Motivation and Cultural Distance in Second-Language Acquisition

Motivation and Cultural Distance in Second-Language Acquisition

Bjorg Svanes University of Bergen

Previous studies have found that motivation, and in particular integrative motivation, is an essential factor in the acquisition of a second language. In the present study of the acquisition of Norwegian by foreign students at the University of Bergen, Norway, a questionnaire assessing motivation was presented to 167 foreign students enrolled in classes of “Norwegian for foreign students”, a short time before the examination in Norwegian, Level 2. European and American ctudents were found to be more inregratively motivated than the Middle Eastern, African and Asian students, who were found to be more instrumentally motivated than the Western students. Moreover, a significant difference in means of grades was recorded; Europeans having the best and Asian students the poorest grades. In the total group a weak positive correlation between integrative motivation and language proficiency, and a negative correlation between instrumental motivation and grades were found. However, when motivation and grades were analyzed within each group, no positive correlation between grades and integrative motivation was found. When ‘cultural distance’ was entered into a multiple regression analysis, in addition to the two motivation variables, the results indicated that the motivation variables explained very little of the variance in language proficiency. The best predictor of variance in groups of students with various language and cultural backgrounds was ‘cultural distance’.

INTRODUCTION

During past decades, second-language learning and factors influencing the acquisition of a second language have been the object of a great number of studies, especially in the USA. Many studies have tried to determine why the acquisition of a second language is more difficult than the acquisition of the first language. Research has focused on the influence of factors such as language aptitude, intelligence, age, motivation for studying the language, attitudes to the target people, social distance and personality traits. The present study will deal with the influence of motivation on the acquisition of a second language by foreign students at the University of Bergen, Norway, and with the relationship between motivational variables and cultural distance.

341

342 Language Learning Vol. 37, No. 3

Several previous studies have found a positive relationship between motivation and achievement in foreign languages. The basic work is the study by Gardner and Lambert (1972) wherein they described the two types of motivation most relevant for foreign-language learning; integrative and instrumental motivation. Those who were interested in studying the language in order to be able to identify with the target people, or because they were interested in the culture of the target people, were said to be integratively motivated. Those who wanted to study the language for the purpose of career advancement, were instrumentally motivated. An integrative motivation was found to favor acquisition. An instrumental motivation could be effective as well when there was an urgent need to learn the language: in a foreign language setting (the Philippine study, Gardner and Lambert 1972). Results of studies by Spolsky (1969) and Laine (1984) support this theory. Laine found a strong instrumental motivation for learning English as a foreign language in the secondary schools in Finland, but he also found that an integrative motivation was connected with high achievement. Spolsky found a significant correlation between proficiency in English and integrative motivation and he concluded, “A person learns a language better when he wants to be a member of the group speaking that language” (Spolsky 1969). Oller et al. (1977), on the other hand, found in their study of the acquisition of English as a second language by Mexican-Americans in New Mexico, that those students who were anti-integratively motivated towards the Anglo American majority and instrumentally motivated to learn English, scored highest on the proficiency tests.

Gardner and Symthe (1981) developed an Attitude Motivation Index, whereby they studied the influence of motivation and attitude on the acquisition of French as a second language by 29 samples of students from various grades of high schools across Canada. They found that motivation and attitude accounted for 14% of the variance in language proficiency, whereas language aptitude accounted for 17% of the variance.

As the cited studies show, motivation is considered an important factor in language acquisition; however, the results are not clear. Gardner and Lambert, Spolsky and Laine find that integrative motivation is positively related to achievement in language proficiency. Gardner also finds an instrumental motivation to be positively related to language learning in a foreign language setting. Oller finds an instrumental motivation to be the best predictor of language proficiency in a second-language set-

Svanes 343

ting, and also finds a negative correlation between integrative motivation and language proficiency. More research on the interrelationships of these factors seems to be needed.

It could be assumed that students from developing countries, who come to Norway to get an education, would be primarily instrumentally motivated. These students probably choose Norway because the Norwe- gian Government gives special grants and loans to students from developing countries. Students from other European countries and from the USA may choose Norway for other reasons: interest in the country, its nature and culture. Some of the American students have relatives in Norway. All in all, these students are likely to be primarily integratively motivated. The question then, is whether or not the acquisition of Nor- wegian is influenced by possible differences in motivation. Empirical support for the theory that ethnicity influences motivational orientation is provided by Clement and Kruidenier (1983). They found integrative orientation only among members of clearly dominant groups.

It is also reasonable to assume that the more one has in common with the target language group, the easier it will be to learn the language. According to hermeneutic principles, some ‘preunderstanding’ (Gadamer 1960) will facilitate communication. I f the TL belongs to the same type of language as the mother tongue, this will facilitate language learning. And if one is familiar with the culture of the host country, the easier it will be to communicate, and this again will promote language learning. Closeness in cultural background will also imply that one’s own culture is respected and that one is in a way a member of a cultural majority. Learning a second language will then be felt as ‘additive’ and not as ‘subtracting’ something valuable from one’s culture (cf. Lambert 1974). Closeness in culture would probably promote an integrative orientation towards the TL culture and people and thereby develop an integrative motivation to study the target language. When one belongs to the same cultural majority as the TL group, interest in the TL culture and people is not felt as a threat to one’s identity. Support for this way of thinking can be found in Schumann (1976, 1978) who proposes that ‘social distance’ (defined as cultural, technical, economic and political status) between the 2LL (second language learning) group and the TL group is an important factor in language learning. If there are great differences between the cultures of the TL group and the 2LL group, the 2LL group becomes more difficult and language learning will be impeded. The feeling of belonging to a cultural minority may perhaps also make the development


of an integrative motivation more difficult. A member of a cultural minority group may feel it necessary to cling to his/her own culture and limit interest in the TL culture or contact with the TL people because it may be viewed as a threat to the individual’s ethnic identity. This may also lead to strong in-group identification (Giles and Byrne 1982) by the 2LL group who may even feel reluctant to learn the language of the host country.

In the present paper the term ‘cultural distance’ will be used. ‘Cultural distance’ is not meant to refer to the distance between national culture and Norwegian culture. As the 167 respondents represent 27 countries, the present data do not allow this. The term ‘cultural distance’ will be used to refer to an interaction of the following factors:

(1)- knowledge of/familiarity with Western culture. Although there may be a great difference between national culture and Norwe- gian culture, the exposure to, or the familiarity with Western culture in the home country, through educational system, reading, mass media, may help to bridge this gap. The condition of being culturally versatile or bicultural may diminish a possible culture shock.

( 2 ) - mother tongue and/or proficiency in English or another Euro- pean language. Distance between mother tongue and target language is certainly an important factor in the acquisition of a second language. But if the students know another language more closely related to the target language than their mother tongue, it is difficult to separate the influence of mother tongue from the influence of this other language on second-language acquisition. Whether an African language is closer to Norwegian than Urdu or Vietnamese is difficult to say, but familiarity with another European language closer to Norwegian than hidher own would be of great help for an African, a Pakistani or a Vietnamese student.

The main aim of the present study then, is to find out (1) if there are differences in Norwegian language proficiency between groups of students from various countries, (2) if there are corresponding group differences in motivation, (3) if possible differences in language proficiency can be accounted for by motivational factors, and (4) if there is a relationship between possible group differences of proficiency and ‘cultural distance’.

Svanes 345

METHOD

SUBJECTS

The subjects are 167 foreign students at the University of Bergen, Norway. The students were enrolled in classes of ‘Norwegian for foreign students’, Level 2, during the years 1981 to 1983. The students came from 27 different countries (Table 1).

Most of the students know English or another European language. The exceptions are: one Polish student and five Asian students.

About 90% of the students had been in Norway less than 2 years. Apart from the refugees from Vietnam and Poland, most of the students will return to their home countries when they have finished their studies. Knowledge of Norwegian is essential to the success of their studies at the University of Bergen, but it will probably be of no use to them once they return home.

VARIABLES

On the basis of the assumptions above about ‘cultural distance’ it was decided to group the students in the following way: The European students all speak two or more European languages which are closely related. Their mother tongues are SVO-languages (subject-verb-object). (The Finnish students are bilingual, Finnish and Swedish.) They all belong to a common European cultural tradition. The American students have English as their mother tongue. Culturally, they have much in common with the Europeans, but American culture also has characteristics of its own. Thus, the European students are ranked first, then come the American students.

The 13 African students come from countries that have been heavily colonized. In all these countries English or French is the official language or a second language. Their school system is either English or French, thus these students are extensively exposed to Western culture through their education. Twenty-three students from the Middle East (Iran, Leb- anon, Palestine and Turkey) come from countries that probably have more contact with Western culture than the other Asian countries. This group will constitute a sort of in-between group. Linguistically, this group is on the border-line between VO-languages (verb precedes object) and OV-languages (object precedes verb). Thus, Arabic, Hebrew and Twi are VO-languages whereas Turkish, Persian and Telugu are OV-


Table 1 Distribution of Subjects

Europe Middle East Austria 1 Iran 3 England 3 Lebanon 1 Finland 2 Palertine 4

15 2 Turkey - France Germany 5 23 I t a l l 2 Africa Jugoslavia Poland Portugal Spain Switzerland 2

25 -

Cameroun I Ghana 5 Morocco 4 Tanzania 1 Tunisia 2

13 -

N o r t h America A m Canada 4 Bangladesh 12

31 llidia I 2 35 Paki\tan 15

Sri Lanka 24 8 Vietnam

71

- USA

-

languages. Although the in-between group differs considerably both in language and local culture from Norwegian language and culture, their exposure to or familiarity with Western language and culture has probably diminished this gap; however, the boundaries of the in-between group may be discussed. There is probably a gradual transition from one group to the other.

The fourth group are the other Asian students, from India, Bangla- desh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Vietnam. Their languages and cultures are very different from Norwegian language and culture. Apart from Viet- namese, their mother tongues are all OV-languages. Moreover, these students are probably less exposed to Western language and culture than the students of the in-between group. Although they know English, they have probably had less opportunity to practise it than the African students, since their national languages are used as official languages.

In this way the subjects are divided into four groups, largely based on familiarity with/exposure to Western culture and language. The group- ing ‘cultural distance’ is coded so that 1 = close and 4 = distance (Europe = 1, USA = 2, Middle East/Africa = 3, Asia = 4). The size of the groups is recorded in Table 1 and distribution of subjects according

Svanes 34 7

to sex in Table 2 . (Two of the American subjects failed to report on sex, hence the total of 165.)

The students’ motivation for studying Norwegian was assessed by pre- senting them with a questionnaire consisting of 20 statements that expressed different reasons for learning Norwegian and for coming to Norway. The students were asked to indicate on a five-point scale how important these reasons were to them. The low end of the scale was labeled ‘not at all important’ ( = 1) and the high end of the scale was labeled ‘very important’ ( = 5 ) . The 20 statements were adapted from 01Ier’s (1977) questionnaires. A few items were taken from Gardner and Lambert’s questionnaire (1972). The subjects were tested one to two weeks before the Level 2 examination. The language of testing was Nor- wegian. The questionnaires were presented to the students by their second-language teachers who first explained the unknown words of the questionnaire. The students filled it out during the lesson while the teachers were present.

As a measure of the students’ proficiency in Norwegian, the grades of the Level 2 examination were used. This examination includes

essay, reading comprehension, listening comprehension, cloze test, and oral proficiency.

Grades at university level in Norway range from 1 .O (best possible result) to 4.0. Thus good results are indicated by low numerical values.

DATA TREATMENT

For the analysis of the data, the SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) is used, especially frequencies, factor analysis, reliabil- ity, breakdown with analysis of variance, pearson correlation and new regression analysis.

RESULTS

Scores on the motivation variables for the students grouped according

Motives 1, 2 , 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17 and 19 represent integrative to continents, are recorded in Table 3 .


Table 2 Distribution of Subjects According to Sex

Men Women Total Europe 16 9 25 North America 15 18 33 Middle East, Africa 32 4 36

14 71 Asia 57 Total I23 47 165

- - -

NB: Two American5 habe no1 reported $ex.

motivation, whereas motives 3, 5, 6, 13, 16, 18 and 20 represent instrumental motivation. Motives 9 and 12 do not belong in either group.

Americans and Europeans showed similar values for some of the integrative and instrumental motivation variables. Exceptions were the motives Having a chance to live in another country, Finding out how students live and Meeting different kinds of people (7, 8 and 11) where the American students score significantly higher than the European students. On the instrumental motive To get a goodjob in Norway (16), the European students gave higher scores than the Americans. On the other instrumental motives the scores of the European and American students had similar values. The Asians and Middle Easterners/Africans showed similar values for the instrumental as well as the integrative motivation variables. In all, Europeans and Americans were more integratively motivated than Asians and Middle Easterners/Africans, while Asians and Middle Easterners/Africans were more instrumentally motivated than the Western students.

Significant differences between the means of the four groups were found in 18 of the 20 motivation variables.

The motive To begin to think and behave as Norwegians do scored lowest of all the integrative motives in all groups. Apparently the ‘identification’ motive was not found very important by the students and least important in the European group, although the difference in means between the groups was not significant. This is in agreement with the findings of Clement and Kruidenier (1983). Their data showed that four orientations were common to all groups: to achieve pragmatic goals, to travel, to seek new friendships and to acquire knowledge. No reference to eventual identification with members of the second-language group was found.

The American and European students scored significantly higher than

Svanes 349

Table 3

P- Values of Analysis of Variance Mean Scores on 20 Motivation Variables

North M-East Europe Amer. Africa Asia Prob- n=25 n = 3 5 n = 3 6 n=71 ability

Reasons f o r Coming lo Norway: * I . Seeing Norway, the Fcenery * 2. Getting to know Norwegians

* * 3. Getting a degree * 4. Finding out how people live * * 5. Studying in Norway * * 6 . Getting training in my field * 7. Having a chance to live in

* 8. Finding out how students live 9. Joining family member5

* 10. Having new experiences * 1 1 . Meeting different kinds of

another country

people 12. Fleeing from my country

Reasons f o r Studying Norwegian: * * 13. In order to be able to study at

* 14. Interest in Norwegian culture * 15. Interest in Norw. language * * 16. To get a good job in Norway * 17. To begin to think and behave

as Norwegians do * * 18. To get a good job in home

country * 19. To establish beiter relations

with Norwegians * * 20. To get an education in order

the university

to serve my country * Integrative motivation

** Inmumenta l motivation

3.28 3.08 2.71 3 .on 2.83 2.40 2.20

I .67 2.39 3.52 2.71

1 S O

3.16

3.44 3.28 2.32 1.75

I .96

3.71

1.75

3.54 3.63 2.32 3.46 2.94 2.26 3.94

2.45

4.06 3.57

1.06

I .n2

3.43

3.53 3.34 1.57 2.29

I .65

3.91

I .59

2.33

4.42 2.28 4.24 3.27 2.00

I .76 1.23 2.94 2.56

1 .97

2.68

4.33

2.77 2.53 1.71 2.09

3.16

3.25

3.77

2.46 0.0000 2.51 O . o o 0 0 4.24 0.0000 2.25 0.0000 4.06 0.0000 3.06 0.0137 2.03 0.0000

2.26 0.0056 1.38 0.0005 2.95 0.0000 2.74 0.0005

1.74 0.0051

4.35 0.0000

2.72 0.0014 2.70 0.0138 1.68 0.0392 2.32 0.2512

3.38 0.0000

3.40 0.0900

4.08 0.0000

the two other groups on the integrative motives; Seeing Norway, the scenery, Getting to know Norwegians, Finding out how people live, Having new experiences, Interest in Norwegian culture and Interest in Norwegian language, whereas the Asian and Middle EasterdAfrican students scored highest on the instrumental motives; Getting a degree, Studying in Norway, In order to be able to study at the university, To get a good j o b in home country and To get an education in order to serve my


country. The integrative motive To establish better relations with Norwe- gians got high scores in all groups. The highly significant difference in the means of the motive To get an education in order to serve my country is worth noticing. How one considers the importance of one’s education and its usefulness for one’s own country, is probably related to one’s cultural background.

In order to reduce the number of variables, a factor analysis was performed on the data of all four groups, using a principal components analysis with varimax rotation.

The analysis revealed an underlying pattern of relationships so that the data could be reduced to two factors, one that included integrative motives and another one that included instrumental motives. Thus the factor analysis supported the theory of two main groups of motivational variables, integrative and instrumental.

Then factor analyses for the data of each one of the groups were performed in order to ascertain the influence of group membership. For three of the groups the analyses showed a clear dichotomy of the variables in integrative and instrumental motivation, although the integrative or instrumental variables that got highest loadings differed somewhat from one group to the other. In the Middle EasternIAfrican group, however, the factors were not so clearly either integrative or instrumental; one factor contained four instrumental in addition to eight integrative items, and one contained one integrative together with five instrumental variables.

In order to be able to compare the groups, two new variables were computed consisting of items with loadings over 0.38 from the all-groups analysis. Included in the integrative motivation variable were all the integrative motives except one, 17, the identification motive To begin to fhink and behave as Norwegians do which did not have a loading high enough to be included in the computed variable. The Alpha coefficient of the integrative motivation variable was 0.937. All the instrumental motives except one, 16, To get a good job in Norway, were included in the computed instrumental motivation variable which led an Alpha coefficient of 0.856.

An analysis of variance of these two new motivation variables and of the grades variable was performed to investigate the significance of differences in means between the four groups. The results of these analyses are presented in Table 5.

The European and American students were significantly higher inte-

Svanes 35 I

Table 4 Factor Loadings f o r 20 Motivation Variables

Factors

Motivation Variables Reasons f o r Coming to Norway: * 1 . Seeing Norway, the scenery * 2. Getting to know Norwegians * * 3. Getting a degree * 4. Finding out horn people live ** 5. Studying in Norway ** 6. Getting training in my field * 7. Having a chance to live in

* 8. Finding out how students li\c 9. Joining family members

* 10. Having new experiences * 11. Meeting different kinds of

another country

people 12. Fleeing from my country

1

0.73 0.80

-0.06 0.81 0.07 0.12 0.70

0.58 0.03 0.67 0.70

-0.28

Reasons f o r Sludyrng Norwegian: ** 13.

* 14. * 15.

* * 16. * 17.

* * 18.

* 19.

** 20.

In order to be able to study at the university Interest in Norwegian culture Interest in Norw. language To get a good job in Norway To begin to think and behave as Norwegians d o To get a good j o b in home country To establish better relations with Norwegians To get an education in order

0.04

0.62 0.38

-0.07 0.28

-0.05

0.46

-0. I7

-0.140 -0.13 -0.070 -0.06 0.800 -0.21

-0.200 0.04 0.740 -0.27 0.470 -0.04

-0. I90 0.03

0.160 0.04 -0.260 0.26 0.020 -0. I4 0.090 -0.05

0.060 0.45

0.680

-0.050 0.004

-0.130 0. I50

0.570

0.010

0.790

0.16

0.33 0.26 0.67 0.38

0.09

0.44

0.17 to serve my country

* Integratibe moti\ation ** In\trurnental motivation

gratively motivated than the other students, while the students from Middle East/Africa and from Asia were significantly higher instrumentally motivated than the Western students. There were significant differences in means of proficiency in Norwegian; European and American students having the best grades, the students from Middle EastIAfrica third best and Asians, the poorest.

Table 5 shows that in the groups with the best grades integrative motivation is high and instrumental motivation low, and in the groups with

352 Vol. 37, No. 3 Language Learning

Table 5 Meun Scores with Standard Deviations on Grades, Integrative Motivation

and Instrumental Motivation P- Values of Analysis of Variance

Grades Integrative Motivation Instrumental Motivation

Standard Standard Standard Mean Deviation Number Mean Deviation Number Mean Deviation Number

Europe 2.18

North 2.28 America

hliddlt. 2.90 €ast / Africa

Asia 3.16

P-Val tie

Grades: Best Poorebi

0.74

0.64

0.64

0.81

p < .0001

= I = 4

25 3.01

34 3.35

36 2.50

71 2.61

0.64

0.69

0.80

0.74

p < .0001

25 2.47

35 2.39

33 3.88

66 3.87

0.86

0.80

0.7 1

0.90

p < .0001

%lotibation: M a u n i u m = 5 Minimum = 1

25

35

34

66

poor grades the pattern is reversed. This, in turn, seems to indicate an overall positive relationship between grades and integrative motivation and a negative relationship between grades and instrumental motivation. To check this, correlation coefficients between grades, integrative motivation, instrumental motivation and cultural distance were computed and are presented in Table 6.

The Table shows a weak but significant positive correlation between grades and integrative motivation (good grades = low numerical values). There is also a significant negative correlation between instrumental motivation and grades; the more instrumentally motivated, the poorer (higher) the grades. Highly significant correlations between cultural distance and grades and between cultural distance and both motivation variables were found.

In order to examine the relationship between grades and motivation within the groups, a correlation analysis was performed for each group. The results are presented in Table 7 . N o significant positive correlations between grades and the two motivational variables were found. The

Svanes 353

Table 6 Intercorrelations bet ween Grades, Integrative Motivation,

Instrumental Motivation and ‘Cultural Distance’

Integrative Instrumental Grades Motivation Motivation

Integrative -0. I6* Motivation Intrumental 0.21** -0.03 ‘Cultural 0.48** -0.33* * 0.58* * Distance’

*p < . 0 5 **p < .01 (Group membmhip: Europe= I . North America = 2, Middle Eas[/Africa= 3, Aria = 4 ) (Grades: best = 1, poorest = 4) (Mothation: may = 5 , min 7 I )

Table 7

the Four Groups of Studenis Correlations bet ween Grades, integrative Moiivation and insirumental Motivation in

Grades Integr. Motivation Europe ( N = 25)

N. America ( N = 35)

Mid. East, Africa ( N = 36)

Asia ( N = 7 1 )

Integrative Motivation

Instrumental Motivation



lntegrat ive Motivation



Instrumental

0.51**

-0.09

0.11 -0.08

0.46**

0.16

0.05

-0.17

0.01

-0.12 0.25**

0.43**

Motivation *p <.05 **p c.01 (Grades: best = I , poorest = 4) (Motivation: max = 5 , min = I )


Tuble 8 Cumulative Amount of Vuriance IR’) in Language Proficiency Expluined by Integrutive Motivation. Incti~irnenral Motivution and ‘Cultural Distance’, Entered Hierarchically in

Three Different Regression Models

R? F R2A FA

Predictor Variables in Three Different Models

I . Integrative Motivation 0.02 2.71 11. Integrative and 0.09 7.84**


Instrumental Motivation and ‘Cultural Distance’

111. Integrative and 0.23 14.79**

0 T

0.08

0.13

12.76**

26.11**

Predictor? ( I ) Integrative Motivation 0.019 0.25 (2) Instrumental Motivation 0.017 0.19 (3) ‘Cultural Distance’ 0.471 5 . 1 1 * *

**p< .O1

relationship between integrative motivation and grades was negative in the American group. The correlations between the two motivational variables were positive in three of the four groups (see Table 7).

The explanation of these seemingly contradictory results lies in the rather large differences in grades and motivation between the groups. That is, though there is a negative correlation between grades and integrative motivation in the Western group, and no correlation at all between the variables in the Asian group, the Western students, as a group, have considerably higher integrative, motivation scores and better grades than the Asian group. When the groups are pooled a positive correlation between grades and motivation emerges, though no such relationship exists within each group.

To examine the relationship between grades, cultural distance and the two motivational variables, a multiple regression technique was used. Grades was defined as the criterion variable, and integrative motivation, instrumental motivation and cultural distance were entered hierachically as predictors in the regression equation. The regression analysis is presented in Table 8.

The table shows that only about 2% of the variance in grades can be accounted for by integrative motivation. Adding instrumental motivation as a predictor in the regression equation led to an increase in

Svanes 355

Table 9

Scores with Standard Deviations

Middle East/

Sex Differences in Grades, Integrative Motivation and Instrutnenral Motivation. Mean

Europe N . America Africa Asia

Standard Standard Standard Standard Mean Deviation Mean Deviation Mean Deviation Mean Deviation F

lntegrative Motivation Men 3.11 0.65 3.38 0.68 2.54 0.78 2.61 0.70 6.66** Women 2.84 0.62 3.71 0.69 2.23 1.03 2.47 0.85 9.31**

F 0.971 2.05 0.512 0.409

Instrumental Motivation Men 2.45 0.90 2.29 0.81 3.82 0.70 4.03 0.64 36.68** Women 2.50 0.85 2.49 0.81 4.29 0.77 3.10 1.33 4.28*

F 0.022 0.533 1.55 13.24**

Grades Men 2.00 0.54 2.14 0.61 2.96 0.64 3.25 0.80 19.02** Women 2.49 0.96 2.39 0.68 2.43 0.38 2.83 0.85 0.91

F 2.71 1.22 2.58 3.01 * p < .05

**p< .O1 (Grades: best = 1, poorest = 4) (Morivation: m a x = 5 , m i n = I )

explained variance to about 9%. The addition of cultural distance accounts for about 23% of the variance in grades. From the Beta values it can be seen that in the full model ( III ) , only cultural distance is an independent predictor of grades. In other words, differences in grades between the different groups cannot be explained by motivational factors.

To investigate if there were any significant sex differences in grades or in motivation, an analysis of variance of scores for women and men was performed within each group, (see Table 9).

There is no significant sex difference in integrative motivation in any of the groups. Concerning instrumental motivation, men and women showed about the same values in the Western groups. In the Asian group the men showed somewhat higher instrumental motivation than the women. Sex differences in grades were only found in the European/ American group. On the other hand, differences in motivation according to cultural groups were approximately the same for women and men. Differences in grades, however, were only significant in the male group.


The ages of the students range from 19 to 45. Two-fifths of the students are over 26 years of age. In the European group and in the Asian group about half of the students are over 26. There is a significant correlation between age and proficiency (r = 0.28**), so that higher age is related to higher grades-poorer grades. Studies of the age factor in second-language acquisition (SLA) have mostly dealt with differences between child and adult second-language acquisition (Krashen 1979, Snow and Hoefnagel-Hoehle 1978). However, the Heidelberg Research Project (1975) of the acquisition of German by adult immigrants, shows that increasing age correlates with lesser command of the second language. Our result supports this finding.

DISCUSSION

The present study reports significant differences in motivation between different groups of students; students from the Western countries scored higher on the integrative motivation variable than the students from Middle EastIAfrica and Asia, whereas students from the last two groups scored highest on the instrumental motivation variable. Thus, type of motivation seems to be closely related to the background of the students. American and European students can afford to have luxury motives for coming to Norway to study; they want to have new experiences, meet new people, see how people live. In contrast, for students from “third world countries” the motivation to come to Norway is not for culture or new experiences, but to get an education.

This difference in motivation between the groups may also be said to be in agreement with hermeneutic principles; how can Asians be interested in a culture that they know very little about? Interest is dependent on some degree of ‘preunderstanding’ (“Vorverstandnis’ Gadamer 1960). The Europeans and the Americans have much in common with the Nor- wegians; they have ‘preunderstanding’-and are interested in knowing more about the special characteristics of the Norwegian way of life, Norwegian culture.

Difference in motivation from ethnic group to ethnic group corrobo- rates the findings of Clement and Kruidenier (1983). They also found that motivational orientation differed in the same group from one target language to another. It would therefore be very reasonable if students from India developed a more integrative type of motivation for studying

Svanes 35 7

another Indian language than for studying the language of the host country for their professional education.

The results indicating that students with the best grades also score highest on the integrative motivation variable and lowest on the instrumental motivation variable, may at first sight appear to be in agreement with Gardner’s findings. The correlations between grades and motives, however, were not strong. The rather strong correlation between grades and ‘cultural distance’ could under no circumstances be explained by the differences in motivation found to exist between the groups. Summing up these findings, it could be concluded that whereas ‘cultural distance’ seems to be decisive for language learning in the present study, motivational factors seem to be of much less importance as a predictor of language proficiency. The correlation analysis of grades and the motivational variables within each group support this finding. There is no positive correlation between integrative motivation and grades in any of the groups. On the contrary, there is a negative relationship between grades and integrative motivation in the American group, a result that seems to be in agreement with Oller et al.’s (1977) findings. All the motives included in the integrative motivation variable in the present study are perhaps not favorable for hard language study. Thus, integrative motivation, as assessed in the present study, cannot explain the variance in second-language proficiency either within the groups or between the groups.

The results of the present study do not support Gardner’s findings concerning the importance of the integrative motivation. The disagree- ment may be due to a difference in methods used to assess motivation; Gardner using a more comprehensive test battery than the present study. However, differences of groups being studied is another important rea- son for the discrepancy. Because Gardner’s subjects (Gardner and Lam- bert 1972, Gardner and Smythe 1981) were high school students, there was probably great variation in motivation. In the present study, on the other hand, there was great variation in the linguistic and cultural background of the students and little variation in integrative or instrumental motivation. All the students were motivated, integratively or instrumentally. This may point to the conclusion that although motivation is an important factor in the acquisition of a second language, type of motivation is of less importance in groups of adult university students, who are all well motivated. In this context ‘cultural distance’ has been found to be the best predictor of second-language proficiency.


The present study also reports significant differences in Norwegian language proficiency between groups of students from various regions; European and then American students had the best grades, students from the Middle East/Africa third best and the Asian students had the poorest grades. The data of the present study cannot explain why there is a difference in grades of students from different regions. But the results may be said to be in agreement with the assumptions made about ‘cultural distance’ and thus support the hypothesis that there is a relationship between ‘cultural distance’ and second-language learning. One may, therefore, interpret the results as an indication that the variance in proficiency may be due in part to difference in ‘cultural distance.’ Support for this interpretation can be found in Schumann’s theories (1976, 1978) about ‘social distance’. Also the theories of Giles and Byrne (1982), that strong ingroup identification and weak outgroup identification will inhibit second-language learning, may support the interpretation above. The great linguistic and cultural distance between the Asian and the Norwegian students may promote a strong ingroup identification among the Asians and weak identification with other students’ organizations. This, according to Giles and Byrne, will not promote language learning. The European and the American students, however, share the same cultural traditions as the target people. That they feel assured of their own language and culture and are psychologically free to identify with other social groups may stimulate language acquisition (Lambert 1974).

Concerning sex differences in grades and in motivation, some of the results of the present study are significant, even i f the distribution is not ideal; 123 men and 47 women. The most important finding is probably that sex differences in motivation is related to cultural background. The lack of sex differences in motivation in the Western groups may reveal something about the position of women and about sex roles in the West- ern countries. Women are just as career oriented as men, even a little bit more, though not significantly. The Asian women, however, are significantly less instrumentally motivated than the men, a fact that probably reflects the sex roles and the position of women in the Asian countries.

REFERENCES

Clement, R . and B . G . Kruidenier. 1983. Orientations in second language acquisition: 1. The effects of ethnicity, milieu, and target language on their emergence. Language Learning 33:273-291.

Svanes 359

Gadamer. H . G. 1960. Wahrheit und Methode (Truth and Method). Tubingen, Federal Republic of Gerniany: J . C. ti. Mohr.

Gardner R. C . 1979. Social psychological aspects of second language acquisition. In Lun- guage and Sociul Psychology, eds. H . Giles and R . St. Clair, Oxford, United Kingdom: Basil Blackwell.

Gardner, R . C. 1980. On the validiry of affectite variables in 5ecorid language acquisition: conceptual, conte\tual and \rat istical con5iderations. Lunguuge Learning 30:255-270.

Gardner, R . C . 1983. Learning another language: a true social psychological experiment. Journul qf Langiruge und Social Ps.vcho1og.v 2:219-239.

Gardner, R . C. and W. E. Lambert. 1972. Attitudes and Motivation in Semnd Lunguuge Leurnrng. Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House.

Gardner. R . C. and P. C. Smythe. 1981. On the development of the attitude/motivation test battery. Cunudiun Modern Lunguage Review 371510-525.

Gilcs, H. and I . 1. Byrne. 1982. An intergroup approach io wcond language acquisition. Mulri l inguul und Mirltrculrural Developnrent 3: 17-40.

Heidelberg Research Project. 1975. In Second Lunguuge Acqirivirion: The Siure ofthe Art , eds. H . Nicholas and J . 11. Meisel, Tubingen, Federal Republic of Germany: Language Development 5 ( 1983).

Krashen, S. 1979. Age, rate and eventual attainment in \econd language acquisition. TESOL Quurter1.v 13:573-582.

Laine, E. 1984. Variations in FL Learning Motivation: Some Theoretical Consideration\. Paper presented at AILA, Brussels, Belgium.

Latnbert. W. E . 1974. Culture and language and factor\ in learning and education. I n Culturul Factor5 in Learning und Education, eds. F. E. Aboud and R. D. Meade. Bellingharn, Washington: Fifth Western Washington Sympo5ium on Learning.

Oller, J . W., 1. Baca and F. Vigil. 1977. Attitudes and attained proficiency in ESL: a \ociolinguistic study of Mexican Americans in the southweit. TESOL Quurterlv 11:175-183.

Schumann, . I . H . 1976. Social distance a \ ii factor in yecond language acquisition. Lull- ,yiru,qe Learnin,? 26: 135- 143.

Schumann, J . H. 1978. The accultural model tor second language acquisition. In Second Lunguuge Acquisition und Foreign Lunguuge Teaching, ed. R . C. Gringas, Washington, D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Snow, C . E. and M. Hoefnagel-Hoehle. 1978. The critical period for language acquisition: evidence from zecond language learning. Child Development 49: I 1 14-1 129.

Spol\ky. B. 1969. Attitudinal a5pects of second language learning. Langiruge Learning 19:270-285.

SPSS: Slalistrcal Package f o r the Sociul Science5. 1975. Neu York, NeN York : McGra\r- Hill.

SPSS: Update 7-9. 1981. New York, Neu Yorh: McCiraw-Hill.

Documents

Motivation and Cultural Distance in Second-Language Acquisition