See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/270592526

Foreign Language Anxiety: Past and Future

Article  in  Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics · December 2013

DOI: 10.1515/cjal-2013-0030

CITATIONS READS

9 4,250

1 author:

Han Luo
Lafayette College
31 PUBLICATIONS   84 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Curriculum Development View project

Foreign Language Anxiety View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Han Luo on 10 January 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 2013 年 10 月 中国应用语言学（季刊） Oct. 2013
第 36 卷 第4期 Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics (Quarterly) Vol. 36 No. 4

Foreign Language Anxiety: Past and Future

Luo Han
Northwestern University, USA

Abstract
This paper gives a comprehensive review of studies on foreign language anxiety. Foreign
language anxiety has been recognized in the past few decades as a situation-specific
emotional reaction that potentially impedes foreign language learning. Research has shown
that foreign language anxiety is not only prevalent among foreign language learners, but
also has various negative effects on foreign language learning. In order to help learners cope
with this problem, researchers have identified a large number of sources of foreign language
anxiety, which generally fall into four major categories, namely, the classroom environment,
learner characteristics, the target language, and the foreign language learning process itself.
Researchers have also investigated quite a number of factors associated with foreign language
anxiety (including categorical background variables and quantitative learner variables) and
have produced mixed results. Based on a thorough review of foreign language anxiety, the
paper concludes with recommendations for future studies on foreign language anxiety.

Key words: foreign language education; foreign language learning; foreign

language anxiety

1. Introduction
The literature on anxiety generally distinguishes three types of anxiety: trait, situation-
specific, and state anxiety (Cattell & Scheier, 1963; MacIntyre & Gardner, 1989, 1991a;
Spielberger, 1966, 1983). Trait anxiety refers to a general tendency to become nervous
in a wide range of situations. State anxiety is the feeling of worry or stress that arises at a
particular moment under a particular circumstance. A situation-specific anxiety is similar
to trait anxiety in that it is stable over time, but it may not be consistent across situations.
In the past few decades, the study of foreign language anxiety has attracted much
attention in the field of foreign language education. Researchers have generally agreed that

442
 LUO Han

foreign language anxiety is a situation-specific anxiety distinguished from trait anxiety and
state anxiety (e.g., Gardner, 1985; Horwitz, Horwitz & Cope, 1986).
However, earlier studies conceptualized foreign language anxiety as a transfer of other
types of anxiety (i.e., trait anxiety, test anxiety, or public speaking anxiety) in language
learning and produced mixed and even contradictory results (Chastain, 1975; Kleinmann,
1977). The inconsistent results of the early studies on foreign language anxiety may be
due to the fact that researchers used various constructs and measures of anxiety (Scovel,
1978). Therefore, researchers have been paying special attention to the type of anxiety
they are measuring. Currently, researchers generally believe that foreign language anxiety
should be viewed as a situation-specific anxiety unique to foreign language learning and
independent of other types of anxieties.
The construct of foreign language anxiety was proposed by Horwitz, et al. (1986).
They defined foreign language anxiety as “a distinct complex of self-perceptions, beliefs,
feelings, and behaviors related to classroom language learning arising from the uniqueness
of the language learning process” (p. 128). They identified three anxieties related to foreign
language anxiety: communication apprehension (McCroskey, 1970), fear of negative
evaluation (Watson & Friend, 1969), and test anxiety (Sarason, 1978). In addition, they
developed an instrument known as the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale
(FLCAS), to measure foreign language anxiety, which has been widely adopted in foreign
language anxiety research.
Foreign language anxiety has various manifestations. These manifestations include
distortion of sounds, freezing up when called on to perform, forgetting words and
phrases just learned, refusing to speak and remaining silent, complaining of difficulties
in discriminating the sounds and structures of a foreign language message, over-study
without any improvement in grades, a desire to gain teacher approval, avoiding eye
contact, joking, short answer responses, avoiding activities in class, coming unprepared to
class, acting indifferent, cutting class, putting off taking the foreign language until the last
year, and crouching in the last row (Horwitz, et al., 1986; Young, 1991).
However, since the mid-1990s, Sparks and Ganschow and their colleagues have
proposed a different conceptualization of foreign language anxiety (e.g., Sparks &
Ganschow, 1991, 1993a, 1993b, 1995, 2007). They advanced the Linguistic Coding Deficit/
Differences Hypothesis (LCDH), arguing that “FL (foreign language) learning is based
primarily on one’s native language learning ability (i.e., language aptitude), and students’
anxiety about FL learning is likely to be a consequence of their FL difficulties” (Sparks,
Ganschow & Javorsky, 2000, p. 251). In other words, students’ anxiety in language learning
is the result of poor performance resulted from their poor native language skills.
Not surprisingly, Sparks and Ganschow and their colleagues’ views on foreign
language anxiety have received strong criticisms from scholars who recognize the
importance of foreign language anxiety. While accepting poor language learning ability
as one of the possible causes of foreign language anxiety, researchers (e.g., Horwitz, 2000;
MacIntyre, 1995a, 1995b) have argued that foreign language anxiety is independent of first
language learning disabilities and should be viewed as an important factor that hinders
language learning in and of itself.

443
 Foreign Language Anxiety: Past and Future

2. Measures of Foreign Language Anxiety

Since foreign language anxiety was identified to be a situation-specific anxiety distinctly
associated with foreign language learning (e.g., Horwitz, et al., 1986; MacIntyre, 1992),
scholars have developed quite a number of specific measures of foreign language anxiety.
These measures include the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS) (Horwitz,
et al., 1986), the French Class Anxiety Scale (Gardner, 1985), the French Use Anxiety Scale
(Gardner, Smythe & Clement, 1979), the Input, Processing and Output Anxiety Scales
(MacIntyre & Gardner, 1994), the Foreign Language Reading Anxiety Scale (Saito, Horwitz
& Garza, 1999), the Foreign Language Listening Anxiety Scale (Kim, 2000), the Second
Language Writing Anxiety Scale (Cheng, 2004), and the Foreign Language Performance
Anxiety Scale (Kim, 2002).
As mentioned previously, the FLCAS is the most widely used scale for measuring
foreign language anxiety and has been translated into many languages and used to
measure learners’ foreign language anxiety in various countries all over the world. Due
to its widespread academic influence and significant contribution to the field of foreign
language education, the FLCAS will be reviewed in detail in the following section.

2.1 Introduction to the FLCAS

The FLCAS is based on the situation-specific construct of foreign language anxiety
proposed by Horwitz, et al. (1986). The FLCAS is a 33-item self-report measure that
consists of items scored on a 5-point Likert Scale, ranging from strongly agree to strongly
disagree. The 33 items assess a learner’s level of foreign language anxiety, as evidenced
by subjective feelings, perceptions, negative attitudes towards foreign language classes,
and avoidance behaviors (Horwitz, 1986). In terms of specific language skills, the FLCAS
mainly addresses anxiety associated with speaking in foreign language learning.
The scale was reported to have high internal reliability, achieving an alpha coefficient
of .93 with all items producing significant corrected item-total correlations and a test-retest
reliability over eight weeks yielded a r = .83 (p < .001) (Horwitz, et al., 1986). Horwitz
(1986) also tested the correlations between the scores of the FLCAS and four other types
of anxieties (i.e., communication apprehension, fear of negative evaluation, test anxiety,
and trait anxiety) to provide evidence for the convergent and discriminant validity of the
scale. She found only small to moderate relationships between these anxieties and foreign
language anxiety. Communication apprehension and fear of negative evaluation were
found not to be significantly correlated (r = .28 and .36, respectively) with foreign language
anxiety, while test-anxiety and foreign language anxiety were reported to be moderately
and significantly correlated (r = .53, p = .001). In addition, the correlation between foreign
language anxiety and trait-anxiety was relatively small (r = .29, p = .002). These findings
indicated that foreign language anxiety as measured by the FLCAS was distinguishable
from other types of anxieties and thus should be considered as an important issue of
language learning in and of itself.

444
 LUO Han

2.2 Confusion over the Construct Underlying the FLCAS

Horwitz, et al. (1986) identified three anxieties, namely, communication apprehension, test
anxiety, and fear of negative evaluation as conceptually similar to foreign language anxiety.
Thus, many scholars (e.g., Aida, 1994; Kim, 2002; MacIntyre, 1992) misinterpreted the
construct of foreign language anxiety underlying the FLCAS as having three components,
which, as a matter of fact, was not Horwitz, et al.’s (1986) intention. Instead, they argued
that Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety is a uni-dimensional construct rather than
simply the combination of the three anxieties transferred to foreign language learning.
In order to test the construct validity of the FLCAS, Aida (1994) did a factor
analysis of the FLCAS among American learners of Japanese, which yielded four factors,
that is, Speech Anxiety and Fear of Negative Evaluation, Fear of Failing the Class,
Comfortableness in Speaking with Native Japanese, and Negative Attitudes toward the
Japanese Class. Eighteen items loaded onto the first factor, 4 items loaded on to the second
factor, 3 items loaded onto the third factor and 2 items loaded on to the last factor and 6
items did not load on to any of the four factors. The four factors accounted for 37.9%, 6.3%,
5.6% and 4.7% of the total variance respectively.
This four-factor solution of the FLCAS does not seem to support Horwitz, et al.’s
(1986) uni-dimensional construct of foreign language classroom anxiety, because if it
does, there should be one factor rather than four. However, as mentioned by Aida (1994),
the size of the variances for Factors two, three, and four was very small (6.3%, 5.6% and
4.7%, respectively), compared to that of Factor one: Speech Anxiety and Fear of Negative
Evaluation (37.9%). This may suggest that there was no more than one meaningful factor
in Aida’s data. If this was the case, Horwitz, et al.’s (1986) uni-dimensional construct of
foreign language classroom anxiety was then supported by the data.
Aida (1994) termed the first factor as Speech Anxiety and Fear of Negative Evaluation
and concluded that the study did not support test anxiety as the third component of
foreign language anxiety. However, a closer look at the 18 items loaded onto Factor one
shows that these items are not only reflective of communication apprehension and fear
of negative evaluation, but also reflect test anxiety. In fact, item 21 (The more I study for
a Japanese test, the more confused I get) and item 8 (I am usually at ease during tests in my
Japanese class) among the 18 items obviously address test anxiety. Therefore, if we take
this one-factor solution of Aida’s factor analysis, Horwitz, et al.’s (1986) uni-dimensional
construct of foreign language classroom anxiety and the three related anxieties identified
by them are then supported by Aida’s data. However, this solution also means that only
the 18 items loaded onto factor one are valid and relevant items.
The other possibility for interpreting Aida’s result is to admit that the FLCAS
has four factors, but the four factors are able to form a higher order factor, i.e., Foreign
Language Anxiety. If the higher order factor hypothesis is true, the FLCAS, except the
6 items which did not load on to any factor, is a valid measure for foreign language
anxiety. In this case, the construct of foreign language anxiety is not uni-dimensional
any more. Instead, it has four dimensions as suggested in the factor analysis. Meanwhile,
in this interpretation, the three related anxieties identified by Horwitz, et al. (1986) only
contribute to the first dimension of foreign language anxiety. However, we perhaps should

445
 Foreign Language Anxiety: Past and Future

take this interpretation with caution because the variances explained by the three factors
apart from the first one are too small.
It is also worth noting that the sample in Aida’s (1994) study was very special, as
Japanese was thought to be a relatively more challenging foreign language for American
learners. Students who chose Japanese as foreign language may share some characteristics
different from those who chose less challenging foreign languages such as Spanish.
Therefore, the result of Aida’s study might not generalize well among all foreign language
learners in the U.S. In addition, Aida used principle component analysis and varimax
rotation in her factor analysis. As technology advances, many statistics experts nowadays
contend that principle component analysis is not an appropriate factor extraction method
in factor analysis and variamax rotation is only appropriate when factors are considered
orthogonal to each other (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). In Aida’s study, the four dimensions
of foreign language anxiety are actually likely to be correlated with each other, so variamax
rotation may not be an appropriate choice in conducting a factor analysis of the FLCAS.
Therefore, we need to keep the above mentioned facts in mind when interpreting the
results of Aida’s study.
MacIntyre (1992) also used the factor analysis technique to analyze the FLCAS for
the purpose of creating a shorter form of the scale. His subjects were students learning
French as a second language in Canada. MacIntyre also interpreted communication
apprehension, fear of negative evaluation, and test anxiety as three inter-related
dimensions of the construct of foreign language anxiety, so he adopted a correlated three-
factor solution of the data. In his study, 29 out of 33 items loaded onto the first factor, 25
items loaded onto the second factor, and 8 items loaded onto the third factor. The three
factors were respectively labeled as Social Evaluation Apprehension, Academic Evaluation
Anxiety, and Distain for Language Classes. Twenty items loaded onto both factor one and
factor two, and the first two factors showed a moderately strong correlation (r = .43). The
third factor, with only two items unique to them, was relatively independent of the other
two factors (r = -.14, .01) and did not seem to correspond to any part of Horwitz, et al.’s
(1986) formulation. The results of this study seemed to show that there was a considerable
amount of overlap among factors, and that some items were not relevant to the construct
of foreign language anxiety.
MacIntyre (1992) also pointed out, “A considerable amount of overlap was observed
in these factors, so much so that the distinctions outlined by Horwitz, et al. may not
be required” (p. 183). MacIntyre’s (1992) data seemed to support the unidimensional
construct of foreign language anxiety proposed by Horwitz, Horwitz and Cope (1986). As
MacIntyre believed, “while a highly reliable scale is certainly desirable, the items need not
be overly redundant,” he created a shorter form of the FLCAS and confirmed that the long
and short forms of the FLCAS could be used interchangeably.

2.3 Possible Limitations of the FLCAS

Despite its contribution to the study of foreign language anxiety, the FLCAS has received
some criticism and caused some confusion among researchers in terms of the construct of
foreign language anxiety.

446
 LUO Han

For example, Aida (1994) and MacIntyre’s (1992) data seemed to suggest that the
FLCAS may contain some redundancy and some items in the scale may be irrelevant.
Another concern with the FLCAS stems from its lack of comprehensiveness. Several
researchers (e.g., Cheng, 2004; Cheng, Horwitz & Schallert, 1999; Kim, 2000; Saito,
Horwitz & Garza, 1999) have found that foreign language reading, listening and writing
anxieties are distinguishable from general foreign language anxiety as measured by the
FLCAS (Horwitz, et al., 1986). However, the FLCAS primarily measures speaking anxiety.
In addition, some studies seem to indicate that the characteristics of the specific
target language may have an effect on learners’ foreign language anxiety (Aida, 1994;
Le, 2004; Saito, et al., 1999). However, Saito, et al. (1999) found that the anxiety levels
measured by the FLCAS were not significantly different among learners of different target
languages. This against-common-sense result may be due to the generic nature of FLCAS.
Finally, many researchers have misinterpreted this scale as having three distinct
components, that is, communication apprehension, test anxiety, and fear of negative
feedback. The confusion among researchers may be due to lack of a clear explanation of
development procedures of the scale. For example, Kim (2002, pp. 38-41) offered several
concerns about the FLCAS:

1. Little has been reported on the content-related validity of the scale.

2. No clear indication was given of the procedure to categorize the construct of FL anxiety
into the three components.
3. The authors of the FLCAS did not include any items related to reading and writing skills.
4. It is doubtful that the items in the FLCAS are comprehensively representative of the
construct of foreign language anxiety.
5. Such doubt on the FLCAS items for their representativeness of the construct leads to a
debate on issues of construct underrepresentation.

These criticisms of the FLCAS may not be fair as they are based on the understanding that
communication comprehension, fear of negative feedback, and test anxiety are components
of foreign language anxiety, which Horwitz, et al. (1986) did not claim. However, Kim
(2002) is right in suggesting that items in a scale should fully represent the domains of
the construct, otherwise, the scale runs the risk of construct underrepresentation and
construct irrelevancy. In other words, before developing a scale, a sound theoretical model
of the construct and its sub-domains, if any, need to be constructed and this theoretical
model or construct should be used as a guide to select items for the scale (Dawis, 1987;
Devellis, 2003).
The field of foreign language anxiety research precisely lacks such a theoretical model.
As Young (1994) also pointed out, “the research on theoretical models and frameworks of
language anxiety is less extensive than the research on the effects of language anxiety on
language learning and performance” (p. 30).

447
 Foreign Language Anxiety: Past and Future

3. Theoretical Models of Foreign Language Anxiety

There are only four such theoretical models available in the current literature: “the
three-component model” (communication apprehension, fear of negative evaluation,
and test anxiety) ascribed to Horwitz, et al. (1986), Kim’s (2002) model, Luo’s (2012)
four-dimensional source model, and Luo’s (2011) four-component construct of foreign
language anxiety.
Kim (2002) proposed that Foreign Language Anxiety has three components, that
is, Production Anxiety, Literacy Anxiety, and Aural and Evaluation Anxiety. The factor
analysis yielded three factors, roughly supporting the three-component distinction. The
correlations among the three factors were reported to be moderately strong (.536, .628,
.506) and the internal consistency as estimated by alpha coefficient was as high as .94.
After a series of interviews with foreign language learners and instructors, Kim
gained evidence for the three components and identified two other components: the
instructor-induced anxiety and foreign language anxiety due to difficulties with cultural
understanding. She then refined the theoretical model and represented this refined model
schematically as shown in Figure 1.

FL Anxiety
Teacher-induced Anxiety

Aural &
Production
Evaluative
Culture

Anxiety
Apprehension

Literacy
Anxiety

FL CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT

Figure 1. A theoretical model for Foreign Language Anxiety (Kim, 2002, p. 106)

There is no doubt that Kim’s efforts at constructing a theoretical model of foreign language
anxiety should be credited; however, her theoretical model seems to have room for further
refinement.
First, the distinction between Production Anxiety, Literacy Anxiety, and Aural
& Evaluative Apprehension may not be justified. There is obvious overlap between
production anxiety and literacy anxiety. The categorization criterion underlying the three
types of anxieties is not consistent, as evaluative apprehension does not only accompany

448
 LUO Han

aural apprehension, but also likely goes with production and literacy anxiety.
Second, the instructor and difficulties with cultural understanding are actually
sources of foreign language anxiety rather than manifestations of foreign language anxiety.
In Figure 1, rectangles are used to represent the Instructor-induced Anxiety and anxiety
due to difficulties with cultural understanding, whereas circles are used to represent
Production Anxiety, Literacy Anxiety, and Aural & Evaluative Apprehension, but the logic
behind that is unknown. Although “the model” presented in Figure 1 integrates important
aspects of foreign language anxiety, it may not be able to function as a theoretical base for
clarifying the construct of foreign language anxiety.
Based on empirical evidence from many studies (e.g., Aida, 1994; MacIntyre, 1992;
Kim, 2002), Luo (2012) agreed with Horwitz, et al.’s conceptualization that foreign
language anxiety is a situation-specific construct. Meanwhile, based on a close review
of the foreign language anxiety literature and her own insight, she proposed a four-
dimensional source model of foreign language anxiety, which suggests that some amount
of foreign language anxiety is inherent in the classroom environment, the characteristics
of the language learner, the target language and the foreign language learning process
respectively (see Figure 2).

Foreign
Language
Anxiety

classroom Learner Target Foreign

Language
Environment Characteristics Language Learning

Figure 2. The Four-dimensional Source Model of Foreign Language Anxiety

In the past decade, a number of researchers have identified anxieties associated with the
four specific skills and developed separate scales for measuring reading, listening and
writing anxieties (e.g., Cheng, 2004; Cheng, et al., 1999; Kim, 2000; Saito, et al., 1999).
Although the main purpose of these researchers, who have identified specific speaking,
listening, reading and writing anxieties, is to distinguish these specific anxieties from
general foreign language anxiety, Luo (2011) argued that the anxieties associated with the
four skills should be viewed as the four sub-anxieties of foreign language anxiety. This view
matches very well with Horwitz’s (2008) opinion that some amount of anxiety is inherent
in foreign language learning. Moreover, Luo (2011) viewed the construct of foreign
language anxiety as having four components: speaking anxiety, listening anxiety, reading
anxiety and writing anxiety (see Figure 3).

449
 Foreign Language Anxiety: Past and Future

Foreign
Language
Anxiety

Speaking Listening Reading Writing

Anxiety Anxiety Anxiety Anxiety

Figure 3. The Four-component Construct of Foreign Language Anxiety

4. Effects of Foreign Language Anxiety

Studies under a wide range of learning contexts have shown that foreign language anxiety
is not only prevalent among learners (Aida, 1994; Coulombe, 2000; Ganschow & Sparks,
1996; Horwitz, 1986; Le, 2014; Liu, 2006; Luo, 2013; Macintyre & Gardner, 1989), but also
has various negative effects on second/foreign language learning (e.g., Horwitz, Tallon &
Luo, 2010; MacIntyre, 1999).

4.1 Academic Effects

Foreign language anxiety has been found to be one of the best predictors of success in the
second/foreign language learning (Gardner & MacIntyre, 1993; MacIntyre & Gardner,
1991a). A large number of studies have investigated the relationship between foreign
language anxiety and second/foreign language achievement. These studies have generally
reported a consistent moderate negative relationship between language anxiety and
language achievement (Horwitz, 2001).
Researchers have most commonly used final course grades and standardized
proficiency tests to measure language achievement in foreign anxiety studies (MacIntyre
& Gardner, 1994). For example, Horwitz (1986) found foreign language anxiety to be
significantly, negatively and moderately correlated with the grades students expected to
receive in their first semester language class (r = -.52, p = .001). She also found foreign
language anxiety to be significantly, negatively and moderately correlated with their
actual final grades (r = -.49, p = .003 for beginning Spanish classes, and r = -.54, p = .001
for beginning French classes). Aida (1994) and Saito and Samimy (1996) found a similar
significant negative correlation between anxiety scores and final grades among American
students learning Japanese. Phillips (1992) also reported that the students’ scores on the
FLCAS correlated negatively with the scores of an oral French test. Similarly, Coulombe
(2000) reported a negative correlation between the FLCAS scores and final grades among
French learners of three proficiency levels (i.e., beginning, intermediate and advanced).
Liu and Huang (2011) also found a significant negative correlation between foreign
language anxiety and course grades among college-level EFL learners in China. In foreign
language anxiety studies, language achievement measures other than the above mentioned
two common indices (i.e., final grades and standardized proficiency tests) included teacher

450
 LUO Han

ratings, self-ratings, cloze tests, etc.. Negative relationships between these measures and
language anxiety have also been found. For example, Trylong (1987) used teacher ratings
to indicate students’ achievement in language classes and found a negative relationship
between anxiety and teacher ratings of achievement. MacIntyre, Noels and Clément (1997)
asked students to rate their language proficiency levels by themselves and discovered a
negative relationship between anxiety and students’ self-ratings. Gardner and MacIntyre
(1993) used a cloze test, a composition task, and an objective test to measure students’
language achievement and found English-speaking students’ foreign language anxiety to
be significantly and negatively correlated with scores of the above mentioned three tests.
MacIntyre (1999) identified an additional academic effect of language anxiety as
“overstudying.” Overstudying is a common response when an individual notices that
he or she is not performing well because of anxiety arousal (Eysenck 1979; Schwarzer,
1986). According to Horwitz, et al. (1986), anxious students may overstudy in order to
avoid “being less competent than other students or being negatively evaluated by them”
(p. 130). In a series of interviews with anxious language learners, Price (1991) noted that
students who experienced anxiety felt the need to compensate for the negative effects of
anxiety arousal by increased efforts. MacIntyre and Gardner’s (1994) study also showed
this effect. In an academic setting, overstudying often “leaves students with lower levels
of achievement than would be expected based on the work and time that they invest in
language study” (MacIntyre, 1999, p. 34).
Another academic effect of foreign language anxiety is student drop-out or attrition.
The findings of Gardner, Moorcroft, and MacIntyre’s (1987) study regarding the second
language performance of language drop-outs revealed that drop-outs had significantly
higher levels of language anxiety and significantly lower self-evaluations of their language
learning even though their foreign language achievement was not significantly different
from that of continuing students. In a study specially exploring the relationship between
foreign language anxiety and student attrition, Bailey, Onwuegbuzie, and Daley (2003)
found that learners with the highest levels of anxiety were more at risk of dropping out of
their foreign language courses than their low-anxious counterparts.

4.2 Cognitive Effects

A good deal of research has suggested that anxiety causes cognitive interference in
performing specific tasks (Sarason, 1980; Schwarzer, 1986). Eysenck (1979) suggested that
anxious people tended to have their attention divided between task-related cognition and
self-related cognition. In the foreign language learning context, task-related cognition in a
production task, for example, includes encoding the words, comprehending the meaning
of phrases and the structure of a message, and planning what one is about to say next. For
anxious people, self-related cognition is associated with excessive self-evaluation, worry
over potential failure, and concern over others’ opinions. Since self-related cognition or
anxiety-related thoughts have to compete for cognitive resources with normal cognitive
demands and the capacity to process information is limited, anxiety-related cognition
usually hinders performance (Eysenck, 1979).
Tobias (1979, 1986) hypothesized that the cognitive effects of anxiety lay in its

451
 Foreign Language Anxiety: Past and Future

interference with the three stages of cognitive processing: Input, Processing and Output.
MacIntyre and Gardner (e.g., 1989; 1994) developed three anxiety scales (i.e., the input
anxiety scale, the processing anxiety scale, and the output anxiety scale) specifically
addressing anxieties related to three stages of cognitive processing and designed a series
of experiments to examine the hypothesis proposed by Tobias. They found that anxiety
interfered with all three stages of cognitive processing, and that anxiety had the strongest
impact on processing and output.

4.3 Social Effects

An obvious and important social effect of foreign language anxiety is that anxious learners
do not communicate as often as more relaxed learners (MacIntyre & Gardner, 1991a,
1991b). Since speaking has been identified as one of the most important sources of anxiety
for many learners (e.g., Price, 1991), it is natural that anxious learners are less willing to
communicate in language classes. Evidence from MacIntyre and Charos’s (1996) study
indicated that anxious learners seemed to be less willing to communicate, and that they
tended to talk less frequently when given the opportunity to do so in a natural setting. Liu
and Jackson (2008) investigated the relationship between Chinese university EFL students’
unwillingness to communicate in English and their foreign language anxiety, and found
the two variables to be closely related. Horwitz, et al. (2010) took a step further and saw the
construct of Willingness to Communicate (WTC) as an alternative conceptualization of
foreign language anxiety. While research on foreign language anxiety seeks to understand
why some learners may not communicate in their foreign language classes or why they
feel uncomfortable when speaking the foreign language, WTC intends to examine the
conditions under which people choose to communicate.
Since anxious learners tend to be reticent, their teachers and classmates may form
negative perceptions of them, which, in turn, may have a negative impact on their social
relationships in the classroom setting. Although there has not been much research
into this possibility, MacIntyre (1999) pointed out that “how anxious second language
communicators are perceived by others in the classroom and in interactions outside the
classroom would be interesting topics of future research” (p. 39).

4.4 Affective Effects

Since affective variables tend to be related to each other, it may be reasonable to believe
that foreign language anxiety, one of the most important affective variables in language
learning, may have impact on other affective variables such as attitudes and motivation
towards language learning. As a matter of fact, it is likely that anxiety influences students’
feelings about language study (Horwitz, et al., 2010). For example, Spitalli (2000) found
a negative relationship between anxiety and high school students’ attitudes toward
other cultures. Liu and Huang (2011) found that anxiety and students’ English learning
motivation were significantly negatively correlated. Phillips (1992) concluded that anxiety
could have a negative impact on students’ attitudes and motivation toward language study.
According to Phillips (1992),

452
 LUO Han

Although language anxiety apparently explains a small part of a very complex picture with
regard to performance, its most significant contribution lies in its influence on the attitudes of
students toward language learning and on their intentions to continue the study of a foreign
language. Students who experience negative affect and who are frightened by oral evaluations
are not likely to exhibit positive attitudes toward the language class, and they are not likely to
take more than the required number of courses (p. 22).

Horwitz, et al. (1986) also pointed out that anxious learners may “skip class,” or “seek
refuge” (p. 130) in the last row in an effort to avoid the humiliation or embarrassment of
being called on to speak. These avoidance behaviors of anxious learners may be interpreted
as indicators of low motivation towards the language class resulting from a high anxiety
level.

4.5 Personal Effects

“Among the most troublesome effects of language anxiety is the severe anxiety reaction
for an individual language learner” (MacIntyre, 1999, p. 39). Anxious language learners
“experience apprehension, worry, even dread” and “they have difficulty concentrating,
become forgetful, sweat and have palpitations” (Horwitz, et al., 1986, p. 126). Unfortunately,
foreign language anxiety makes language learning an uncomfortable or even traumatic
experience for many learners.
The literature on foreign language anxiety contains numerous statements that reflect
the feelings of miserable, anxious learners. For example, one student interviewed by Price
(1991) said, “I’d rather be in a prison camp than speak a foreign language” (p. 104). Other
students in her study worried that their peers would think they were “stupid,” “a total
dingbat,” or “a babbling baby” because they were having trouble using simple vocabulary
and grammatical structures in their language classes. Horwitz, et al. (1986) reported the
experience of many anxious learners. One student confessed, “When I’m in my Spanish
class I just freeze! I can’t think of anything when my teacher calls on me. My mind goes
blank.” A student in Cohen and Norst’s (1989) study described language learning as “the
smashing of a well-developed positive self-concept” (pp. 68-69). Anxious learners often
engage in self-deprecating cognition (Young, 1991), which is manifested in the following
statements: “I just know that I have some kind of disability” (Horwitz, et al., 1986, p. 125);
“When I speak English in class, I am so afraid, I feel like hiding behind my chair” (Horwitz
& Young, 1991, p. xiii).

5. Sources of Foreign Language Anxiety

Due to its prevalence and negative effects on language learning, most language teachers
are interested in the causes or sources of foreign language anxiety so that they can help
alleviate their students’ anxiety. A large number of sources or causes of foreign language
anxiety have been identified in the literature.
For example, Horwitz, et al. (1986) considered foreign language anxiety as resulting

453
 Foreign Language Anxiety: Past and Future

from learners’ difficulties presenting themselves authentically in the new language. Sparks
and Ganschow and their colleagues claimed poor language learning ability to be the
only reason for foreign language anxiety (e.g., Sparks & Ganschow, 1991, 1993a, 1993b).
MacIntyre and Gardner (1993) proposed that language anxiety stemmed from repeated
negative experiences associated with the foreign language.
Based on a close review of the literature at the time, Young (1991) proposed six
potential sources of language anxiety: (1) personal and interpersonal anxieties, (2)
learner beliefs about language learning, (3) instructor beliefs about language teaching, (4)
instructor-learner interactions, (5) classroom procedures, and (6) language testing. Young
(1991, 1994, 1999) categorized sources of foreign language anxiety into those stemming
from the learner, the teacher, and the instructional practice.
In a qualitative analysis of EFL learners in China, Yan and Horwitz (2008)
interviewed 21 students with various anxiety levels and English proficiency levels and
identified seven major causes of foreign language anxiety: regional differences, class
arrangement, teacher characteristics, learning strategies, test types, parental influence, and
comparison with peers.
Based on a thorough review of all the sources that have been identified and those
potential sources that could be inferred from the literature, Luo (2012) proposed a four-
dimensional source model of foreign language anxiety. More specifically, she believes
that foreign language anxiety stems from four major sources, that is, the classroom
environment, learner characteristics, the target language, and the foreign language learning
process itself. For a detailed review of the four major sources, please refer to Luo (2012).

6. Factors Associated with Foreign Language Anxiety

Researchers of foreign language anxiety have investigated a large number of factors
associated with foreign language anxiety, including categorical background variables and
other quantitative learner variables. Frequently investigated background variables include
gender, year in the college, target language proficiency level, heritage-learning status,
required-elective status, ethnic background, and the experience of visiting the country
where the target language is spoken. Other quantitative learner variables, that have been
identified as predictors of foreign language anxiety, include age, motivation, foreign
language aptitude, self-perceived foreign language learning ability, language achievement,
self-perceived achievement, the difficulty level of the target language, competitiveness, and
perfectionism.

6.1 Categorical Background Variables

Results on the influence of background variables on foreign language anxiety have been
mixed. For example, Cheng (2002) found that female English majors at a university in
Northern Taiwan reported experiencing significantly higher levels of L2 writing anxiety
than their male peers. Similarly, Zhao and Whitchurch (2011) reported that female
students were significantly more anxious than male students in Chinese classes in the

454
 LUO Han

United States. However, Luo (2013) discovered that college-level female and male students
in the United States did not differ significantly in Chinese Language Learning Anxiety.
Luo (2013) found that heritage-learning status had a significant effect on Chinese
Language Learning Anxiety. Heritage learners without Chinese Language background
and non-heritage learners were not significantly different (p = .976) on Chinese Language
Learning Anxiety, whereas heritage learners with Chinese language background were
significantly different from the other two groups. Heritage learners with Chinese language
background experienced significantly less anxiety compared to heritage learners without
Chinese language background and non-heritage Chinese language learners. Heritage
learners without Chinese language background experienced the highest level of Chinese
Language Learning Anxiety, followed by non-heritage learners, with heritage learners with
Chinese language background being the least anxious. This result generally supported
Tallon’s (2006, 2009) finding that heritage Spanish learners experienced lower levels of
foreign language anxiety than non-heritage learners, but Tallon did not further classify
heritage learners into subgroups.
Many studies (e.g., Liu, 2006; Marcos-Llinas & Garau, 2009) have shown that
language anxiety differs across proficiency levels, but the results on specific relationships
between proficiency levels and foreign language anxiety have been mixed. For example,
in Liu’s (2006) study of EFL learners in China, more proficient students tended to be
less anxious. In Marcos-Llinas and Garau’s (2009) study of Spanish learners in the U.S.,
advanced learners showed higher levels of anxiety than beginning and intermediate
learners. Zhao and Whitchurch (2011) found that elementary college-level CFL learners in
the U.S. were a little more anxious than the intermediate learners, but the difference was
not significant. However, some studies reported that no significant difference was found
in levels of foreign language anxiety between students enrolled in beginning, intermediate,
and advanced foreign language classes (Onwuegbuzie, Bailey & Daley, 1999).
Aida (1994) reported that the Required Group had a significantly higher level of
anxiety than the Elective Group among Japanese language learners in the United States.
In contrast, Luo (2013) found that the elective-required status of college-level Chinese
language learners had no significant effect on Chinese Language Learning Anxiety.
Cheng (2002) reported that no significant difference in L2 writing anxiety was found
between freshmen, sophomores, and juniors. Similarly, Luo (2013) reported that the year
in college (freshman, sophomore, junior, senior, graduate) did not have a significant effect
on Chinese Language Learning Anxiety. However, Onwuegbuzie, et al. (1999) found
that a significant main effect for the year of study in college on foreign language anxiety.
More specifically, with the exception of sophomores, foreign language anxiety appeared
to increase linearly as a function of year of study in the college, with freshmen and
sophomores reporting the lowest levels of anxiety, followed by juniors, and seniors.
In Wen’s (2011) study, ethnic background had a significant effect on Chinese
Language Learning Motivation. She found that of all ethnic groups, the non-Chinese
Asian group (roughly corresponding to “Asian but not Chinese American” in this study)
demonstrated the most positive learning experience derived from class activities and the
strongest intention to continue Chinese studies. However, Luo (2013) reported that ethnic

455
 Foreign Language Anxiety: Past and Future

background did not have a significant effect on Chinese Language Learning Anxiety.
The different findings of the effect of ethnic background on Chinese Language Learning
Motivation and Anxiety may suggest that motivation and anxiety, though correlated, are
two different constructs that need to be studied separately.
Onwuegbuzie, et al. (1999) found that the variable of visiting foreign countries was
a significant predictor of foreign language anxiety. More specifically, students who had
never visited a foreign country tended to be more anxious in foreign language classes than
those who did. Similarly, Aida (1994) reported that students who had visited Japan tended
to have lower levels of foreign language anxiety associated with the study of Japanese
than those who had not been to Japan. Zhao and Whitchurch (2011) also found that the
foreign language anxiety levels differed with respect to experience in the target country
among Chinese language learners in the United States. Students who had visited China
were reported to be significantly less anxious than those who had not in Chinese language
classes.

6.2 Quantitative Learner Variables

Results on the relationship between foreign language anxiety and other quantitative
learner variables have been relatively more consistent compared to the results on the
influence of categorical background variables.
Many language learners intuitively believe that younger learners are better at learning
foreign languages than their older counterparts (Horwitz, 1988). This intuition seems to
be justified to some extent as some research has shown that younger people tend to be able
to speak a foreign language with less accent and have stronger ability in mastering the finer
points of language such as phonology and morphology (Lieberman, 1984; Newport, 1986).
Studies on age and test anxiety have generally reported a positive relationship between age
and test anxiety (Crook, 1979; Hunt, 1989), indicating older language learners are more
anxious over taking tests. In a study exploring 26 associated variables of foreign language
anxiety, Onwuegbuzie, et al. (1999) found that age was a significant predictor of foreign
language anxiety and that older students had higher levels of foreign language anxiety. It
would be interesting to see whether age affects CFL learners’ Chinese Language Learning
Anxiety.
Scholars and researchers have seemed to presume that anxiety and motivation are
two constructs closely related to each other. For example, anxiety has formed a component
of the Attitudes/Motivation Test Battery (e.g., Gardner, 1985) in the framework of the
socio-educational model. Clément (1980, 1986) viewed anxiety and motivation as two
closely related learner characteristics in his social-context model. Tóth’s (2007) study on
the predictors of foreign language anxiety among first-year English majors attempted to
explore the relationship between motivation and foreign language anxiety quantitatively,
which, surprisingly, found that the correlation between motivation and foreign language
anxiety did not reach a significantly level.
As discussed previously, a large number of studies have investigated the relationship
between foreign language anxiety and second/foreign language achievement and generally
reported a consistent moderate negative relationship between language anxiety and

456
 LUO Han

language achievement (Horwitz, 2001). Researchers have also been interested in the
relationship between foreign language anxiety and self-perceived achievement in the
language class. MacIntyre, Noels and Clément (1997) asked students to rate their language
proficiency levels by themselves and discovered a negative relationship between anxiety
and students’ self-ratings. Onwuegbuzie, et al. (1999) found the expected overall average
for a current language course to be the best predictor of foreign language anxiety among
26 potential predictors. In fact, learners’ self-perceived achievement has been found to be
a better predictor of foreign language anxiety than actual achievement based on course
grades or objective proficiency measures (Cheng, 2002; Gardner & MacIntyre, 1993; Tóth,
2007).
Some studies seem to indicate that the difficulty level of the target language has
an effect on foreign language anxiety. For example, compared to the anxiety levels of
learners of other languages in other studies, Chinese as foreign language (CFL) learners
in Chinese study-abroad programs experienced substantially higher levels of anxiety (Le,
2004), perhaps due to the difficulty level of Chinese. Saito, Horwitz, and Garza (1999)
found that levels of foreign language reading anxiety were significantly different for the
three target languages (Japanese, Russian and French) examined in their study (p < .05).
When reading, learners of Japanese were the most anxious (M = 56.01), followed by the
French participants (M = 53.14), with the Russian participants experiencing the lowest
levels of reading anxiety (M = 46.64). Aida (1994) found that the anxiety level of students
of Japanese (M = 96.7) was slightly higher than that of Horwitz’s (1986) study of Spanish
language learners (M = 94.5). She thought this result was understandable because “students
may feel more anxious in learning a non-western, foreign language like Japanese than in
learning commonly taught Western languages such as Spanish” (p. 158).
Foreign language aptitude or learning ability as a potential factor contributing to
foreign language anxiety was proposed by Sparks and Ganschow (Ganschow & Sparks,
1996; Ganschow, Sparks, Anderson, Javorsky, Skinner & Patton, 1994; Sparks & Ganschow,
1995). Sparks and Ganschow and their colleagues believed that language learning ability
is the only cause of anxiety. They reported a medium size negative correlation (r = -.43,
p = .008) between learners’ foreign language anxiety and language aptitude as measured
by the Modern Language Aptitude Test. However, Tóth (2007) found foreign language
aptitude not to be significantly correlated with foreign language anxiety among first-year
Hungarian English majors.
Compared to foreign language learning ability based on objective measures, self-
perceived language learning ability seems to be a more established predictor of foreign
language anxiety. Ganschow and Sparks (1991) found that students’ perception of the
ease of learning a foreign language to be a strong identifier of foreign language anxiety.
According to Ganschow et al. (1994), students with high levels of foreign language anxiety
perceived their language course to be difficult, whereas students with low levels of foreign
language anxiety perceived their language course to be easy. Horwitz (1990, 1995) reported
that highly anxious learners were more likely to consider language learning a difficult task
than their low-anxious counterparts.
Interview studies (Gregersen & Horwitz, 2002; Price, 1991) identified the link

457
 Foreign Language Anxiety: Past and Future

between foreign language anxiety and perfectionism and suggested that learners with
perfectionist tendencies tended to have higher levels of foreign language anxiety.
Competitiveness, as a potential anxiety-provoking personality trait, comes from Bailey’s
(1983) diary study. She hypothesized that competitive learners were likely to experience
high levels of anxiety when they perceived themselves to be less competent compared to
their classmates.
Tóth (2007) designed a quantitative study and examined the relationship between
foreign language anxiety and quite a few other learner variables including perfectionism
and competitiveness. Tóth found a low but significant negative correlation between
perfectionism and foreign language anxiety, which was not consistent with the findings
of previously mentioned qualitative studies. This may suggest that an instrument that
could measure perfectionism more accurately should be developed. In the same study, a
moderate positive correlation was revealed between competitiveness and foreign language
anxiety, lending support to Bailey’s hypothesis. Moreover, competitiveness was found to be
the second best predictor of foreign language anxiety when its effect on foreign language
anxiety was examined simultaneously in the presence of other learner variables in multiple
regression analysis. Competitiveness alone accounted for 15.68% variance in foreign
language anxiety in Tóth’s (2007) study.

7. Recommendations for Future Studies

Research has shown that approximately one third of foreign language learners experience
at least a moderate level of foreign language anxiety and that it has various negative effects
on foreign language learning. The sources of foreign language anxiety generally fall into
four major categories, namely, the classroom environment, learner characteristics, the
target language, and the foreign language learning process itself. Research that examines
factors associated with foreign language anxiety has produced mixed results.
In addition to speaking anxiety, many researchers have identified anxieties associated
with the other three language skills, namely, listening, reading, and writing. Since the
FLCAS, the most widely used scale for measuring foreign language anxiety, mainly focuses
on speaking anxiety, it is advisable that a foreign language anxiety scale that addresses
anxieties associated with the four skills should be developed. As research has suggested
that some anxiety is inherent in the characteristics of the target language, it is also
recommended that language-specific foreign language anxiety scales be developed in the
future.
A thorough understanding of the causes or sources of students’ anxiety would help
find ways to cope with this problem. Researchers have identified a large number of sources
of foreign language anxiety. It is suggested that a source inventory of foreign language
anxiety be constructed, which could be distributed to anxious foreign language learners
for diagnostic purposes.
As the review shows, results on the influence of background variables have been
mixed. Thus, more studies on background variables should be conducted in different

458
 LUO Han

learning contexts to explore these variables further.

Qualitative studies have discovered a large number of potential predictors of
foreign language anxiety (i.e., competitiveness, perfectionism, motivation, confidence),
but the relationship between these factors and foreign language anxiety have either not
been investigated quantitatively, or only explored in isolation in correlation analyses.
It is recommended that future studies examine these potential factors simultaneously
in multiple regression models to see the relative contribution of each factor to foreign
language anxiety.
One of the goals of foreign language anxiety research is to find strategies for reducing
anxiety. Researchers have made a wide range of practical suggestions for coping with
foreign language anxiety (see Horwitz, et al., 2010 for a detailed review); however, these
suggestions have not been examined empirically. It is of great importance that future
empirical studies be designed to test these suggestions, which would help language
learners to cope with this problem to a greater extent.

References
Aida, Y. (1994). Examination of Horwitz, Horwitz, and Cope’s construct of foreign language
anxiety: The case of students of Japanese. Modern Language Journal, 78(2), 155-168.
Bailey, K. M. (1983). Competitiveness and anxiety in adult second language learning: Looking
at and through the diary studies. In H. W. Seliger & M. H. Long (Eds.), Classroom oriented
research in second language acquisition (pp. 67-102). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
Bailey, P., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Daley, C. E. (2003). Foreign language anxiety and student attrition.
Academic Exchange Quarterly, 7(3), 304-308.
Cattell, R. B., & Scheier, I. H. (1963). Handbook for the IPAT anxiety scale (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL:
Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.
Chastain, K. (1975). Affective and ability factors in second language acquisition. Language Learning,
25, 153-161.
Cheng, Y. S. (2002). Factors associated with foreign language writing anxiety. Foreign Language
Annals, 35(5), 647-656.
Cheng, Y. S. (2004). A measure of second language writing anxiety: Scale development and
preliminary validation. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 313-335.
Cheng, Y. S., Horwitz, E. K., & Schallert, D. L. (1999). Language writing anxiety: Differentiating
writing and speaking components. Language Learning, 49(3), 417-446.
Clément, R. (1980). Ethnicity, contact and communicative competence in a second language. In H.
Giles, W. P. Robinson & P. M. Smith (Eds.), Language: Social psychological perspectives (pp.
147-154). Oxford: Pergamon.
Clément, R. (1986). Second language proficiency and acculturation: An investigation of the effects
of language status and individual characteristics. Journal of Language and Social Psychology,
5(4), 271-290.
Cohen, Y. & Norst, M. J. (1989). Fear, dependence and loss of self-esteem: Affective barriers in
second language learning among adults. RELC Journal, 20(1), 61-77.

459
 Foreign Language Anxiety: Past and Future

Coulombe, D. (2000). Anxiety and beliefs of French-as-a-second-language learners at the university

level. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Laval, Quebec, Canada.
Crook, T. H. (1979). Psychometric assessment in the elderly. In A. Raskin & L. F. Jarvik (Eds.),
Psychiatric symptoms and cognitive loss (pp. 207-220). New York: Halstead.
Dawis, R. V. (1987). Scale construction. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34(4), 481-489.
DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: Theory and applications (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Eysenck, M. W. (1979). Anxiety, learning and memory: A reconceptualization. Journal of Research
in Personality, 13(4), 363-385.
Ganschow, L., & Sparks, R. (1991). A screening instrument for the identification of foreign language
learning problems. Foreign Language Annals, 24(5), 383-398.
Ganschow, L., & Sparks, R. L. (1996). Anxiety about foreign language learning among high school
women. The Modern Language Journal, 80(2), 199-212.
Ganschow, L., Sparks, R., Anderson, R., Javorsky, J., Skinner, S., & Patton, J. (1994). Differences
in language performance among high-, average-, and low-anxious college foreign language
learners. The Modern Language Journal, 78(1), 41-55.
Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and
motivation. London: Edward Arnold.
Gardner, R. C., & MacIntyre, P. D. (1993). On the measurement of affective variables in second
language learning. Language Learning, 43(2), 157-194.
Gardner, R. C., Moorcroft, R., & MacIntyre, P. D. (1987). The role of anxiety in second language
performance of language dropouts. Research Bulletin No. 657. London, Ontario, Canada: The
University of Western Ontario.
Gardner, R. C., Smythe, P. C., & Clement, R. (1979). Intensive second language study in a bicultural
milieu: An investigation of attitudes, motivation and language proficiency. Language Learning,
29(3), 305-320.
Gregersen, T. S., & Horwitz, E. K. (2002). Language learning and perfectionism: Anxious and
non-anxious language learners’ reactions to their own oral performance. Modern Language
Journal, 86(4), 562-570.
Horwitz, E. K. (1986). Preliminary evidence for the reliability and validity of a foreign language
anxiety scale. TESOL Quarterly, 20(3), 559-562.
Horwitz, E. K. (1988). The beliefs about language learning of beginning university foreign language
students. Modern Language Journal, 72(2), 283-294.
Horwitz, E. K. (1990). Attending to the affective domain in the foreign language classroom. In S.
S. Magnan (Eds.), Shifting the instructional focus to the learner (pp. 15-33). Middlebury, VT:
Northeast Conference on the Teaching of Foreign Languages.
Horwitz, E. K. (1995). Student affective reactions and the teaching and learning of foreign
languages. International Journal of Educational Research, 23(7), 573-579.
Horwitz, E. K. (2000). It ain’t over til it’s over: On foreign language anxiety, first language deficits,
and the confounding of variables. Modern Language Journal, 84(2), 256-259.
Horwitz, E. K. (2001). Language anxiety and achievement. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 21,
112-126.
Horwitz, E. K., Horwitz, M. B., & Cope, J. (1986). Foreign language classroom anxiety. Modern

460
 LUO Han

Language Journal, 70(2), 125-132.

Horwitz, E. K., & Young, D. J. (1991). Language anxiety: From theory and research to classroom
implications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Horwitz, E. K., Tallon, M., & Luo, H. (2010). Foreign language anxiety. In J. Cassady (Ed.) Anxiety
in schools: The causes, consequences, and solutions for academic anxieties (pp. 95-115). New
York: Peter Lang.
Hunt, E. (1989). Introduction: Historical perspective and current considerations. In T. Hunt & C. J.
Lindley (Eds.), Testing older adults (pp. 1-17). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Kim, J-H. (2000). Foreign language listening anxiety: A study of Korean students Learning English.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin.
Kim, Y. (2002). Construction of a theoretical model of foreign language anxiety and development
of a measure of the construct: Korean university EFL learners’ case. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Indiana University.
Kleinmann, H. H. (1977). Avoidance behavior in adult second language acquisition. Language
Learning, 27(1), 93-107.
Le, J. (2004). Affective characteristics of American students studying Chinese in China: A study of
heritage and non-heritage learners’ beliefs and foreign language anxiety. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, The University of Texas at Austin.
Lieberman, P. (1984). The biology and evolution of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Liu, M. (2006). Anxiety in Chinese EFL students at different proficiency levels. System, 34(3), 301-
316.
Liu, M., & Jackson, J. (2008). An exploration of Chinese EFL learners’ unwillingness to
communicate and foreign language anxiety. Modern Language Journal, 92(1), 71-86.
Liu, M., & Huang, W. (2011). An exploration of foreign language anxiety and English learning
motivation. Educational Research International. Retrieved at http://www.hindawi.com/
journals/edu/2011/493167/.
Luo, H. (2011). Construction of a Chinese as a foreign language (CFL) anxiety scale: Towards a
theoretical model of foreign language anxiety. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Texas at Austin.
Luo, H. (2012). Sources of foreign language anxiety: Towards a four-dimension model.
Contemporary Foreign Language Studies, 12, 49-61.
Luo, H. (2013). Chinese language learning anxiety and its associated factors. Journal of Chinese
Language Teachers Association, 48(2), 109-133.
MacIntyre, P. (1992). Anxiety, language learning and stages of processing. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of West Ontario.
MacIntyre, P. D. (1995a). How does anxiety affect second language learning? A reply to Sparks and
Ganschow. Modern Language Journal, 79(1), 90-99.
MacIntyre, P. D. (1995b). On seeing the forest and the trees: A rejoinder to Sparks and Ganschow.
Modern Language Journal, 79(2), 245-248.
MacIntyre, P. D. (1999). Language anxiety: A review of the research for language teachers. In D.
J. Young (Ed.), Affect in foreign language and second language learning: A practical guide to
creating a low-anxiety classroom atmosphere (pp. 24-45). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill College.

461
 Foreign Language Anxiety: Past and Future

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.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1989). Anxiety and second-language learning: Toward a
theoretical clarification. Language Learning, 39(2), 251-275.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1991a). Methods and results in the study of anxiety in language
learning: A review of the literature. Language Learning, 41(1), 85-117.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1991b). Investigating language class anxiety using the focused
essay technique. Modern Language Journal, 75(2), 296-304.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1993). A student’s contributions to second-language learning;
Part II: Affective variables. Language Teaching, 26(1), 1-11.
MacIntyre, P. D., & Gardner, R. C. (1994). The subtle effects of language anxiety on cognitive
processing in the second language. Language Learning, 44(2), 283-305.
MacIntyre, P. D., Noels, K. A., & Clément, R. (1997). Biases in self-ratings of second language
proficiency: The role of language anxiety. Language Learning, 47(2), 265-287.
Marcos-Llinas, M., & Garau, M. (2009). Effects of language anxiety on three proficiency-level
courses of Spanish as a foreign language Foreign language Annals, 42(1), 94-111.
McCroskey, J. C. (1970). Measures of communication-bound anxiety. Speech Monographs, 37(2),
269-277.
Newport, E. L. (1986). The effect of maturational state on the acquisition of language. Paper presented
at the Eleventh Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Boston,
MA.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Bailey, P., & Daley, C. E. (1999). Factors associated with foreign language
anxiety. Applied Psycholinguistics, 20(2), 217-239.
Phillips, E. M. (1992). The effects of language anxiety on student oral test performance and
attitudes. The Modern Language Journal, 76(1), 14-26.
Price, M. L. (1991). The subjective experience of foreign language anxiety: Interviews with highly
anxious students. In E. K. Horwitz & D. J. Young (Eds.), Language anxiety: From theory and
research to classroom implications (pp. 101-108). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.
Saito, Y., Horwitz, E. K., & Garza, T. J. (1999). Foreign language reading anxiety. Modern Language
Journal, 83(2), 202-218.
Saito, Y., & Samimy, K. (1996). Foreign language anxiety and language performance: A study of
learner anxiety in beginning, intermediate, and advanced-level college students of Japanese.
Foreign Language Annals, 29(2), 239-251.
Sarason, I. G. (1978). The test anxiety scale: Concept and research. In C. D. Spielberger & I. G.
Sarason (Eds.), Stress and anxiety (Vol. 5, pp. 193-216). Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere.
Sarason, I. G. (1980). Test anxiety: Theory, research and applications. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Schwarzer, R. (1986). Self-related cognition in anxiety and motivation: An introduction. In R.
Schwarzer (Ed.). Self-related cognition in anxiety and motivation (pp.1-17). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Scovel, T. (1978). The effect of affect on foreign language learning: A review of the anxiety research.
Language Learning, 28(1), 129-142.
Sparks, R. L., & Ganschow, L. (1991). Foreign language learning differences: Affective or native
language aptitude. Modern Language Journal, 75(1), 2-16.

462
 LUO Han

Sparks, R. L., & Ganschow, L. (1993a). The impact of native language learning problems on foreign
language learning: Case study illustrations of the linguistic coding deficit hypothesis. Modern
Language Journal, 77(1), 58-74.
Sparks, R. L., & Ganschow, L. (1993b). Searching for the cognitive locus of foreign language
learning difficulties: Linking first and second language learning. Modern Language Journal,
77(3), 289-302.
Sparks, R. L., & Ganschow, L. (1995). A strong inference approach to causal factors in foreign
language learning: A response to MacIntyre. Modern Language Journal, 79(2), 235-244.
Sparks, R. L., & Ganschow, L. (2007). Is the foreign language classroom anxiety scale measuring
anxiety or language skills? Foreign Language Annals, 40(3), 260-287.
Sparks, R. J. , Ganschow, L., & Javorsky, J. (2000). Déjà vu all over again. A response to Saito,
Horwitz, and Garza. The Modern Language Journal, 84(3), 251-255.
Spielberger, C. (1966). Anxiety and behavior. New York, NY: Academic Press.
Spielberger, C. (1983). Manual for the state-trait anxiety inventory (Form Y). Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Spitalli, E. J. (2000). The relationship between foreign language anxiety and attitudes toward
multiculturalism in high-school students. Unpublished master’s thesis, Benedictine University,
Lisle, IL.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th Edition). Boston : Allyn
and Bacon.
Tallon, M. (2009). Foreign language anxiety and heritage students of Spanish: A quantitative study.
Foreign Language Annals, 42(1), 112-137.
Tallon, M. (2006). Foreign language anxiety in heritage students of Spanish: To be (anxious) or not to
be (anxious)? That is the question. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Texas
at Austin.
Tobias, S. (1979). Anxiety research in educational psychology. Journal of Educational Psychology,
71(5), 573-582.
Tobias, S. (1986). Anxiety and cognitive processing of instruction. In R. Schwarzer (Ed.), Self-related
cognition in anxiety and motivation (pp. 35-54). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tóth, Zs. (2007). Predictors of foreign language anxiety: Examining the relationship between
anxiety and other individual learner variables. In J. Horvath & M. Nikolov (Eds.), UPRT 2007:
Empirical studies in English applied linguistics (pp. 123-148). Pecs: Lingua Franca Csoport.
Trylong, V. L. (1987). Aptitude, attitudes, and Anxiety: A study of their relationships to achievement
in the foreign language classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University, West
Lafayette, IN.
Watson, D., & Friend, R. (1969). Measurement of social-evaluative anxiety. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 33(4), 448-457.
Wen, X. (2011). Chinese language learning motivation: Studies of ethnic background and
proficiency level. Unpublished Manuscript. University of Houston.
Yan, J. X., & Horwitz, E. K. (2008). Learners’ perceptions of how anxiety interacts with personal and
instructional factors to influence their achievement in English: A qualitative analysis of EFL
learners in China. Language Learning, 58(1), 151-183.
Young, D. J. (1991). Creating a low-anxiety classroom environment: What does the anxiety research

463
 Foreign Language Anxiety: Past and Future

suggest? Modern Language Journal, 75(4), 426-439.

Young, D. J. (1994). New directions in language anxiety research. In Klee, C. A. (Ed.), Faces in a
crowd: The individual learner in multisection courses (pp. 3-46). Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle.
Young, D. J. (1999). Affect in foreign language and second language learning: A practical guide to
creating a low-anxiety classroom atmosphere. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill College.
Zhao, A., & Whitchurch, A. (2011). Anxiety and its associated factors in college-level Chinese
classrooms in the U.S. Journal of Chinese Language Teachers Association, 46(3), 21-47.

(Copy editing: Duncan Sidwell)

464
 2013 年 10 月 中国应用语言学（季刊） Oct. 2013
第 36 卷 第4期 Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics (Quarterly) Vol. 36 No. 4

中 文 摘 要
对英语中动构造的词典学研究
朱晓丽 陈国华 北京外国语大学中国外语教育研究中心 ....................................................... 407
中动构造尽管引起了句法学家的很大兴趣，其性质仍然引发争议，而英语学习词典也
没有把它作为一个单独的语法范畴对待。本文主要基于从三部英语学习词典提取的数据，
对英语中动构造进行研究，探讨其句法和语义特征以及对其用法的制约。文章发现三部词
典对中动构造的处理不一，存在问题，都不把谓词的中动用法与及物谓词省略宾语的用法
和不及物谓词区别开来，这将对学习者习得中动构造造成一定的困难。本文提出，学习词
典应将谓词的中动用法作为谓词的一个次类单独列出，与及物谓词和不及物谓词处于同一
个层次上，以便学习者重视并掌握其用法。
关键词：中动构造；及物谓词；非及物谓词；学习词典

天然材料还是人工材料：教学材料类型对二语动机的影响
白井明 （日本）青山学院大学商学院 ............................................................................................ 422
本文对天然材料（亦称真实材料）在何种程度上影响日本大学生的课堂动机进行了初
步研究，以期找到在大学里教授混合水平语言学习班的有效方式。本文收集并分析了以动
机问卷中的八个激励项目为主的量化数据和以学习日志条目和学习者在半结构式访谈中的
评论为主的质性数据。对问卷的零假设检测结果表明，天然材料和人工材料相比，对一年
级学生比对二年级和四年级学生的动机的影响更为有效。本研究也探讨了教学材料本身的
“有趣味”和“有意义”之间的关系，以寻求利用天然材料的最有效的方式。本文也讨论了
其他可能的影响因素，如活动和主题。本文的结论表明对天然材料（尤其是“有趣味”材料）
的恰当使用可帮助混合水平大班的大学一年级学生有效提高他们的二语学习动机。最后本
文讨论了本研究所遇到的挑战，并对未来研究提出了建议。
关键词：动机；天然材料；人工材料

外语学习焦虑感研究综述
骆 涵 （美国）西北大学威恩伯格文理学院 ............................................................................... 442
外语学习焦虑感是外语学习者在外语学习这一特定的场景中经历的一种特定情感反
应，对外语学习有潜在的阻碍作用。研究表明外语学习焦虑感不但在外语学习者中普遍存在，
而且对外语学习有诸多不良影响。为了帮助学习者们克服焦虑所带来的困扰，学者们深入
探讨了外语学习焦虑的成因，并发现原因来自四大方面，即课堂环境、学习者自身的性格
特点、目标语言和外语学习的特殊性。学者们还详细研究了与外语学习焦虑感相关的种种
因素，包括分类变量和定量变量。本文将详细评述外语学习焦虑感方面的研究并对外语学
习焦虑感的未来研究方向提出建议。
关键词：外语教育；外语学习；外语学习焦虑感

理论语言学与应用语言学期刊论文中被动句使用情况的对比研究
路 露 （英国）伦敦大学亚非学院（SOAS）语言学系/
北京外国语大学中国外语教育研究中心 ........................................................................ 465
被动句是信息包装的重要手段。然而，很多课本、写作手册或学术论文对被动句的使

518

View publication stats