17

Click here to load reader

Ushioda-Motivation and SLA

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Ushioda-Motivation and SLA

Motivation and SLABridging�the�gap

Ema�Ushioda�University�of�Warwick

Motivation�has�been�a�major�research�topic�within�SLA�for�over�four�decades,�yet�has�endured�a�marginalized�position�within�the�field,�remaining�somewhat�isolated�from�its�more�mainstream�linguistic�traditions.�The�analysis�of�motiva-tion�and�its�role�in�SLA�has�largely�been�at�the�level�of�global�learning�outcomes,�and�research�has�had�little�to�say�about�how�motivational�factors�relate�to�the�in-terim�processes�of�linguistic�development.�Thus�while�motivation�is�recognized�as�a�prerequisite�for�successful�SLA,�the�relevance�of�motivation�research�to�understanding�the�finer�detail�of�how�SLA�happens�has�been�unclear.�This�paper�discusses�some�studies�that�have�attempted�to�integrate�the�analysis�of�motiva-tion�with�more�linguistic�approaches�in�SLA.�It�proposes�an�agenda�for�bridging�the�gap�between�motivation�and�mainstream�SLA�research,�and�suggests�how�motivation�research�may�contribute�to�the�development�of�major�lines�of�think-ing�within�the�field.

Introduction: The gap between L2 motivation research and mainstream SLA

The�starting-point�for�this�paper�is�the�argument�that�within�the�field�of�SLA�re-search,� the� study� of� motivation� has� flourished� for� over� forty� years� and� yet� re-mained�somewhat�isolated�from�the�more�mainstream�concerns�of�the�field.�This�is� a� curious� state� of� affairs� since� motivation� is� a� widely� recognized� variable� of�importance� in� SLA,� and� perhaps� one� of� the� key� factors� that� distinguishes� first�language�acquisition�from�second�language�acquisition�processes.�To�put�it�sim-ply,�motivation�is�not�really�an�issue�in�the�case�of�infants�acquiring�their�mother�tongue.�On�the�other�hand,�being�motivated�or�not�can�make�all�the�difference�to�how�willingly�and�successfully�people� learn�other� languages� later� in� life.�As�Pit�Corder�(1967:�164)�famously�wrote:�“given�motivation,�it�is�inevitable�that�a�hu-man�being�will�learn�a�second�language�if�he�is�exposed�to�the�language�data”.�Since�

EUROSLA Yearbook 10 (2010),�5–20. doi�10.1075/eurosla.10.03ushissn�1568–1491/e-issn�1569–9749�©�John�Benjamins�Publishing�Company

Page 2: Ushioda-Motivation and SLA

6� Ema�Ushioda

the�1970s,�the�history�of�motivation�research�in�SLA�has�been�a�rich�and�vibrant�one,�spearheaded�by�the�pioneering�work�of�Robert�Gardner�and�his�colleagues�in�Canada�(e.g.�Gardner�1985;�Gardner�and�Lalonde�1983;�Gardner�and�Lambert�1972),�who�drew�attention�to�the�significant�role�of�attitudinal-motivational�vari-ables�in�second�language�learning�and�established�motivation�as�a�major�research�topic�in�SLA.�Over�the�past�four�decades,�L2�motivation�research�has�developed�and�evolved�through�different�traditions�of�inquiry,�and�has�generated�and�con-tinues�to�generate�a�substantial�body�of�theoretical�and�empirical�literature�(for�a�recent�overview,�see�Dörnyei�and�Ushioda�2010).

However,�within� the�field�of�SLA� itself,�motivation� research�has�endured�a�rather�odd,�marginalized�position,�remaining�somewhat�isolated�from�the�more�mainstream�cognitive�linguistic�traditions�that�prevail.�Thus,�while�textbooks�and�handbooks�on�SLA�consistently�include�reference�to�motivation�as�an�important�language�learner�variable,�treatment�of�the�topic�tends�to�be�self-contained�in�a�relatively�small�section.�For�example,�as�Dörnyei�(2003:�21)�points�out,�Ellis�(1994)�devotes�fewer�than�ten�pages�(out�of�nearly�700)�to�discussing�motivation�in�his�book-length�survey�of�SLA�research,�even�though�he�acknowledges�that�it�is�“a�key�factor�in�L2�learning”�(p.�508).�Similarly,�in�Doughty�and�Long’s�(2005)�Handbook of Second Language Acquisition�spanning�some�900�pages,�discussion�of�motiva-tion� is� confined� to�around� ten�pages� in�a� chapter�on� individual�differences.� In�the�more�recent�second�edition�of�Ellis’s�book-length�survey�of�SLA�published�in�2008�(now�spanning�over�1000�pages),�motivation�still�does�not�merit�a�chapter�in�itself�but�is�largely�confined�to�a�15-page�section�within�an�80-page�chapter�on�individual�learner�differences.�Moreover,�in�contextualizing�his�survey�of�motiva-tion�research,�Ellis�explicitly�makes�the�critical�observation�that�“the�study�of�L2�motivation�research�continues�to�lie�outside�mainstream�SLA”�(p.�690).�

In� short,� while� all� of� us� might� acknowledge� the� truth� of� Corder’s� famous�pronouncement�about� the� importance�of�motivation� in�SLA,� it� seems� that� this�importance�does�not� translate� into�making�the�analysis�of�motivation�a�central�dimension�of�SLA�research.�The�analysis�of�motivation�seems�to�be�a�concern�only�for� those�who,� like�myself,� are� specifically� interested� in� issues�of�motivation� in�SLA,�while�the�degree�of�interaction�between�L2�motivation�research�and�the�rest�of�the�SLA�field�seems�on�the�whole�rather�minimal.�We�motivation�researchers�do�not�seem�to�have�much�to�offer�to�mainstream�SLA,�and�issues�of�motivation�feature�only�rather� tangentially� in� the� linguistic�and�psycholinguistic� traditions�that�dominate�the�SLA�field.�In�effect,�there�is�something�of�a�gap�between�motiva-tion�research�and�mainstream�SLA,�and�it�is�the�purpose�of�this�paper�to�explore�(a)�why�such�a�gap�exists,�and�(b)�what�can�be�done�to�bridge�the�gap�–�that�is,�what�kinds�of�research�inquiry�might�be�pursued�in�the�area�of�motivation�which�would�usefully�contribute�to�the�development�of�major�lines�of�thinking�in�SLA.

Page 3: Ushioda-Motivation and SLA

� Motivation�and�SLA:�Bridging�the�gap� �

I� will� begin� by� considering� the� history� of� motivation� research� in� SLA� and�discuss�how� it�has�been�characterized�by�a� lack�of� interaction�with� the�central�preoccupations�of�the�SLA�field.

Why is there a gap? History of motivation research in SLA

The social�psychological�tradition

I�referred�earlier�to�the�pioneering�work�of�Gardner,�Lambert�and�their�Canadian�colleagues�in�the�1970s�and�1980s,�which�effectively�established�motivation�as�a�major�research�area�in�SLA.�Their�work�was�pioneering�in�that�it�highlighted�the�role�of�affective�factors�–�attitudes�and�motivation�–�as�significant�causes�of�vari-ability�in�second�language�learning�success,�which�are�independent�of�cognitive�factors�such�as�intelligence�or�language�aptitude.�Furthermore,�they�focused�atten-tion�on�the�inherent�social�psychological�dimension�of�motivation�in�SLA,�which�distinguishes�it�from�motivation�in�other�domains�of�learning�since,�as�Gardner�and� Lambert� (1972:� 135)� put� it,� language� learners�must� be� “willing� to� identify�with�members�of�another�ethnolinguistic�group�and�to�take�on�very�subtle�aspects�of�their�behavior,�including�their�distinctive�style�of�speech�and�their�language”.�From�this�social�psychological�process�of�identification�was�born�the�well-known�concept�of�integrative motivation.�

In�relation�to�my�argument�about�the�gap�between�motivation�research�and�mainstream�SLA,�it� is�worth�making�two�key�points�about�the�work�of�Gardner�and�his�colleagues.�Firstly,� it� initiated�and�fostered�an�empirical� focus�on�causal�relationships�between�motivation�and�successful�L2�learning.�It�is�worth�remind-ing�ourselves�of�the�original�research�question�that�launched�Gardner�and�Lambert�on�their�empirical�quest:�“How�is�it�that�some�people�can�learn�a�second�or�foreign�language�so�easily�and�do�so�well�while�others,�given�what�seem�to�be�the�same�op-portunities�to�learn,�find�it�almost�impossible?”�(1972:�130).�This�focus�on�success in L2 learning�as�the�dependent�variable�has�meant�that�the�analysis�of�motivation�and�its�role�in�SLA�has�largely�been�at�the�level�of�global�learning�outcomes�or�mea-sures�of�proficiency.�Of�course,�over�the�years�the�research�tradition�established�by�Gardner�has�been�characterized�by�increasingly�sophisticated�statistical�techniques�to�examine�and�verify�the�causal�relations�between�attitudinal-motivational�vari-ables�and�language�learning�outcomes�(e.g.�Gardner�1985;�Masgoret�and�Gardner�2003).�Nevertheless,�the�fact�remains�that�the�empirical�focus�is�on�rather�broad�learning�outcomes�such�as�general�proficiency�measures�or�course�grades,�or�on�behavioural�outcomes�such�as�persistence�in�learning�(e.g.�Ramage�1990),�and�not�on�interim�processes�of�linguistic�development.�This�is�the�first�point�to�be�made.

Page 4: Ushioda-Motivation and SLA

8� Ema�Ushioda

However,� the�second�point� to�be�made�about� the�work�of�Gardner�and�his�colleagues�is�that�it�influenced�the�development�of�associated�social�psychological�theories�of�second�language�acquisition�and�communication�in�situations�of�inter-group�contact�in�multilingual�settings.�Such�social�psychological�theories�include,�for� example,� the� early� work� of� Schumann� (1978)� on� acculturation� theory� and�linguistic� fossilization,� the�work�of�Meisel� (1977)�on�elaborative�versus� restric-tive� linguistic�simplification�in�the�speech�of� immigrant�workers,�and�the�work�of�Giles�and�Byrne�(1982)�on�intergroup�relations�and�linguistic�accommodation.�While�the�construct�of�motivation�is�not�the�primary�focus�in�these�associated�so-cial�psychological�perspectives�on�SLA,�this�important�body�of�work�does�clearly�point�to�a�more�fine-grained�analysis�of�how�attitudinal-motivational�factors�asso-ciated�with�ethnolinguistic�identity�and�social�identification�may�shape�processes�of� linguistic� development� or� non-development,� and� help� explain� the� extent� to�which�particular�target-like�features�of�the�majority�language�are�acquired�or�not.�However,�this�more�linguistically-focused�angle�of�inquiry�has�not�been�a�central�preoccupation� of� motivation� researchers� in� SLA,� for� whom� the� rather� broader�focus�on�global�learning,�achievement�and�behavioural�outcomes�has�tended�to�prevail.�I�will�come�back�to�this�point�about�issues�of�motivation,�identity�and�lin-guistic�development�later�when�I�discuss�ways�forward�to�bridge�the�gap�between�motivation�research�and�mainstream�SLA.

From social�psychological�to�cognitive/educational�perspectives

By�the�early�1990s,�there�was�a�sense�that�the�social�psychological�analysis�of�L2�motivation�had� somehow�run� its� course�and� that�alternative�perspectives�were�needed,�particularly�focusing�more�on�pedagogical�issues�of�how�to�motivate�stu-dents�and�how�to�optimize�and�sustain�their�motivation�(e.g.�Crookes�and�Schmidt�1991).�Thus�came�about�a�gradual�transition�towards�more�situated�classroom-fo-cused�analyses�of�L2�motivation,�drawing�on�cognitive�theories�of�motivation�in�educational�psychology�to�complement�the�social�psychological�analyses.�In�terms�of�links�with�mainstream�SLA,�this�transition�did�bring�with�it�the�potential�for�a�more�fine-grained�examination�of�motivation�in�relation�to�processes�of�learning�and�linguistic�development�–�that�is,�what�Dörnyei�(2002:�138)�refers�to�as�a�micro�perspective�on�motivational�behaviours�during�the�SLA�process,�in�contrast�to�the�broad�macro�perspective�on�global�patterns�of�motivation�and�successful�SLA�in�the�social�psychological�research�paradigm.

However,� the� dominant� lines� of� inquiry� in� this� more� classroom-focused�and�process-oriented�analysis�of�motivation�have�tended�to�revolve�around�the��following:

Page 5: Ushioda-Motivation and SLA

� Motivation�and�SLA:�Bridging�the�gap� 9

–� types�of�motivation�(e.g.�intrinsic�or�extrinsic)�and�their�effects�on�learning�behaviour�(e.g.�Noels,�Pelletier,�Clément�and�Vallerand�2000;�Ushioda�1996);

–� factors�that�influence�motivation�(e.g.�Williams�and�Burden�1997);–� how�motivation�can�be�sustained�and�regulated�through�teacher�strategies�

or� self-regulatory� strategies� (e.g.� Dörnyei� and� Csizér� 1998;� Dörnyei� and�Ottó�1998).

In�other�words,�where�SLA�processes�are�concerned,�the�attention�of�motivation�researchers� has� remained� largely� limited� to� the� fairly� vague� notion� of� engage-ment�–� that� is,� how� motivation� shapes� affective� engagement� or� involvement� in�learning.�However,�there�has�been�rather�little�analysis�of�what�such�motivated�or�affective�engagement�in�learning�might�entail,�how�it�might�be�theorized,�or�how�it�influences�cognitive�processes�of�learning�and�linguistic�development.

Of� course,� I� am� simplifying� and� generalizing� here.� For� example,� there� has�been�some�interesting�research�in�the�area�of�intrinsic�versus�extrinsic�motivation�and�deep�versus�surface�approaches�to�learning�in�general�education�(e.g.�Marton�and�Säljö�1976;�Prosser�and�Trigwell�1998),�which�has�been�applied�to�the�analy-sis� of� motivation� and� reading� processes� in� SLA� (e.g.� Fransson� 1984).� This� line�of�research�sheds�light�on�what�types�of�motivation�may�promote�optimum�ap-proaches�to�learning�that�entail�critical�analysis�of�ideas,�making�connections�with�existing�knowledge�and�achieving�deeper�understanding�and�long-term�retention�of�information,�as�opposed�to�superficial�memorization�approaches�to�learning.�However,�perhaps�because�this�line�of�analysis�focuses�on�how�students�deal�with�information�content�rather�than�on�how�they�develop�procedural�skills,�it�has�not�been�a�major�area�of�inquiry�within�motivation�research�in�SLA.

Another�area�of�inquiry�that�has�more�potential�is�the�analysis�of�the�relation-ship�between�motivation�and�cognitive�processing�in�SLA,�in�terms�of�what�might�be�called�motivational processing�during�engagement�in�learning.�This�perspective�derived�from�Dörnyei�and�Ottó’s�(1998)�process�model�of�L2�motivation,�which�elaborated� the�successive�stages�of�motivation�before,�during�and�after�engage-ment�in�a�learning�process.�These�temporal�stages�are�defined�as�the�pre-actional,�actional�and�post-actional�stages�of�motivation,�with�each�stage�shaped�by�spe-cific� cognitive� processes� such� as� goal-setting,� decision-making,� action� control,�monitoring,� causal� attributions,� and�evaluation.�As�Dörnyei� (2005:�86)�himself�acknowledges,�however,� the�model� is�difficult� to� test�empirically,� since� it� is�not�easy� to� define� and� delimit� what� a� learning� process� is� –� e.g.� a� whole� course� of�study,� a� course�unit,� a� single� lesson,� a� task,� a� succession�of� tasks.�One� scholar,��Manolopoulou-Sergi�(2004),�has�attempted�to�elaborate�the�process�model�even�further�by�delineating�the�possible�function�of�motivation�in�relation�to�the�chain�of�psycholinguistic�mechanisms�in�the�input,�central�processing�and�output�stages�

Page 6: Ushioda-Motivation and SLA

10� Ema�Ushioda

of�information�processing�in�SLA.�However,�this�information-processing�model�of�motivation,�like�Dörnyei�and�Ottó’s�process�model�of�motivation,�remains�es-sentially�a�descriptive�model�only,�at�the�level�of�theoretical�speculation,�and�dif-ficult�to�evaluate�empirically.�

One�approach�to�the�empirical�problem�has�been�to�take�task engagement�as�the�unit�of�analysis�and�focus�on�motivational�task�processing.�This�line�of�research�has�been�led�by�Dörnyei�(e.g.�Dörnyei�2002;�Dörnyei�and�Kormos�2000;�Dörnyei�and�Tseng�2009;�Kormos�and�Dörnyei�2004),�and�has�focused�on�oral�interaction�tasks.�Although�the�studies�have�not�shown�clear�relationships�between�motiva-tional�variables�and�quality�of�language�performance�in�the�tasks�(as�reflected�in�linguistic�accuracy,�complexity,�lexical�richness�or�discursive�content),�they�have�pointed� to� strong� relationships� between� motivational� variables� and� quantitative�measures�of�task�engagement�(as�reflected�in�number�of�words�and�turns�produced,�or�number�of�arguments�and�counter-arguments�produced�in�discussion�tasks).�In�fact,�Dörnyei�(2002)�reports�in�one�small-scale�study�that�motivational�variables�account�for�76�percent�of�the�variance�in�number�of�words�and�81�percent�of�the�variance�in�number�of�turns.�As�he�notes,�these�are�much�higher�than�the�correla-tions�usually�obtained�between�motivation�and�global�achievement�measures,�and�suggest�that�the�analysis�of�motivation�in�relation�to�specific�behavioural�learning�measures�in�task�engagement�and�performance�may�be�a�more�illuminating�line�of�inquiry.�I�will�come�back�to�this�issue�of�analysing�relationships�between�motiva-tion�and�specific�learning�processes�and�behaviours�later.

From cognitive�to�sociocultural�perspectives

Of�course,�motivation�has�traditionally�been�classified�as�an�affective�variable�in�SLA,�and�it�might�be�assumed�that�one�reason�why�motivation�research�has�re-mained�somewhat�outside�the�central�concerns�of�SLA�is�because�of�SLA’s�pre-dominant�focus�on�language�learning�as�a�cognitive�psycholinguistic�process.�In�his�book�on�a�cognitive�approach�to�language�learning,�Skehan�(1998:�192)�briefly�acknowledges�the�possible�relevance�of�motivation,�but�the�analysis�of�motivation�and�affective�factors�is�not�included�in�this�cognitive�approach.

However,�the�affect–cognition�divide�is�somewhat�misleading�in�this�regard,�given�that�the�theories�and�constructs�shaping�mainstream�motivation�research�as�well�as�motivation�research�in�SLA�belong�very�much�in�the�cognitive�paradigm�of�psychology.�Since�the�cognitive�revolution�in�the�second�half�of�the�20th�cen-tury,�motivation�research�has�focused�predominantly�on�cognitive�motivational�processes� such� as� goal-setting,� efficacy� beliefs,� attributions,� decision-making,�expectancies,� self-perceptions,� self-determination;� and� motivational� theorizing�

Page 7: Ushioda-Motivation and SLA

� Motivation�and�SLA:�Bridging�the�gap� 11

generally�takes�the�form�of�computational�models�of�mental�processes�and�learn-ing�behaviours�and�outcomes.�In�short,�there�is�no�ontological�division�between�motivation�research�on�the�one�hand,�and�the�cognitive�orientation�that�prevails�in�mainstream�SLA�on�the�other,�and�the�view�put�forward�by�Doughty�and�Long�(2005)�that�SLA�be�seen�as�a�branch�of�cognitive�science�would�not�go�against�the�grain�of�most�motivation�research�in�SLA.

Of�course,� recent�years�have� seen�a�major�debate� in�SLA�about�competing�ontological�paradigms,�or�what�Zuengler�and�Miller�(2006)�call�“the�two�paral-lel�SLA�worlds”�of�cognitive�and�sociocultural�perspectives,�or�the�positivist�and�relativist�paradigms.�To�cut�a�long�story�short,�there�is�now�a�considerable�body�of�opinion�in�the�SLA�field�which�suggests�that�we�should�view�language�learning�as�a�sociocultural�and�sociohistorically�situated�process,�rather�than�as�primarily�a�cognitive�psycholinguistic�process�(see,�for�example,�Lafford�2007).�A�key�argu-ment�here�is�that�the�traditional�SLA�focus�on�decontextualized�interior�processes�of�language�learning�as�distinct�from�social�processes�of�language�use�limits�our�understanding�of�how�cognitive�structures�develop�and�evolve�through�engage-ment�in�social�activity.�Thus�Kramsch�(2002),�for�example,�asks�how�can�we�sepa-rate�the�dancer�from�the�dance,�or�acquisition�from�use,�the�cognitive�from�the�social,�the�individual�from�the�environment?

In� short,� within� the� field� of� SLA� in� recent� years,� we� have� witnessed� what�Block�(2003)�has�called�a�“social�turn”�in�second�language�acquisition,�whereby�the�traditional�cognitive�paradigm�of�SLA�research�has�begun�to�be� influenced�by� or� some� may� say� challenged� by� a� variety� of� more� interactionist� and� socio-contextually� grounded� paradigms� of� inquiry.� These� alternative� paradigms� in-clude,�for�example,�Vygotskian�sociocultural�theory�(Lantolf�and�Thorne,�2006),�language� socialization� (Watson-Gegeo� 2004),� ecological� perspectives� (van� Lier�2004),� sociocognitive� theory� (Atkinson� 2002),� poststructuralist� perspectives�(Pavlenko�2002),�and�most�recently�dynamic�systems�and�complexity�theory�ap-proaches�(Larsen-Freeman�and�Cameron�2008a).

Remarkably�perhaps,�despite�its�origins�in�social�psychology,�it�is�only�very�re-cently�too�that�motivation�research�in�SLA�is�beginning�to�embrace�this�social�turn,�reflecting�the�influence�of�these�wider�ontological�debates�in�the�SLA�field,�as�well�as�a�general�Zeitgeist�in�mainstream�motivational�psychology�where�sociocultural�and�situated�perspectives�integrating�motivation�and�context�have�begun�to�break�ground�(e.g.�Volet�and�Järvelä�2001;�McInerney�and�Van�Etten�2004).�As�recently�argued�(Ushioda�2009),�the�bulk�of�motivation�research�in�SLA�to�date�has�tended�to�focus�on�motivation�as�an�individual�psychological�phenomenon,�located�in�the�inner�workings�of�the�mind,�and�has�tended�to�sustain�the�basic�Cartesian�dual-ism�between�the�inner�mental�world�of�the�individual,�and�the�surrounding�social�environment.�Each�learner�interprets�and�reacts�to�her�environment,�but�remains�

Page 8: Ushioda-Motivation and SLA

12� Ema�Ushioda

�essentially�distinct� from�it�–�as�Harré�and�Gillett� (1994:�22)�put� it,�hermetically�sealed� in� her� own� individual� and� self-contained� subjectivity.� However,� current�thinking�in�motivation�research�in�SLA�is�tuning�in�to�the�wider�debates�about�the�organic�relations�between�individual�and�context,�about�emergentism�in�SLA�(Ellis�and�Larsen-Freeman�2006),�and�about�dynamic�complex�systems�and�non-linear�relations�(e.g.�Dörnyei�2009a,�2009b;�Ushioda�2009).

In�short,�in�terms�of�my�arguments�in�this�paper,�the�conditions�seem�right�and�the�time�seems�ripe�for�a�much�closer�synergy�between�motivation�research�and�mainstream�SLA,�given�this�shared�pull�towards�dynamic�and�socio-contex-tually�grounded�analyses�of�the�processes�shaping�SLA.�Some�will�argue�of�course�that� the� sociocultural� paradigm� is� not� (yet?)� mainstream� SLA,� and� clearly� the�debates�are�ongoing.�Nevertheless,�the�position�taken�here�is�that�new�directions�in�motivation�research�may�contribute�to�pushing�forward�and�developing�major�lines�of�inquiry�in�SLA�that�cut�across�the�sociocultural�and�cognitive�paradigms.�The�second�part�of�this�paper�sketches�some�possible�ways�forward�in�this�regard,�by�drawing�on�some�recent�studies�which�may�illustrate�how�this�closer�synergy�between�motivation�and�mainstream�SLA�research�can�happen.

Bridging the gap: Towards a research agenda

In�sketching� this� research�agenda,� I�will�begin�with�some�perspectives� that� fall�squarely�within�the�cognitive�paradigm,�and�consider�issues�of�motivation�in�rela-tion�to�specific�cognitive�and�metacognitive�processes�in�SLA.�I�will�then�discuss�the�shift�towards�more�sociocultural,�relational�and�contextually�grounded�per-spectives�on�motivation�and�SLA.

Motivation and�cognitive�processes

Earlier,�it�was�noted�that�motivation�research�in�SLA�has�tended�to�adopt�a�rather�general�perspective�on�language�learning�processes�and�outcomes�–�typically�in�terms� of� global� achievement� outcomes� or� rather� vague� notions� of� engagement�or�involvement�in�learning.�However,�the�few�studies�that�have�adopted�a�more�sharply� focused� lens�on�specific�SLA�processes�suggest� that� this� is�a�promising�angle�of�inquiry.�I�have�already�mentioned�the�work�of�Dörnyei�and�his�colleagues�in�relation�to�motivational�task�processing�in�this�regard.�By�way�of�further�illus-tration,�I�will�here�refer�to�two�studies�that�focus�on�features�of�L2 phonological development and�L2 pragmatic development�respectively.

Page 9: Ushioda-Motivation and SLA

� Motivation�and�SLA:�Bridging�the�gap� 13

The�set�of�studies�reported�by�Segalowitz,�Gatbonton�and�Trofimovich�(2009)�continues�the�social�psychological�tradition�of�research�that�has�investigated�rela-tionships�between�ethnic�group�identity�and�second�language�development�in�sit-uations�of�intergroup�contact�in�multilingual�settings.�As�they�explain,�a�common�finding�in�this�research�is�that�people’s�relative�degrees�of�identification�with�their�primary�ethnolinguistic�group�versus�their�target�language�group�will�influence�the�levels�of�target�language�proficiency�they�achieve.�Typically,�those�who�have�strong�beliefs�in�the�role�of�language�in�maintaining�the�identity�of�their�primary�group�will�develop�lower�levels�of�proficiency�in�their�L2.�One�possible�explana-tion�for�this�phenomenon�is�that�L2�speakers�with�a�strong�sense�of�affiliation�to�their�primary�ethnolinguistic�group�may�deliberately�“hold�back”�some�aspects�of�their�L2�use,�in�order�to�avoid�sounding�too�much�like�members�of�a�different�ethnolinguistic�group.�In�other�words,�some�people�may�feel�motivated�to�retain�non-standard�speech�patterns�as�a�marker�of�their�own�ethnolinguistic�identity,�rather�than�accommodate�to�the�target�language�norm.�

However,�as�Segalowitz�et�al.�(2009)�observe,�it�is�unlikely�that�deliberate�non-accommodation�or�speech�distancing�is�the�only�explanation�for�a�link�between�ethnolinguistic�affiliation�and�language�proficiency.�It�is�unlikely�because�some�L2�speech�patterns�differ�from�native-like�speech�in�ways�that�are�far�too�subtle�to�re-flect�conscious�deliberate�attempts�to�sound�non-native-like.�A�case�in�point�they�analyze�in�their�series�of�studies�is�the�voiced�interdental�fricative�/ð/�in�English,�as�acquired�by�French�Canadian�speakers,�and�typically�realized�in�non-standard�form�as�the�voiced�alveolar�/d/,�depending�on�phonetic�environment.�

Based�on�detailed�analyses�of� their�data,� the� researchers� speculate� that� the�link�between�ethnolinguistic�affiliation�and�L2�proficiency�may�be�mediated�by�a�combination�of�motivational�and�psycholinguistic�variables.�Specifically,� they�suggest� that� aspects� of� ethnolinguistic� affiliation� are� psychologically� realized�in�a�person’s�motivational� self-concepts�–� that� is,� the�degree� to�which� they� see�themselves�as�wanting�to�embrace�an�inclusive�double�identity�as�speaker�of�both�French�and�English�and�member�of�the�larger�Canadian�population;�or�the�degree�to�which�they�hold�a�more�exclusive�sense�of�identity�as�French�Canadian.�These�motivational�self-perceptions�will�in�turn�affect�the�amount�and�quality�of�L2�use�and�exposure�they�will�choose�to�engage�in.�For�example,�they�may�choose�to�limit�contact�with�target�language�speakers.�The�amount�and�quality�of�these�L2�experi-ences�will�in�turn�impact�on�the�fine-tuning�of�the�person’s�cognitive-perceptual�processing�mechanisms�in�relation�to,�for�example,�important�phonetic�distinc-tions�in�the�target�language.�These�psycholinguistic�variables�and�constraints�will�in�turn�impact�on�ultimate�skill�attainment.

Page 10: Ushioda-Motivation and SLA

14� Ema�Ushioda

In�short,�Segalowitz�et�al.’s�research�provides�a�good�illustration�of�how�the�analysis�of�motivational�variables�in�relation�to�specific psycholinguistic processes�and�aspects�of�SLA�may�prove�particularly�illuminating.

Another�series�of�studies�by�Takahashi�(2001,�2005)�also�illustrates�the�value�of� exploring� links�between�motivation�and�particular�aspects�of� cognitive�pro-cessing� in� SLA� –� specifically� the� cognitive� processes� of� noticing� and� attention.�The�connection�between�motivation�and�attention�in�SLA�was�first�highlighted�by�Crookes�and�Schmidt�(1991).�Subsequently�Schmidt�(1993)�put�forward�the�speculation� that� language� learners� who� are� integratively� motivated� –� i.e.� moti-vated�by�a�strong�interest�in�the�target�language�culture�and�a�desire�to�integrate�into�the�target�language�community�–�are�likely�to�pay�particularly�close�attention�to�the�pragmatic�aspects�of�L2�input,�since�pragmatic�awareness�and�competence�would�seem�an�important�dimension�of�successful�acculturation.

In�her�research,�Takahashi�has�systematically�investigated�how�motivation�af-fects�language�learners’�attention�and�awareness�when�processing�particular�prag-malinguistic� features.�Specifically,� the�target� features� in�her�research�comprised�request� strategies� in� English.� These� included� complex� bi-clausal� request� forms�(e.g.�I was wondering if you could VP…; Is it possible to VP …? If you could VP …),�classified�as�request�head�acts;�as�well�as�structurally�simpler�interactional�features�for�effective�floor�management�(e.g.�you know, well, maybe),�idiomatic�expressions�(e.g.�How ya doing?)�and�non-idiomatic�expressions�(e.g.�I don’t want to bother you).�Participants� (who�were� Japanese�college�students)�were�asked� to� listen� to�and�study�role-play�transcripts�of�native�speakers�and�non-native�speakers�mak-ing�requests,�and�then�write�down�and�comment�on�native-speaker�expressions�that�differed� from�non-native� speaker�expressions.�Data�were�also�gathered�on�participants’�motivation�and�English�proficiency.�

The�results�showed�that�the�complex�bi-clausal�request�forms�were�much�less�likely�to�be�noticed�than�the�other�pragmalinguistic�features,�and�that�more�atten-tion�was�paid�to�interactional�features�(such�as�you know, well, maybe).�Takahashi�speculates�that�participants�may�believe�that�they�have�already�mastered�L2�re-quest�realization�with�mono-clausal�request�forms,�and�so�fail�to�notice�the�more�complex�bi-clausal�forms.�However,�a�subset�of�participants�who�were�classified�as�strongly�intrinsically�motivated�to�learn�English�were�found�to�be�more�attentive�to�bi-clausal�request�forms,�as�well�as�idiomatic�expressions.�Takahashi�suggests�that�intrinsically�motivated�learners�are�greatly�interested�in�learning�the�language�and�enjoy�activities�that�enable�them�to�develop�their�communication�skills.�They�may�perceive�pragmalinguistic�forms�as�ones�that�will�help�them�to�achieve�their�English�communication�goals�successfully,�and�so�pay�greater�attention�to�these�features.�Interestingly,�no�significant�relationships�were�found�between�proficien-cy�and�pragmalinguistic�awareness,�suggesting�that� it� is�motivation�rather�than�proficiency�which�directs�learners�attention�to�pragmatic�input.

Page 11: Ushioda-Motivation and SLA

� Motivation�and�SLA:�Bridging�the�gap� 15

Takahashi’s�research�is�illuminating,�and�paves�the�way�for�further�research�on� motivation� and� L2� pragmatic� development,� as� well� the� analysis� of� whether�motivation�may�promote�selective�attention�to�different�aspects�of�L2�input.

Motivation and�metacognition

Another�area�where�the�analysis�of�motivation�also�seems�relevant�is�in�relation�to�metacognition.�There�have�been�quite�a�few�studies�that�have�investigated�rela-tionships�between�motivation�and�use�of�metacognitive�strategies�–�e.g.�MacIntyre�and�Noels�1996;�Schmidt�and�Watanabe�2001;�Vandergrift�2005.�Generally�speak-ing,�however,�this�research�has�tended�to�rely�on�self-report�data�to�assess�strategy�use�or�metacognitive�awareness,�and�has�tended�to�adopt�a�quantitative�perspec-tive�on�amount,�range�or�frequency�of�strategy�use�in�relation�to�motivation.�It�is�argued�here�that�this�kind�of�research�inquiry�offers�a�rather�limited�analysis�of�how�motivation�may�interact�with�metacognition�in�SLA,�since�it�can�shed�little�light�on�how�motivation�shapes�the�development�of�metacognitive�skills.�From�a�theoretical�point�of�view,�motivation�and�metacognition�are�highly�interrelated,�since� the�exercise�of�metacognition�can�occur�only�when� the�ability� to�control�strategic�thinking�processes�is�accompanied�by�the�motivation�or�will� to�do�so.�In�the�literature�on�metacognition�and�self-regulated�learning,�the�relevant�catch-phrase�here�is�what�McCombs�and�Marzano�(1990)�call�“will�and�skill”.�

As� SLA� researchers,� if� our� interest� is� in� how� metacognition� develops� and�how�this�interacts�with�motivation,�I�think�a�fruitful�angle�of�analysis�may�be�a��Vygotskian�sociocultural�one.�According�to�sociocultural�theory�(Vygotsky�1978;�Lantolf�and�Thorne�2006),� the�goal�of�all� learning� is�self-regulation,�where�self-regulation�is�understood�to�mean�independent�strategic�functioning�and�meta-cognitive�control� in� relation� to�a�particular� type�of� task.�A�central�principle�of�Vygotsky’s� theory� is� that� the� origins� of� self-regulation� are� social� and� dialogic,�realized�in�the�processes�of�task-focused�interaction�through�which�the�teacher�scaffolds�the�learners'�attempts�to�accomplish�the�goal.�The�purpose�of�scaffolding�is�not�simply�to�have�the�learner�complete�the�task�but�to�promote�a�capacity�to�think�strategically�and�thus�to�gain�control,�or�self-regulation,�of�strategic�mental�processes.�Research�evidence�suggests�that�the�explicit�transfer�of�the�agentic�reg-ulatory�role�to�the�learner�is�critical�in�this�dialogue�(e.g.�Diaz,�Neal�and�Amaya-Williams� 1990),� so� that� the� learner� is� motivated� to� do� the� thinking� instead� of�simply�responding�passively�to�directives.�Clearly,�the�research�programme�I�am�suggesting�here�would�thus�entail�the�microgenetic�analysis�of�how�motivational�and�metacognitive�processes�may�develop�through�task-focused�interaction.

Page 12: Ushioda-Motivation and SLA

16� Ema�Ushioda

Motivation, context,�agency�and�dynamic�complex�systems

This�brings�us�of�course�to�the�question�of�broadening�the�research�agenda�be-yond�the�traditional�cognitive�paradigm�to�consider�the�dynamic�interactions�in-tegrating�persons�and�social�context�in�the�analysis�of�motivation�and�SLA.�As�I�mentioned�earlier,�motivation�theory� in�educational�psychology�as�well�as�SLA�has� been� slow� to� adopt� contextual� paradigms� of� inquiry.� In� the� computational�models�of�motivation�that�have�characterized�the�cognitive�paradigm,�context�is�conceptualized�merely�as�an�independent�background�variable�or�set�of�external�factors�which�may� influence�motivation.�However,�contemporary�situative�per-spectives�on�motivation�challenge�researchers�to�integrate�notions�of�self-as-agent�and�context�in�a�dynamic�and�holistic�way,�and�to�explore�how�motivation�devel-ops�and�emerges� through� the� complex� interactions�between�agent� and�context�(Volet�and�Järvelä�2001).�Moreover,�the�relationship�between�agent�and�context�is�a�reciprocal�and�mutually�constitutive�one,�since�the�self-as-agent�is�an�inherent�part�of�the�developing�context�and�contributes�to�shaping�that�context.�

Thus,�in�a�recent�paper�(Ushioda�2009),�I�have�put�forward�the�case�for�what�I�call�a�“person-in-context�relational�view”�of�second�language�motivation,�where�the�unit�of�analysis�is�person-in-context,�rather�than�language�learner�or�individual�difference� in�an�abstract� theoretical� sense.� In�an� inherently�social�process�such�as�language�acquisition,�the�person�cannot�be�meaningfully�separated�from�the�social�environment�within�which�he/she�operates,�and�so�the�challenge�is�to�adopt�a�dynamic�perspective�that�allows�us�to�consider�simultaneously�the�ongoing�mul-tiple�influences�between�environmental�and�individual�factors,�in�all�their�com-ponential�complexity,�as�well�as�the�emerging�changes�in�both�the�person�and�the�environment�(see�Dörnyei�2009b).

Of� course,� it� is� clear� that� the� focus� of� discussion� here� is� not� just� on� moti-vation�but� the�whole�process�of�SLA,�as� currently�articulated� in�discussions�of�‘emergentism’�(Ellis�and�Larsen-Freeman�2006),�and�dynamic�systems�and�com-plexity�theory�approaches�to�SLA�(Larsen-Freeman�and�Cameron�2008a).�These�approaches�concern�the�behaviour�of�complex�systems�that�contain�multiple�in-terconnected� components,� where� development� is� characterized� by� non-linear�growth�as� systems�adapt�and�evolve�organically� in� response� to�contextual�pro-cesses,�and�in�ways�that�contribute�to�shaping�context.�As�Dörnyei�(2009a,�2009b)�argues,� this�dynamic� systems�perspective�on�SLA�processes� renders� the�notion�of�discrete�individual�difference�variables�(such�as�motivation)�rather�meaning-less,�since�processes�of�motivation,�cognition�and�emotion�and�their�constituent�components�continuously�interact�with�one�another�and�the�developing�context,�thereby�changing�and�causing�change�in�non-linear�and�unpredictable�ways,�as�the�system�as�a�whole�restructures,�adapts�and�evolves.

Page 13: Ushioda-Motivation and SLA

� Motivation�and�SLA:�Bridging�the�gap� 1�

In�short,�once�we�view�motivation�as�an�integral�part�of�this�evolving�organic�and�adaptive�system�of�cognitive,�affective�and�contextual�processes�shaping�SLA,�it� is� clear� that� the� analysis� of� motivation� will� no� longer� be� separated� from� the�primary�concerns�of�SLA�research.�Moreover,�it�seems�likely�that�the�analysis�of�motivation�may�play�a�major�role� in�any�dynamic�systems�perspective�on�SLA,�given�the�need�to�consider�the�processes�of�human�agency,�intentionality�and�re-flexivity�that�are�fundamental�to�the�dynamic�interactions�between�self�and�con-text�(Sealey�and�Carter�2004).

Concluding note

This�paper�set�out�to�outline�how�motivation�research�may�be�better�integrated�into�mainstream�SLA,�and�contribute�to�the�development�of�major�lines�of�think-ing� in�the�field.�However,� it� is�beyond�the�scope�of� the�paper� to�elaborate�pos-sible� research� designs� and� methodologies� in� this� regard.� The� dynamic� systems�and� complexity� theory� approach� to� SLA� is� still� new� and� untried,� and� presents�significant�challenges�in�terms�of�developing�workable�research�designs�and�ana-lytical�tools�to�investigate�complex�systems�in�a�coherent�and�systematic�way�(see,�for� example,� Larsen-Freeman� and� Cameron� 2008b).� But,� to� adapt� that� famous�pronouncement� by� Corder� cited� at� the� beginning� of� this� paper,� perhaps,� given motivation, it is inevitable that we SLA researchers will find a way forward.

References

Atkinson,�D.�2002.�“Toward�a�sociocognitive�approach�to�second�language�acquisition”.�Modern Language Journal�86:�525–45.

Block,�D.�2003.�The Social Turn in Second Language Acquisition.�Edinburgh:�Edinburgh�Uni-versity�Press.

Corder,�S.�P.�1967.�“The�significance�of�learners’�errors”.�International Review of Applied Linguis-tics�5�(2/3):�161–169.

Crookes,� G.� and� Schmidt,� R.� 1991.� “Motivation:� Reopening� the� research� agenda”.� Language Learning�41:�469–512.

Diaz,�R.�M.,�Neal,�C.�J.�and�Amaya-Williams,�M.�1990.�“The�social�origins�of�self-regulation”.�In�Vygotsky and Education: Instructional Implications and Applications of Sociohistorical Psychology,�L.�Moll.�(ed.),�127–54.�New�York:�Cambridge�University�Press.

Dörnyei,� Z.� 2002.� “The� motivational� basis� of� language� learning� tasks”.� In� Individual Differ-ences and Instructed Language Learning,� P.� Robinson� (ed.),� 137–58.� Amsterdam:� John��Benjamins.

Dörnyei,�Z.�2003.�“Attitudes,�orientations,�and�motivation�in�language�learning:�Advances�in�theory,�research,�and�applications”.�Language Learning�53�(Supplement�1):�3–32.

Page 14: Ushioda-Motivation and SLA

18� Ema�Ushioda

Dörnyei,�Z.�2005.�The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in Second Lan-guage Acquisition.�Mahwah,�NJ:�Lawrence�Erlbaum.

Dörnyei,�Z.�2009a.�The Psychology of Second Language Acquisition.�Oxford:�Oxford�University�Press.

Dörnyei,�Z.�2009b.�“Individual�differences:�Interplay�of�learner�characteristics�and�learning�en-vironment”.�In�Language as a Complex Adaptive System,�N.�C.�Ellis�and�D.�Larsen-Freeman�(eds),�237–255.�Oxford:�Wiley�Blackwell.

Dörnyei,� Z.� and� Csizér,� K.� 1998.� “Ten� commandments� for� motivating� language� learners:��Results�of�an�empirical�study”.�Language Teaching Research�2:�203–229.

Dörnyei,�Z.�and�Kormos,�J.�2000.�“The�role�of�individual�and�social�variables�in�oral�task�perfor-mance”.�Language Teaching Research�4:�275–300.

Dörnyei,�Z.�and�Ottó,�I.�1998.�“Motivation�in�action:�A�process�model�of�L2�motivation”.�Work-ing Papers in Applied Linguistics (Thames Valley University, London)�4:�43–69.

Dörnyei,�Z.�and�Tseng,�W-T.�2009.�“Motivational�processing�in�interactional�tasks”.�In�Multiple Perspectives on Interaction: Second Language Research in Honour of S. M. Gass,�A.�Mackey�and�C.�Polio�(eds),�117–34.�Mahwah,�NJ:�Lawrence�Erlbaum.

Dörnyei,�Z.�and�Ushioda,�E.�2010.�Teaching and Researching Motivation.�2nd�edition.�Harlow:�Longman.

Doughty,�C.�J.�and�Long,�M.�H.�2005.�The Handbook of Second Language Acquisition.�Oxford:�Blackwell.

Ellis,�N.�and�Larsen-Freeman,�D.�2006.�“Language�emergence:�Implications�for�applied�linguis-tics�–�Introduction�to�the�Special�Issue”.�Applied Linguistics�27:�558–589.

Ellis,�R.�1994.�The Study of Second Language Acquisition.�Oxford:�Oxford�University�Press.Ellis,�R.�2008.�The Study of Second Language Acquisition.�2nd�edition.�Oxford:�Oxford�Univer-

sity�Press.Fransson,� A.� 1984.� “Cramming� or� understanding?� Effects� of� intrinsic� and� extrinsic� motiva-

tion�on�approach� to� learning�and� test�performance”.� In�Reading in a Foreign Language,�J.�C.�Alderson�and�A.�H.�Urquhart�(eds.),�86–121.�London:�Longman.

Gardner,�R.�C.�1985.�Social Psychology and Second Language Learning: The Role of Attitudes and Motivation.�London:�Edward�Arnold.

Gardner,� R.� C.� and� Lalonde,� R.� N.� 1983.� “The� socio-educational� model� of� second� language�acquisition:� An� investigation� using� LISREL� causal� modelling”.� Journal of Language and Social Psychology 2�(1):�1–15.

Gardner,�R.�C.�and�Lambert,�W.�E.�1972.�Attitudes and Motivation in Second-Language Learn-ing.�Rowley,�MA:�Newbury�House.

Giles,�H.�and�Byrne,�J.�L.�1982.�“An�intergroup�approach�to�second�language�acquisition”.�Jour-nal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development�3:�17–40.

Harré,�R.�and�Gillett,�G.�1994.�The Discursive Mind.�Thousand�Oaks,�CA:�Sage.Kormos,�J.�and�Dörnyei,�Z.�2004.�“The�interaction�of�linguistic�and�motivational�variables�in�

second� language� task� performance”.� Zeitschrift für Interkulturellen Fremdsprachenunter-richt�9�(2):�1–19.

Kramsch,�C.�2002.�“Introduction:�How�can�we�tell�the�dancer�from�the�dance?”�In�Language Acquisition and Language Socialization: Ecological Perspectives,� C.� Kramsch� (ed.),� 1–30.�London:�Continuum.

Lafford,�B.�A.�(ed.).�2007.�Second Language Acquisition Reconceptualized? The Impact of Firth and Wagner (1997). (Focus issue).�Modern Language Journal�91.�

Page 15: Ushioda-Motivation and SLA

� Motivation�and�SLA:�Bridging�the�gap� 19

Lantolf,�J.�P.�and�Thorne,�S.�L.�2006.�Sociocultural Theory and the Genesis of Second Language Development.�Oxford:�Oxford�University�Press.

Larsen-Freeman,�D.�and�Cameron,�L.�2008a.�Complex Systems and Applied Linguistics.�Oxford:�Oxford�University�Press.

Larsen-Freeman,� D.� and� Cameron,� L.� 2008b.� “Research� methodology� on� language� develop-ment�from�a�complex�systems�perspective”.�Modern Language Journal�92:�200–13.

MacIntyre,�P.�D.�and�Noels,�K.�A.�1996.�“Using�social-psychological�variables�to�predict�the�use�of�language�learning�strategies”.�Foreign Language Annals�29:�373–86.

Manolopoulou-Sergi,�E.�2004.�“Motivation�within�the�information�processing�model�of�foreign�language�learning”.�System�32:�427–41.

Marton,�F.�and�Säljö,�D.�1976.�“On�qualitative�differences�in�learning.�1:�outcome�and�process”.�British Journal of Educational Psychology 46:�4–11.

Masgoret,�A-M.�and�Gardner,�R.�C.�2003.�“Attitudes,�motivation,�and�second�language�learning:�A�meta-analysis�of�studies�conducted�by�Gardner�and�his�associates”.�Language Learning�53�(Supplement�1):�167–210.

McCombs,�B.�L.�and�Marzano,�R.�J.�1990.�“Putting�the�self�in�self-regulated�learning:�The�self�as�agent�in�integrating�will�and�skill”.�Educational Psychologist�25:�51–69.

McInerney,�D.�M.�and�Van�Etten,�S.�(eds).�2004.�Big Theories Revisited: Volume 4 in Research on Sociocultural Influences on Motivation and Learning.�Greenwich,�CO:�Information�Age�Publishing.

Meisel,�J.�1977.�“Linguistic�simplification:�A�study�of�immigrant�workers’�speech�and�foreigner�talk”.�In�The Notions of Simplification, Interlanguages and Pidgins in their Relation to Second Language Pedagogy,�S.�P.�Corder�and�E.�Roulet�(eds),�88–113.�Geneva:�Librairie�Droz.

Noels,�K.�A.,�Pelletier,�L.,�Clément,�R.�and�Vallerand,�R.�J.�2000.�“Why�are�you�learning�a�second�language?� Motivational� orientations� and� self-determination� theory”.� Language Learning 50:�57–85.

Pavlenko,�A.�2002.�“Poststructuralist�approaches�to�the�study�of�social�factors�in�second�lan-guage� learning�and�use”.� In�Portraits of the L2 User,�V.�Cook� (ed.),� 277–302.�Clevedon:�Multilingual�Matters.

Prosser,� M.� and� Trigwell,� K.� 1998.� Teaching for Learning in Higher Education.� Buckingham:�Open�University�Press.

Ramage,�K.�1990.�“Motivational�factors�and�persistence�in�foreign�language�study”.�Language Learning�40�(2):�189–219.

Schmidt,� R.� 1993.� “Consciousness,� learning� and� interlanguage� pragmatics”.� In� Interlanguage Pragmatics,�G.�Kaspar�and�S.�Blum-Kulka�(eds),�21–42.�Oxford:�Oxford�University�Press.

Schmidt,�R.�and�Watanabe,�Y.�2001.�“Motivation,�strategy�use,�and�pedagogical�preferences�in�foreign� language� learning”.� In�Motivation and Second Language Acquisition,� Z.� Dörnyei�and�R.�Schmidt�(eds),�313–359.�Honolulu,�HI:�University�of�Hawaii�Press.

Schumann,�J.�1978.�“The�acculturation�model�for�second�language�acquisition”.�In�Second Lan-guage Acquisition and Foreign Language Teaching,�R.�Gingras�(ed.),�27–107.�Arlington,�VA:�Centre�for�Applied�Linguistics.

Sealey,�A.�and�Carter,�B.�2004.�Applied Linguistics as Social Science.�London:�Continuum.Segalowitz,� N.,� Gatbonton,� E.� and� Trofimovich,� P.� 2009.� “Links� between� ethnolinguistic� af-

filiation,�self-related�motivation�and�second�language�fluency:�Are�they�mediated�by�psy-cholinguistic�variables?”�In�Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self,�Z.�Dörnyei�and�E.�Ushioda�(eds.),�172–92.�Bristol:�Multilingual�Matters.

Skehan,�P.�1998.�A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning.�Oxford:�Oxford�University�Press.

Page 16: Ushioda-Motivation and SLA

20� Ema�Ushioda

Takahashi,�J.�2001.�“The�role�of�input�enhancement�in�developing�pragmatic�competence”.�In�Pragmatics in Language Teaching,�K.�R.�Rose�and�G.�Kasper� (eds),�171–99.�Cambridge:�Cambridge�University�Press.

Takahashi,�J.�2005.�“Pragmalinguistic�awareness:�Is�it�related�to�motivation�and�proficiency?”�Applied Linguistics�26:�90–120.

Ushioda,�E.�1996.�Learner Autonomy 5: The Role of Motivation.�Dublin:�Authentik.Ushioda,�E.�2009.�“A�person-in-context�relational�view�of�emergent�motivation,�self�and�iden-

tity”.�In�Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self,�Z.�Dörnyei�and�E.�Ushioda�(eds),�215–28.�Bristol:�Multilingual�Matters.

Vandergrift,�L.�2005.�“Relationships�among�motivation�orientations,�metacognitive�awareness�and�proficiency�in�L2�listening”.�Applied Linguistics�26:�70–89.

van�Lier,�L.�2004.�The Ecology and Semiotics of Language Learning: A Sociocultural Perspective.�Boston,�MA:�Kluwer�Academic.

Volet,�S.�and�Järvelä,�S.�2001.�Motivation in Learning Contexts: Theoretical Advances and Meth-odological Implications.�Amsterdam:�Pergamon-Elsevier.

Vygotsky,�L.�S.�1978.�Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes.�Cam-bridge,�MA:�Harvard�University�Press.

Watson-Gegeo,�K.�A.�2004.�“Mind,�language,�and�epistemology:�Toward�a�language�socializa-tion�paradigm�for�SLA”.�Modern Language Journal�88:�331–50.

Williams,�M.�and�Burden,�R.�L.�1997.�Psychology for Language Teachers.�Cambridge:�Cambridge�University�Press.

Zuengler,�J.�and�Miller,�E.�R.�2006.�“Cognitive�and�sociocultural�perspectives:�Two�parallel�SLA�worlds?”�TESOL Quarterly�40:�35–58.

Page 17: Ushioda-Motivation and SLA

Copyright of EUROSLA Yearbook is the property of John Benjamins Publishing Co. 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. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.