Willingness to Communicate in Instructed Second Language Acquisition

Combining a Macro- and Micro-Perspective

Anna Mystkowska-Wiertelak, Mirosław Pawlak

• Publisher: Multilingual Matters
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781783097180
• Topic: Languages & Linguistics
• Subtopic: Teaching Language Arts
• Index: Languages & Linguistics

This book offers a comprehensive account of individual differences variables as well as contextual factors that impinge on second language learners' willingness to communicate (WTC). Firstly, it adopts a macro-perspective on WTC, which entails an attempt to identify variables that are related to WTC, taking into account the specificity of the Polish higher education setting. Secondly, it embraces a micro-perspective on WTC, striving to pinpoint the individual and contextual influences on levels of WTC in the course of regularly-scheduled, naturally-occurring English classes, as well as to capture the dynamic nature of WTC during such classes. Together, these perspectives bring the reader closer to understanding the mechanisms underlying WTC in specific contexts, thereby providing a basis for recommendations for classroom practice that could translate into learners' success. It will be of interest to second language acquisition researchers and students, as well as to methodologists and materials writers who can use the research findings to improve the practice of teaching and learning speaking in the language classroom.

Part 1: Overview of Theoretical, Methodological and Empirical Issues

The first part of the present volume is intended to serve as a backdrop for the research project, introducing the concept of language learners’ willingness to communicate (WTC) and concentrating on a number of issues whose discussion seems indispensable before the empirical investigations undertaken by the present authors are discussed. In Chapter 1, emphasis is placed on the origins and evolution of the concept of WTC, which necessitates a discussion of the theoretical considerations and early research findings that provided an impetus for present-day studies of different aspects of the construct. Chapter 2 focuses on methodological issues involved in the study of WTC, with a clear distinction being made between large-scale, questionnaire-based research projects involving sizable groups of participants as well as the application of complex statistical procedures, representing the macro perspective, and smaller-scale empirical investigations, inspecting the interplay of numerous factors in specific, well-defined contexts, epitomising the micro perspective. Finally, in Chapter 3 an attempt is made to synthetise research findings emanating from studies falling within the scope of both of these perspectives, with a particular focus on various antecedents of WTC that have been identified and examined by researchers.

1 WTC: Definitions and Evolution of the Concept

Although investigations into second language (L2) willingness to communicate (WTC) span a relatively short period of time, what is striking, even if one takes only a cursory look at the available studies, is the steady evolution of the way this immediate antecedent of communicative behaviour has been understood and the wealth of methodological approaches that have been employed in its investigation. Before taking a closer look at the meanings behind the concept of L2 WTC, a reference to its origin seems necessary Therefore, the present chapter opens with an account of the investigations into WTC in the first language (L1) and the research that led to the origination of the breakthrough heuristic model that, in turn, has given a impetus to numerous studies exploring its validity and the effect of other factors and conditions hypothesised to have an impact on how willing learners of a language might be to initiate and sustain communication. Moreover, the present chapter tackles the issue of cultural differences and the way they shape learners’ readiness to engage in communication.

Exploration of L1 WTC

Research into the concept of WTC originated within the field of communication studies and initially focused on the factors that hindered communication. The precursors to the study of WTC were Burgoon (1976), who investigated unwillingness to communicate; Mortensen et al. (1977), who explored predispositions towards verbal behaviour; and Leary (1983) and McCroskey and Richmond (1982), who studied the role of shyness. The early studies of WTC concerned communication in the mother tongue and rested on the operationalisation of the concept as a personality trait (McCroskey & Baer, 1985; McCroskey & Richmond, 1987, 1991). According to McCroskey (1992: 117), WTC was perceived as a predisposition to initiate or avoid communication with others when given a choice and was perceived as a stable individual characteristic that persisted along contexts and situations. McCroskey and Richmond (1991) claimed that verbal communication was a volitional act dependent on cognitive processing which, in turn, was controlled by one’s personality. As McCroskey and Richmond (1991: 21) pointed out, ‘[t]he personality of the individual may be the determining factor in the manner in which that choice is made and what that choice will be’. Although they admitted that a speaker’s readiness to communicate might depend on their mood or time of day, they strongly emphasised that one’s WTC is ‘a regular tendency across situations’ (McCroskey & Richmond, 1991: 22).

Following the operationalisation of WTC as a personality-based, cognitively mediated variable, McCroskey and Richmond (1987, 1991) made an attempt to identify the factors responsible for the variation in the degree of one’s readiness to communicate. The antecedents they hypothesised to underlie L1 WTC included introversion, self-esteem, communication competence, communication apprehension and cultural diversity. They posited that there was a relationship between introversion and a low level of one’s WTC and proved that extraversion highly correlated with increased WTC levels. As for self-esteem, correlation coefficients turned out to be low, which provided a basis for the assumption that this affective variable possibly impacts WTC only as a function of the relationship between self-esteem and anxiety about communication. McCroskey and Richmond (1991: 27) acknowledged that little empirical evidence was available to prove a relationship between WTC and communication skills. What captured their attention to a larger extent was the relationship between a person’s readiness to speak and his or her self-perceived communicative competence (CC). Yet another aspect that the researchers considered was the interdependence between WTC and communication apprehension, which turned out to be straightforward and predictable: the higher its level, the lower the speaker’s eagerness to engage in interaction. The researchers also observed that, although communication as such is a universal phenomenon, there exist certain norms and required skills in this respect that appear culture specific, not to mention individual variation within each culture group. Cultural divergence seems to have a considerable impact on a speaker’s WTC; moreover, as McCroskey and Richmond (1991) observed, the interplay of WTC antecedents in different cultural settings might proceed along different paths. In the 1980s and 1990s, researchers were primarily interested in comparisons of L1 WTC across nationalities, and thus surveys were carried out, for instance, among Puerto Rican (McCroskey et al., 1985), Australian, Micronesian, Swedish and American (McCroskey & Richmond, 1990) as well as Finnish students (Sallinen-Kuparinen et al., 1991). The results of such empirical investigations confirmed the existence of significant differences between countries and cultures.

A new era in research on WTC was ushered in by a breakthrough study by MacIntyre (1994), who performed path analysis of the antecedents identified by Burgoon (1976), that is anomie, alienation, self-esteem, introversion and communication anxiety. They complemented this array of factors determining readiness to engage in communication with a sixth one, proposed by McCroskey (1992), namely perceived competence. MacIntyre’s (1994) model demonstrated that communication apprehension and perceived competence most directly affect WTC since changes impacting any of these two variables would be visible in the level of a person’s L1 WTC. Communication apprehension feeds on a number of factors, such as novelty, level of formality, subordinate status and the degree of attention from others (McCroskey, 1997). Burroughs et al. (2003: 231) define it as ‘an individual’s level of fear or anxiety associated with either real or anticipated communication with another person or persons’. The other direct determinant of WTC, perceived CC, is the extent to which a speaker perceives himself or herself as a competent communicator (Burroughs et al., 2003). Its crucial role can be seen in situations when seemingly competent speakers choose to abandon communication while those whose CC is apparently unsatisfactory display a high level of WTC. Growing anxiety is reflected in the negative appraisal of one’s competence, which leads to a decrease in WTC. Anomie, self-esteem and introversion influenced WTC only indirectly through the first two variables, whereas no connection between alienation and WTC was found. MacIntyre’s (1994) seminal study marked the onset of empirical investigations exploring directional and casual relationships among WTC antecedents, an agenda that was to shape the research in this field for the years to come.

The Study of L2 WTC

Not long after the onset of research into L1 WTC, researchers’ attention was directed towards foreign and second language learners’ WTC, which expanded the spectrum of enquiry into the investigation of communication behaviour. This is because the command of the means of communication in the case of a learner of an additional language significantly differs from that of a native speaker and the interplay of antecedents can take diverse routes, different from those responsible for L1 readiness to engage in communication. As pointed out by MacIntyre et al. (1998: 546), L2 WTC cannot be understood as ‘a simple manifestation of WTC in the L1’. The investigation of factors underlying L2 WTC started with the study by MacIntyre and Charos (1996) who, using a combination of MacIntyre’s (1994) model and Gardner’s (1985) socio-educational model of language learning, formulated a hybrid model of L2 WTC, and identified statistically significant relationships between perceived competence, anxiety and the opportunity for contact with target language (TL) speakers and L2 WTC. With the use of path analysis, the researchers confirmed their hypothesis that L2 WTC and L2 motivation impact the frequency of communication in an L2, and that L2 anxiety and perceived competence directly affect L2 WTC. It became evident that apart from anxiety and perceived competence, a whole array of other linguistic, social, cognitive and emotional variables contributes to mediating L2 WTC. The following subsections focus on the outcomes of these early studies, both with respect to the nature of WTC and its cultural dimension.

The heuristic model

Interest in L2 communication resulted in a shift in the conceptualisation of WTC. No longer was it viewed as a stable, trait-like concept, but, rather, as a consequence of the coaction of competence, situational factors and intergroup tendencies. It needs to be noted at this juncture that the investigation of L1 WTC did take into account its state-like character. For example, MacIntyre et al. (1999) performed a study in which trait WTC was related to volunteering to take part in an experiment and state WTC was related to initiating a demanding communicative task. Soon, it became evident that, in order to understand the processes leading to L2 communication, numerous enduring and situational variables need to be taken into account and their impact has to be examined. Early studies of L2 WTC involved conducting statistical analyses of the cause and effect relationship between a language learner’s tendency to engage in communication and numerous individual variables believed to play a part in language learning (e.g. MacIntyre & Charos, 1996; MacIntyre & Clément, 1996). The outcome of the research into L2 WTC antecedents was a pyramid model of WTC proposed by MacIntyre et al. (1998), which captured the trait or state controversy, intergroup communication processes as well as time-related issues. In the words of MacIntyre (2007: 567), the model comprises ‘constructs commonly employed in the L2 literature according to proximal—distal continuum that captures the dimensions of time and specificity, with a distinct intergroup flavour’. The pyramid includes a batch of linguistic, communicative and social psychological variables (MacIntyre et al., 1998: 547–556), which, arranged as bricks in layers, build up to the pyramid’s pinnacle, or actual language use (Layer I) involving activities such as ‘speaking up in class, reading L2 newspapers, watching L2 television, or utilizing a L2 on the job’ (MacIntyre et al., 1998: 547).

Layer II, Behavioural Intention, consists of only one component, L2 WTC, which, within the model, has been defined as ‘readiness to enter into discourse at a particular time with a specific person or persons, using a L2’ (MacIntyre et al., 1998: 547), a characterisation that stresses the context-dependent nature of the construct rather than perceiving it as a permanent tendency. Whether actual language use takes place or not, WTC denotes a strong intention to communicate, as is the case with students whose raised hands indicate that they are ready and willing to answer the teacher’s question.

Layer III (Situated Antecedents) represents the most immediate determinants of WTC, that is desire to communicate with a specific person and state communicative self-confidence. The former relates to the affiliation which we feel with respect to people whom we consider similar, familiar or attractive, as well as to the control motives that correspond to our wish to affect the behaviour of other people. The starting point for the consideration of the latter was general self-confidence (Clément, 1986), since little was known about L2 self-confidence at the time the pyramid model was created. This was hypothesised to represent two tendencies: perceived confidence and lack of anxiety, and was viewed as a stable characteristic. However, MacIntyre et al. (1998) differentiated between trait-like self-confidence and a temporary feeling of confidence dependent on the parameters of a specific situation. The subcomponents of this state communicative self-confidence are state anxiety and state perceived competence. The tension and apprehension related to the first of them fluctuate because of a number of variables including, among others, intergroup tension, prior experience or fear of assimilation. Growing state anxiety affects self-confidence and, in effect, a person’s WTC. The other subcomponent, state perceived competence, denotes a speaker’s perception of his or her capacity to enter into communication at a given moment. It is hypothesised to increase in familiar contexts and decrease in novel situations, with an immediate effect on WTC.

The bottom three layers of the pyramid reflect distal, more enduring influences on L2 communication. Layer IV (Motivational Propensities) involves three factors, which are interpersonal motivation, intergroup motivation and L2 self-confidence. The first of these results from the social roles a speaker plays within a group and, yet again, is related to the issues of control and affiliation. The purpose of communication is often the control of others’ behaviour and is connected with power relationships, as is the case in a conversation between a teacher and a student, where the former is trying to change the latter’s behaviour by, for example, requesting an expansion of a one-word utterance when providing corrective feedback. The role someone plays in society will shape his or her interaction patterns and should be seen as a stable characteristic. Affiliation, the second aspect of interpersonal motivation, builds upon one’s willingness to bond with another person. On the one hand, it is situation dependent, and, on the other, it corresponds to a person’s individual profile. At the level of intergroup motivation, both control and affiliation issues come into play, with the former being related to power relationships between groups and the latter to Gardner’s (1985) concept of integrativeness. This construct is an integral part of his socio-educational model in which a desire to affiliate with TL speakers is a powerful predictor of learning and communicative behaviour. In contrast with the state-dependent conceptualisation of self-confidence contained in Layer III, L2 self-confidence included here accommodates an individual’s conviction of his or her capacity to communicate expertly using the TL. It stems from the appraisal of one’s own mastery of the L2 system and lack of anxiety or discomfort while communicating with other L2 users.

The factors included in Layer V (Affective-Cognitive Context) represent variables that, although slightly more detached from a particular context, set the scene for motivational propensities by shaping many of the antecedents discussed above. All of them are pertinent to the individual makeup of a learner, including attitudes and prior experiences. The three factors that are relevant at this level include intergroup attitudes, social situation and communicative competence. Intergroup attitudes concern integrativeness, fear of assimilation and motivation to learn the L2. While integrativeness brings learners closer to the TL community, fear of assimilation, or the threat that learning the language poses to their identity, may hamper L2 communication. It is the interplay of these two counteracting tendencies that impacts on learning behaviour. Social situation denotes interaction in a particular setting and can be defined by taking into account such parameters as the participants, the setting, the purpose, the topic and the channel of communication. CC stands for proficiency in the TL and, as it has preoccupied researchers for a long time, its existence is acknowledged in the multiple models of the construct (cf. Bachman, 1990; Canale, 1983; Canale & Swain, 1980). In MacIntyre et al. (1998), the researchers adopted the operationalisation embraced by Celce-Murcia et al. (1995), according to which CC comprises five competencies: linguistic, discourse, actional, sociocultural and strategic competence. Worth noting here is the fact that, as the authors of the pyramid model observe, WTC will result from CC as judged by the speaker, n...