Motivation and SLA

Bridgingthegap
EmaUshioda
UniversityofWarwick

MotivationhasbeenamajorresearchtopicwithinSLAforoverfourdecades, yethasenduredamarginalizedpositionwithinthefield,remainingsomewhat isolatedfromitsmoremainstreamlinguistictraditions.TheanalysisofmotivationanditsroleinSLAhaslargelybeenatthelevelofgloballearningoutcomes, andresearchhashadlittletosayabouthowmotivationalfactorsrelatetotheinterimprocessesoflinguisticdevelopment.Thuswhilemotivationisrecognized asaprerequisiteforsuccessfulSLA,therelevanceofmotivationresearchto understandingthefinerdetailofhowSLAhappenshasbeenunclear.Thispaper discussessomestudiesthathaveattemptedtointegratetheanalysisofmotivationwithmorelinguisticapproachesinSLA.Itproposesanagendaforbridging thegapbetweenmotivationandmainstreamSLAresearch,andsuggestshow motivationresearchmaycontributetothedevelopmentofmajorlinesofthinkingwithinthefield.

Introduction: The gap between L2 motivation research and mainstream SLA
Thestarting-pointforthispaperistheargumentthatwithinthefieldofSLAresearch, the study of motivation has flourished for over forty years and yet remainedsomewhatisolatedfromthemoremainstreamconcernsofthefield.This is a curious state of affairs since motivation is a widely recognized variable of importance in SLA, and perhaps one of the key factors that distinguishes first languageacquisitionfromsecondlanguageacquisitionprocesses.Toputitsimply,motivationisnotreallyanissueinthecaseofinfantsacquiringtheirmother tongue.Ontheotherhand,beingmotivatedornotcanmakeallthedifferenceto howwillinglyandsuccessfullypeoplelearnotherlanguageslaterinlife.AsPit Corder(1967:164)famouslywrote:“givenmotivation,itisinevitablethatahumanbeingwilllearnasecondlanguageifheisexposedtothelanguagedata”.Since
EUROSLA Yearbook 10 (2010),5–20. doi10.1075/eurosla.10.03ush issn1568–1491/e-issn1569–9749©JohnBenjaminsPublishingCompany

 within the field of SLA itself. However.Similarly. In short.Ellisexplicitlymakesthecriticalobservationthat“thestudyofL2 motivationresearchcontinuestolieoutsidemainstreamSLA”(p. while all of us might acknowledge the truth of Corder’s famous pronouncement about the importance of motivation in SLA.508).Forexample.thereissomethingofagapbetweenmotivationresearchandmainstreamSLA.Thus.andissuesofmotivation featureonlyrathertangentiallyinthelinguisticandpsycholinguistictraditions thatdominatetheSLAfield.L2motivationresearchhasdeveloped andevolvedthroughdifferenttraditionsofinquiry.andhasgeneratedandcontinuestogenerateasubstantialbodyoftheoreticalandempiricalliterature(fora recentoverview. motivation research has endured a ratherodd.Theanalysisofmotivationseemstobeaconcernonly for those who. it seems that this importancedoesnottranslateintomakingtheanalysisofmotivationacentral dimensionofSLAresearch.GardnerandLambert 1972).Overthepastfourdecades.asDörnyei(2003:21)pointsout. .g.seeDörnyeiandUshioda2010).whodrewattentiontothesignificantroleofattitudinal-motivationalvariablesinsecondlanguagelearningandestablishedmotivationasamajorresearch topicinSLA.Gardner1985. In themorerecentsecondeditionofEllis’sbook-lengthsurveyofSLApublishedin 2008(nowspanningover1000pages).Wemotivationresearchers donotseemtohavemuchtooffertomainstreamSLA.motivationstilldoesnotmeritachapter initselfbutislargelyconfinedtoa15-pagesectionwithinan80-pagechapteron individuallearnerdifferences.Ineffect. are specifically interested in issues of motivation in SLA.Ellis(1994) devotesfewerthantenpages(outofnearly700)todiscussingmotivationinhis book-lengthsurveyofSLAresearch. like myself.anditisthepurposeofthispapertoexplore (a)whysuchagapexists.eventhoughheacknowledgesthatitis“akey factorinL2learning”(p.spearheadedbythepioneeringworkofRobertGardnerandhiscolleagues inCanada(e.discussionofmotivation is confined to around ten pages in a chapter on individual differences.treatmentofthetopictendstobeself-containedina relativelysmallsection.6 EmaUshioda the1970s.incontextualizinghissurveyofmotivationresearch. whatkindsofresearchinquirymightbepursuedintheareaofmotivationwhich wouldusefullycontributetothedevelopmentofmajorlinesofthinkinginSLA.GardnerandLalonde1983.690).inDoughtyandLong’s(2005)Handbook of Second Language Acquisitionspanningsome900pages.whilethedegreeofinteractionbetweenL2motivationresearchandtherest oftheSLAfieldseemsonthewholeratherminimal.Moreover.thehistoryofmotivationresearchinSLAhasbeenarichandvibrant one.whiletextbooksand handbooksonSLAconsistentlyincludereferencetomotivationasanimportant languagelearnervariable.marginalizedposition.and(b)whatcanbedonetobridgethegap–thatis.remainingsomewhatisolatedfromthemore mainstreamcognitivelinguistictraditionsthatprevail.

which distinguishesitfrommotivationinotherdomainsoflearningsince.andnot oninterimprocessesoflinguisticdevelopment. Inrelationtomyargumentaboutthegapbetweenmotivationresearchand mainstreamSLA.MasgoretandGardner 2003).asGardner and Lambert (1972: 135) put it.Furthermore.overtheyearstheresearchtraditionestablishedby Gardnerhasbeencharacterizedbyincreasinglysophisticatedstatisticaltechniques toexamineandverifythecausalrelationsbetweenattitudinal-motivationalvariablesandlanguagelearningoutcomes(e.Thisfocusonsuccess in L2 learningasthedependentvariablehasmeantthattheanalysisofmotivation anditsroleinSLAhaslargelybeenatthelevelofgloballearningoutcomesormeasuresofproficiency.Theirworkwaspioneeringinthatithighlightedthe roleofaffectivefactors–attitudesandmotivation–assignificantcausesofvariabilityinsecondlanguagelearningsuccess.g.ItisworthremindingourselvesoftheoriginalresearchquestionthatlaunchedGardnerandLambert ontheirempiricalquest:“Howisitthatsomepeoplecanlearnasecondorforeign languagesoeasilyanddosowellwhileothers.Gardner1985.givenwhatseemtobethesameopportunitiestolearn. language learners must be “willing to identify withmembersofanotherethnolinguisticgroupandtotakeonverysubtleaspects oftheirbehavior.whicheffectivelyestablishedmotivationasa majorresearchareainSLA.Ramage1990).g. Fromthissocialpsychologicalprocessofidentificationwasbornthewell-known conceptofintegrative motivation.itisworthmakingtwokeypointsabouttheworkofGardner andhiscolleagues.oron behaviouraloutcomessuchaspersistenceinlearning(e.includingtheirdistinctivestyleofspeechandtheirlanguage”.Firstly.Nevertheless.Ofcourse.Thisisthefirstpointtobemade.thefactremainsthattheempiricalfocusisonratherbroad learningoutcomessuchasgeneralproficiencymeasuresorcoursegrades.LambertandtheirCanadian colleaguesinthe1970sand1980s. .finditalmostimpossible?”(1972:130).whichareindependentofcognitive factorssuchasintelligenceorlanguageaptitude.itinitiatedandfosteredanempiricalfocusoncausal relationshipsbetweenmotivationandsuccessfulL2learning.theyfocusedattentionontheinherentsocialpsychologicaldimensionofmotivationinSLA. MotivationandSLA:Bridgingthegap  I will begin by considering the history of motivation research in SLA and discuss how it has been characterized by a lack of interaction with the central preoccupationsoftheSLAfield. Why is there a gap? History of motivation research in SLA The socialpsychologicaltradition IreferredearliertothepioneeringworkofGardner.

However. WhiletheconstructofmotivationisnottheprimaryfocusintheseassociatedsocialpsychologicalperspectivesonSLA.8 EmaUshioda However. the early work of Schumann (1978) on acculturation theory and linguistic fossilization.thesecondpointtobemadeabouttheworkofGardnerandhis colleaguesisthatitinfluencedthedevelopmentofassociatedsocialpsychological theoriesofsecondlanguageacquisitionandcommunicationinsituationsofintergroupcontactinmultilingualsettings. However.thistransitiondidbringwithitthepotentialfora morefine-grainedexaminationofmotivationinrelationtoprocessesoflearning andlinguisticdevelopment–thatis.Interms oflinkswithmainstreamSLA.therewasasensethatthesocialpsychologicalanalysisofL2 motivation had somehow run its course and that alternative perspectives were needed.CrookesandSchmidt 1991).thismorelinguistically-focusedangleofinquiryhasnotbeenacentral preoccupation of motivation researchers in SLA.achievementandbehaviouraloutcomeshastendedto prevail.Iwillcomebacktothispointaboutissuesofmotivation.whatDörnyei(2002:138)referstoasamicro perspectiveonmotivationalbehavioursduringtheSLAprocess. the work of Meisel (1977) on elaborative versus restrictivelinguisticsimplificationinthespeechofimmigrantworkers.andthework ofGilesandByrne(1982)onintergrouprelationsandlinguisticaccommodation. for whom the rather broader focusongloballearning.incontrasttothe broadmacroperspectiveonglobalpatternsofmotivationandsuccessfulSLAin thesocialpsychologicalresearchparadigm. From socialpsychologicaltocognitive/educationalperspectives Bytheearly1990s.thisimportantbodyofworkdoesclearly pointtoamorefine-grainedanalysisofhowattitudinal-motivationalfactorsassociatedwithethnolinguisticidentityandsocialidentificationmayshapeprocesses of linguistic development or non-development. and help explain the extent to whichparticulartarget-likefeaturesofthemajoritylanguageareacquiredornot. for example.g.drawingoncognitivetheoriesofmotivationin educationalpsychologytocomplementthesocialpsychologicalanalyses. the dominant lines of inquiry in this more classroom-focused  andprocess-orientedanalysisofmotivationhavetendedtorevolvearoundthe following: .Thuscameaboutagradualtransitiontowardsmoresituatedclassroom-focusedanalysesofL2motivation.particularlyfocusingmoreonpedagogicalissuesofhowtomotivatestudentsandhowtooptimizeandsustaintheirmotivation(e.identityandlinguisticdevelopmentlaterwhenIdiscusswaysforwardtobridgethegapbetween motivationresearchandmainstreamSLA.Suchsocialpsychologicaltheoriesinclude.

centralprocessingandoutputstages .whereSLAprocessesareconcerned. This line ofresearchshedslightonwhattypesofmotivationmaypromoteoptimumapproachestolearningthatentailcriticalanalysisofideas.Ushioda1996).asopposedtosuperficialmemorizationapproachestolearning.themodelisdifficulttotestempirically. actionalandpost-actionalstagesofmotivation. a single lesson. causal attributions. For example.intrinsicorextrinsic)andtheireffectsonlearning behaviour(e. – howmotivationcanbesustainedandregulatedthroughteacherstrategies or self-regulatory strategies (e. decision-making. I am simplifying and generalizing here. Of course.however.However.g.makingconnectionswith existingknowledgeandachievingdeeperunderstandingandlong-termretention ofinformation. action control.hasattemptedtoelaboratetheprocessmodeleven furtherbydelineatingthepossiblefunctionofmotivationinrelationtothechain ofpsycholinguisticmechanismsintheinput. and evaluation. a course unit.Thesetemporalstagesaredefinedasthepre-actional. there has beensomeinterestingresearchintheareaofintrinsicversusextrinsicmotivation anddeepversussurfaceapproachestolearningingeneraleducation(e.g. a task.g.sinceitisnot easy to define and delimit what a learning process is – e.Thisperspective derivedfromDörnyeiandOttó’s(1998)processmodelofL2motivation. how motivation shapes affective engagement or involvement in learning.perhapsbecausethislineofanalysisfocusesonhowstudentsdealwith informationcontentratherthanonhowtheydevelopproceduralskills.theattentionofmotivation researchers has remained largely limited to the fairly vague notion of engagement– that is.orhow itinfluencescognitiveprocessesoflearningandlinguisticdevelopment. during and after engagementinalearningprocess.intermsofwhatmight becalledmotivational processingduringengagementinlearning. M  anolopoulou-Sergi(2004). AnotherareaofinquirythathasmorepotentialistheanalysisoftherelationshipbetweenmotivationandcognitiveprocessinginSLA. Dörnyei and Csizér 1998.Pelletier.whichhasbeenappliedtotheanalysis of motivation and reading processes in SLA (e. Dörnyei and Ottó1998). – factorsthatinfluencemotivation(e. Inotherwords.g.ithasnot beenamajorareaofinquirywithinmotivationresearchinSLA. monitoring.ProsserandTrigwell1998). However.g. As Dörnyei (2005: 86) himself acknowledges.Marton andSäljö1976. a whole course of study.witheachstageshapedbyspecific cognitive processes such as goal-setting.ClémentandVallerand2000. a succession of tasks.howitmightbetheorized. One scholar.Noels. MotivationandSLA:Bridgingthegap 9 – typesofmotivation(e. Fransson 1984).WilliamsandBurden1997).g.therehasbeenratherlittleanalysisofwhatsuchmotivatedor affectiveengagementinlearningmightentail.which elaborated the successive stages of motivation before.g.

thisinformation-processingmodel ofmotivation.likeDörnyeiandOttó’sprocessmodelofmotivation.and suggestthattheanalysisofmotivationinrelationtospecificbehaviourallearning measuresintaskengagementandperformancemaybeamoreilluminatinglineof inquiry.anditmightbeassumedthatonereasonwhymotivationresearchhasremainedsomewhatoutsidethecentralconcernsofSLAisbecauseofSLA’spredominantfocusonlanguagelearningasacognitivepsycholinguisticprocess.thesearemuchhigherthanthecorrelationsusuallyobtainedbetweenmotivationandglobalachievementmeasures.motivationresearchhasfocusedpredominantlyoncognitivemotivational processes such as goal-setting. attributions. decision-making.Dörnyei andTseng2009. ornumberofargumentsandcounter-argumentsproducedindiscussiontasks).Skehan(1998:192)briefly acknowledgesthepossiblerelevanceofmotivation. and motivational theorizing . From cognitivetosocioculturalperspectives Ofcourse. self-determination. giventhatthetheoriesandconstructsshapingmainstreammotivationresearchas wellasmotivationresearchinSLAbelongverymuchinthecognitiveparadigm ofpsychology. However. Oneapproachtotheempiricalproblemhasbeentotaketask engagementas theunitofanalysisandfocusonmotivationaltaskprocessing.Thislineofresearch hasbeenledbyDörnyei(e.Dörnyei(2002)reportsinonesmall-scalestudythatmotivationalvariables accountfor76percentofthevarianceinnumberofwordsand81percentofthe varianceinnumberofturns.lexicalrichnessordiscursivecontent).attheleveloftheoreticalspeculation.andhasfocusedonoralinteraction tasks.buttheanalysisofmotivation andaffectivefactorsisnotincludedinthiscognitiveapproach.g.Althoughthestudieshavenotshownclearrelationshipsbetweenmotivationalvariablesandqualityoflanguageperformanceinthetasks(asreflectedin linguisticaccuracy.10 EmaUshioda ofinformationprocessinginSLA.theaffect–cognitiondivideissomewhatmisleadinginthisregard.In fact.theyhave pointed to strong relationships between motivational variables and quantitative measuresoftaskengagement(asreflectedinnumberofwordsandturnsproduced.DörnyeiandKormos2000.However.Iwillcomebacktothisissueofanalysingrelationshipsbetweenmotivationandspecificlearningprocessesandbehaviourslater.Ashenotes.In hisbookonacognitiveapproachtolanguagelearning.Sincethecognitiverevolutioninthesecondhalfofthe20thcentury.remainsessentiallyadescriptivemodelonly.anddifficulttoevaluateempirically.Dörnyei2002. expectancies. efficacy beliefs.complexity.KormosandDörnyei2004). self-perceptions.motivationhastraditionallybeenclassifiedasanaffectivevariablein SLA.

Inshort.andmostrecentlydynamicsystemsandcomplexitytheoryapproaches(Larsen-FreemanandCameron2008a). MotivationandSLA:Bridgingthegap 11 generallytakestheformofcomputationalmodelsofmentalprocessesandlearningbehavioursandoutcomes.despiteitsoriginsinsocialpsychology. sociocognitive theory (Atkinson 2002).ThusKramsch(2002).AkeyargumenthereisthatthetraditionalSLAfocusondecontextualizedinteriorprocesses oflanguagelearningasdistinctfromsocialprocessesoflanguageuselimitsour understandingofhowcognitivestructuresdevelopandevolvethroughengagementinsocialactivity. we have witnessed what Block(2003)hascalleda“socialturn”insecondlanguageacquisition.orthepositivistand relativistparadigms. ecological perspectives (van Lier 2004).andtheviewputforwardbyDoughtyandLong (2005)thatSLAbeseenasabranchofcognitivesciencewouldnotgoagainstthe grainofmostmotivationresearchinSLA.VoletandJärvelä2001.forexample.andthecognitiveorientationthatprevails inmainstreamSLAontheother.Eachlearnerinterpretsandreactstoherenvironment.McInerneyandVanEtten2004). recent years have seen a major debate in SLA about competing ontologicalparadigms. reflectingtheinfluenceofthesewiderontologicaldebatesintheSLAfield. language socialization (Watson-Gegeo 2004).thecognitivefromthe social.aswell asageneralZeitgeistinmainstreammotivationalpsychologywheresociocultural andsituatedperspectivesintegratingmotivationandcontexthavebeguntobreak ground(e.Tocutalongstoryshort.oracquisitionfromuse.orwhatZuenglerandMiller(2006)call“thetwoparallelSLAworlds”ofcognitiveandsocioculturalperspectives.theindividualfromtheenvironment? In short.forexample. Of course.askshowcanweseparatethedancerfromthedance.Asrecently argued(Ushioda2009).thereisnoontologicaldivisionbetween motivationresearchontheonehand.andhastendedtosustainthebasicCartesiandualismbetweentheinnermentalworldoftheindividual.ratherthanasprimarily acognitivepsycholinguisticprocess(see.itisonlyveryrecentlytoothatmotivationresearchinSLAisbeginningtoembracethissocialturn.thebulkofmotivationresearchinSLAtodatehastended tofocusonmotivationasanindividualpsychologicalphenomenon. poststructuralist perspectives (Pavlenko2002).butremains .Lafford2007). These alternative paradigms include. within the field of SLA in recent years.g.whereby thetraditionalcognitiveparadigmofSLAresearchhasbeguntobeinfluenced by or some may say challenged by a variety of more interactionist and sociocontextually grounded paradigms of inquiry.locatedinthe innerworkingsofthemind.forexample. Remarkablyperhaps.2006).andthesurroundingsocial environment.thereisnowaconsiderablebody ofopinionintheSLAfieldwhichsuggeststhatweshouldviewlanguagelearning asasocioculturalandsociohistoricallysituatedprocess.Vygotskiansocioculturaltheory(LantolfandThorne.

g. Thesecondpartofthispapersketchessomepossiblewaysforwardinthisregard. Inshort.Nevertheless.IhavealreadymentionedtheworkofDörnyeiandhiscolleagues inrelationtomotivationaltaskprocessinginthisregard.andconsiderissuesofmotivationinrelationtospecificcognitiveandmetacognitiveprocessesinSLA.thefewstudiesthathaveadoptedamore sharplyfocusedlensonspecific SLAprocessessuggest thatthis isapromising angleofinquiry.IwillhererefertotwostudiesthatfocusonfeaturesofL2 phonological development andL2 pragmatic developmentrespectively.theconditionsseemright andthetimeseemsripeforamuchclosersynergybetweenmotivationresearch andmainstreamSLA. and clearly the debatesareongoing. current thinkinginmotivationresearchinSLAistuningintothewiderdebatesaboutthe organicrelationsbetweenindividualandcontext.andaboutdynamiccomplexsystemsandnon-linear relations(e.relationalandcontextuallygroundedperspectivesonmotivationandSLA.giventhissharedpulltowardsdynamicandsocio-contextuallygroundedanalysesoftheprocessesshapingSLA.However.intermsofmyargumentsinthispaper.Ushioda2009).Iwillthendiscuss theshifttowardsmoresociocultural.Dörnyei2009a.hermetically sealed in her own individual and self-contained subjectivity. .aboutemergentisminSLA(Ellis andLarsen-Freeman2006). Bridging the gap: Towards a research agenda In sketching this research agenda.12 EmaUshioda e  ssentiallydistinctfromit–asHarréandGillett(1994:22)putit.Bywayoffurtherillustration. Motivation andcognitiveprocesses Earlier. I will begin with some perspectives that fall squarelywithinthecognitiveparadigm.itwasnotedthatmotivationresearchinSLAhastendedtoadoptarather generalperspectiveonlanguagelearningprocessesandoutcomes–typicallyin terms of global achievement outcomes or rather vague notions of engagement orinvolvementinlearning. However.thepositiontakenhereisthatnewdirections inmotivationresearchmaycontributetopushingforwardanddevelopingmajor linesofinquiryinSLAthatcutacrossthesocioculturalandcognitiveparadigms.Somewillargueofcourse that the sociocultural paradigm is not (yet?) mainstream SLA. bydrawingonsomerecentstudieswhichmayillustratehowthisclosersynergy betweenmotivationandmainstreamSLAresearchcanhappen.2009b.

theymaychoosetolimit contactwithtargetlanguagespeakers.These motivationalself-perceptionswillinturnaffecttheamountandqualityofL2use andexposuretheywillchoosetoengagein.Acaseinpointthey analyzeintheirseriesofstudiesisthevoicedinterdentalfricative/ð/inEnglish.ItisunlikelybecausesomeL2 speechpatternsdifferfromnative-likespeechinwaysthatarefartoosubtletoreflectconsciousdeliberateattemptstosoundnon-native-like.OnepossibleexplanationforthisphenomenonisthatL2speakerswithastrongsenseofaffiliationto theirprimaryethnolinguisticgroupmaydeliberately“holdback”someaspects oftheirL2use.inordertoavoidsoundingtoomuchlikemembersofadifferent ethnolinguisticgroup.somepeoplemayfeelmotivatedtoretain non-standardspeechpatternsasamarkeroftheirownethnolinguisticidentity. they suggest that aspects of ethnolinguistic affiliation are psychologically realized in a person’s motivational self-concepts – that is.dependingonphoneticenvironment.TheamountandqualityoftheseL2experienceswillinturnimpactonthefine-tuningoftheperson’scognitive-perceptual processingmechanismsinrelationto.GatbontonandTrofimovich(2009) continuesthesocialpsychologicaltraditionofresearchthathasinvestigatedrelationshipsbetweenethnicgroupidentityandsecondlanguagedevelopmentinsituationsofintergroupcontactinmultilingualsettings.forexample.thosewhohave strongbeliefsintheroleoflanguageinmaintainingtheidentityoftheirprimary groupwilldeveloplowerlevelsofproficiencyintheirL2.Inotherwords. Specifically.asSegalowitzetal. MotivationandSLA:Bridgingthegap 13 ThesetofstudiesreportedbySegalowitz. . However.(2009)observe. the degree to which they see themselvesaswantingtoembraceaninclusivedoubleidentityasspeakerofboth FrenchandEnglishandmemberofthelargerCanadianpopulation. the researchers speculate that the linkbetweenethnolinguisticaffiliationandL2proficiencymaybemediatedby a combination of motivational and psycholinguistic variables.Astheyexplain.acommon findinginthisresearchisthatpeople’srelativedegreesofidentificationwiththeir primaryethnolinguisticgroupversustheirtargetlanguagegroupwillinfluence thelevelsoftargetlanguageproficiencytheyachieve. Based on detailed analyses of their data. ratherthanaccommodatetothetargetlanguagenorm.Forexample.orthedegree towhichtheyholdamoreexclusivesenseofidentityasFrenchCanadian.Thesepsycholinguisticvariablesandconstraintswill inturnimpactonultimateskillattainment.andtypicallyrealizedinnon-standard formasthevoicedalveolar/d/.importantphoneticdistinctionsinthetargetlanguage.itisunlikelythatdeliberatenonaccommodationorspeechdistancingistheonlyexplanationforalinkbetween ethnolinguisticaffiliationandlanguageproficiency. asacquiredbyFrenchCanadianspeakers.Typically.

andthatmoreattentionwaspaidtointeractionalfeatures(suchasyou know.They mayperceivepragmalinguisticformsasonesthatwillhelpthemtoachievetheir Englishcommunicationgoalssuccessfully.g.How ya doing?)andnon-idiomaticexpressions(e.g.Takahashisuggests thatintrinsicallymotivatedlearnersaregreatlyinterestedinlearningthelanguage andenjoyactivitiesthatenablethemtodeveloptheircommunicationskills.2005)alsoillustratesthevalue of exploring links between motivation and particular aspects of cognitive processing in SLA – specifically the cognitive processes of noticing and attention. AnotherseriesofstudiesbyTakahashi(2001. Theresultsshowedthatthecomplexbi-clausalrequestformsweremuchless likelytobenoticedthantheotherpragmalinguisticfeatures.suggestingthatitismotivationratherthan proficiencywhichdirectslearnersattentiontopragmaticinput. These included complex bi-clausal request forms (e. well. maybe).you know.andsopaygreaterattentiontothese features. Is it possible to VP …? If you could VP …).andthenwritedownandcommentonnative-speakerexpressions that differed from non-native speaker expressions.’sresearchprovidesagoodillustrationofhowthe analysisofmotivationalvariablesinrelationtospecific psycholinguistic processes andaspectsofSLAmayproveparticularlyilluminating.Takahashi speculatesthatparticipantsmaybelievethattheyhavealreadymasteredL2requestrealizationwithmono-clausalrequestforms. well.Takahashihassystematicallyinvestigatedhowmotivationaffectslanguagelearners’attentionandawarenesswhenprocessingparticularpragmalinguisticfeatures.andsofailtonoticethemore complexbi-clausalforms.I don’t want to bother you).Interestingly.SubsequentlySchmidt(1993)putforwardthe speculation that language learners who are integratively motivated – i. Data were also gathered on participants’motivationandEnglishproficiency.I was wondering if you could VP….aswellasidiomaticexpressions.g.e. .Segalowitzetal.aswellasstructurallysimplerinteractionalfeatures foreffectivefloormanagement(e.thetargetfeaturesinherresearchcomprised request strategies in English.idiomaticexpressions (e.g.sincepragmaticawarenessandcompetence wouldseemanimportantdimensionofsuccessfulacculturation. motivatedbyastronginterestinthetargetlanguagecultureandadesiretointegrate intothetargetlanguagecommunity–arelikelytopayparticularlycloseattention tothepragmaticaspectsofL2input. classifiedasrequestheadacts.14 EmaUshioda Inshort.asubsetofparticipantswhowereclassifiedas stronglyintrinsicallymotivatedtolearnEnglishwerefoundtobemoreattentive tobi-clausalrequestforms. maybe).nosignificantrelationshipswerefoundbetweenproficiencyandpragmalinguisticawareness.Specifically. Inherresearch. TheconnectionbetweenmotivationandattentioninSLAwasfirsthighlighted byCrookesandSchmidt(1991).However. Participants (who were Japanese college students) were asked to listen to andstudyrole-playtranscriptsofnativespeakersandnon-nativespeakersmakingrequests.

motivationandmetacognitionarehighlyinterrelated.Froma theoreticalpointofview.g.andpavesthewayforfurtherresearch on motivation and L2 pragmatic development. since the exercise of metacognition can occur only when the ability to control strategicthinkingprocessesisaccompaniedbythemotivationorwilltodoso.andhastendedtoadoptaquantitativeperspectiveonamount.Ithinkafruitfulangleofanalysismaybea V  ygotskiansocioculturalone.Accordingtosocioculturaltheory(Vygotsky1978. .however. if our interest is in how metacognition develops and howthisinteractswithmotivation.thisresearchhastendedtorelyonself-reportdatatoassessstrategy useormetacognitiveawareness.Therehavebeenquiteafewstudiesthathaveinvestigatedrelationshipsbetweenmotivationanduseofmetacognitivestrategies–e. LantolfandThorne2006).whereselfregulationisunderstoodtomeanindependentstrategicfunctioningandmetacognitive control in relation to a particular type of task.orself-regulation. A central principle of Vygotsky’s theory is that the origins of self-regulation are social and dialogic.Thepurposeofscaffolding isnotsimplytohavethelearnercompletethetaskbuttopromoteacapacityto thinkstrategicallyandthustogaincontrol. Motivation andmetacognition Anotherareawheretheanalysisofmotivationalsoseemsrelevantisinrelation tometacognition. so that the learner is motivated to do the thinking instead of simplyrespondingpassivelytodirectives.MacIntyre andNoels1996.theresearchprogrammeIam suggestingherewouldthusentailthemicrogeneticanalysisofhowmotivational andmetacognitiveprocessesmaydevelopthroughtask-focusedinteraction.Itis arguedherethatthiskindofresearchinquiryoffersaratherlimitedanalysisof howmotivationmayinteractwithmetacognitioninSLA.NealandAmayaWilliams 1990).SchmidtandWatanabe2001.ofstrategicmental processes.g.Diaz.sinceitcanshedlittle lightonhowmotivationshapesthedevelopmentofmetacognitiveskills. MotivationandSLA:Bridgingthegap 15 Takahashi’sresearchisilluminating.rangeorfrequencyofstrategyuseinrelationtomotivation.Vandergrift2005. realizedintheprocessesoftask-focusedinteractionthroughwhichtheteacher scaffoldsthelearners'attemptstoaccomplishthegoal.Clearly.therelevantcatchphrasehereiswhatMcCombsandMarzano(1990)call“willandskill”. As SLA researchers.thegoalofalllearningisself-regulation. Intheliteratureonmetacognitionandself-regulatedlearning.Generallyspeaking.Researchevidencesuggeststhattheexplicittransferoftheagenticregulatoryroletothelearneriscriticalinthisdialogue(e. as well the analysis of whether motivationmaypromoteselectiveattentiontodifferentaspectsofL2input.

therelationshipbetweenagentandcontextis areciprocalandmutuallyconstitutiveone.ratherthanlanguagelearnerorindividual differenceinanabstracttheoreticalsense.thepersoncannotbemeaningfullyseparatedfromthe socialenvironmentwithinwhichhe/sheoperates.agencyanddynamiccomplexsystems ThisbringsusofcoursetothequestionofbroadeningtheresearchagendabeyondthetraditionalcognitiveparadigmtoconsiderthedynamicinteractionsintegratingpersonsandsocialcontextintheanalysisofmotivationandSLA. this dynamic systems perspective on SLA processes renders the notion ofdiscreteindividualdifferencevariables(suchasmotivation)rathermeaningless.Moreover. . therebychangingandcausingchangeinnon-linearandunpredictableways.Inaninherentlysocialprocesssuch aslanguageacquisition.2009b) argues.contextis conceptualizedmerelyasanindependentbackgroundvariableorsetofexternal factorswhichmayinfluencemotivation.Ihaveputforwardthecaseforwhat Icalla“person-in-contextrelationalview”ofsecondlanguagemotivation.contemporarysituativeperspectivesonmotivationchallengeresearcherstointegratenotionsofself-as-agent andcontextinadynamicandholisticway.motivationtheoryineducationalpsychologyaswellasSLA has been slow to adopt contextual paradigms of inquiry. In the computational modelsofmotivationthathavecharacterizedthecognitiveparadigm.16 EmaUshioda Motivation. it is clear that the focus of discussion here is not just on motivation but the whole process of SLA.adaptsandevolves.andinwaysthatcontributetoshapingcontext.cognitionandemotionandtheirconstituent componentscontinuouslyinteractwithoneanotherandthedevelopingcontext. context. Thus.sincetheself-as-agentisaninherent partofthedevelopingcontextandcontributestoshapingthatcontext.inalltheircomponentialcomplexity.sinceprocessesofmotivation.inarecentpaper(Ushioda2009).AsDörnyei(2009a. Of course. where development is characterized by non-linear growth as systems adapt and evolve organically in response to contextual processes.anddynamicsystemsandcomplexitytheoryapproachestoSLA(Larsen-FreemanandCameron2008a).where theunitofanalysisisperson-in-context.andtoexplorehowmotivationdevelops and emerges through the complex interactions between agent and context (VoletandJärvelä2001).AsI mentionedearlier.as thesystemasawholerestructures.These approachesconcernthebehaviourofcomplexsystemsthatcontainmultipleinterconnected components.aswellastheemergingchangesinboththepersonandthe environment(seeDörnyei2009b).andsothechallengeistoadopt adynamicperspectivethatallowsustoconsidersimultaneouslytheongoingmultipleinfluencesbetweenenvironmentalandindividualfactors. as currently articulated in discussions of ‘emergentism’(EllisandLarsen-Freeman2006).However.

 Larsen-Freeman and Cameron 2008b). and Schmidt. Dörnyei. 2002.However.intentionalityandreflexivitythatarefundamentaltothedynamicinteractionsbetweenselfandcontext(SealeyandCarter2004).D.Modern Language Journal86:525–45.affectiveandcontextualprocessesshapingSLA.127–54.“Attitudes. 137–58. Corder.itseemslikelythattheanalysisof motivationmayplayamajorroleinanydynamicsystemsperspectiveonSLA. perhaps.International Review of Applied Linguistics5(2/3):161–169..R.M. and presents significantchallengesintermsofdevelopingworkableresearchdesignsandanalyticaltoolstoinvestigatecomplexsystemsinacoherentandsystematicway(see.research. The dynamic systems and complexity theory approach to SLA is still new and untried.“Towardasociocognitiveapproachtosecondlanguageacquisition”. In Vygotsky and Education: Instructional Implications and Applications of Sociohistorical Psychology.“Thesocialoriginsofself-regulation”.P.1990. “Motivation: Reopening the research agenda”.orientations. 1991. Robinson (ed.(ed.andapplications”. Z.).1967.2003.Neal.“Thesignificanceoflearners’errors”. But. In Individual Differences and Instructed Language Learning.Moll. for example.2003. MotivationandSLA:Bridgingthegap 1 Inshort.andmotivationinlanguagelearning:Advancesin theory.Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress. Concluding note Thispapersetouttooutlinehowmotivationresearchmaybebetterintegrated intomainstreamSLA. it is clear that the analysis of motivation will no longer be separated from the primaryconcernsofSLAresearch.C.S. .onceweviewmotivationasanintegralpartofthisevolvingorganic andadaptivesystemofcognitive.andcontributetothedevelopmentofmajorlinesofthinkinginthefield.The Social Turn in Second Language Acquisition.).NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress. it is inevitable that we SLA researchers will find a way forward.D. Block. Language Learning41:469–512. References Atkinson.Z. to adapt that famous pronouncement by Corder cited at the beginning of this paper.L.Moreover. Crookes.J. Diaz. R. “The motivational basis of language learning tasks”. Amsterdam: John B  enjamins. Dörnyei.2002.andAmaya-Williams.Language Learning53(Supplement1):3–32.M. P. G. giventheneedtoconsidertheprocessesofhumanagency.itisbeyondthescopeofthepapertoelaboratepossible research designs and methodologies in this regard. given motivation.

J.2009a.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress. M.The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition.C.InLanguage as a Complex Adaptive System.1994.J.Attitudes and Motivation in Second-Language Learning. 1998.Z. Dörnyei.The Study of Second Language Acquisition. “The socio-educational model of second language acquisition: An investigation using LISREL causal modelling”.R.Modern Language Journal91.andUshioda. N.Urquhart(eds.). Gardner.R.MA:NewburyHouse.andLambert. C.W-T. Dörnyei.Oxford:WileyBlackwell. and Lalonde. London)4:43–69.2010.Language Teaching Research4:275–300.Harlow: Longman.Polio(eds).Social Psychology and Second Language Learning: The Role of Attitudes and Motivation. “Cramming or understanding? Effects of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on approach to learning and test performance”.H. Harré.2009b.Z.2ndedition.Z.andDörnyei.M.H. Kormos.2008.“Individualdifferences:Interplayoflearnercharacteristicsandlearningenvironment”.C.ThousandOaks.andGillett.AldersonandA. Giles.R.Teaching and Researching Motivation. Dörnyei.C.1982.Mahwah.“Introduction:Howcanwetellthedancerfromthedance?”InLanguage Acquisition and Language Socialization: Ecological Perspectives. R.C.2006.andLong.2002.I.andByrne.Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development3:17–40.N. 1984.Z. Ellis.1998.2007.Rowley. Fransson.Z.“Theinteractionoflinguisticandmotivationalvariablesin second language task performance”.andKormos.Mahwah. In Reading in a Foreign Language. .London:EdwardArnold. Kramsch (ed.G.1972.Second Language Acquisition Reconceptualized? The Impact of Firth and Wagner (1997).B.andLarsen-Freeman.E.“Languageemergence:Implicationsforappliedlinguistics–IntroductiontotheSpecialIssue”.2005.117–34.The Discursive Mind. Kramsch.1994.R.The Psychology of Second Language Acquisition.H.86–121.2000. J. Lafford.Oxford:OxfordUniversity Press.R.C. R. Z.N.“Motivationalprocessingininteractionaltasks”.Mackey andC.Z.). Gardner. 1983. 1–30.“Motivationinaction:AprocessmodelofL2motivation”. Gass.andTseng. Ellis. “Ten commandments for motivating language learners: Resultsofanempiricalstudy”.Language Teaching Research2:203–229.).CA:Sage.“Theroleofindividualandsocialvariablesinoraltaskperformance”. Doughty.EllisandD.D.1985.Applied Linguistics27:558–589.(ed. (Focus issue). Dörnyei.Z.  Dörnyei.2ndedition.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.A.Larsen-Freeman (eds).2009.NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.InMultiple Perspectives on Interaction: Second Language Research in Honour of S.J. Gardner. Dörnyei.W.2004.Oxford: Blackwell.The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition.J.London:Longman.Working Papers in Applied Linguistics (Thames Valley University. Ellis.Z. K.E. London:Continuum. A.The Study of Second Language Acquisition. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 2(1):1–15. and Csizér.L.NJ:LawrenceErlbaum.2005. Dörnyei. C.237–255. Zeitschrift für Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunterricht9(2):1–19.18 EmaUshioda Dörnyei.C.“Anintergroupapproachtosecondlanguageacquisition”.A.andOttó.

Applied Linguistics as Social Science.Blum-Kulka(eds).“Attitudes. In Portraits of the L2 User. 2009.B.andCameron.L. British Journal of Educational Psychology 46:4–11.System32:427–41.Ushioda(eds.KasparandS.R.M. Prosser. E.L.1990. 2008b. R. MotivationandSLA:Bridgingthegap 19 Lantolf.Oxford: OxfordUniversityPress. D.Geneva:LibrairieDroz.D.Sociocultural Theory and the Genesis of Second Language Development.J. M. P. Masgoret. Interlanguages and Pidgins in their Relation to Second Language Pedagogy.D.2004.).1998.P.andGardner.172–92.27–107.andVanEtten..andWatanabe.D.R.C.A.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.InThe Notions of Simplification.S.Y.“Motivationwithintheinformationprocessingmodelofforeign languagelearning”.Arlington.“Linguisticsimplification:Astudyofimmigrantworkers’speechandforeigner talk”. Sealey.L.“Motivationalfactorsandpersistenceinforeignlanguagestudy”.R.E.“Motivation.strategyuse.(eds).Dörnyeiand E. In Interlanguage Pragmatics.CO:InformationAge Publishing.London:Continuum.2004.21–42.A. L. Skehan.J. Z.. Language Identity and the L2 Self.andsecondlanguagelearning: Ameta-analysisofstudiesconductedbyGardnerandhisassociates”.“Theacculturationmodelforsecondlanguageacquisition”.“Onqualitativedifferencesinlearning.).andCarter.2004.motivation. Segalowitz. K.Foreign Language Annals29:373–86. Buckingham: OpenUniversityPress. Ramage. 277–302.L. N.self-relatedmotivationandsecondlanguagefluency:Aretheymediatedbypsycholinguisticvariables?”InMotivation.andThorne.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.andSäljö.J.andpedagogicalpreferencesin foreign language learning”. Marton.P.Z. Teaching for Learning in Higher Education.A.Bristol:MultilingualMatters.P.Honolulu.J.Pelletier.Modern Language Journal92:200–13. “Research methodology on language developmentfromacomplexsystemsperspective”. Gatbonton. Schmidt. McCombs. 1998.D.B.1977.CorderandE. Schmidt. Pavlenko. and Trigwell.Complex Systems and Applied Linguistics.andMarzano.“Poststructuralistapproachestothestudyofsocialfactorsinsecondlanguage learning and use”. Language Learning 50:57–85.andNoels.1990.P.“Puttingtheselfinself-regulatedlearning:Theselfas agentinintegratingwillandskill”. McInerney. V.2000.1996. Cook (ed.HI:UniversityofHawaiiPress.2008a. learning and interlanguage pragmatics”.A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning.2006.1:outcomeandprocess”.K.2001. In Motivation and Second Language Acquisition.andVallerand.A-M.Language Learning 53(Supplement1):167–210.A.“Whyareyoulearningasecond language? Motivational orientations and self-determination theory”.Gingras(ed.1978.Roulet(eds). and Trofimovich.1976.313–359.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Greenwich. Meisel. Manolopoulou-Sergi.“Usingsocial-psychologicalvariablestopredicttheuse oflanguagelearningstrategies”.K. MacIntyre. Schumann.Language Learning40(2):189–219. and Cameron.Big Theories Revisited: Volume 4 in Research on Sociocultural Influences on Motivation and Learning.88–113.2003.R.InSecond Language Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching. “Consciousness.Educational Psychologist25:51–69.K.F. 1993.S.G. Larsen-Freeman. Dörnyei andR. Clevedon: MultilingualMatters.Schmidt(eds).). Larsen-Freeman. “Links between ethnolinguistic affiliation.R. ..R.2002.Clément.S.J.VA: CentreforAppliedLinguistics. Noels.

20 EmaUshioda Takahashi.MA:KluwerAcademic.J.Motivation in Learning Contexts: Theoretical Advances and Methodological Implications.InMotivation.2009.L.K.2001.2005. R. Kasper (eds).“Cognitiveandsocioculturalperspectives:TwoparallelSLA worlds?”TESOL Quarterly40:35–58.M.selfandidentity”. 215–28.Cambridge:Cambridge UniversityPress.A.Learner Autonomy 5: The Role of Motivation.Dublin:Authentik. Vygotsky. Ushioda.1997.andepistemology:TowardalanguagesocializationparadigmforSLA”. Ushioda.S. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversityPress.metacognitiveawareness andproficiencyinL2listening”.Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes.The Ecology and Semiotics of Language Learning: A Sociocultural Perspective.Amsterdam:Pergamon-Elsevier.L.MA:HarvardUniversityPress.1978.E.“Pragmalinguisticawareness:Isitrelatedtomotivationandproficiency?” Applied Linguistics26:90–120.J.andJärvelä.2005. Watson-Gegeo.DörnyeiandE. Volet.In Pragmatics in Language Teaching.R.2004.R.S.S. Zuengler.Ushioda(eds).E. Rose and G. Takahashi.J. Williams.“Theroleofinputenhancementindevelopingpragmaticcompetence”. .Bristol:MultilingualMatters.andBurden. K. Vandergrift.“Mind.L. Language Identity and the L2 Self. vanLier.Psychology for Language Teachers.1996.andMiller.Modern Language Journal88:331–50.L.language.2001.2006. 171–99.Cambridge.Z.Applied Linguistics26:70–89.“Relationshipsamongmotivationorientations.“Aperson-in-contextrelationalviewofemergentmotivation.E. Boston.2004.

users may print. . and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. download.Copyright of EUROSLA Yearbook is the property of John Benjamins Publishing Co. or email articles for individual use. However.