation proposed on the basis of findings of their empirical research by Noels (2003) and Ushioda (2001).
It was Markus and Nurius (1986) who in their seminal paper introduced the concept of possible selves. The most frequently cited definition of possible selves is as follows:
The possible selves that are hoped for might include the successful self, the creative self, the rich self, the thin self, or the loved and admired self, whereas the dreaded possible selves could be the alone self, the depressed self, the incompetent self, the alcoholic self, the unemployed self, or the bag lady self (p. 954).
The authors claimed that “possible selves function as the personalized carriers (representations) of general aspirations, motives and threats and of the associated affective states” (p. 955). Besides, they also stated that “it is reasonable therefore to assume that the nature of an individual’s working self-concept states could vary systematically with that individual’s affective and motivational state, and vice versa” (p. 960). Thus, a vivid image of possible selves has mutual relationships with the motivational state of the individual. Researchers dealing with possible selves stated that possible selves can also serve as ‘academic self-guides’ and can therefore facilitate motivation to learn (Dörnyei, 2005). Higgins’ (1987) introduction of the concept of ideal self and ought-to self was found by Dörnyei to be particularly useful and capable of describing motivation from the point of view of language learners’ possible selves.
Higgins (1987) made distinction among three types of possible selves. The ‘actual self’ is the collection of perceived attributes that one has or is thought to have. The ‘ought self’ is the collection of attributes one thinks one ought-to possess, while the ‘ideal self’ is the collection of attributes one desires to possess in the future. Higgins’ (1987) theory in turn suggests that
“people differ as to which self-guide they are especially motivated to meet. Self-discrepancy theory postulates that we are motivated to reach a condition where our self-concept matches our personally relevant self-guides” (p. 321). Thus, the motivational capacity that lies between the actual self and the ideal/ought self is fuelled by one’s efforts to reduce the discrepancy between one’s actual and desired self.
However, Dörnyei (2005) called attention to the distinction that Higgins (1998) made between the ideal and the ought self. Higgins associated the ideal self-guides with a promotion focus, referring to hopes, aspirations, accomplishments, whereas the ought-to self-guides had a prevention focus in his understanding, and were connected with hopes, fears, responsibilities, duties, obligations. Dörnyei (2005) argued that instrumental motives in the language learning process may form part of both selves. If they have a promotion focus they are more likely to be
part of one’s ideal self, while having a prevention focus makes instrumental motives to form part of one’s ought-to self. He found support in the findings of Kyriacou and Benmansour’s (1997) study that ascertained the difference between goals that related L2 knowledge to enhance one’s future career (cf. ideal self with promotion focus) and other goals that focused on more extrinsic reasons, e.g. getting good grades (cf. ought-to self with prevention focus). Dörnyei and Csizér (2005) supported this claim by referring to their empirical findings where instrumentality with promotion focus and attitudes towards L2 speakers formed two complementary aspects of the ideal self.
Dörnyei’s (2005) influential motivation theory was also affected by the findings of Noels’
(2003) questionnaire survey and Ushioda’s (2001) qualitative research project. Noels (2003) administered questionnaires among 322 English-speaking university students studying Spanish at a university in California. The results indicated that enjoyment, perceived value of the learning materials, and positive experience at the language classes induced motivation to learn the language, “because they wish to have interactions with members of the Latino community” (p.
128). The researcher also detected the presence of integrativeness in the motivation construct of the learners, i.e. she referred to learners’ desire to have interactions with the L2 community as part of their integrative motivation. Extrinsic motives were also part of the Spanish language learner’s motivation.
Ushioda (2001) in her qualitative study conducted interviews with twenty university learners of French in Ireland. As one result of the data-analysis, Ushioda (2001) identified eight descriptive dimensions characterizing learners’ French motivation. Namely, academic interest, language-related enjoyment/liking, desired levels of L2 competence, personal goals, positive learning history, personal satisfaction, feelings about French-speaking countries and people, external pressures/incentives were the main characterizing features of learners’ motivation.
On the basis of the eight dimensions created by Ushioda, Dörnyei developed three distinct clusters with supposedly strong predictive power of motivation. They are as follows: dimensions related to the actual learning process, to external pressures and those forming an integrative dimension. Conceptually, Dörnyei applied the named three dimensions in creating his tripartite model consisting of the Ideal L2 Self, the Ought-to L2 Self, and the L2 Learning Experience. The Ideal L2 Self refers to one’s L2-related aspirations, dreams, ambitions and instrumental motives with promotion focus. The Ought-to L2 Self contains more extrinsic motives and attributes that one thinks one ought-to possess. Besides, it also comprises instrumental motives with prevention focus. The third dimension of the model, i.e. Learning Experience refers to the immediate language learning environment of the learner.
Dörnyei’s Motivational Self System theory has been applied in quite a few research studies in the recent half decade. Dörnyei and Ushioda (2009a) compiled a number of studies in a recently published book on Motivation, language identity and the L2 self. Within the volume there are both quantitative (Csizér & Kormos, 2009; Ryan, 2009; Taguchi et al., 2009) and qualitative studies (e.g.: Kim, 2009) that found the Self System Theory to be a valid framework that can assist in interpreting data gathered in various foreign language learning contexts, including Japan, Korea, Iran, and Hungary. Furthermore, some of the studies experimenting with the Self System Theory used the same research instrument (Ryan, 2005) to gather data (e.g., Csizér & Dörnyei, 2005a, 2005b; Csizér & Kormos, 2009; Kormos & Csizér, 2008; Ryan, 2009) and established the reliability of Dörnyei’s theory.
Several of the above-mentioned empirical studies reinforced the validity and reliability of the framework. Altogether the research pieces included more than 6000 participants, among them secondary school learners, English major and non-English major university students and adult learners. Dörnyei (2009) calls attention to five general conclusions based on the findings of the studies. First, they all found solid confirmation to the Self System Theory. Second, all the studies
found a correlation of .54 between Integrativeness and the Ideal L2 Self, meaning that the two concepts are closely related. Third, through all sub-samples the Ideal L2 Self was found to explain a higher percent of variance in the makeup of learners’ learning effort than the scale of Integrativeness did. Fourth, in line with Higgins’ conceptualization the ideal self had stronger relationship with promotion focus ideas and lower with prevention focus ideas, while the ought- to self had it vice versa. Fifth, the constructed structural equation models including the components of the theory showed fine goodness of fit of the data.
Despite the great number of studies and research findings, there are still niches to be filled in. The present investigation explores some of the unexplored areas of the theory, identified by Dörnyei and Ushioda (2009b). One of the possible future directions of the theory they describe is to find out if there are several possible selves of language learners or only one possible self with several facets. Concerning this question, psychologists, whose study inspired Dörnyei’s theory, take different sides. Markus and Nurius (1986) assumed the earlier while Higgins (1987) proposed the latter viewpoint. By comparing the motivational disposition of language learners towards two different languages I believe that I will get closer to understand the possible self structure of the individual.
Dörnyei and Ushioda (2009b) also denoted the influence of cross-cultural variation on the composition of the self system as another possible future direction. As my investigation examines Hungarian learners’ motivation to learn Ukrainian and English, I believe that it will provide relevant data concerning the extent and strength of cross-cultural impact on the Motivational Self Systems of the learners. Besides, exploring the influence that cross-cultural interactions have on the motivational self systems of learners the language learning context will also allow research to explore how interethnic contact shapes the attitude and behaviour of language users.
Taken together, the Motivational Self System Theory, with its sharp focus on the self, provides a learner-focused approach to map the terrain of language learning motivation. By including the Learning experience dimension, the Theory does not separate the self of the language learner from his/her environment. On the contrary, it incorporates the social environment in which the individual exists, which influences the self, and which is influenced by the self to a certain degree. The inclusion of this dimension allows the language learning environment to permeate the motivational self system of the learner. In sum, the Motivational Self System Theory has both self- and context-focus, which allows the exploration of the individual’s motivational disposition in his/her language learning environment and this feature served as the main reason why the self system theory was chosen to be the leading theoretical framework of the present investigation.
II.1.3.1. The Ideal L2 Self and the integrative motive
The Ideal L2 Self is the vision of the language learner of his/her future self as a user of the target language. The strength of the vision helps and motivates the learner to reduce the discrepancy between the actual and the imagined future self. Dörnyei (2009) claimed that “traditional integrative and internalized instrumental motives would typically belong to this component” (p.
29).
Let us now examine this component in some detail. The Ideal L2 Self is one of the two dimensions that are situated at the self level in Dörnyei’s theoretical model (2005). This dimension is said to have grown out of the concept of integrativeness that was introduced by Gardner (1985). He perceived the integrative motive to be a central element of the socio- educational model (see Figure 3. for a schematic representation of the integrative motive). As it
can be seen the integrative motive is a tripartite construct and includes motivation, integrativeness and attitudes towards the learning situation.
Integrativeness, in turn, within the integrative motive construct “offers a process explanation of how attitudinal/motivational variables interact with language acquisition contexts to promote achievement in the second language” (Gardner, 1985, p. 170). Besides, as already noted, Gardner and Lambert (1959) understood integrative orientation as a goal one has to integrate into the target language community. The conflicting nature of the three concepts was one of the reasons why researchers asked for a reformulation of the concept of integrativeness.
Figure 3. Schematic representation of Gardner’s conceptualization of the integrative motive as represented in Dörnyei (2005, p. 69).
But due to “a major shift in mainstream psychological and educational psychological theories of motivation” (Dörnyei, 1994a, p. 515) at the beginning of the 1990s several scholars challenged the extent of generalisability of the concept. As Dörnyei and Csizér (2002) claimed:
We believe that rather than viewing ‘integrativeness’ as a classic and therefore
‘untouchable’ concept, scholars, need to seek potential new conceptualizations and interpretations that extend or elaborate on the meaning of the term without contradicting the large body of relevant empirical data accumulated during the past four decades (p.
456).
As integrativeness turned out to be an influential component of language motivation even in foreign language contexts (e.g. Dörnyei, 1990) where “learners often have not had sufficient experience of the target-language community to have attitudes for or against it” (Dörnyei, 1990, p. 49) researchers gradually started to enlighten new aspects of the concept (Au, 1988; Crookes
& Schmidt, 1991; Oxford & Shearin, 1994).
The perceived importance of English in the world has also gone through a considerable change which also questioned the stability of integration. Gardner (2001) claimed that integrative orientation:
reflects a genuine interest in learning the second language in order to come closer to the other language community. At one level, this implies an openness to, and respect for other cultural groups and ways of life. In the extreme, this might involve complete identification with the community (and possibly even withdrawal from one’s original group), but more commonly it might well involve integration within both community. (p. 5).
Thus, with English becoming an intercultural language it became more and more difficult to identify with the integration into ‘the other language community’ (Dörnyei, et al., 2006;
Jenkins, 2009; Yashima, 2002). Kormos and Csizér (2007) refer to Widdowson (2004, 2007) when claiming that
an additional problem is that in the case of English, which is often used as a lingua franca in many countries of the world, it is impossible to identify the specific ethnic and cultural groups that represent native speakers of the language. (p. 242).
Therefore, empirical findings that noticed the emerging intercultural status of English also pointed to the need of reinterpreting integrativeness to make it become a more feasible element in
