Motivation and SLA bridging the gap

17
is is a contribution from EUROSLA Yearbook: Volume 10 (2010) © 2010. John Benjamins Publishing Company is electronic file may not be altered in any way. e 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

description

Motivation and SLA bridging the gap

Transcript of Motivation and SLA bridging the gap

Page 1: 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

Page 2: Motivation and SLA bridging the gap

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

Page 3: Motivation and SLA bridging the gap

© 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.

Page 4: Motivation and SLA bridging the gap

© 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.

Page 5: Motivation and SLA bridging the gap

© 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:

Page 6: Motivation and SLA bridging the gap

© 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�

Page 7: Motivation and SLA bridging the gap

© 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�

Page 8: Motivation and SLA bridging the gap

© 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�

Page 9: Motivation and SLA bridging the gap

© 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.

Page 10: Motivation and SLA bridging the gap

© 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.

Page 11: Motivation and SLA bridging the gap

© 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.

Page 12: Motivation and SLA bridging the gap

© 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.

Page 13: Motivation and SLA bridging the gap

© 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.

Page 14: Motivation and SLA bridging the gap

© 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.

Page 15: Motivation and SLA bridging the gap

© 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.�

Page 16: Motivation and SLA bridging the gap

© 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.

Page 17: Motivation and SLA bridging the gap

© 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.