Iraqi EFL students Willingness To Communicate)wtc)

Previous Studies

The construct of WTC was first developed by McCroskey and Baer

(1985) in relation to communication in the first language. The construct
is defined as a stable predisposition toward communication when free to
choose to do so. In later years several researchers conducted studies to
investigate the variables responsible for the variation of a person’s
WTC.(McCroskey & Baer, WTC: The construct and its measurement ,
1985) In the early 1990s the development of research on WTC in first
language (L1) started to gain researchers‟ attention in the area of L2
acquisition. Studies conducted in various Canadian contexts combined
WTC model with Gardner’s (1985) socio-educational model in order to
examine the relations among variables underlying WTC in a L2.
(Gardner, Social psychology and L2, 1985)

MacIntyre et al. (1998) argued that in the L2 context, WTC should be

treated as a situational variable. They conceptualized WTC in an L2 in a
theoretical model which has a total of twelve constructs. In their heuristic
model, there are six categories referred to as „layers‟ of the model. The
layers from top to bottom are communication behavior (I), behavioral
intention (II), situated antecedents (III), motivational propensities (IV),
affective cognitive context (V), and social and individual context (VI). In
this model, factors influencing WTC are divided into two groups:
enduring influences and situational influences, which are the last three
layers from the bottom. The top layers (I, II, III) of the pyramid are
believed to have immediate influence on WTC, whereas the bottom layers
(IV, V, VI) signify relatively stable and enduring influences on WTC. In
this pyramid-figure model of L2 WTC, placed WTC in a Layer II and
identified it as a behavioral intention, the final step before using L2.
(MacIntyre, Clement, Dornyei & Noels , Conceptualizing WTC in a L2,
1998, P. 545-562 Past research has identified various antecedents of WTC and
helps to form a general picture of how psychological variables interrelate and affect
the learners’ stable tendency to communicate in an L2, or trait-like WTC. Recently,
an increasing number of studies have spotlighted the situated nature of WTC as it
emerges in the classroom (e.g. Cao, 2011, 2014; Pawlak, Mystkowska-Wiertelak, &
Bielak, 2015; Peng, 2012). However, research has yet to integrate situated WTC
with trait WTC as individual characteristics in order to come to a fuller
understanding of WTC as originally conceptualized by MacIntyre et al. (1998). To
reach this goal, we need to investigate why learners choose (or avoid)
communication in L2 classrooms at specific moments.

To use Dörnyei’s (2001) metaphor, we ask what makes learners ‘cross the
Rubicon’ (p. 88) from silence to speech, and how do we integrate these findings with
enduring trait-like WTC patterns. In other words, we need to capture ‘the interplay
of learner characteristics and the learning environment’ (Dörnyei, 2009, p. 179) by
approaching WTC as a complex dynamic system. This study therefore focuses on
situated WTC as it emerges in the classroom and examines how the interplay of
enduring learner characteristics and emergent contextual factors gives rise to
learners’ communication behaviors. Our approach is interventional in nature with a
major goal of encouraging learners to initiate communication in a traditionally quiet
classroom; to do so we avoid using the familiar and conventional Initiation–
Response–Feedback (IRF) instructional pattern.

Since the goal of second language (L2) and foreign language (FL) learning is to
facilitate better communication and understanding between individuals who come
from different cultural backgrounds and different languages, MacIntyre, Clément,
Dörnyei, and Noels (1998) emphasized communicative goals using the conceptual
model of willingness to communicate (WTC). In this regard L2 proficiency is not
considered as the ultimate goal of L2 learning but is seen as a means to achieve
interpersonal/intercultural goals. Both state and trait variables, including self-
confidence, intergroup motivation, intergroup attitudes, and personality, were
shown to affect one’s WTC in the L2 in a given situation. Contextual variables,
such as when and where and to whom one is communicating, also affects ones
desire to initiate and maintain communication.

Willingness to communicate is defined as a learner’s ‘‘readiness to enter into

discourse at a particular time with a specific person or persons, using a L2”
(MacIntyre et al., 1998, p. 547).

As Dörnyei (2003) points out, competence in the L2 may not be enough.

Learners need to be not only able to communicate but also willing to communicate
in the L2. Research has shown that a learner’s WTC influences how frequently the
learner actively engages in communicating in the L2 (Clément et al., 2003;
Yashima et al., 2004). Thus MacIntyre et al. (1998) propose that WTC in L2
should be conceptualized as the primary goal of language instruction and as a
comprehensive conceptual framework to describe, explain and predict L2
communication behavior.
 Regarding previously done studies various linguistic, communicative, and
social variables affect WTC. “These variables include state of communicative self-
confidence, desire to communicate with a specific person; self-confidence,
intergroup and interpersonal motivation; communicative competence, social
attitudes, and intergroup attitudes; and personality and intergroup climate.”
(Ghonsooly et al., 2012, p. 198)

Language and communication are cultural matters. McCroskey and Richmond

(1990) suggested that the relationship between WTC and other variables might be
different from one culture to another. Studies of WTC have been conducted in
Australia (Barraclough, Christophel, & McCroskey, 1988), Sweden,
(McCroskey, Burroughs, Daun, & Richmond, 1990), Micronesia (Burroughs &
Marie, 1990; Burroughs, Marie, & McCroskey, 2003), Finland (Sallinen-
Kuparinen, McCroskey, & Richmond, 1991), Korea (Kim, 2004), and Japan
(Matsuoka, 2005; Yashima, 2002), China (Wen & Clément, 2003; Hsu, 2005),
but few have been done in Iraq (Ghonsooly et al., 2012; Zarrinabadi & Abdi,
2011; Barjesteh et al., 2012). Most of this studies have been conducted in settings
where English is learned as a second language while according to Oxford and
Shearin (1994) the differences between second language and foreign language
settings could highly affect language learners.

Those studies which have been done in Iran were aiming at investigating some
variables which are not of interest in this study. The current study investigates L2
WTC among Iranian English learners who study English as a foreign language in
private institutes.

McCroskey and his colleagues (1985) introduced the construct “Willingness

to Communicate” in relation to communication in the native language. They
mentioned introversion, self-esteem, communication competence,
communication apprehension and cultural diversity as antecedents of WTC.
Moreover, they suggested that any kind of generalization should be done with
reference to culture.

MacIntyre (1994) hypothesized that communication apprehension and

perceived competence would be the causes of WTC when introversion would be
related to both communication apprehension and perceived competence, and self-
esteem would be related to communication apprehension. Based on his model,
people are willing to communicate when they are not apprehensive about
communication and when they perceive themselves as capable of communicating
effectively.

MacIntyre and Charos (1996) widen the structural model by adding

motivation, personality, and context as predictors of not only WTC but also the
frequency of communication. They hypothesized that WTC and integrative
motivation would explain the frequency of communication in L2.

MacIntyre et al. (1998) argued the differences between L1 and L2 WTC. They
integrated linguistic, communicative and social psychological variables to
explain one’s WTC in his/her second language. However, they treated WTC in
L2 as a situational variable that has both transient and enduring influences.
Moreover, they theorized that WTC influences not only speaking mode but also
listening, writing and reading modes. They use a pyramid shaped figure to
illustrate the WTC model, the pyramid model demonstrates the wide variety of
factors that affect the psychological preparedness to speak. We can identify both
individual factors (anxiety, motivation, attitudes, interpersonal attraction, etc.)
 and social contextual factors (ethno linguistic vitality, language contact, etc.) that
either enhance or reduce WTC (MacIntyre, 2007).

With respect to affective variables as predictors of reported second language

use, Hashimoto (2002) studied Japanese ESL students in classroom context. He
showed that motivation and WTC affect reported L2 communication frequency in
classroom. Perceived competence and L2 anxiety were found to be causes of
WTC, which led to more L2 use, and L2 anxiety was found to negatively
influence perceived competence. Although a path from WTC to motivation was
not found to be significant in the original study, it was found to be significant in
the present replication. In addition, a path from perceived competence was found
to exert a strong and direct influence on motivation from a data-driven path.

Individual Differences(IDS)

Individual differences that were associated with the participants’

choice of speaking involved Individual Characteristics, Communicative
Competence, and Language Learning Experiences. Individual
characteristics referred to different types of personal attributes. Some
students were more willing to communicate than others. Communicative
competence concerns ability to handle communication which involves
receptive and productive skills. Some learners were not willing to
communicate, because they were not able to understand the message.
Some were reluctant to speak, because they believed that had limited
linguistic resources, such as vocabulary. Finally, language learning
experience concerns different types of language learning experiences
that the participants had been involved in. Those who had been overseas
were more likely to speak up in class than those who had no overseas
experience.

It is a common observation that people differ from each other, yet

it is less obvious why and how they differ. The field of study that deals
with individual and group differences in human behaviour is called
differential psychology. As Revelle et al. summarized in the Wiley-
Blackwell Handbook of Individual Differences, “The study of individual
differences include the study of affect, behavior, cognition and
motivation as they are affected by biological causes and environmental
events”. Furthermore, researchers in the field of SLA have been
interested in the individual differences between people learning their
second, third or even fourth foreign language. A number of
psychologists and applied linguists have made attempts to define,
describe and classify individual differences in order to identify factors
that account for success in learning a second/foreign language.(Revelle
& Condon, individual differences and differential psychology, Willey
BlackWell of individual differences, 2011, P. 3-38), handbook As
Cohen (2010) explains, “When students embark on the study of an L2,
they are not merely ‘empty vessels’ that will need to be filled by the
wise words of the teacher; instead, they carry a considerable ‘personal
baggage’ to the language course that will have a significant bearing on
how learning proceeds”. Indeed, a handful of factors of the learner’s
‘baggage’ can potentially affect success in foreign language learning.
Among them, there are variables that are relatively easily identifiable,
such as age or gender, and those that are much more difficult to grasp,
mainly due to problems involved in their measurement, such as
intelligence, aptitude, motivation, learning styles, learning strategies or
personality factors.(Cohen & Ishihara, Teaching and learning
pragmatics, 2010)

Williams and Burden (1997), first of all, divide individual differences

into two categories: obvious (age, gender, personality, aptitude,
intelligence and motivation) and less obvious (cognitive styles and
strategies, anxiety and preparedness to take risks). Secondly, they briefly
describe such individual variables as intelligence, cognitive style,
motivation, anxiety, aptitude, learning strategies and, finally, decide to
devote two whole chapters to motivation and learning strategies.
(William, & Burden , Psychology for language teachers, 1997) Brown
(2000) makes a distinction between styles and strategies, personality
factors (self-esteem, inhibition, risk-taking, anxiety, empathy,
extroversion/introversion, and motivation), sociocultural factors, age,
aptitude and intelligence, and discusses them in separate chapters. It is
interesting to note that he views motivation as a personality factor,
which might be regarded as a somewhat surprising idea.(Brown,
Principles of language learning & teaching , 2000, P. 152-165). Ehrman
et al. (2003) focus their attention on learning styles, learning strategies
and affective variables, i.e. motivation, self-efficacy, tolerance of
ambiguity, and anxiety. They also mention other areas of individual
differences, such as aptitude, gender, culture, age and other demographic
variables.(Ehrman & Oxford, A brief overview of individual differences
in second language learning, 2003, P. 313-330) Dörnyei and Skehan
(2003) organize their article on IDs in SLA into four main sections:
foreign language aptitude, cognitive and learning styles, learner
strategies, and motivation, deciding at the same time to omit some
individual variables, not describing, for example, personality. Another
scholar providing a taxonomy of factors responsible for individual
differences in L2 learning is Ellis (2004), who divides them into four
categories: abilities, propensities, learner cognitions about L2 learning
and learner actions. The first category, that is abilities, refers to
cognitive capabilities for language learning and comprises such factors
as intelligence, language aptitude and memory. Propensities can be
defined as cognitive and affective qualities, such as learning style,
motivation, anxiety, personality, and willingness to communicate.
Learner cognitions about L2 learning include learner beliefs and learner
actions equated with learning strategies. Ellis does not describe some of
the other important individual variables, among which age is the most
conspicuous, justifying his decision by the fact that the four main
categories do not comprise age; they are rather affected by it. He also
implies that age is too broad an area and requires separate treatment.
(Dornyei & Skehan, individual differences in L2 learning, 2003, P. 589-
630) Dörnyei (2006), in turn, introduces an overview of five individual
factors which comprise personality, aptitude, motivation, learning styles
and learning strategies, all of which he sees as the most important ID
variables.(Dornyei, Individual differences in L2 Acquisition, 2006, P.
42-68) Johnson (2008) in his introductory course to foreign language
learning and teaching groups individual differences into cognitive
variables (intelligence and aptitude), affective variables (motivation and
attitude), personality variables (extroversion/introversion, tolerance of
ambiguity, empathy or ego permeability, and cognitive style), and
learning strategies. This taxonomy appears to be incomplete, taking into
consideration the fact that the scholar does not mention some important
factors, the most notable of which is age.(Johnson, An introduction to
foreign langiage learning and teaching, 2008).

The variables of individual characteristics within the students themselves,

effecting second language acquisition basically consist of personal and general
factors that relate to all human beings. It is essential to recognise that there are
individual differences between learners. A second language learner is different
from a very young child acquiring a first language. This is true in terms of both
the learner’s characteristics and the environments in which second language
acquisition typically occurs. As we all know, all second language learners,
regardless of age, have already acquired at least one language. This prior
knowledge may be an advantage in the sense that they have an idea of how
languages work. On the other hand, knowledge of other languages can lead
learners to make incorrect guesses about how the second language works, and
this may result in errors that first language learners would not make.
Furthermore, successful language acquisition draws on different mental abilities,
abilities that are specific to language learning, different cognitive maturity and
different metalinguistic awareness which allow learners to solve problems and
engage in learning a second language.

It is believed that individual differences that are inherent in the learner can
predict success or failure in language learning. Such beliefs may be based on our
own experience or that of people we have known. For instance, it is believed that
extroverted learners can be the most successful learners when they interact
without inhibition in the second language and seek opportunities to practise
language skills (Lightbown & Spada 2008). In addition to an outgoing
personality, other characteristics often believed to predict success in language
learning are age, motivation, and learning styles. Age as an effective factor brings
different performance stages in second language learning. Various explanations
and interpretations of second language acquisition exist considering age. The
relationship between age and success in SLA, though complex in nature, is linked
to the Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH) (Lightbown & Spada 2008). CPH is
defined as there being biological mechanisms specifically designed for language
acquisition which cease to be available at or even before puberry. Lightbown and
Spada (2008), suggest that older learners have a higher level of problem solving
and metalinguistic abilities than younger learners even though some older second
language learners may have different word choice, accent or grammatical
features as compared to some monolingual native speakers and some second
language speakers who began learning the language while they were very young.
They also communicate very successfully in the language. Older learners may
depend on more general learning abilities which are not as effective for the
language learning of young learners, as the more specific, innate capabilities that
are available to them.

In addition to possible biological differences suggested by the CPH, the

conditions for language learning are often very different (Lightbown & Spada
2008). Motivation is another important aspect of second language acquisition. It
is the learner’s orientation with regard to the goal of learning a second language.
Motivation includes the following two factors: on the one hand, learners’
communicative needs, and, on the other, their attitudes toward the second
language community. If learners needs to speak the second language in a wide
range of social situations or to fulfil professional ambitions, they will perceive
the communicative value of the second language and will therefore be motivated
to acquire proficiency in it. Likewise, if learners have a favourable attitude
towards the speakers of the language, they will desire more contact with them
(Lightbown & Spada 2008). Lightbown and Spada look at motivation from two
basic types: integrative and instrumental. Integrative motivation is characterised
by the learner's positive attitudes towards the target language group and the desire
to integrate into the target language community. When someone becomes a
resident in a new community that uses the target language in its social
interactions, integrative motivation is a key component in assisting the learner to
develop some level of proficiency in the language.
 It becomes a necessity, in order to operate socially in the community and
become one of its members. Instrumental motivation underlies the goal to gain
some social or economic reward through L2 achievement, thus referring to a
more functional reason for language learning. With instrumental motivation the
purpose of language acquisition is more utilitarian, such as meeting the
requirements for school or university graduation, applying for a job, requesting
higher pay based on language ability, reading technical material, translation work
or achieving higher social status. Both forms of motivation are examined in light
of research which has been undertaken to establish the correlation between the
form of motivation and successful second language acquisition The term
“learning style” means an individual’s natural, habitual, and preferred way of
absorbing, processing, and retaining new information and skills (Lightbown &
Spada 2008: 59). They divide people into three main learning styles: Visual,
auditory, and kinesthetic learners usually enjoy reading and prefer to see the
words that they are learning. They also like to learn by looking at pictures and
flashcards. Auditory learners prefer to learn by listening. They enjoy
conversations and the chance for interactions with others. They do not need to see
words written down. Kinesthetic learners like movement and need frequent
breaks in desk activities. Each of us has our own preferred way of learning that is
determined by our cultural and educational background and our personalities. So
awareness of our learning styles can help us in the second language acquisition

Theoretical Background

Willingness to Communicate (WTC):

 Most researchers have attempted to research the concept of WTC from
different perspectives. Primarily, McCroskey and Richmond conceptualised WTC
as a ‘personality trait reflecting a stable predisposition to initiate communication in
different situations’. From this, it can be understood that WTC is a process (whose
elements include context, receiver, and fillers) the should be encouraged among
learners in order to use English as foreign language (L2) in different settings.
(McCroskey & Richmond:(WTC):A Cognitive View.p.19-37). However, contrary
to what McCroskey and Richmond (1991) claimed, MacIntyre et al. (1998) argued
that WTC comprised both trait (stable) and state (transient) properties. Thus,
according to MacIntyre et al. (1998), various situations are conceivable in which
WTC might be affected. This would accordingly have consequences for learners.
MacIntyre et al. (1998) further claimed that L2 teachers should make WTC a
priority in their classes and that learning context should induce learners’
willingness to look for opportunities for communication and their willingness to
become involved in it.(Et al, The Modern Language Journal, Conceptualizing
Willingness to communicate in a L2, 1998, p. 545-562)

Skehan (1989) believed that utilising WTC not only predicts L2 use but also
facilitates its development. Skehan defined WTC as ‘willingness to talk in order to
learn’.(Skehan,1989, P.48)

In MacIntyre’s (1994) model, WTC appeared to be meaningfully and

significantly influenced and predicted by the two concepts of perceived
competence and communication anxiety.(MacIntyre, Variables underlying
willingness to communicate, 1994, P.135-142) Later, MacIntyre and Charos (1996)
revised MacIntyre’s (1994) model of WTC, utilising Gardner’s (1985) socio-
educational model to examine the relation among personality characteristics, such
as selfesteem, language anxiety, motivation, and perceived competence and social
constructs, such as attitudes, motivation, WTC, and authentic language use,
through a model called the ‘Path Model’. The outcome was that learners with high
motivation and perceived communication competence displayed greater WTC.
Moreover, it was found that anxiety had an indirect effect on WTC through
perceived communication competence and motivation whereas context directly
influences the frequency of L2 communication.(MacIntyre & Charos, Personality
attitudes, and affect as predictors of second language communication, 1996, P. 3-
26) Furthermore, a number of studies revealed direct and indirect effects of
motivation in relation to WTC (Baker & MacIntyre, 2003; Hashimoto, 2002;
MacIntyre, Baker, Clement, & Conrod, 2001; Yashima, 2002).

Many linguistic and non-linguistic factors play major roles in

communication. Specifically, psycholinguistic and socio-cultural factors are quite
relevant to WTC, especially in English as foreign language (L2). A few studies
have investigated the factors that affect L2 learners; however, few studies have
been conducted on the effect of personality traits on L2 learning, particularly in the
Arab context. English is spoken worldwide, and it is the language of business
communication. According to Grubbs et al. (2009), “It is the language to compete
in the global economic environment.” Iraq is one of the destinations for
international labor and foreign investment in the world; therefore, there is a need to
use English as a tool for international and intercultural communication, which may
explain the interest in WTC. According to MacIntyre et al. (2002), WTC is a state
of readiness to enter a discourse at a particular time with a specific person or
persons using an L2. The degree of WTC depends on context, the receivers and
personality traits and indicates whether individuals choose to speak or avoid
having a conversation.(MacIntyre & Donovan, Sex and age effects on WTC, 2002,
P. 537-64)

McCroskey and Richmond (1990) argued that WTC arises from two
variables - lack of anxiety and perceived competence, which is people are willing
to communicate when they are not feeling apprehensive and distinctly perceive
themselves to be a competent communicator.(McCroskey & Richmond. WTC: A
cognitive view, 1990, P. 19-37) This claim, afterwards was first empirically
bolstered by Macintyre (1994) who developed a path model which presumed that
WTC is based on an incorporation of higher level of perceived communicative
competence and a lower level of communication apprehension; the model further
speculated that apprehension influences the perception of competence.(MacIntyre,
Variables underlying WTC,1994, P.135-142)

An early origin of WTC lies in the three indirectly related constructs. As a

point of departure, Burgoon (1976) delineated aptly the construct “unwillingness to
communicate” which was considered a global communication concept constituting
the marked chronic propensity to shun oral communication altogether; besides, he
developed unwillingness to communication scale (UCS) to define the construct
operationally derived from the latest research findings in the areas of anomie and
alienation, lack of communication competence, introversion, self-esteem, and
communication apprehension.(Burgoon, The WTC Sscale : Development and
Validation, 1976, P. 60-69) Moreover, Mortensen, Arntson, and Lustig (1977)
posited that there is a fairly stable amount of communication for an individual
across various communication circumstances, dubbing their construct
“predisposition toward verbal behavior”.(Mortensen & Arntson & Lustig, The
Measurement of Verbal Predispositions, 1977, P. 58-146.) The last endeavor
pursued by McCroskey and Richmond’s (1982) study that employed the term
“shyness” to probe its inclination and explained it as the proclivity to be timid,
reserved, and reticent.(McCroskey & Richmond , Communication Apprehension
and shyness, 1982, P. 68-458.)

Since we use the WTC model as a central framework for this study, we first
review the development of WTC research, focusing on how the WTC model
proposed by MacIntyre et al. (1998) is addressed. Second, as our study is also
informed by CDST (Complex Dynamics Systems Theory), we touch upon the
influence of this theory on WTC research. Finally, we explain the context within
.which this interventional study is conducted

and associates (MacIntyre & Charos, 1996; MacIntyre & Clément, 1996).
MacIntyre et al. (1998) developed the idea into a heuristic pyramid-shaped model
that presents a systemic view of how various enduring (or trait) and situated (or
state) individual vari-ables interact and converge as WTC in the L2. The model
emphasizes the moment of volition that, when the readiness to communicate
reaches a certain threshold, language use is triggered at a particular time with
specific interlocutors (see Figure 1). The situ-ated nature of the model, which
represents various factors interacting in a complex manner to give rise to
communication behavior, foreshadowed recent trends in motiva-tion and language
anxiety research, including approaches informed by CDST (Dörnyei, MacIntyre, &
Henry, 2015; Gregersen, MacIntyre & Meza, 2014). While empirical research
inspired by the model has been conducted in various parts of the world, most of the
earlier studies mainly addressed the lower three layers of the model, using psy-
chometric scales. Those studies identified interrelations among multiple variables
that affect L2 WTC defined as ‘a stable predisposition toward [L2]
communication’ (MacIntyre & Charos, 1996, p. 7), which has been called trait-like
WTC (e.g. Clément, Baker, & MacIntyre, 2003; Denies, Yashima, & Janssen,
2015; MacIntyre & Clément, 1996; Peng & Woodrow, 2010; Yashima, 2002;
Yashima, Zenuk-Nishide, & Shimizu, 2004). These studies confirmed many of the
,enduring factors shown in the model
including intergroup attitudes, communicative competence, anxiety, and L2
.self-confi-dence influence trait-like L2 WTC

In contrast, recent studies have captured the situated nature of WTC. Taking
WTC as an emerging state of readiness to speak, qualitative and mixed-method
research have revealed a number of factors influencing participants’ state WTC
(for a review, see, for example, Pawlak, Mystkowska-Wiertelak, & Bielak, 2015).
In many of these studies situated WTC was operationalized as either observed
frequency of communication or self-reported readiness to speak often indicated on
a scale. Based on classroom observa-tions using both interviews and a behavior
categorization scheme they developed, Cao and Philp (2006) identified group size,
self-confidence, familiarity with interlocutors, and interlocutor participation in the
conversation as factors that had the greatest impact on frequency of self-initiated
communication. Kang’s (2005) interview-based study revealed that L2 learners’
WTC in context emerges dynamically, mediated by three psy-chological factors:
perception of security, excitement, and responsibility. In response to MacIntyre’s
(2007) call for more studies on situated WTC, many researchers have revealed a
number of psychological and contextual influences on WTC emergent in
classrooms (e.g. Cao, 2011, 2014; de Saint Légar & Storch, 2009; MacIntyre,
Burns, & Jessome, 2011; Peng, 2012). Among them, Cao (2014) revealed through
observations and stimulated recall interviews that situational WTC in the
classroom results from a combination of individual, contextual, and linguistic
factors. MacIntyre, Burns, and Jessome (2011) asked participants to write
situations in which they (immersion students) were either most or least willing to
communicate in French as an L2. Through the quali-tative analyses of these self-
reports, researchers demonstrated that subtle differences in the communication
contexts quickly can change a learner’s affective state from willing to unwilling to
.communicate

MacIntyre and Legatto’s (2011) study used a CDST framework that brought
about a new turn in research with its focus on the dynamic moment-to-moment
state of WTC, in particular through the use of the idiodynamic method developed
by these researchers. Their laboratory study demonstrated that WTC fluctuated
dramatically over the few min-utes during which the participants were interviewed
about eight pre-selected topics. While each participant exhibited unique reactions
to the task, consistent patterns were also observed, including a decline in WTC
while discussing (supposedly less familiar) topics compared to others. That study
stimulated a number of recent studies on the dynamic nature of WTC conducted in
language classrooms (e.g. Bernales, 2016; Pawlak & Mystkowska-Wiertelak,
2015, Pawlak et al., 2015). In particular, Pawlak & Mystkowska-Wiertelak (2015)
recorded fluctuations in WTC in pairs every 30 seconds, while Bernales (2016)
focused on learners’ thoughts planned to be articulated as com-pared to actual
.articulation in the classroom

Although research has revealed the situated and dynamic nature of WTC, very
few studies have combined both enduring and situated influences to describe why a
person decides to initiate communication at a particular time and place. MacIntyre,
Babin, and Clément’s (1999) quantitative study investigated how trait and state
WTC (in an L1) influence participants’ behavior differently. Whereas trait WTC
predicted the tendency to volunteer for laboratory sessions, state WTC related to
initiating a difficult communi-cation task. Later, Cao (2014) qualitatively identified
both individual and contextual

factors that result in students’ communication behavior in the classroom.

Clearly, further research is needed that will focus on the top three layers of the
pyramid model of L2 WTC. In particular, research is required to describe the
process whereby participants decide to initiate (or avoid) communication at a
particular moment while taking into account the influence of more enduring learner
characteristics. Given the emphasis on communication in modern language
pedagogy, it is important to know more about whether or not a person ‘crosses the
Rubicon’, as represented by the line dividing L2 WTC and L2 use in the pyramid
.model

Personality Traits:

Personality traits are considered the antecedents of WTC in both

first and second languages. McCroskey & Richmond (1990) claimed
that introverted individuals are introspective, less sociable and feel less
need to communicate, whereas extroverted individuals are people-
oriented and value communication. In other words, introverts prefer to
be silent, whereas extroverts are quite willing to communicate.
(McCroskey & Richmond, WTC : Differing cultural perspectives, 1990,
P. 72-77.)

MacIntyre’s (1994) study noted that introversion influences WTC

by communication apprehension and perceived competence.(MacIntyre,
Variables underlying WTC: A casual analysis,1994, P. 135-142.) In
1996, MacIntyre & Charos used a path analysis to examine the effect of
personality, attitudes, and effect on the frequency of second language
communication. Their results noted direct and significant paths from
WTC, motivation, competence, and the opportunity to have contact with
an L2 speaker to frequency of second language communication.
(MacIntyre & Charos, Personality, attitudes and effect as predictors of
second language communication, 1996, P. 3-26) MacIntyre, Clement,
Dornyei, and Noels (1998) proposed that personality influences one’s
WTC in his/her second/foreign language.(MacIntyre, Clement & Noels,
Conceptualizing WTC in an L2, 1998, P. 545-562) Moreover,
MacIntyre, Babin & Clement (1999) observed the relation between
WTC and personality variables and stated in their findings that
personality traits influence WTC.( MacIntyre, Babin & Clement, WTC:
antecedents and consequences, 1999, P. 29-215)

Communication Strategies used

 The typology of the communication strategies which were used in
the study according to Dornyei (1995) are presented here.

Circumlocution: describing or exemplifying the target object or action

(e.g., the thing you open bottles with for corkscrew).

Approximation: using an alternative term which expresses the meaning

of the target lexical item as closely as possible (e.g., ship for sail boat).

Word coinage: creating a non existing L2 word based on a supposed

rule (e.g., vegetarianist for vegetarian).

Appeal for help: turning to the conversation partner for help either
directly (e.g., what do you call …?) or indirectly (e.g., rising intonation,
pause, eye contact).) Dornyei, The Teachability of Communication
Strategies, 1995)

Factors influence EFL Iraqi Students (WTC)

A. Age
Are children more successful second language learners than adults? Many
would say yes, if we commonly observe the ease with which children, especially
young children slip into the role of second language speakers. But Saville-Troike
(2006) warns us against such easy assumptions and argues that that one must
define the term „success‟ (89). According to her, “Some define “success” as initial
rate of learning while other studies define it as ultimate achievement. Also, some
studies define “success” in terms of how close the learner‟s pronunciation is to a
native speaker‟s, others in terms of how closely a learner approximates native
grammaticality judgments and still others in terms of fluency or functional
competence (89)”. She further warns that the evaluative criteria clearly must be
kept clearly in mind while judging conflicting claims about success. It is believed
that there is a critical period for first language acquisition. Children are believed to
have only a limited number of years during which normal acquisition is possible.
Beyond that, physiological changes cause the brain to lose its plasticity, or capacity
to assume the new functions that learning language demands. Individuals who for
some reason are deprived of the linguistic input which is needed to trigger first
language acquisition during the critical period will never learn any language
normally.
The sensitive period implies that there is a period in one‟s life (during
childhood) when second language acquisition is optimized. Slobin (1982) argues
that of the sensitive period of language learning is proven by the fact that the
universal age of onset of production, rate of acquisition and age of completion of
language learning is the same and it is relatively unaffected by the environmental
variations and individual cognitive ability. It is hypnotized that once this critical/
sensitive period is over, a child deprived of input and chances to communicate is
never able to regain his/her ability to acquire language as happened in the case of
„Genie‟ who after her release from solitary captivation since early childhood was
not able to learn even the basic language skills after she was rescued at the age of
thirteen. So how much difference does age make? Long (1990) argues that for
language learners of more than 15 years of age, it is difficult to acquire native like
fluency and an absence of an „accent‟. Saville-Troike (2006) agrees with Long
(1990) that, “some older learners can achieve native-like proficiency, although
they definitely constitute a minority of second language learners (89).” The
critical/ sensitive period hypothesis is yet to be tested at the scientific level and
SLA theorists have a long way to before the find a clear and final answer to the
fascinating question of why and how children seem to be better (second) language
learners.
B. Sex
Many studies (e.g., Oxford, 1993; Young & Oxford 1997) have found that
gender can have a significant impact on how students learn a language.
Although the study of gender as a variable in language learning is still at an
early stage (Bacon & Finneman, 1992; Oxford, 1993; Ehrman & Oxford, 1995),
studies of individual language learner differences related to sex (biological) or
gender (socially constructed) have shown that females tend to show greater
integrative motivation and more positive attitudes to L2, and use a wider range
of learning strategies, particularly social strategies (Oxford, Nyikos & Ehrman,
1988). As a matter of fact, as for the problem whether difference exists between
male and female in terms of learning a language, Larsen-Freeman & Long
(2000) believed that in the process of first language acquisition female excel
male, at least at the early stage. Zhuanglin (1989) highlighted that, it was
generally believed that male and female are born with different linguistic
advantages, such as, female learn to speak earlier than male, and female learn a
foreign language faster and better than male, etc.
Aptitude
Skehan, (1989) believes that aptitude has consistently been linked with
L2 success, but remains one of the under investigated areas of SLA. Saville-
Troike (2006) suggests that assumption that there is a talent which is specific
to language learning has been widely held for many years. Many language
aptitude tests like TOEFL, IELTS have been used for a long period to test
the aptitude of a second language learner of English. Carroll (1963), who
along with Sapon created the Modern Language Aptitude Test (MLAT)
which was designed to predict success foreign language learning, provides
us with the following four types of abilities that constitute aptitude: i.
Phonemic coding ability (discriminates and encodes foreign sounds) ii.
Grammatical sensitivity (recognizes functions of words in sentences) iii.
Inductive language learning ability (infers or induces rules from samples) iv.
Memory and learning (makes and recalls associations between words and
phrases in L1 and L2) Many scholars believe that aptitude alone does not
determine the language learning ability of an individual. Skehan (1989)
suggests that individual ability may vary by other factors.
Motivation
Motivation to learn a language is considered one of the most plausible
reasons of success at second language acquisition. According to Gardner
(1985) Motivation = effort + desire to achieve goal + attitudes. Saville-
Troike (2006) claims that motivation is the second strongest predictor (after
aptitude) of second language success. She further argues that motivation
largely determines the level of effort that learners expend at various stages in
their L2 development, often a key to ultimate level of proficiency.
According to Gardner and Lambert (1972) the following two types of
motivation exist:
i. Integrative: found in individuals who want are interested in the second
language in order to integrate with and become a part of a target community/
culture; here the learner wants to resemble and behave like the target
community.
C. ii. Instrumental: found in individuals who want to get learn a second
language with the objective of getting benefits from the second language
skill. Objectives, such as business advancement, increase in professional
status, educational goals etc. motivate an individual to learn a second
language in this case. Both the types of motivations have different roles to
play.
D. Learning Styles
Language learning styles refer to cognitive variations in learning a
second language. It is about an individuals‟ preferred way of processing,
that is, of perceiving, conceptualizing, organizing, and recalling information
related to language learning. According to Cornett (1983) the language
learning styles are the overall patterns that give general direction to learning
behavior. Brown (2000) states that unlike factors of age, aptitude, and
motivation, its role in explaining why some L2 learners are more successful
than others has not been well established, it involves a complex (and as yet
poorly understood) interaction with specific L2 social and learning contexts.
The following cognitive styles have been identified by Knowles (1972 as
cited in Lochart & Richards, 1994).

G. Personality
Human personality in all its shapes and colors brings variety to this
world. Personality studies have been the core of the study of human
psychology for more than 150 years. Eminent psychologists like Freud,
Skinner and Allport focused their studies on human personality. In SLA the
study of the relation of personality and language learning has been the
subject of scholars like Krashen (1985), Skehan (1989), Gass & Selinker,
(1994) etc. one tends to agree with Ehrman (1996) when he suggests that
there is a clear relationship between personality and SLA as personality
determines what people feel comfortable with. As a result, people tend to
choose and consequently do what they feel comfortable with and get better
at the given skills (p.101). Thus, a second language learner will make
choices of strategies and skills according to bent of his/her personality.
There are a number of personality characteristics that may affect L2
learning, such as:
1. Extroversion vs. introversion
2. Self esteem
3. Inhibition
4. Risk-taking
5. Anxiety Each of the above aspects is discussed in the following
sections:
1. Extroversion vs. Introversion
According to Dawaele and Furnham (1999) eextroversion and
introversion are a part of a continuum. Extroverts are considered sociable
and impulsive. They seem to dislike solitude, take risks, impulsive.
Whereas, introverts are believed to be introspective, quiet, retiring and
reserved. An extrovert is said to receive energy from outside sources,
whereas an introvert is more concerned with the inner world of ideas and is
more likely to be involved with solitary activities. This trait does not just
describe whether a person is outgoing or shy, but considers whether a person
prefers working alone or feels energized and at home working in a team. The
relationship between extroversion and learning was first studied by Eysenck
who hypothysed that extroversion was not positively correlated with
learning due to several neuro-chemical phenomena in the human brain. Thus
he concluded that an introvert and not an extrovert would be a better
language learner.
2. Self esteem
Many researchers claim that no successful learning activity can take
place without some self- esteem and self confidence. Coopersmith (1967)
defines self- esteem as a personal judgment of worthiness that is expressed
in the attitudes that the individual holds towards himself/herself. Brodkey
and Shore (1976) revealed that self-esteem appears to be an important
variable in SLA, particularly in view of cross-cultural factors of second
language learning. Brodkey and Shore (1976), and Gardner and Lambert
(1972) studied self esteem and concluded that it was an important factor in
second language acquisition. Heyde‟s Self-Esteem Study (1979) also
concluded that self esteem generated by high involvement of teachers let to
better results in second language acquisition. MacIntyre, Dörnyei, Clement,
& Noels (1998) studies the role of self confidences in their model of
"willingness to communicate" in a foreign language. Their results showed
that a better ability to communicate did lead to more willingness to
communicate. A number of factors appear to contribute to predisposing one
learner to seek, and another learner to avoid, second language
communication. They suggested that not one but many factors that lead to
willingness to communicate.
3. Inhibition
Inhibition is the set of defenses an individual builds to protect
himself/herself. The presence of a language ego is considered to be a major
hindrance to the process of second language acquisition. The process of
making mistakes, learning from those mistakes and a consequent
improvement in the language skills get inhibited by this ego. With an
adaptive language ego, the learner lowers the inhibitions. An overtly self
critical nature perceives the mistakes committed during language learning
process as in insult and further slows down the process. According to Brown
(2000) language teaching approaches in the last three decades have been
characterized by the creation of contexts in which students are made to feel
free to take risks and to orally try out hypotheses. He further claims that it
broke down some of the barriers that often make learners reluctant to try out
their new language. One would clearly agree with him when he argues that
If we never ventured to speak a sentence until we were absolutely certain of
its total correctness, we would likely never communicate productively at all
(Bro4. Risk-taking Risk-Taking is “the ability to make intelligent guesses”
(Rubin & Thompson, 1994).
5. Anxiety
Anxiety is a factor that is that is closely related with self-esteem and
inhibition and risk-taking. Anxiety can play an important role in L2 learning
if it interferes with the learning process. Even though it is a common feeling,
it is not easy to define. It comes with the feelings of uneasiness, frustration,
self-doubt, apprehension, or worry. A learner‟s willingness to communicate
has also been related to anxiety. It is often affected by the number of people
present, the topic of conversation, and the formality of the circumstances.
The two types of anxiety have been identified are:
i. Trait anxiety: it is a more permanent tendency to be anxious
ii. State anxiety: it is a type of anxiety experienced in relation to
some particular event or act which can be temporary and context-
specific According to MacIntyre and Gardner, (1991), Trait anxiety,
because of its global and somewhat ambiguously defined nature, has
not proved to be useful in predicting second language achievement.
6.Intelligence
Ellis (1985, p. 293) says that intelligence is general ability to master
academic skills. Intelligence is defined and measured in terms of linguistic
and logical mathematical abilities. Success in life and learning should
correlate with high IQ (intelligence quotient) tests scores. The studies on
 intelligence show a strong relationship between intelligence and acquisition
of a foreign language but only as far as academic skills are concerned.
Learners with high IQ achieve better results on language tests. It is proved
that intelligence can predict the rate and success of SLA in the formal
language classroom (Genesee, 1976). “The ability to perform well in
standard intelligence tests correlates highly with school related second
language learning, but is unrelated to the learning of a second language for
informal and social functions” (Spolsky, 1989, p. 103). It is assumed that
some people are gifted and they learn foreign languages with ease. It was
observed that learners acquire a language with different results despite the
fact that they are at the same age and are equally motivated. Gardner (1983)
introduced a theory of Multiple Intelligences.

Works Cited
 1_McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1991). Willingness to Communicate: A
Cognitive View. In M. BoothButterfield (Ed.), Communication, Cognition, and
Anxiety (pp. 19-37), Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
 2_The Modern Language Journal,Conceptualizing Willingness to Communicate in
a L2: A Situational Model of L2 Confidence and Affiliation.1998. PP. 545-562.
 3_Skehan, 1989, p.48.
 4_MacIntyre, P. D. (1994). Variables underlying willingness to communicate: A
 causal analysis. Communication Research Reports,PP.135-142.
 5_MacIntyre, P. D., & Charos, C. (1996). Personality, attitudes, and affect as
predictors of second
 language communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 15(1), 3–
26.
 6_ Baker, S. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (2003). The role of gender and immersion in
communication and second language orientations. Language Learning, 53(1), 65–
96.
 7_ Maclntyre, P. D., S. C. Baker, R. Clément and L. A. Donovan. 2002. Sex and
age effects on willingness to communicate, anxiety, perceived competence, and L2
motivation among junior high school French immersion students. Language
Learning 52. 537–64.
 8_ McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1990). Willingness to communicate: A
cognitive view. In M. Booth-Butterfield (Ed.), Communication,
 cognition, and anxiety (pp. 19-37). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Mortensen, C.,
Arntson, P., & Lustig, M. (1977). The measurement of verbal predispositions:
scale development and application. Human Communication Research, 3, 146-
158 .
 9_ MacIntyre, P. (1994). Variables underlying willingness to communicate - A
causal analysis. Communication Research Reports, 11. 135-142.
 10_ Burgoon, J. K. (1976). The unwillingness-to-communicate scale: Development
and validation. Communication Monographs, 43, 60-69.
 11_ Mortensen, C. D., P. H. Arntson, and M. W. Lustig. 1977. The measurement
of verbal predispositions: scale development and application. Human
Communication Research 3. 58-146.
 12_ McCroskey, J. C., and V. P. Richmond. 1982. Communication apprehension
and shyness: conceptual and operational distinctions. Central States Speech Journal
33. 68-458.
 13_ McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1990). Willingness to communicate:
Differing cultural perspectives Southern Communication Journal, 56(1), 72-77.
 14_ MacIntyre, P. (1994). Variables underlying willingness to communicate: A
casual analysis. Communication Research Reports, 11, 135-142.
 15_ MacIntyre, P., & Charos, C. (1996). Personality, attitudes, and effect as
predictors of second language communication. Journal of Language and Social
Psychology, 15, 3-26.
 16_ MacIntyre, P., Clement, R., Dornyei, Z., & Noels, K. (1998). Conceptualizing
willingness to communicate in an L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and
affiliation. Modern Language Journal, 82, 545-562.
 17_ MacIntyre, P. D., P. A. Babin, and R. Clément.1999. Willingness to
communicate: antecedents and consequences Communication Quarterly 47.29-
215.
 18_ Dornyei ,1995 :The Teachability of Communication Strategies.
 19_ Revelle, W., Wilt, J., & Condon, D. M. (2011). Individual differences and
differential psychology. In T. Chamorro-Premuzic, S. von Stumm, & A. Furnham
(Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of individual differences (1st ed., pp. 3-
38). London: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
 20_Cohen, A. D., & Ishihara, N. (2014). Teaching and learning pragmatics: Where
language and culture meet. New York, New York: Routledge. (Original work
published in (2010).
 21_Williams, M., and R. Burden. 1997. Psychology for language teachers.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 22_ Brown, D. H. (2000). Principles of language learning & teaching. (4th ed.).
New York: Longman. (pp. 152-165).
 23_ Ehrman, M. E., Leaver, B. L., & Oxford, R. L. (2003). A brief overview of
individual differences in second language learning. System, 31(3), 313–330.
 24_ Dörnyei, Z., and P. Skehan. 2003. Individual differences in L2 learning. In
eds. C.J. Doughty, and M.H. Long, 589–630.
 25_ McCroskey, J. C., & Baer, J. E. (1985, November). Willingness to
communicate: The construct and its measurement. Paper presented at the annual
convention of the Speech Communication Association, Denver, Colorado.
 26_ Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The
role of attitude and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.
 27_ MacIntyre, P. D., Cle´ment, R., Do¨rnyei, Z., & Noels, K. A. (1998).
Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2
confidence and affiliation. Modern Language Journal, 82, 545–562.
 28_ Do¨rnyei, Z. (2006). Individual differences in second language acquisition.
AILA Review, 19, 42–68.
 29_ Johnson, Keith. 2008. An introduction to foreign language learning and
teaching. (2nd edition.) Harlow: Pearson Longman.)
 30_MacIntyre, P. D., Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K. A. (1998).
Conceptualizing willingness to communicate
 in a L2: a situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. Modern Language
Journal, 82, 545e562.
 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1998.tb05543.x.
 31_Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Attitudes, orientations, and motivations in language
learning: Advances in theory, research,
 and applications. Language Learning, 53(1), 3-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-
9922.53222.
 32_Bachman, Lyle (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 33_Barjesteh, H., Vaseghi, R., & Neissi, S. (2012). Iranian EFL learners’
willingness to communicate across
 different context-and receiver-types. International Journal of English Linguistics,
2(1), 47-54.
 http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v2n1p47
 34_Barraclough, R. A., Christophel, D. M., & McCroskey. J. C. (1988).
Willingness to communicate: A crosscultural
 investigation. Communication Research Reports, 5, 187-192.
 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08824098809359822
 35_Bentler, P. M. (2007). On tests and indices for evaluating structural models.
Personality and individual
 differences, 42, 825-829. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.024
 36_Burroughs, N. F., & Marie, V. (1990). Communication orientations of
Micronesians and American students.
 Communication Research Reports, 7, 139-146.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08824099009359868
 37_Burroughs, N. F., Marie, V., & McCroskey, J. C. (2003). Relationships of self-
perceived communication
 competence and communication apprehension, to willingness to communicate: A
comparison of first and
 second languages in Micronesia. Communication Research Report, 20(3), 230-239.
 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08824090309388821
 38_MacIntyre, P.D., Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K. (1998).
Conceptualizing willingness to
 communicate in an L2: A situated model of confidence and affiliation. The
Modern Language
 Journal, 82, 545–562.
 39_Cao, Y. (2014). A sociocognitive perspective on second language classroom
willingness to communicate.
 TESOL Quarterly, 48, 789–814.
 40_Bernales, C. (2016). Towards a comprehensive concept of willingness to
communicate: Learners’
 predicted and self-reported participation in the foreign language classroom. System,
56, 1–12.
 Bacon, S.M., & M. D. Finneman (1992). Sex differences in self-reported beliefs
about foreign language learning and authentic oral and written input. Language
Learning 42.4, 471-95.
 Bailey, K. M. (1983). Competitiveness and anxiety in adult second language
learning: Looking at and through the diary studies. In H. Seliger, & M. Long
(eds.), Classroom oriented research in second language acquisition.
 Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers, 67-102. [3] Beebe, L. (1983). Risk-
taking and the language learner. In H. Seliger & M. Long (eds.), Classroom
oriented research in second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House,
39-66. [4] Boyle, J. (1987). Sex differences in listening vocabulary. Language
Learning 37.2, 273- 284.
 Brodkey, D., & H. Shore (1976). Student personality and success in an English
language program. Language Learning 26, 153-159.
 Brown, H. D. (2000). Principles of language learning and teaching. Englewood
Cliffs, N, J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
 Carroll, J. (1963). The prediction of success in intensive foreign language training.
In R. Glazer (ed.), Training research and education. Pittsburgh: University of
Pittsburgh Press, 67-102.
 Cook, V. (2001). Second language learning and language teaching (3rd edn.). New
York: Oxford University Press, Inc.
 Coopersmith, S. (1967). The antecedents of self-esteem. San Francisco: W. H.
Freeman & Company. Dewaele, J., & A. Furnham (1999). Extraversion: The
unloved variable in applied linguistic research. Language Learning 49.3, 509-535.
 Dufeu, B. (1994). Teaching Myself. London: Oxsford University Press.
 Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences
in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
 Ehrman, M.E. (1996). Understanding Second Language Learning Difficulties.
Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications.
 Ehrman, M. E., & R. L. Oxford (1995). Cognition plus: Correlates of language
learning success. The Modern Language Journal, 79.1, 67–89.
 Ehrman, M. E., & R. L. Oxford (1995). Cognition plus: Correlates of language
learning success. The Modern Language Journal, 79.1, 67–89.
 Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role
of attitudes and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.
 Gardner, R. C., & W. E. Lambert (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second-
language learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House
 Heyde, A. (1979). The relationship between self-esteem and the oral production of
a second language. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, MI.
 Kimura, D. (1992). Sex differences in the brain. Sci Am 267, 119 –125
 Kim, H. S., N. R. Relkin, K. M. Lee, & J. Hirsch (1997). Distinct cortical areas
associated with native and second languages. Nature 388, 171–174.
 Knowles, M. (1972). Innovations in teaching styles and approaches based upon
adult learning. Journal of Education for Social Work 8.2, 32-39.
 Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. London:
Longman.
 Larsen-Freeman, D., & M. H. Long (2000). An introduction to second language
acquisition research. London: Longman.
 Lochart, C. & J. C. Richards (1994). Reflective Teaching in Second Language
Classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press.
 Lombaard, M. (2006). Task-based assessment for specific purpose Sesotho for
personnel in the small business corporation (Doctoral dissertation, Stellenbosch:
University of Stellenbosch).
 Long, M. (1990). Maturational constraints on language development. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition 12, 251-285. [26] MacIntyre, P. D., & R. C. Gardner
(1991). Methods and results in the study of foreign language anxiety: A review of
the literature. Language Learning 41.1, 283-305.
 MacIntyre, P. D., R. Clément, Z. Dörnyei, & K. A. Noels (1998). Conceptualizing
willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and
affiliation. The Modern Language Journal 82.4, 545-562.
 McDonough, S. H. (1986). Psychology in foreign language teaching. London:
George Allen & Unwin. O'Malley, J. M., & A. U. Chamot (1990). Learning
strategies in second language acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 Oxford, R.L. (2003). Language learning styles and strategies: An overview.
Oxford: GALA
 Oxford, R.L. (1993). Instructional implications of gender differences in language
learning styles and strategies. Applied Language Learning 4, 65-94.
 Oxford R. L., & M. Ehrman (1992). Second language research on individual
differences. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 13, 188-205.
 Oxford, R. L., M. Nyikos & M. E. Ehrman (1988). Vive la différence? Reflections
on sex differences in use of language learning strategies. Foreign Language Annals
21, 321- 329.
 Rubin, J., & I. Thompson, (1994). How to be a more successful language learner,
2nd ed. Boston: Heinle & Heinl.
 Saville-Troike, M. (2006). Introducing second language acquisition. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
 Skehan, P. (1989). Individual differences in second language learning. London:
Edward Arnold.
 Slobin, D. I. (1982). Universal and particular in the acquisition of language. In E.
Wanner and L. Gleitman (Eds.), Language acquisition: State of the Art (pp. 128-
170). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Swain, M. (1985). Communicative
competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and comprehensible output in its
development. In S. M. Gass, & C. G. Madden (eds.), Input in second language
acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 235-252.
 Ellis, R. (1986). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.