A lecture about Individual Differences in SLA & SLL (Motivation & Attitude) By: Mohammed ALMALLAH
Motivation and SLA bridging the gap
-
Upload
jonathan-mclean -
Category
Documents
-
view
21 -
download
1
description
Transcript of Motivation and SLA bridging the gap
This is a contribution from EUROSLA Yearbook: Volume 10 (2010)© 2010. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyThis electronic file may not be altered in any way.The author(s) of this article is/are permitted to use this PDF file to generate printed copies to be used by way of offprints, for their personal use only.Permission is granted by the publishers to post this file on a closed server which is accessible to members (students and staff) only of the author’s/s’ institute, it is not permitted to post this PDF on the open internet.For any other use of this material prior written permission should be obtained from the publishers or through the Copyright Clearance Center (for USA: www.copyright.com). Please contact [email protected] or consult our website: www.benjamins.com
Tables of Contents, abstracts and guidelines are available at www.benjamins.com
John Benjamins Publishing Company
Motivation and SLABridging�the�gap
Ema�Ushioda�University�of�Warwick
Motivation�has�been�a�major�research�topic�within�SLA�for�over�four�decades,�yet�has�endured�a�marginalized�position�within�the�field,�remaining�somewhat�isolated�from�its�more�mainstream�linguistic�traditions.�The�analysis�of�motiva-tion�and�its�role�in�SLA�has�largely�been�at�the�level�of�global�learning�outcomes,�and�research�has�had�little�to�say�about�how�motivational�factors�relate�to�the�in-terim�processes�of�linguistic�development.�Thus�while�motivation�is�recognized�as�a�prerequisite�for�successful�SLA,�the�relevance�of�motivation�research�to�understanding�the�finer�detail�of�how�SLA�happens�has�been�unclear.�This�paper�discusses�some�studies�that�have�attempted�to�integrate�the�analysis�of�motiva-tion�with�more�linguistic�approaches�in�SLA.�It�proposes�an�agenda�for�bridging�the�gap�between�motivation�and�mainstream�SLA�research,�and�suggests�how�motivation�research�may�contribute�to�the�development�of�major�lines�of�think-ing�within�the�field.
Introduction: The gap between L2 motivation research and mainstream SLA
The�starting-point�for�this�paper�is�the�argument�that�within�the�field�of�SLA�re-search,� the� study� of� motivation� has� flourished� for� over� forty� years� and� yet� re-mained�somewhat�isolated�from�the�more�mainstream�concerns�of�the�field.�This�is� a� curious� state� of� affairs� since� motivation� is� a� widely� recognized� variable� of�importance� in� SLA,� and� perhaps� one� of� the� key� factors� that� distinguishes� first�language�acquisition�from�second�language�acquisition�processes.�To�put�it�sim-ply,�motivation�is�not�really�an�issue�in�the�case�of�infants�acquiring�their�mother�tongue.�On�the�other�hand,�being�motivated�or�not�can�make�all�the�difference�to�how�willingly�and�successfully�people� learn�other� languages� later� in� life.�As�Pit�Corder�(1967:�164)�famously�wrote:�“given�motivation,�it�is�inevitable�that�a�hu-man�being�will�learn�a�second�language�if�he�is�exposed�to�the�language�data”.�Since�
EUROSLA Yearbook 10 (2010),�5–20. doi�10.1075/eurosla.10.03ushissn�1568–1491/e-issn�1569–9749�©�John�Benjamins�Publishing�Company
© 2010. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved
6� Ema�Ushioda
the�1970s,�the�history�of�motivation�research�in�SLA�has�been�a�rich�and�vibrant�one,�spearheaded�by�the�pioneering�work�of�Robert�Gardner�and�his�colleagues�in�Canada�(e.g.�Gardner�1985;�Gardner�and�Lalonde�1983;�Gardner�and�Lambert�1972),�who�drew�attention�to�the�significant�role�of�attitudinal-motivational�vari-ables�in�second�language�learning�and�established�motivation�as�a�major�research�topic�in�SLA.�Over�the�past�four�decades,�L2�motivation�research�has�developed�and�evolved�through�different�traditions�of�inquiry,�and�has�generated�and�con-tinues�to�generate�a�substantial�body�of�theoretical�and�empirical�literature�(for�a�recent�overview,�see�Dörnyei�and�Ushioda�2010).
However,�within� the�field�of�SLA� itself,�motivation� research�has�endured�a�rather�odd,�marginalized�position,�remaining�somewhat�isolated�from�the�more�mainstream�cognitive�linguistic�traditions�that�prevail.�Thus,�while�textbooks�and�handbooks�on�SLA�consistently�include�reference�to�motivation�as�an�important�language�learner�variable,�treatment�of�the�topic�tends�to�be�self-contained�in�a�relatively�small�section.�For�example,�as�Dörnyei�(2003:�21)�points�out,�Ellis�(1994)�devotes�fewer�than�ten�pages�(out�of�nearly�700)�to�discussing�motivation�in�his�book-length�survey�of�SLA�research,�even�though�he�acknowledges�that�it�is�“a�key�factor�in�L2�learning”�(p.�508).�Similarly,�in�Doughty�and�Long’s�(2005)�Handbook of Second Language Acquisition�spanning�some�900�pages,�discussion�of�motiva-tion� is� confined� to�around� ten�pages� in�a� chapter�on� individual�differences.� In�the�more�recent�second�edition�of�Ellis’s�book-length�survey�of�SLA�published�in�2008�(now�spanning�over�1000�pages),�motivation�still�does�not�merit�a�chapter�in�itself�but�is�largely�confined�to�a�15-page�section�within�an�80-page�chapter�on�individual�learner�differences.�Moreover,�in�contextualizing�his�survey�of�motiva-tion�research,�Ellis�explicitly�makes�the�critical�observation�that�“the�study�of�L2�motivation�research�continues�to�lie�outside�mainstream�SLA”�(p.�690).�
In� short,� while� all� of� us� might� acknowledge� the� truth� of� Corder’s� famous�pronouncement�about� the� importance�of�motivation� in�SLA,� it� seems� that� this�importance�does�not� translate� into�making�the�analysis�of�motivation�a�central�dimension�of�SLA�research.�The�analysis�of�motivation�seems�to�be�a�concern�only�for� those�who,� like�myself,� are� specifically� interested� in� issues�of�motivation� in�SLA,�while�the�degree�of�interaction�between�L2�motivation�research�and�the�rest�of�the�SLA�field�seems�on�the�whole�rather�minimal.�We�motivation�researchers�do�not�seem�to�have�much�to�offer�to�mainstream�SLA,�and�issues�of�motivation�feature�only�rather� tangentially� in� the� linguistic�and�psycholinguistic� traditions�that�dominate�the�SLA�field.�In�effect,�there�is�something�of�a�gap�between�motiva-tion�research�and�mainstream�SLA,�and�it�is�the�purpose�of�this�paper�to�explore�(a)�why�such�a�gap�exists,�and�(b)�what�can�be�done�to�bridge�the�gap�–�that�is,�what�kinds�of�research�inquiry�might�be�pursued�in�the�area�of�motivation�which�would�usefully�contribute�to�the�development�of�major�lines�of�thinking�in�SLA.
© 2010. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved
� Motivation�and�SLA:�Bridging�the�gap� �
I� will� begin� by� considering� the� history� of� motivation� research� in� SLA� and�discuss�how� it�has�been�characterized�by�a� lack�of� interaction�with� the�central�preoccupations�of�the�SLA�field.
Why is there a gap? History of motivation research in SLA
The social�psychological�tradition
I�referred�earlier�to�the�pioneering�work�of�Gardner,�Lambert�and�their�Canadian�colleagues�in�the�1970s�and�1980s,�which�effectively�established�motivation�as�a�major�research�area�in�SLA.�Their�work�was�pioneering�in�that�it�highlighted�the�role�of�affective�factors�–�attitudes�and�motivation�–�as�significant�causes�of�vari-ability�in�second�language�learning�success,�which�are�independent�of�cognitive�factors�such�as�intelligence�or�language�aptitude.�Furthermore,�they�focused�atten-tion�on�the�inherent�social�psychological�dimension�of�motivation�in�SLA,�which�distinguishes�it�from�motivation�in�other�domains�of�learning�since,�as�Gardner�and� Lambert� (1972:� 135)� put� it,� language� learners�must� be� “willing� to� identify�with�members�of�another�ethnolinguistic�group�and�to�take�on�very�subtle�aspects�of�their�behavior,�including�their�distinctive�style�of�speech�and�their�language”.�From�this�social�psychological�process�of�identification�was�born�the�well-known�concept�of�integrative motivation.�
In�relation�to�my�argument�about�the�gap�between�motivation�research�and�mainstream�SLA,�it� is�worth�making�two�key�points�about�the�work�of�Gardner�and�his�colleagues.�Firstly,� it� initiated�and�fostered�an�empirical� focus�on�causal�relationships�between�motivation�and�successful�L2�learning.�It�is�worth�remind-ing�ourselves�of�the�original�research�question�that�launched�Gardner�and�Lambert�on�their�empirical�quest:�“How�is�it�that�some�people�can�learn�a�second�or�foreign�language�so�easily�and�do�so�well�while�others,�given�what�seem�to�be�the�same�op-portunities�to�learn,�find�it�almost�impossible?”�(1972:�130).�This�focus�on�success in L2 learning�as�the�dependent�variable�has�meant�that�the�analysis�of�motivation�and�its�role�in�SLA�has�largely�been�at�the�level�of�global�learning�outcomes�or�mea-sures�of�proficiency.�Of�course,�over�the�years�the�research�tradition�established�by�Gardner�has�been�characterized�by�increasingly�sophisticated�statistical�techniques�to�examine�and�verify�the�causal�relations�between�attitudinal-motivational�vari-ables�and�language�learning�outcomes�(e.g.�Gardner�1985;�Masgoret�and�Gardner�2003).�Nevertheless,�the�fact�remains�that�the�empirical�focus�is�on�rather�broad�learning�outcomes�such�as�general�proficiency�measures�or�course�grades,�or�on�behavioural�outcomes�such�as�persistence�in�learning�(e.g.�Ramage�1990),�and�not�on�interim�processes�of�linguistic�development.�This�is�the�first�point�to�be�made.
© 2010. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved
8� Ema�Ushioda
However,� the�second�point� to�be�made�about� the�work�of�Gardner�and�his�colleagues�is�that�it�influenced�the�development�of�associated�social�psychological�theories�of�second�language�acquisition�and�communication�in�situations�of�inter-group�contact�in�multilingual�settings.�Such�social�psychological�theories�include,�for� example,� the� early� work� of� Schumann� (1978)� on� acculturation� theory� and�linguistic� fossilization,� the�work�of�Meisel� (1977)�on�elaborative�versus� restric-tive� linguistic�simplification�in�the�speech�of� immigrant�workers,�and�the�work�of�Giles�and�Byrne�(1982)�on�intergroup�relations�and�linguistic�accommodation.�While�the�construct�of�motivation�is�not�the�primary�focus�in�these�associated�so-cial�psychological�perspectives�on�SLA,�this�important�body�of�work�does�clearly�point�to�a�more�fine-grained�analysis�of�how�attitudinal-motivational�factors�asso-ciated�with�ethnolinguistic�identity�and�social�identification�may�shape�processes�of� linguistic� development� or� non-development,� and� help� explain� the� extent� to�which�particular�target-like�features�of�the�majority�language�are�acquired�or�not.�However,�this�more�linguistically-focused�angle�of�inquiry�has�not�been�a�central�preoccupation� of� motivation� researchers� in� SLA,� for� whom� the� rather� broader�focus�on�global�learning,�achievement�and�behavioural�outcomes�has�tended�to�prevail.�I�will�come�back�to�this�point�about�issues�of�motivation,�identity�and�lin-guistic�development�later�when�I�discuss�ways�forward�to�bridge�the�gap�between�motivation�research�and�mainstream�SLA.
From social�psychological�to�cognitive/educational�perspectives
By�the�early�1990s,�there�was�a�sense�that�the�social�psychological�analysis�of�L2�motivation�had� somehow�run� its� course�and� that�alternative�perspectives�were�needed,�particularly�focusing�more�on�pedagogical�issues�of�how�to�motivate�stu-dents�and�how�to�optimize�and�sustain�their�motivation�(e.g.�Crookes�and�Schmidt�1991).�Thus�came�about�a�gradual�transition�towards�more�situated�classroom-fo-cused�analyses�of�L2�motivation,�drawing�on�cognitive�theories�of�motivation�in�educational�psychology�to�complement�the�social�psychological�analyses.�In�terms�of�links�with�mainstream�SLA,�this�transition�did�bring�with�it�the�potential�for�a�more�fine-grained�examination�of�motivation�in�relation�to�processes�of�learning�and�linguistic�development�–�that�is,�what�Dörnyei�(2002:�138)�refers�to�as�a�micro�perspective�on�motivational�behaviours�during�the�SLA�process,�in�contrast�to�the�broad�macro�perspective�on�global�patterns�of�motivation�and�successful�SLA�in�the�social�psychological�research�paradigm.
However,� the� dominant� lines� of� inquiry� in� this� more� classroom-focused�and�process-oriented�analysis�of�motivation�have�tended�to�revolve�around�the��following:
© 2010. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved
� Motivation�and�SLA:�Bridging�the�gap� 9
–� types�of�motivation�(e.g.�intrinsic�or�extrinsic)�and�their�effects�on�learning�behaviour�(e.g.�Noels,�Pelletier,�Clément�and�Vallerand�2000;�Ushioda�1996);
–� factors�that�influence�motivation�(e.g.�Williams�and�Burden�1997);–� how�motivation�can�be�sustained�and�regulated�through�teacher�strategies�
or� self-regulatory� strategies� (e.g.� Dörnyei� and� Csizér� 1998;� Dörnyei� and�Ottó�1998).
In�other�words,�where�SLA�processes�are�concerned,�the�attention�of�motivation�researchers� has� remained� largely� limited� to� the� fairly� vague� notion� of� engage-ment�–� that� is,� how� motivation� shapes� affective� engagement� or� involvement� in�learning.�However,�there�has�been�rather�little�analysis�of�what�such�motivated�or�affective�engagement�in�learning�might�entail,�how�it�might�be�theorized,�or�how�it�influences�cognitive�processes�of�learning�and�linguistic�development.
Of� course,� I� am� simplifying� and� generalizing� here.� For� example,� there� has�been�some�interesting�research�in�the�area�of�intrinsic�versus�extrinsic�motivation�and�deep�versus�surface�approaches�to�learning�in�general�education�(e.g.�Marton�and�Säljö�1976;�Prosser�and�Trigwell�1998),�which�has�been�applied�to�the�analy-sis� of� motivation� and� reading� processes� in� SLA� (e.g.� Fransson� 1984).� This� line�of�research�sheds�light�on�what�types�of�motivation�may�promote�optimum�ap-proaches�to�learning�that�entail�critical�analysis�of�ideas,�making�connections�with�existing�knowledge�and�achieving�deeper�understanding�and�long-term�retention�of�information,�as�opposed�to�superficial�memorization�approaches�to�learning.�However,�perhaps�because�this�line�of�analysis�focuses�on�how�students�deal�with�information�content�rather�than�on�how�they�develop�procedural�skills,�it�has�not�been�a�major�area�of�inquiry�within�motivation�research�in�SLA.
Another�area�of�inquiry�that�has�more�potential�is�the�analysis�of�the�relation-ship�between�motivation�and�cognitive�processing�in�SLA,�in�terms�of�what�might�be�called�motivational processing�during�engagement�in�learning.�This�perspective�derived�from�Dörnyei�and�Ottó’s�(1998)�process�model�of�L2�motivation,�which�elaborated� the�successive�stages�of�motivation�before,�during�and�after�engage-ment�in�a�learning�process.�These�temporal�stages�are�defined�as�the�pre-actional,�actional�and�post-actional�stages�of�motivation,�with�each�stage�shaped�by�spe-cific� cognitive� processes� such� as� goal-setting,� decision-making,� action� control,�monitoring,� causal� attributions,� and�evaluation.�As�Dörnyei� (2005:�86)�himself�acknowledges,�however,� the�model� is�difficult� to� test�empirically,� since� it� is�not�easy� to� define� and� delimit� what� a� learning� process� is� –� e.g.� a� whole� course� of�study,� a� course�unit,� a� single� lesson,� a� task,� a� succession�of� tasks.�One� scholar,��Manolopoulou-Sergi�(2004),�has�attempted�to�elaborate�the�process�model�even�further�by�delineating�the�possible�function�of�motivation�in�relation�to�the�chain�of�psycholinguistic�mechanisms�in�the�input,�central�processing�and�output�stages�
© 2010. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved
10� Ema�Ushioda
of�information�processing�in�SLA.�However,�this�information-processing�model�of�motivation,�like�Dörnyei�and�Ottó’s�process�model�of�motivation,�remains�es-sentially�a�descriptive�model�only,�at�the�level�of�theoretical�speculation,�and�dif-ficult�to�evaluate�empirically.�
One�approach�to�the�empirical�problem�has�been�to�take�task engagement�as�the�unit�of�analysis�and�focus�on�motivational�task�processing.�This�line�of�research�has�been�led�by�Dörnyei�(e.g.�Dörnyei�2002;�Dörnyei�and�Kormos�2000;�Dörnyei�and�Tseng�2009;�Kormos�and�Dörnyei�2004),�and�has�focused�on�oral�interaction�tasks.�Although�the�studies�have�not�shown�clear�relationships�between�motiva-tional�variables�and�quality�of�language�performance�in�the�tasks�(as�reflected�in�linguistic�accuracy,�complexity,�lexical�richness�or�discursive�content),�they�have�pointed� to� strong� relationships� between� motivational� variables� and� quantitative�measures�of�task�engagement�(as�reflected�in�number�of�words�and�turns�produced,�or�number�of�arguments�and�counter-arguments�produced�in�discussion�tasks).�In�fact,�Dörnyei�(2002)�reports�in�one�small-scale�study�that�motivational�variables�account�for�76�percent�of�the�variance�in�number�of�words�and�81�percent�of�the�variance�in�number�of�turns.�As�he�notes,�these�are�much�higher�than�the�correla-tions�usually�obtained�between�motivation�and�global�achievement�measures,�and�suggest�that�the�analysis�of�motivation�in�relation�to�specific�behavioural�learning�measures�in�task�engagement�and�performance�may�be�a�more�illuminating�line�of�inquiry.�I�will�come�back�to�this�issue�of�analysing�relationships�between�motiva-tion�and�specific�learning�processes�and�behaviours�later.
From cognitive�to�sociocultural�perspectives
Of�course,�motivation�has�traditionally�been�classified�as�an�affective�variable�in�SLA,�and�it�might�be�assumed�that�one�reason�why�motivation�research�has�re-mained�somewhat�outside�the�central�concerns�of�SLA�is�because�of�SLA’s�pre-dominant�focus�on�language�learning�as�a�cognitive�psycholinguistic�process.�In�his�book�on�a�cognitive�approach�to�language�learning,�Skehan�(1998:�192)�briefly�acknowledges�the�possible�relevance�of�motivation,�but�the�analysis�of�motivation�and�affective�factors�is�not�included�in�this�cognitive�approach.
However,�the�affect–cognition�divide�is�somewhat�misleading�in�this�regard,�given�that�the�theories�and�constructs�shaping�mainstream�motivation�research�as�well�as�motivation�research�in�SLA�belong�very�much�in�the�cognitive�paradigm�of�psychology.�Since�the�cognitive�revolution�in�the�second�half�of�the�20th�cen-tury,�motivation�research�has�focused�predominantly�on�cognitive�motivational�processes� such� as� goal-setting,� efficacy� beliefs,� attributions,� decision-making,�expectancies,� self-perceptions,� self-determination;� and� motivational� theorizing�
© 2010. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved
� Motivation�and�SLA:�Bridging�the�gap� 11
generally�takes�the�form�of�computational�models�of�mental�processes�and�learn-ing�behaviours�and�outcomes.�In�short,�there�is�no�ontological�division�between�motivation�research�on�the�one�hand,�and�the�cognitive�orientation�that�prevails�in�mainstream�SLA�on�the�other,�and�the�view�put�forward�by�Doughty�and�Long�(2005)�that�SLA�be�seen�as�a�branch�of�cognitive�science�would�not�go�against�the�grain�of�most�motivation�research�in�SLA.
Of�course,� recent�years�have� seen�a�major�debate� in�SLA�about�competing�ontological�paradigms,�or�what�Zuengler�and�Miller�(2006)�call�“the�two�paral-lel�SLA�worlds”�of�cognitive�and�sociocultural�perspectives,�or�the�positivist�and�relativist�paradigms.�To�cut�a�long�story�short,�there�is�now�a�considerable�body�of�opinion�in�the�SLA�field�which�suggests�that�we�should�view�language�learning�as�a�sociocultural�and�sociohistorically�situated�process,�rather�than�as�primarily�a�cognitive�psycholinguistic�process�(see,�for�example,�Lafford�2007).�A�key�argu-ment�here�is�that�the�traditional�SLA�focus�on�decontextualized�interior�processes�of�language�learning�as�distinct�from�social�processes�of�language�use�limits�our�understanding�of�how�cognitive�structures�develop�and�evolve�through�engage-ment�in�social�activity.�Thus�Kramsch�(2002),�for�example,�asks�how�can�we�sepa-rate�the�dancer�from�the�dance,�or�acquisition�from�use,�the�cognitive�from�the�social,�the�individual�from�the�environment?
In� short,� within� the� field� of� SLA� in� recent� years,� we� have� witnessed� what�Block�(2003)�has�called�a�“social�turn”�in�second�language�acquisition,�whereby�the�traditional�cognitive�paradigm�of�SLA�research�has�begun�to�be� influenced�by� or� some� may� say� challenged� by� a� variety� of� more� interactionist� and� socio-contextually� grounded� paradigms� of� inquiry.� These� alternative� paradigms� in-clude,�for�example,�Vygotskian�sociocultural�theory�(Lantolf�and�Thorne,�2006),�language� socialization� (Watson-Gegeo� 2004),� ecological� perspectives� (van� Lier�2004),� sociocognitive� theory� (Atkinson� 2002),� poststructuralist� perspectives�(Pavlenko�2002),�and�most�recently�dynamic�systems�and�complexity�theory�ap-proaches�(Larsen-Freeman�and�Cameron�2008a).
Remarkably�perhaps,�despite�its�origins�in�social�psychology,�it�is�only�very�re-cently�too�that�motivation�research�in�SLA�is�beginning�to�embrace�this�social�turn,�reflecting�the�influence�of�these�wider�ontological�debates�in�the�SLA�field,�as�well�as�a�general�Zeitgeist�in�mainstream�motivational�psychology�where�sociocultural�and�situated�perspectives�integrating�motivation�and�context�have�begun�to�break�ground�(e.g.�Volet�and�Järvelä�2001;�McInerney�and�Van�Etten�2004).�As�recently�argued�(Ushioda�2009),�the�bulk�of�motivation�research�in�SLA�to�date�has�tended�to�focus�on�motivation�as�an�individual�psychological�phenomenon,�located�in�the�inner�workings�of�the�mind,�and�has�tended�to�sustain�the�basic�Cartesian�dual-ism�between�the�inner�mental�world�of�the�individual,�and�the�surrounding�social�environment.�Each�learner�interprets�and�reacts�to�her�environment,�but�remains�
© 2010. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved
12� Ema�Ushioda
�essentially�distinct� from�it�–�as�Harré�and�Gillett� (1994:�22)�put� it,�hermetically�sealed� in� her� own� individual� and� self-contained� subjectivity.� However,� current�thinking�in�motivation�research�in�SLA�is�tuning�in�to�the�wider�debates�about�the�organic�relations�between�individual�and�context,�about�emergentism�in�SLA�(Ellis�and�Larsen-Freeman�2006),�and�about�dynamic�complex�systems�and�non-linear�relations�(e.g.�Dörnyei�2009a,�2009b;�Ushioda�2009).
In�short,�in�terms�of�my�arguments�in�this�paper,�the�conditions�seem�right�and�the�time�seems�ripe�for�a�much�closer�synergy�between�motivation�research�and�mainstream�SLA,�given�this�shared�pull�towards�dynamic�and�socio-contex-tually�grounded�analyses�of�the�processes�shaping�SLA.�Some�will�argue�of�course�that� the� sociocultural� paradigm� is� not� (yet?)� mainstream� SLA,� and� clearly� the�debates�are�ongoing.�Nevertheless,�the�position�taken�here�is�that�new�directions�in�motivation�research�may�contribute�to�pushing�forward�and�developing�major�lines�of�inquiry�in�SLA�that�cut�across�the�sociocultural�and�cognitive�paradigms.�The�second�part�of�this�paper�sketches�some�possible�ways�forward�in�this�regard,�by�drawing�on�some�recent�studies�which�may�illustrate�how�this�closer�synergy�between�motivation�and�mainstream�SLA�research�can�happen.
Bridging the gap: Towards a research agenda
In�sketching� this� research�agenda,� I�will�begin�with�some�perspectives� that� fall�squarely�within�the�cognitive�paradigm,�and�consider�issues�of�motivation�in�rela-tion�to�specific�cognitive�and�metacognitive�processes�in�SLA.�I�will�then�discuss�the�shift�towards�more�sociocultural,�relational�and�contextually�grounded�per-spectives�on�motivation�and�SLA.
Motivation and�cognitive�processes
Earlier,�it�was�noted�that�motivation�research�in�SLA�has�tended�to�adopt�a�rather�general�perspective�on�language�learning�processes�and�outcomes�–�typically�in�terms� of� global� achievement� outcomes� or� rather� vague� notions� of� engagement�or�involvement�in�learning.�However,�the�few�studies�that�have�adopted�a�more�sharply� focused� lens�on�specific�SLA�processes�suggest� that� this� is�a�promising�angle�of�inquiry.�I�have�already�mentioned�the�work�of�Dörnyei�and�his�colleagues�in�relation�to�motivational�task�processing�in�this�regard.�By�way�of�further�illus-tration,�I�will�here�refer�to�two�studies�that�focus�on�features�of�L2 phonological development and�L2 pragmatic development�respectively.
© 2010. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved
� Motivation�and�SLA:�Bridging�the�gap� 13
The�set�of�studies�reported�by�Segalowitz,�Gatbonton�and�Trofimovich�(2009)�continues�the�social�psychological�tradition�of�research�that�has�investigated�rela-tionships�between�ethnic�group�identity�and�second�language�development�in�sit-uations�of�intergroup�contact�in�multilingual�settings.�As�they�explain,�a�common�finding�in�this�research�is�that�people’s�relative�degrees�of�identification�with�their�primary�ethnolinguistic�group�versus�their�target�language�group�will�influence�the�levels�of�target�language�proficiency�they�achieve.�Typically,�those�who�have�strong�beliefs�in�the�role�of�language�in�maintaining�the�identity�of�their�primary�group�will�develop�lower�levels�of�proficiency�in�their�L2.�One�possible�explana-tion�for�this�phenomenon�is�that�L2�speakers�with�a�strong�sense�of�affiliation�to�their�primary�ethnolinguistic�group�may�deliberately�“hold�back”�some�aspects�of�their�L2�use,�in�order�to�avoid�sounding�too�much�like�members�of�a�different�ethnolinguistic�group.�In�other�words,�some�people�may�feel�motivated�to�retain�non-standard�speech�patterns�as�a�marker�of�their�own�ethnolinguistic�identity,�rather�than�accommodate�to�the�target�language�norm.�
However,�as�Segalowitz�et�al.�(2009)�observe,�it�is�unlikely�that�deliberate�non-accommodation�or�speech�distancing�is�the�only�explanation�for�a�link�between�ethnolinguistic�affiliation�and�language�proficiency.�It�is�unlikely�because�some�L2�speech�patterns�differ�from�native-like�speech�in�ways�that�are�far�too�subtle�to�re-flect�conscious�deliberate�attempts�to�sound�non-native-like.�A�case�in�point�they�analyze�in�their�series�of�studies�is�the�voiced�interdental�fricative�/ð/�in�English,�as�acquired�by�French�Canadian�speakers,�and�typically�realized�in�non-standard�form�as�the�voiced�alveolar�/d/,�depending�on�phonetic�environment.�
Based�on�detailed�analyses�of� their�data,� the� researchers� speculate� that� the�link�between�ethnolinguistic�affiliation�and�L2�proficiency�may�be�mediated�by�a�combination�of�motivational�and�psycholinguistic�variables.�Specifically,� they�suggest� that� aspects� of� ethnolinguistic� affiliation� are� psychologically� realized�in�a�person’s�motivational� self-concepts�–� that� is,� the�degree� to�which� they� see�themselves�as�wanting�to�embrace�an�inclusive�double�identity�as�speaker�of�both�French�and�English�and�member�of�the�larger�Canadian�population;�or�the�degree�to�which�they�hold�a�more�exclusive�sense�of�identity�as�French�Canadian.�These�motivational�self-perceptions�will�in�turn�affect�the�amount�and�quality�of�L2�use�and�exposure�they�will�choose�to�engage�in.�For�example,�they�may�choose�to�limit�contact�with�target�language�speakers.�The�amount�and�quality�of�these�L2�experi-ences�will�in�turn�impact�on�the�fine-tuning�of�the�person’s�cognitive-perceptual�processing�mechanisms�in�relation�to,�for�example,�important�phonetic�distinc-tions�in�the�target�language.�These�psycholinguistic�variables�and�constraints�will�in�turn�impact�on�ultimate�skill�attainment.
© 2010. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved
14� Ema�Ushioda
In�short,�Segalowitz�et�al.’s�research�provides�a�good�illustration�of�how�the�analysis�of�motivational�variables�in�relation�to�specific psycholinguistic processes�and�aspects�of�SLA�may�prove�particularly�illuminating.
Another�series�of�studies�by�Takahashi�(2001,�2005)�also�illustrates�the�value�of� exploring� links�between�motivation�and�particular�aspects�of� cognitive�pro-cessing� in� SLA� –� specifically� the� cognitive� processes� of� noticing� and� attention.�The�connection�between�motivation�and�attention�in�SLA�was�first�highlighted�by�Crookes�and�Schmidt�(1991).�Subsequently�Schmidt�(1993)�put�forward�the�speculation� that� language� learners� who� are� integratively� motivated� –� i.e.� moti-vated�by�a�strong�interest�in�the�target�language�culture�and�a�desire�to�integrate�into�the�target�language�community�–�are�likely�to�pay�particularly�close�attention�to�the�pragmatic�aspects�of�L2�input,�since�pragmatic�awareness�and�competence�would�seem�an�important�dimension�of�successful�acculturation.
In�her�research,�Takahashi�has�systematically�investigated�how�motivation�af-fects�language�learners’�attention�and�awareness�when�processing�particular�prag-malinguistic� features.�Specifically,� the�target� features� in�her�research�comprised�request� strategies� in� English.� These� included� complex� bi-clausal� request� forms�(e.g.�I was wondering if you could VP…; Is it possible to VP …? If you could VP …),�classified�as�request�head�acts;�as�well�as�structurally�simpler�interactional�features�for�effective�floor�management�(e.g.�you know, well, maybe),�idiomatic�expressions�(e.g.�How ya doing?)�and�non-idiomatic�expressions�(e.g.�I don’t want to bother you).�Participants� (who�were� Japanese�college�students)�were�asked� to� listen� to�and�study�role-play�transcripts�of�native�speakers�and�non-native�speakers�mak-ing�requests,�and�then�write�down�and�comment�on�native-speaker�expressions�that�differed� from�non-native� speaker�expressions.�Data�were�also�gathered�on�participants’�motivation�and�English�proficiency.�
The�results�showed�that�the�complex�bi-clausal�request�forms�were�much�less�likely�to�be�noticed�than�the�other�pragmalinguistic�features,�and�that�more�atten-tion�was�paid�to�interactional�features�(such�as�you know, well, maybe).�Takahashi�speculates�that�participants�may�believe�that�they�have�already�mastered�L2�re-quest�realization�with�mono-clausal�request�forms,�and�so�fail�to�notice�the�more�complex�bi-clausal�forms.�However,�a�subset�of�participants�who�were�classified�as�strongly�intrinsically�motivated�to�learn�English�were�found�to�be�more�attentive�to�bi-clausal�request�forms,�as�well�as�idiomatic�expressions.�Takahashi�suggests�that�intrinsically�motivated�learners�are�greatly�interested�in�learning�the�language�and�enjoy�activities�that�enable�them�to�develop�their�communication�skills.�They�may�perceive�pragmalinguistic�forms�as�ones�that�will�help�them�to�achieve�their�English�communication�goals�successfully,�and�so�pay�greater�attention�to�these�features.�Interestingly,�no�significant�relationships�were�found�between�proficien-cy�and�pragmalinguistic�awareness,�suggesting�that� it� is�motivation�rather�than�proficiency�which�directs�learners�attention�to�pragmatic�input.
© 2010. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved
� Motivation�and�SLA:�Bridging�the�gap� 15
Takahashi’s�research�is�illuminating,�and�paves�the�way�for�further�research�on� motivation� and� L2� pragmatic� development,� as� well� the� analysis� of� whether�motivation�may�promote�selective�attention�to�different�aspects�of�L2�input.
Motivation and�metacognition
Another�area�where�the�analysis�of�motivation�also�seems�relevant�is�in�relation�to�metacognition.�There�have�been�quite�a�few�studies�that�have�investigated�rela-tionships�between�motivation�and�use�of�metacognitive�strategies�–�e.g.�MacIntyre�and�Noels�1996;�Schmidt�and�Watanabe�2001;�Vandergrift�2005.�Generally�speak-ing,�however,�this�research�has�tended�to�rely�on�self-report�data�to�assess�strategy�use�or�metacognitive�awareness,�and�has�tended�to�adopt�a�quantitative�perspec-tive�on�amount,�range�or�frequency�of�strategy�use�in�relation�to�motivation.�It�is�argued�here�that�this�kind�of�research�inquiry�offers�a�rather�limited�analysis�of�how�motivation�may�interact�with�metacognition�in�SLA,�since�it�can�shed�little�light�on�how�motivation�shapes�the�development�of�metacognitive�skills.�From�a�theoretical�point�of�view,�motivation�and�metacognition�are�highly�interrelated,�since� the�exercise�of�metacognition�can�occur�only�when� the�ability� to�control�strategic�thinking�processes�is�accompanied�by�the�motivation�or�will� to�do�so.�In�the�literature�on�metacognition�and�self-regulated�learning,�the�relevant�catch-phrase�here�is�what�McCombs�and�Marzano�(1990)�call�“will�and�skill”.�
As� SLA� researchers,� if� our� interest� is� in� how� metacognition� develops� and�how�this�interacts�with�motivation,�I�think�a�fruitful�angle�of�analysis�may�be�a��Vygotskian�sociocultural�one.�According�to�sociocultural�theory�(Vygotsky�1978;�Lantolf�and�Thorne�2006),� the�goal�of�all� learning� is�self-regulation,�where�self-regulation�is�understood�to�mean�independent�strategic�functioning�and�meta-cognitive�control� in� relation� to�a�particular� type�of� task.�A�central�principle�of�Vygotsky’s� theory� is� that� the� origins� of� self-regulation� are� social� and� dialogic,�realized�in�the�processes�of�task-focused�interaction�through�which�the�teacher�scaffolds�the�learners'�attempts�to�accomplish�the�goal.�The�purpose�of�scaffolding�is�not�simply�to�have�the�learner�complete�the�task�but�to�promote�a�capacity�to�think�strategically�and�thus�to�gain�control,�or�self-regulation,�of�strategic�mental�processes.�Research�evidence�suggests�that�the�explicit�transfer�of�the�agentic�reg-ulatory�role�to�the�learner�is�critical�in�this�dialogue�(e.g.�Diaz,�Neal�and�Amaya-Williams� 1990),� so� that� the� learner� is� motivated� to� do� the� thinking� instead� of�simply�responding�passively�to�directives.�Clearly,�the�research�programme�I�am�suggesting�here�would�thus�entail�the�microgenetic�analysis�of�how�motivational�and�metacognitive�processes�may�develop�through�task-focused�interaction.
© 2010. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved
16� Ema�Ushioda
Motivation, context,�agency�and�dynamic�complex�systems
This�brings�us�of�course�to�the�question�of�broadening�the�research�agenda�be-yond�the�traditional�cognitive�paradigm�to�consider�the�dynamic�interactions�in-tegrating�persons�and�social�context�in�the�analysis�of�motivation�and�SLA.�As�I�mentioned�earlier,�motivation�theory� in�educational�psychology�as�well�as�SLA�has� been� slow� to� adopt� contextual� paradigms� of� inquiry.� In� the� computational�models�of�motivation�that�have�characterized�the�cognitive�paradigm,�context�is�conceptualized�merely�as�an�independent�background�variable�or�set�of�external�factors�which�may� influence�motivation.�However,�contemporary�situative�per-spectives�on�motivation�challenge�researchers�to�integrate�notions�of�self-as-agent�and�context�in�a�dynamic�and�holistic�way,�and�to�explore�how�motivation�devel-ops�and�emerges� through� the� complex� interactions�between�agent� and�context�(Volet�and�Järvelä�2001).�Moreover,�the�relationship�between�agent�and�context�is�a�reciprocal�and�mutually�constitutive�one,�since�the�self-as-agent�is�an�inherent�part�of�the�developing�context�and�contributes�to�shaping�that�context.�
Thus,�in�a�recent�paper�(Ushioda�2009),�I�have�put�forward�the�case�for�what�I�call�a�“person-in-context�relational�view”�of�second�language�motivation,�where�the�unit�of�analysis�is�person-in-context,�rather�than�language�learner�or�individual�difference� in�an�abstract� theoretical� sense.� In�an� inherently�social�process�such�as�language�acquisition,�the�person�cannot�be�meaningfully�separated�from�the�social�environment�within�which�he/she�operates,�and�so�the�challenge�is�to�adopt�a�dynamic�perspective�that�allows�us�to�consider�simultaneously�the�ongoing�mul-tiple�influences�between�environmental�and�individual�factors,�in�all�their�com-ponential�complexity,�as�well�as�the�emerging�changes�in�both�the�person�and�the�environment�(see�Dörnyei�2009b).
Of� course,� it� is� clear� that� the� focus� of� discussion� here� is� not� just� on� moti-vation�but� the�whole�process�of�SLA,�as� currently�articulated� in�discussions�of�‘emergentism’�(Ellis�and�Larsen-Freeman�2006),�and�dynamic�systems�and�com-plexity�theory�approaches�to�SLA�(Larsen-Freeman�and�Cameron�2008a).�These�approaches�concern�the�behaviour�of�complex�systems�that�contain�multiple�in-terconnected� components,� where� development� is� characterized� by� non-linear�growth�as� systems�adapt�and�evolve�organically� in� response� to�contextual�pro-cesses,�and�in�ways�that�contribute�to�shaping�context.�As�Dörnyei�(2009a,�2009b)�argues,� this�dynamic� systems�perspective�on�SLA�processes� renders� the�notion�of�discrete�individual�difference�variables�(such�as�motivation)�rather�meaning-less,�since�processes�of�motivation,�cognition�and�emotion�and�their�constituent�components�continuously�interact�with�one�another�and�the�developing�context,�thereby�changing�and�causing�change�in�non-linear�and�unpredictable�ways,�as�the�system�as�a�whole�restructures,�adapts�and�evolves.
© 2010. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved
� Motivation�and�SLA:�Bridging�the�gap� 1�
In�short,�once�we�view�motivation�as�an�integral�part�of�this�evolving�organic�and�adaptive�system�of�cognitive,�affective�and�contextual�processes�shaping�SLA,�it� is� clear� that� the� analysis� of� motivation� will� no� longer� be� separated� from� the�primary�concerns�of�SLA�research.�Moreover,�it�seems�likely�that�the�analysis�of�motivation�may�play�a�major�role� in�any�dynamic�systems�perspective�on�SLA,�given�the�need�to�consider�the�processes�of�human�agency,�intentionality�and�re-flexivity�that�are�fundamental�to�the�dynamic�interactions�between�self�and�con-text�(Sealey�and�Carter�2004).
Concluding note
This�paper�set�out�to�outline�how�motivation�research�may�be�better�integrated�into�mainstream�SLA,�and�contribute�to�the�development�of�major�lines�of�think-ing� in�the�field.�However,� it� is�beyond�the�scope�of� the�paper� to�elaborate�pos-sible� research� designs� and� methodologies� in� this� regard.� The� dynamic� systems�and� complexity� theory� approach� to� SLA� is� still� new� and� untried,� and� presents�significant�challenges�in�terms�of�developing�workable�research�designs�and�ana-lytical�tools�to�investigate�complex�systems�in�a�coherent�and�systematic�way�(see,�for� example,� Larsen-Freeman� and� Cameron� 2008b).� But,� to� adapt� that� famous�pronouncement� by� Corder� cited� at� the� beginning� of� this� paper,� perhaps,� given motivation, it is inevitable that we SLA researchers will find a way forward.
References
Atkinson,�D.�2002.�“Toward�a�sociocognitive�approach�to�second�language�acquisition”.�Modern Language Journal�86:�525–45.
Block,�D.�2003.�The Social Turn in Second Language Acquisition.�Edinburgh:�Edinburgh�Uni-versity�Press.
Corder,�S.�P.�1967.�“The�significance�of�learners’�errors”.�International Review of Applied Linguis-tics�5�(2/3):�161–169.
Crookes,� G.� and� Schmidt,� R.� 1991.� “Motivation:� Reopening� the� research� agenda”.� Language Learning�41:�469–512.
Diaz,�R.�M.,�Neal,�C.�J.�and�Amaya-Williams,�M.�1990.�“The�social�origins�of�self-regulation”.�In�Vygotsky and Education: Instructional Implications and Applications of Sociohistorical Psychology,�L.�Moll.�(ed.),�127–54.�New�York:�Cambridge�University�Press.
Dörnyei,� Z.� 2002.� “The� motivational� basis� of� language� learning� tasks”.� In� Individual Differ-ences and Instructed Language Learning,� P.� Robinson� (ed.),� 137–58.� Amsterdam:� John��Benjamins.
Dörnyei,�Z.�2003.�“Attitudes,�orientations,�and�motivation�in�language�learning:�Advances�in�theory,�research,�and�applications”.�Language Learning�53�(Supplement�1):�3–32.
© 2010. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved
18� Ema�Ushioda
Dörnyei,�Z.�2005.�The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in Second Lan-guage Acquisition.�Mahwah,�NJ:�Lawrence�Erlbaum.
Dörnyei,�Z.�2009a.�The Psychology of Second Language Acquisition.�Oxford:�Oxford�University�Press.
Dörnyei,�Z.�2009b.�“Individual�differences:�Interplay�of�learner�characteristics�and�learning�en-vironment”.�In�Language as a Complex Adaptive System,�N.�C.�Ellis�and�D.�Larsen-Freeman�(eds),�237–255.�Oxford:�Wiley�Blackwell.
Dörnyei,� Z.� and� Csizér,� K.� 1998.� “Ten� commandments� for� motivating� language� learners:��Results�of�an�empirical�study”.�Language Teaching Research�2:�203–229.
Dörnyei,�Z.�and�Kormos,�J.�2000.�“The�role�of�individual�and�social�variables�in�oral�task�perfor-mance”.�Language Teaching Research�4:�275–300.
Dörnyei,�Z.�and�Ottó,�I.�1998.�“Motivation�in�action:�A�process�model�of�L2�motivation”.�Work-ing Papers in Applied Linguistics (Thames Valley University, London)�4:�43–69.
Dörnyei,�Z.�and�Tseng,�W-T.�2009.�“Motivational�processing�in�interactional�tasks”.�In�Multiple Perspectives on Interaction: Second Language Research in Honour of S. M. Gass,�A.�Mackey�and�C.�Polio�(eds),�117–34.�Mahwah,�NJ:�Lawrence�Erlbaum.
Dörnyei,�Z.�and�Ushioda,�E.�2010.�Teaching and Researching Motivation.�2nd�edition.�Harlow:�Longman.
Doughty,�C.�J.�and�Long,�M.�H.�2005.�The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition.�Oxford:�Blackwell.
Ellis,�N.�and�Larsen-Freeman,�D.�2006.�“Language�emergence:�Implications�for�applied�linguis-tics�–�Introduction�to�the�Special�Issue”.�Applied Linguistics�27:�558–589.
Ellis,�R.�1994.�The Study of Second Language Acquisition.�Oxford:�Oxford�University�Press.Ellis,�R.�2008.�The Study of Second Language Acquisition.�2nd�edition.�Oxford:�Oxford�Univer-
sity�Press.Fransson,� A.� 1984.� “Cramming� or� understanding?� Effects� of� intrinsic� and� extrinsic� motiva-
tion�on�approach� to� learning�and� test�performance”.� In�Reading in a Foreign Language,�J.�C.�Alderson�and�A.�H.�Urquhart�(eds.),�86–121.�London:�Longman.
Gardner,�R.�C.�1985.�Social Psychology and Second Language Learning: The Role of Attitudes and Motivation.�London:�Edward�Arnold.
Gardner,� R.� C.� and� Lalonde,� R.� N.� 1983.� “The� socio-educational� model� of� second� language�acquisition:� An� investigation� using� LISREL� causal� modelling”.� Journal of Language and Social Psychology 2�(1):�1–15.
Gardner,�R.�C.�and�Lambert,�W.�E.�1972.�Attitudes and Motivation in Second-Language Learn-ing.�Rowley,�MA:�Newbury�House.
Giles,�H.�and�Byrne,�J.�L.�1982.�“An�intergroup�approach�to�second�language�acquisition”.�Jour-nal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development�3:�17–40.
Harré,�R.�and�Gillett,�G.�1994.�The Discursive Mind.�Thousand�Oaks,�CA:�Sage.Kormos,�J.�and�Dörnyei,�Z.�2004.�“The�interaction�of�linguistic�and�motivational�variables�in�
second� language� task� performance”.� Zeitschrift für Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunter-richt�9�(2):�1–19.
Kramsch,�C.�2002.�“Introduction:�How�can�we�tell�the�dancer�from�the�dance?”�In�Language Acquisition and Language Socialization: Ecological Perspectives,� C.� Kramsch� (ed.),� 1–30.�London:�Continuum.
Lafford,�B.�A.�(ed.).�2007.�Second Language Acquisition Reconceptualized? The Impact of Firth and Wagner (1997). (Focus issue).�Modern Language Journal�91.�
© 2010. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved
� Motivation�and�SLA:�Bridging�the�gap� 19
Lantolf,�J.�P.�and�Thorne,�S.�L.�2006.�Sociocultural Theory and the Genesis of Second Language Development.�Oxford:�Oxford�University�Press.
Larsen-Freeman,�D.�and�Cameron,�L.�2008a.�Complex Systems and Applied Linguistics.�Oxford:�Oxford�University�Press.
Larsen-Freeman,� D.� and� Cameron,� L.� 2008b.� “Research� methodology� on� language� develop-ment�from�a�complex�systems�perspective”.�Modern Language Journal�92:�200–13.
MacIntyre,�P.�D.�and�Noels,�K.�A.�1996.�“Using�social-psychological�variables�to�predict�the�use�of�language�learning�strategies”.�Foreign Language Annals�29:�373–86.
Manolopoulou-Sergi,�E.�2004.�“Motivation�within�the�information�processing�model�of�foreign�language�learning”.�System�32:�427–41.
Marton,�F.�and�Säljö,�D.�1976.�“On�qualitative�differences�in�learning.�1:�outcome�and�process”.�British Journal of Educational Psychology 46:�4–11.
Masgoret,�A-M.�and�Gardner,�R.�C.�2003.�“Attitudes,�motivation,�and�second�language�learning:�A�meta-analysis�of�studies�conducted�by�Gardner�and�his�associates”.�Language Learning�53�(Supplement�1):�167–210.
McCombs,�B.�L.�and�Marzano,�R.�J.�1990.�“Putting�the�self�in�self-regulated�learning:�The�self�as�agent�in�integrating�will�and�skill”.�Educational Psychologist�25:�51–69.
McInerney,�D.�M.�and�Van�Etten,�S.�(eds).�2004.�Big Theories Revisited: Volume 4 in Research on Sociocultural Influences on Motivation and Learning.�Greenwich,�CO:�Information�Age�Publishing.
Meisel,�J.�1977.�“Linguistic�simplification:�A�study�of�immigrant�workers’�speech�and�foreigner�talk”.�In�The Notions of Simplification, Interlanguages and Pidgins in their Relation to Second Language Pedagogy,�S.�P.�Corder�and�E.�Roulet�(eds),�88–113.�Geneva:�Librairie�Droz.
Noels,�K.�A.,�Pelletier,�L.,�Clément,�R.�and�Vallerand,�R.�J.�2000.�“Why�are�you�learning�a�second�language?� Motivational� orientations� and� self-determination� theory”.� Language Learning 50:�57–85.
Pavlenko,�A.�2002.�“Poststructuralist�approaches�to�the�study�of�social�factors�in�second�lan-guage� learning�and�use”.� In�Portraits of the L2 User,�V.�Cook� (ed.),� 277–302.�Clevedon:�Multilingual�Matters.
Prosser,� M.� and� Trigwell,� K.� 1998.� Teaching for Learning in Higher Education.� Buckingham:�Open�University�Press.
Ramage,�K.�1990.�“Motivational�factors�and�persistence�in�foreign�language�study”.�Language Learning�40�(2):�189–219.
Schmidt,� R.� 1993.� “Consciousness,� learning� and� interlanguage� pragmatics”.� In� Interlanguage Pragmatics,�G.�Kaspar�and�S.�Blum-Kulka�(eds),�21–42.�Oxford:�Oxford�University�Press.
Schmidt,�R.�and�Watanabe,�Y.�2001.�“Motivation,�strategy�use,�and�pedagogical�preferences�in�foreign� language� learning”.� In�Motivation and Second Language Acquisition,� Z.� Dörnyei�and�R.�Schmidt�(eds),�313–359.�Honolulu,�HI:�University�of�Hawaii�Press.
Schumann,�J.�1978.�“The�acculturation�model�for�second�language�acquisition”.�In�Second Lan-guage Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching,�R.�Gingras�(ed.),�27–107.�Arlington,�VA:�Centre�for�Applied�Linguistics.
Sealey,�A.�and�Carter,�B.�2004.�Applied Linguistics as Social Science.�London:�Continuum.Segalowitz,� N.,� Gatbonton,� E.� and� Trofimovich,� P.� 2009.� “Links� between� ethnolinguistic� af-
filiation,�self-related�motivation�and�second�language�fluency:�Are�they�mediated�by�psy-cholinguistic�variables?”�In�Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self,�Z.�Dörnyei�and�E.�Ushioda�(eds.),�172–92.�Bristol:�Multilingual�Matters.
Skehan,�P.�1998.�A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning.�Oxford:�Oxford�University�Press.
© 2010. John Benjamins Publishing CompanyAll rights reserved
20� Ema�Ushioda
Takahashi,�J.�2001.�“The�role�of�input�enhancement�in�developing�pragmatic�competence”.�In�Pragmatics in Language Teaching,�K.�R.�Rose�and�G.�Kasper� (eds),�171–99.�Cambridge:�Cambridge�University�Press.
Takahashi,�J.�2005.�“Pragmalinguistic�awareness:�Is�it�related�to�motivation�and�proficiency?”�Applied Linguistics�26:�90–120.
Ushioda,�E.�1996.�Learner Autonomy 5: The Role of Motivation.�Dublin:�Authentik.Ushioda,�E.�2009.�“A�person-in-context�relational�view�of�emergent�motivation,�self�and�iden-
tity”.�In�Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self,�Z.�Dörnyei�and�E.�Ushioda�(eds),�215–28.�Bristol:�Multilingual�Matters.
Vandergrift,�L.�2005.�“Relationships�among�motivation�orientations,�metacognitive�awareness�and�proficiency�in�L2�listening”.�Applied Linguistics�26:�70–89.
van�Lier,�L.�2004.�The Ecology and Semiotics of Language Learning: A Sociocultural Perspective.�Boston,�MA:�Kluwer�Academic.
Volet,�S.�and�Järvelä,�S.�2001.�Motivation in Learning Contexts: Theoretical Advances and Meth-odological Implications.�Amsterdam:�Pergamon-Elsevier.
Vygotsky,�L.�S.�1978.�Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes.�Cam-bridge,�MA:�Harvard�University�Press.
Watson-Gegeo,�K.�A.�2004.�“Mind,�language,�and�epistemology:�Toward�a�language�socializa-tion�paradigm�for�SLA”.�Modern Language Journal�88:�331–50.
Williams,�M.�and�Burden,�R.�L.�1997.�Psychology for Language Teachers.�Cambridge:�Cambridge�University�Press.
Zuengler,�J.�and�Miller,�E.�R.�2006.�“Cognitive�and�sociocultural�perspectives:�Two�parallel�SLA�worlds?”�TESOL Quarterly�40:�35–58.