Motivation and Second Language Acquisition 1

R.C. Gardner
University of Western Ontario

I have been asked on occasion why I think there must be some sort of motivation to learn
a second language, because most people learn at least one language, and often children from a
bilingual home learn two languages, apparently with ease. Moreover, these people speak the
language, they understand the language, and often they both read and write it, so why should
motivation be important. My answer is that generally language is an integral part of growing up
(which provides motivation in its own right), and is necessary to communicate and participate in
ones environment. Often, this is not the case for second languages, especially those Alearned@ in
school. There are many advantages for knowing other languages but they are not absolutely
necessary, and as a consequence, motivation (as well as ability) can play an important role in
learning a second language. And there are many things that can affect this motivation. I hope
today to convince you of the importance of motivation in second language acquisition and to
demonstrate that it is more complex than merely wanting to learn the language.
Our research for the past 45 years has been concerned with the role of attitudes and
motivation in second language acquisition, and during this time we have obtained a considerable
amount of data and have developed a model linking attitudes and motivation to achievement in
the second language as well as to a host of other behaviours that relate to language learning and
retention. Rather than review a number of our studies and present a bunch of statistics today, I
would like to focus on the role of motivation and language learning in general and discuss the
implications of our research to language teaching and pedagogy. In this vein, I intend to direct
my attention to the following four points:
a. Two motivational constructs
b. Stages of language acquisition
c. Cultural and educational contexts
d. Results from Spain.
1
This manuscript was the basis of an address by the author to the Seminario Sobre
Plurilingüismo: Las Aportaciones Del Centro Europeo de Lenguas Modernas de Graz, on
December 15, 2006 at the Universidad de Alcalá, Spain. Preparation of the manuscript was
facilitated by a grant (410-2002-0810) from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research
Council of Canada. I would like to express my appreciation to Dr. M. Bernaus, Universitat
Autònomia de Barcelona for her collaboration on the research reported and to Dan Koff for
his assistance preparing this manuscript.
 2

It is my view that these points are central to understanding a student=s general level of
motivation to learn a second language as well as the specific motivation that exists in any
language class or other language learning situation. I begin by making the obvious observation
that motivation is a very complex phenomenon with many facets. In fact, in 1981, Kleinginna
and Kleinginna presented 102 statements about the construct. It really isn=t possible to give a
simple definition of motivation, though one can list many characteristics of the motivated
individual. For example, the motivated individual is goal directed, expends effort, is persistent,
is attentive, has desires (wants), exhibits positive affect, is aroused, has expectancies,
demonstrates self-confidence (self-efficacy), and has reasons (motives).
As you can see some of these characteristics are cognitive in nature, some are affective,
and some are behavioural. Motivation to learn a second language is not a simple construct. It
cannot be measured by one scale; perhaps the whole range of motivation cannot be assessed by
even three or four scales. It definitely cannot be assessed by merely asking individuals to give
reasons for why they think learning a language is important to them.
When considering motivation and second language learning or acquisition, it is possible
to consider two types of motivational constructs. Our research has always contended that there
are in essence two types of motivation that should be considered when referring to second
language acquisition, and I am not referring here to the integrative-instrumental dichotomy (or
even the intrinsic-extrinsic one) that is often discussed in the research literature. I refer instead
to the distinction between language learning motivation and classroom learning motivation.
By language learning motivation, I mean the motivation to learn (and acquire) a second
language. This type of motivation is considered in the socio-educational model of second
language acquisition (Gardner, 1985), the social context model (Clément, 1980), the Self-
determination model (Noels, & Clément, 1996), the Willingness to Communicate model
(MacIntyre, Clément, Dörnyei, & Noels,1998), and the extended motivational framework
(Dörnyei, 1994) to name a few. It is a general form of motivation relevant in any second
language-learning context. It is not a trait, as some individuals contend, but it is a general
characteristic of the individual that applies to any opportunity to learn the language. It is
relatively stable, because of its presumed antecedents, but it is amenable to change under certain
 3

conditions. The various models referred to above all agree that it as an attribute with significant
implications for the individual; they differ in terms of its antecedents and/or correlates, as well as
in how it might be assessed.
The second class of motivation is classroom learning motivation, specifically the
language classroom. This is the type of motivation emphasized by Heckhausen and Kuhl (1985);
it is the type characterized by Dörnyei=s tripartite pre-actional, actional and post-actional
motivation, and is common to educational psychology in general. It is also represented in the
socio-educational model of second language acquisition, though it is considered an integral part
of motivation in general (Gardner, 1985). It refers to the motivation in the classroom situation,
or in any specific situation. The focus is on the individuals= perception of the task at hand, and is
largely state oriented. Obviously, it will be influenced by a host of factors associated with the
language class. Thus, it is clear that the teacher, the class atmosphere, the course content,
materials and facilities, as well as personal characteristics of the student (such as studiousness,
etc.,) will have an influence on the individual=s classroom learning motivation. In the socio-
educational model, we contend that it will also be influenced by the general language learning
motivation referred to above. Of course, in a very real sense, one cannot distinguish between the
two types of motivation. They operate on the individual at any given time, but it is meaningful
to consider that both of them are operative.
Just as it is difficult to propose a simple definition of motivation, it is also difficult to
provide a simple definition of what it means to learn a second language. In his seminal research
on bilingual development, W. E. Lambert (1955; 1956a,b,c) identified what he referred to as two
clusters in the process of becoming bilingual, the Vocabulary cluster and the Cultural cluster.
In his research, he contrasted the language behaviour of three groups of individuals in his study
conducted in the USA. One group was comprised of 14 Undergraduates majoring in French,
another consisted of 14 graduate students majoring in French, and the third was a group of 14
native French speaking individuals who had lived for at least 7 years in the USA and who used
English on a daily basis.
He compared the three groups on a number of measures of French proficiency and
French-English bilinguality involving word association and reaction time measures, and found as
 4

expected that performance improved from the undergraduates to the graduates to the French
native speakers. On some measures, however, there were no significant differences among the
groups; on others there were no significant differences between the undergraduate and graduate
students, while on other measures, the graduate students were significantly better than the
undergraduates but significantly inferior to the native French speakers. On the basis of these
results, he proposed that there was a distinct pattern in the growth of proficiency and bilingual
skills due to experience in the other language. He concluded that there were a series of barriers
to overcome in the process of language acquisition. He identified one as a vocabulary cluster, by
which he meant the elements of the language, not simply individual vocabulary items. This he
felt was a relatively easy stage to master. Another, and much more difficult one, he identified as
the cultural cluster. He claimed that to overcome this barrier it was necessary for the individual
to make the language part of the self. He also hypothesized that there may be other phases an
individual must master in the process of learning a language.
------------------------
Insert Figure 1 about here
-------------------------
In our model of second language acquisition and development, we hypothesize that there
are at least four stages that can be identified, and they are comparable to those involved in the
development of one=s first language. Figure 1 presents a schematic representation of these
stages. The initial stage is Elemental. In this stage the individual is learning the basics of the
language, vocabulary, grammar, pronunciations, etc. (what Lambert would term the vocabulary
cluster). We see this in the development of one=s first language when the toddler learns new
words, begins to put words together, mispronounces some words but corrects them later, etc...
With the second language student, we see the same process when initial vocabulary is learned,
equivalents with the first language are recognized, simple declarative sentences are memorized,
etc.. The second stage is Consolidation, where the elements of the language are brought
together and some degree of familiarity with the language is achieved. We see this stage in the
young child learning the first language, when they begin to recognize that language is a system
where some elements are correct and others incorrect, and they develop rules for pluralization,
 5

sentence structure, and the understanding of idioms, etc... A similar pattern occurs for the
student learning a second language, when they find that some of the structures and elements can
be like those in their native language while others can be very different, when they learn that
some expressions are meaningful, others not, etc… In the third stage, there is Conscious
Expression, during which the individual can use the language but with a great deal of conscious
effort. The individual can communicate thoughts and ideas, but there is a lot of deliberation
about what is being expressed. For the young first language learner, this phase can be
recognized by the use of a lot of speech hesitations such as um, er, uh, where the individual is
actively searching for the right words or form of expression. For the learner of a second
language, you can observe the same phenomenon, and often get the impression that the
individual is in fact searching the first language for help in knowing how to express the idea in
the second language. The fourth stage is identified as Automaticity and Thought to indicate
that at the ultimate stage language and thought merge and language becomes automatic in most
contexts. This could well correspond to Lambert=s cultural cluster. In this phase, language and
self become interconnected. One no longer thinks about the language, but thinks in the
language.
This analysis is not meant to be definitive as to the stages of language acquisition, but it
does serve to highlight what is meant by Alearning@ the language, and to emphasize that it has
different meanings at different stages of the learning process. It is similar to Krashen=s (1988)
distinction between second and/or foreign language learning versus acquisition, in that it
emphasizes that language learning refers to the development of knowledge and skill that permits
varying degrees of communication with others, while acquisition involves making the language
part of the self. It is with this general view where the concept of motivation becomes important,
and the distinction between language learning motivation and classroom learning motivation
becomes paramount.
Given that there are various stages of language development one can well ask what we
mean by language learning. Learning vocabulary is language learning. Learning structure,
pronunciation, etc., is language learning. Learning to communicate in the language is language
learning. Even passing into the stage of automaticity and thought can be considered language
 6

learning, though Krashen might favour the term acquisition at this stage. That is, at different
ages and stages, learning the language can mean different things. In our research we have
investigated different aspects of second language learning varying from simple vocabulary
learning (in a laboratory setting) to the fluent use of the language in oral communication. We
have defined achievement in terms of performance on objective tests of grammar and aural
comprehension, written production, reading comprehension, oral production, grades in the
language course, etc., and what amazes me is that motivation has been found to be implicated at
all stages.
------------------------
Insert Figure 2 about here
-------------------------
When discussing the roots of motivation to learn a second language in the school context
we have proposed that we should consider it from the point of view of both the Educational
Context (as we would for any school subject) and the Cultural Context (which is generally not
that relevant to most school subjects). That is, studying a second language is unlike studying
most other subjects in that it involves taking on elements of another culture (i.e., vocabulary,
pronunciations, language structure, etc.,), while most other school subjects involve elements
common to one=s own culture. By saying that this should be considered when focussing on the
concept of motivation, we mean that the individual is a member of a particular culture and many
features of the individual are influenced by that culture. In the individual, this cultural context is
expressed in terms of ones attitudes, beliefs, personality characteristics, ideals, expectations,
etc… With respect to language learning, therefore, the individual will have various attitudes that
might apply to language learning, beliefs about its value, meaningfulness, and implications,
expectations about what can and cannot be achieved, and the importance of various personality
characteristics in the learning process. All of these characteristics originate and develop in the
overall cultural context as well as the immediate family. In North America, it is generally
accepted that Europeans are better at learning languages than North Americans, and whether or
not this is true, it can influence the North American=s beliefs about his/her own success. Hence,
we hypothesize that the cultural context can have an effect on the individual=s ultimate success in
 7

learning the language.

The Educational Context is important too, of course, and for most subjects it will play a
role in the motivation of the student. Other variables might be relevant, but generally they will
be relatively less important and largely idiosyncratic. The educational context refers generally to
the educational system in which the student is registered, and specifically to the immediate
classroom situation. When considering the educational context, we focus on the expectations of
the system, the quality of the program, the interest, enthusiasm, and skills of the teacher, the
adequacy of the materials, the curriculum, the class atmosphere, etc. All of these can influence
the student=s level of motivation in any school subject.
Thus, when we discuss the motivation to learn a second language, we have to take both
contexts into consideration. Our research is based on the assumption that these two contexts
have an effect on two general characteristics of the student. One of these characteristics derives
from the Cultural Context and includes socially relevant variables. In our original research we
labelled this component Integrativeness and focussed attention on the individual being
interested in learning the language in order to interact with valued members of the other
community and/or to learn more about that community (i.e., an integrative orientation and
favourable attitudes toward the community), but in later research we found that it could also
involve an open interest in other cultural communities in general (i.e., an absence of
Ethnocentrism and authoritarianism, or the presence of Xenophilic attitudes, etc., which we
measured with our AInterest in Foreign Languages scale@). Because of the excess meanings that
have become associated with the “integrative” concept, I now sometimes refer to it as Openness,
or Openness to Cultural Identification. The important point is that Integrativeness reflects the
various attributes that can be linked to the Cultural Context of language. Other researchers have
identified similar constructs in their studies in different cultural settings (see, for example,
Kraemer, 1993; Yashima, 2002)
The other characteristic of the individual that our model considers to be important in
second language learning derives from the Educational Context, and includes all variables that
can be linked directly to the educational system and the experiences associated with the
educational environment. We have labelled this characteristic as Attitudes toward the
 8

Learning Situation because it is our assumption that it is the influence of the Educational
Context on the individual=s attitudes that influence the individual=s level of motivation.
Furthermore, the two contexts do not operate in isolation of one another. They coexist in
their influence on the student. The cultural context can have an effect on the student=s attitudinal
reaction to the school environment, and the educational context can play a role (though not a
large one, and probably more so for young students) in the individual=s level of integrativeness.
As shown in the figure, Integrativeness and Attitudes toward the Learning Situation are
expected to have an influence on the individual=s level of motivation. And, as indicated earlier,
motivation is a multifaceted construct. The motivated individual is goal directed, expends effort,
is persistent, is attentive, has desires (wants), exhibits positive affect, is aroused, has
expectancies, demonstrates self-confidence (self-efficacy), and has reasons (motives). All of
these attributes characterize the individual who is motivated to learn a language. In our research,
we have found that we can tap into motivation in terms of three measures which tap the
cognitive, affective and behavioural (motivational intensity) components.
Motivation plays a role in various ways in the process of learning a second language. In
our research, we have examined a number of them, such as classroom behaviour (Gliksman,
Gardner, & Smythe, 1982), persistence in language study (Clément, Smythe, & Gardner, 1978),
bicultural excursions (Clément, Gardner & Smythe, 1977), intensive language programs
(Gardner, Moorcroft, & Metford, 1989), language retention (Gardner, Lalonde, Moorcroft &
Evers, 1987), and even modes of acculturation (Young & Gardner, 1990). In all cases, we have
found motivation to account for individual differences. The major point is that motivation plays
a role in a number of different ways.
In our research we have focussed attention on six individual difference variables, and
have developed measures of them. Two are the constructs of Integrativeness and Attitudes
toward the Learning Situation, as discussed above, and another is Motivation (also as discussed
above). The other three are Language Anxiety, an Instrumental Orientation, and Parental
Encouragement (when testing school age students). These constructs have been a major part of
our research. Much of our research has been conducted in Canada with English speaking
Canadians learning French and French speaking Canadians learning English, and it has
 9

sometimes been claimed that our findings may not apply to other countries or other languages.
Five years ago I began a project to determine the applicability of our research to other countries.
I now have data concerned with the learning of English as a foreign language in six countries,
Spain, Croatia, Poland, Romania, Brazil, and Japan, and last year I presented some of the
findings from the European countries at the Eurosla conference in Dubrovnik, Croatia (see,
Gardner, 2005). I was amazed at how consistent the findings were, and how similar they were to
the Canadian data. Some of the findings for two age samples of students in Barcelona are
presented in Table 1.
------------------------
Insert Table 1 about here
-------------------------
This table presents the correlation coefficients of the six variables with Grades in English
for a sample of 166 E.S.O. 2 students and 136 E.S.O. 4 students in Barcelona. Note that the
highest correlate is Motivation. Grades in English are more highly related to the measure of
motivation in both samples than any of the other variables, indicating that the more highly
motivated students have higher grades than the less motivated ones. Note too that the next
highest correlate in both samples is the measure of Language Anxiety. In this case, the
correlation is negative indicating that the more anxious the student the lower the English grade.
The next highest correlation, again in both samples, is Integrativeness, and the correlation is
positive. Students with an openness to cultural identification, and/or a favourable attitude and
interest in English speaking communities achieve higher grades in English than those who are
less willing or less able to take on characteristics of another cultural community. The next
highest correlate in both samples is an Instrumental Orientation, and the positive correlation
indicates that students who see the instrumental value in learning English do better in English
than those who see it as less important, though the correlation is not very high. It will also be
noted that parental encouragement, as seen by the child is not a significant correlate of English
grades.
Probably, the most surprising finding in the table is the relatively low correlation between
Attitudes toward the Learning Situation and Grades in English. It is not significant for the
 10

E.S.O. 2 students, and barely so for the E.S.O. 4 students. This is surprising because one would
expect that in cooperative classes with an experienced and skilled teacher and good teaching
materials, etc., that students would have more favourable attitudes toward the situation and thus
would learn more English and thus get higher grades. One could hypothesize any number of
reasons for this result, but the simple truth is that we obtain similar results in many of our
studies, some of which use grades as the measure of language proficiency while some use other
indices of achievement as well.
It has been said in the research literature that because of such findings I don=t believe that
the teaching situation and the teacher are important in second language learning. But, nothing
could be further from the truth. I am not a language teacher but I am a teacher, (actually, a
professor of statistics and research design), and I am convinced that what I do and the materials I
use are important in the training of the students. But, I also know that the student evaluates what
I do and what materials I recommend, and that the student=s attitudes will influence how he or
she reacts to the task at hand. In short, I am convinced that my activities can influence the
student=s level of motivation, and it is this level of motivation that will have an effect on how
much is learned.
Our model of second language acquisition proposes that although many variables can
correlate with ultimate achievement in a learning task, the actual effect of these variables on
achievement will be mediated by motivation. In order to test this hypothesis with these data, I
performed a Path analysis for the two samples separately. The path analysis for the E.S.O. 2
students is shown in Figure 3.
------------------------
Insert Figure 3 about here
-------------------------
Path analysis is a technique that permits a researcher to test a specific model of the
relationship among a series of variables, and results in a diagram indicating the correlations
between what are called exogenous variables and regression coefficients linking the endogenous
variables with the exogenous variables and other endogenous variables. All of the coefficients
shown in the model are significant, and as shown in the title to the path diagram the fit indices
 11

(GFI and CFI) are very good, with a value of 1 indicating an excellent fit to the data. The model
indicates that Motivation has a positive influence on English Grades while Language Anxiety
has a negative influence. It indicates too that Integrativeness, Attitudes toward the Learning
Situation, and Parental Encouragement have a positive influence on Motivation while Language
Anxiety has a negative influence. Note too that there are substantial correlations among many of
the exogenous variables. In particular there are high correlations between Integrativeness, and
Attitudes toward the Learning Situation, Instrumental Orientation, and Parental Encouragement,
indicating a link between Integrativeness and these other variables. Finally, note that
Integrativeness and Attitudes toward the Learning Situation have the greatest influence on
Motivation. Taken together, these results highlight the role that both the educational context and
the cultural context play in second language acquisition. Both have a direct effect on motivation,
which in turn has a direct effect on language achievement.
------------------------
Insert Figure 4 about here
-------------------------
Very similar results were obtained for the E.S.O. 4 students, though there were a few
interesting differences, as can be seen in Figure 4. All of the relationships discussed above are
also evident with the E.S.O. 4 students. For these students, however, an Instrumental
Orientation is shown to have a slight influence on motivation, though this effect was not
obtained for the younger students. This would suggest that with age, an instrumental orientation
takes on a slightly more important role. Furthermore, note that there is no direct effect of
Parental Encouragement on motivation for the E.S.O. 4 students though there was for the E.S.O.
2 students. This would in turn indicate that with age, the perceived influence of the parents is
decreased over what it was at an earlier age.
In our research, we often talk about an integrative motive in second language learning.
This was never meant to imply that you needed an integrative motive to learn a second language.
When we say that an individual is integratively motivated we mean that:
a. the individual is motivated to learn the other language
b. the individual is learning the language because of a genuine interest in communicating
 12

with members of the other language (either because of positive feelings toward that
community or members of that community, or because of a general interest in other
groups)
c. the individual has a favourable attitude toward the language learning situation.
It is possible to hypothesize other types of motivation, of course, but to me the type of
motivation is not that important. In my opinion, the distinction between integrative and
instrumental motivation, or between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation does not help to explain
the role played by motivation in second language learning. Our research has demonstrated that it
is the intensity of the motivation in its broadest sense, incorporating the behavioural, cognitive,
and affective components, that is important. Because the Integrative Motive includes the
Openness to Cultural Identification (i.e., Integrativeness) as a component it seems likely that it
may be more associated with attaining the ultimate level of achievement (i.e., Thought and
Automaticity) than other motivational types that lack this component. Classroom learning
motivation may promote the acquisition of individual elements of the language, but more is
needed to achieve a true mastery of the language. From my perspective the integrative motive
serves this need.
 13

Table 1
Correlations of Variables with English Grades for Spanish Students

Variables E.S.O. 2 E.S.O. 4

N=166 N=136
Attitude toward Learning Situation .14 .18*
Integrativeness .32** .37**
Language Anxiety -.39** -.38**
Instrumental Orientation 22** .21**
Parental Encouragement .12 .04
Motivation 40** .49**

* p< .05 ** p<.01

 14

Figure 1
Stages of Language Acquisition and Development

AUTOMATICITY
& THOUGHT
CONSCIOUS
EXPRESSION
CONSOLIDATION
ELEMENTAL
 15

Figure 2
A Model Indicating the Effects of the Cultural and Educational Contexts on Motivation in
Second Language Learning

CULTURAL EDUCATIONAL
CONTEXT CONTEXT

INTEGRATIVENESS ATTITUDES TOWARD THE

(OPENNESS) LEARNING SITUATION

Motivation

CLASSROOM PERSISTENCE CULTURAL LANGUAGE

BEHAVIOUR CONTACT RETENTION

LANGUAGE ACHIEVEMENT AND USE

 16

Figure 3

Path Analysis for E.S.O. 2 Students

(GFI=.985; CFI=.994)

Integrativeness

.48 .53
.57
Attitude toward
learning situation
.32
.40 .26 .37 .28 English
Motivation Grades
-.35 Instrumental
Orientation
.18 -.16
.25
-.27
Parental
Encouragement
-.15
-.16
Language Anxiety
 17

Figure 4

Path Analysis for E.S.O. 4 Students

(GFI=.959; CFI=.960)

Integrativeness

.50 .36
.66
Attitude toward
learning situation .37
.48 .35 .39 English
Motivation Grades
Instrumental .20
-.13
Orientation
.23
.50
-.23
Parental -.19
Encouragement
-.27

Language Anxiety
 18

References

Clément, R. (1980). Ethnicity, Contact and Communicative Competence in a Second Language,

In H. Giles, W. P. Robinson & P. M. Smith (eds.), Language: Social Psychological

Perspectives. Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1980, 147-154.

Clément, R., Gardner, R. C., & Smythe, P. C. (1977). Inter-ethnic contact: Attitudinal

consequences. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 9, 205-215.

Clément, R., Smythe, P. C., & Gardner, R. C. (1978). Persistence in second language study:

Motivational considerations. Canadian Modern Language Review, 34, 688-694.

Dörnyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom. Modern

Language Journal, 78, 273-284.

Dörnyei,Z & Otto, I. (1998). Motivation in action: A process model of L2 motivation. Working

Papers in Applied Linguistics, 4, 43-69.

Gardner, R. C. (1985a). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of

attitudes and motivation. London: Edward Arnold Publishers.

Gliksman, L., Gardner, R. C., & Smythe, P. C. (1982). The role of the integrative motive on

students' participation in the French classroom. Canadian Modern Language Review, 38,

625-647.

Gardner, R. C., Lalonde, R. N., Moorcroft, R., & Evers, F. T. (1987). Second language attrition:

The role of motivation and use. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 6, 29-47.

Gardner, R. C., Moorcroft, R., & Metford, J. (1989). Second language learning in an immersion

programme: Factors influencing acquisition and retention. Journal of Language and

Social Psychology, 8, 287-305.

 19

Heckhausen, H., & Kuhl, J. (1985). From wishes to action: The dead ends and short cuts on the

long way to action. In [Link] and J. Sabin (Eds.) Goal-directed behavior: The concept

of action in psychology, Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.

Kleinginna, P.R. & Kleinginna, A.M. (1981). A categorized list of motivational definitions with

a suggestion for a consensual definition. Motivation and Emotion, 5, 263-291.

Kraemer, R. (1993). Social psychological factors related to the study of Arabic among Israeli

high school students. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 83-105.

Krashen, S. D. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. New York:

Pergamon.

Lambert, W. E. (1955). Measurement of the Linguistic Dominance of Bilinguals, Journal of

Abnormal and Social Psychology 50, 197-200.

Lambert, W. E. (1956a). Developmental aspects of second-language acquisition: I.

Associational fluency, stimulus provocativeness, and word-order influence. The Journal

of Social Psychology, 43, 83-89.

Lambert, W. E. (1956b). Developmental aspects of second-language acquisition: II Associational

Stereotypy, associational form, vocabulary commonness, and pronunciation. The Journal

of Social Psychology, 43, 91-98.

Lambert, W. E. (1956c). Developmental aspects of second-language acquisition: III. A

description of developmental changes. The Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 99-104.

MacIntyre, P.D., Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K.A. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness

to communicate in a L2: A situated model of confidence and affiliation. Modern

Language Journal, 82, 545-562.

 20

Noels, K.A., & Clément, R. (1996). Communication across cultures: Social determinants and

acculturative consequences. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 28, 214-228.

Yashima, T. (2002). Willingness to communicate in a second language: The Japanese EFL

Context. The Modern Language Journal, 86, 54-56.

Young, M. Y., & Gardner, R. C. (1990). Modes of acculturation and second language

proficiency. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 22, 59-71.