Methodology in Language Learning: Ideal Language Self

 

The factor that would have been traditionally identified as ‘integrativeness’ played a key role in mediating the effects of all the other attitudinal/motivational variables on two criterion measures related to motivated learning behavior, intended effort and language choice. Curiously, the immediate antecedents of this latent variable were attitudes toward L2 speakers/community and instrumentality; thus, our results indicated that ‘integrativeness’ was closely associated with two very different variables, faceless pragmatic incentives and personal attitudes toward members of the L2 community. I believe that applying the ‘self’ framework just described offers a good explanation of our findings. Looking at ‘integrativeness’ from the self-perspective, the concept can be conceived of as the L2-specific facet of one’s ideal self: If one’s ideal self is associated with the mastery of an L2, that is, if the person that we would like to become is proficient in the L2, we can be described as having an integrative disposition.

 

 

This self-interpretation of integrativeness is fully compatible with the direct relationship of the concept with ‘attitudes toward members of the L2 community’ in that L2 speakers are the closest parallels to the idealized L2-speaking self, which suggests that the more positive our disposition toward these L2 speakers, the more attractive our idealized L2 self.

 

The self-interpretation also explains why instrumentality, the other main antecedent of integrativeness, correlated highly with integrativeness in the numerous studies: Because the idealized language self is a cognitive representation of all the incentives associated with L2 mastery, it is also linked to professional competence. To put it broadly, in our idealized image of ourselves we may not only want to appear personally agreeable but also professionally successful. We should note here, however, that from a self-perspective the term instrumentality can be divided into two types: Depending on the extent of internalization of the extrinsic motives that make up instrumentality, the concept can be related either to the ‘ideal self’ or to the ‘ought self.’

Instrumentality will be closely associated with the ideal L2 identity and will therefore contribute significantly to the learner’s effort expenditure. On the other hand, non-internalized instrumental motives associated with the ‘ought self,’ that is, motives generated by a mere sense of duty or a fear of punishment, are more likely to have a short-term effect, without providing the sustained commitment that the successful mastery of an L2 requires. This division is in accordance with distinction of a promotion versus prevention focus described above: Instrumental motives with a promotion focus (e.g., to learn English for the sake of professional advancement) are related to the ideal self, whereas instrumental motives with a prevention focus (e.g., study in order not to fail the test) are part of the ought self.

 

Thus, instrumentality and the attitudes toward the L2 speakers constitute two complementary aspects of the ideal language self: its general agreeableness and its achievement-related effectiveness/competence. Within this framework what has traditionally been called ‘integrativeness’ refers to the overall driving force to approximate this idealized vision as much as possible. The important aspect of the model from our current perspective is the ‘Language attitudes’ factor in the first facet, because this bears a close resemblance to the proposed concept of Ideal L2 Self in that it subsumes integrative orientation, instrumental orientation, and L2-speaker-related attitudes.

While the Ideal L2 Self perspective provides a good fit to the motivational data accumulated in the past and does not contradict the traditional conceptualizations of L2 motivation, it presents a broader frame of reference with increased capacity for explanatory power: Integrativeness seen as Ideal L2 Self can be used to explain the motivational set-up in diverse learning contexts even if they offer little or no contact with L2 speakers (e.g., in typical foreign language learning situations where the L2 is primarily a school language), and it would also be suitable for the study of the motivational basis of language globalization, whereby international languages, and World English in particular, are rapidly losing their national cultural base and are becoming associated with a global culture. That is, the Ideal L2 Self perspective offers a paradigm that can explain the ‘integrativeness enigma’ that has emerged in various data-based studies. Integrative orientation displayed an overall pattern of higher correlations with criterion measures than instrumental orientation in both foreign and second language contexts.

 

©

 

University of Oxford - post gradual studies 2009 'English Language Teaching'

 

Bibliography:

1)  Blundell, Lesley and Stokes, Jackie, Task listening, Cambridge University Press, 198r.

2)  Gore, Lesley, Listening to Maggie, Longman, 1979.

3)  McClintock, John and Stern, Borje, Let's listen, Heinemann Educational Books, 1974.

4)  Maley, Alan and Moulding, Sandra, Learning to listen, CambridgeUniversity Press, 198 I.

5)  Scott, Wendy, Are you listening?, Oxford University Press, 1980.

6)  Stokes, Jacqueline StClair, Elementary task listening, CambridgeUniversity Press, 1984.

7)  Underwood, Mary and Barr, Pauline, Listeners (series), Oxford University Press, 1980.

8)  Abbs, Brian and Jones, T., Cloudsongs, Longman, 1977.

9)  Abbs, Brian and York, N., Skyhigh, Longman, 1975.

10)         Jones, Christopher, Back home, Longman, 1980.

11)         Kingsbury, Roy, and O'Shea, Patrick, Seasons and people and other songs,Oxford University Press, 1979.

12)         Wilson, Ken, Mister Monday and other songs for the teaching of English,Longman, 197r.

 

13)         Wilson, Ken and Morrow, Keith, Goodbye rainbow, Longman, 1974. 

14)         Seidl, Jennifer and McMordie, W., English idioms and how to use them, Oxford University Press, 1978.

15)         Wilson, F. P. (ed. ), Oxford Dictionary of English Proverbs, Oxford University Press, 1970.

16)         Brown, Gillian, Listening to spoken English, Longman, 1977.

17)         Brown, Gillian, 'Understanding spoken language', TESOL Quarterly 12:2, 1978.

18)         Brown, Gillian and Yule, George, Teaching the spoken language, Cambridge University Press, 1983.

19)         Byrne, Donn, 'Listening comprehension', Teaching oral English, Longman, 1976.

20)         Crystal, David and Davy, Derek, Investigating English style, Longman, 1969:

21)         Curfs, Emile, 'Listening deserves better', Modern English Teacher 9:3, 1982.

22)         Geddes, Marion, 'Listening', inK. Johnson and K. Morrow (eds. ),

23)         Communication in the classroom, Longman, 1981. Geddes, Marion and White, Ron, 'The use of semi-scripted simulated authentic speech and listening comprehension', Audio-visual Language journal, 1978.

24)         Littlewood, William, Communicative language teaching, Cambridge University Press, 198 I.

25)         Maley, Alan, 'The teaching of listening comprehension skills', Modern English Teacher, 1978.

26)         Porter, Don and Roberts, Jon, 'Authentic listening activities', English Language Teaching]ournal, 1981.

27)         Richards, Jack C., 'Listening comprehension', TESOL Quarterly, 1983.

28)         Rivers, Wilga, 'Hearing and comprehending', Teaching foreign language skills (revised edn.), University of Chicago Press, 1980. Widdowson, Henry, Teaching language as communication, Oxford University Press, 1978. The teaching of listening comprehension, British Council, E.L. T. Documents Special, 1981