Conceptualizing Willingness To Communicate in A L2: A Situational Model of L2 Confidence and Affiliation
Conceptualizing Willingness To Communicate in A L2: A Situational Model of L2 Confidence and Affiliation
Conceptualizing Willingness To Communicate in A L2: A Situational Model of L2 Confidence and Affiliation
RICHARD CLEMENT
University of Ottawa
eo. Box 450 STN A
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada KIN 6N5
Email: [email protected]
ZOLTAN DORNYEI
Thames Valley University
Walpole House, 18-22 Bond Street
London W55AA, UK
Email:[email protected]
KIMBERLY A. NOELS
University of Saskatchewan
Department ofPsychology
Arts Building, 9 CampusDrive
Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
Canada S7N 5A5
Email: [email protected]
Why do some students seek, while others avoid, second language (L2) communication? Many
language teachers have encountered students high in linguistic competence who are unwilling to use their L2 for communication whereas other students, with only minimal linguistic
knowledge, seem to communicate in the L2 whenever possible. Despite excellent communicative competence, spontaneous and sustained use of the L2 is not ensured. A colleague,
who teaches a L2 and whose L2 competence is excellent, is well known to avoid "like the
plague" L2 communication in social settings. A related observation is that many learners have
noticed that their willingness to communicate (WTC) varies considerably over time and
across situations. Our aim in this article is twofold. First we wish to provide an account of the
linguistic, communicative, and social psychological variables that might affect one's "willingness to communicate." As demonstrated in the text below, and examination ofWTC offers the
opportunity to integrate psychological, linguistic, and communicative approaches to L2 research that typically have been independent of each other. We view the WTC model as having
the potential to provide a useful interface between these disparate lines of inquiry. Our second goal is to suggest potential relations among these variables by outlining a comprehensive
conceptual model that may be useful in describing, explaining, and predicting L2 communication. In an effort to move beyond linguistic or communicative competence as the primary
goal of language instruction, this article represents an overt attempt to combine these disparate approaches in a common theme, that is, proposing WTC as the primary goal of language instruction.
546
to the communication literature by McCroskey
and Baer (1985), building on the earlier work of
Burgoon (1976) and others. McCroskey and Baer
conceptualized WTC as the probability of engaging in communication when free to choose to do
so. WTC reflects the stable predisposition to talk
in various situations and is seen essentially as a
personality trait. McCroskey and associates have
shown that WTC is related to such attributes as
communication apprehension, perceived communication competence, introversion-extraversion, self-esteem, and so forth. Although it is certain that the situation would influence a person's
level of WTC, the construct developed by MeCroskey and associates has been conceptualized
explicitly as a personality trait rather than as a
situation-based variable. It is not necessary to
limit WTC to a trait-like variable and in the present discussion, we treat it as a situational variable with both transient and enduring influences. Further, although McCroskey's work on
WTC focuses on speaking, we propose to extend
WTC to influence other modes of production,
such as writing and comprehension of both spoken and written language.
MacIntyre (1994) proposed a model describing the interrelations among several individual
difference variables as predictors of WTC in the
Ll. Results were consistent with a model in which
WTC was seen to be most directly influenced by
a combination of communication apprehension
and perceived communication competence. In
turn, these variables were seen to be caused by introversion and self-esteem, and to some extent,
anomie. The study concluded that approximately
60% of the variance in WTC can be accounted
for by this model. Further, MacIntyre suggested
that the WTC model also may be applied when
examining variability across situations.
There are many variables that have the potential to change an individual's WTC. The degree
of acquaintance between communicators, the
number of people present, the formality of the
situation, the degree of evaluation of the speaker,
the topic of discussion, and other factors can influence a person's WTC. However, perhaps the
most dramatic variable one can change in the
communication setting is the language of discourse. It is clear that changing the language of
communication introduces a major change in
the communication setting because it has the potential to affect many of the variables that contribute to WTC.
547
FIGURE 1
Heuristic Model of Variables Influencing WTC
Intergroup
Attitudes
1112
Intergroup Climate
Personality
dents who are willing to use the language is simply a failed program.
LAYER II: WILLINGNESS TO
COMMUNICATE
In the present discussion, we have extended
the trait-like conceptualization of WTC offered
by McCroskey and Baer (1985). To recognize
more explicitly the situational variation in WTC
and to focus on L2 communication, we define it
as a readiness to enter into discourse at a particular time with a specific person or persons, using
a L2. This definition provides that although the
opportunity to communicate will likely present itself, it is not absolutely necessary in order to possess the WTC. For example, if a teacher poses a
question to her or his students, several of them
may feel confident enough to answer and have
the desire to speak. Let us assume that students
are asked to raise their hands before speaking.
Even if only one student among many actually
verbalizes the answer, all of the students who
raise their hand express WTC in the L2. In fact,
we should consider the hand-raising a nonverbal
communicative event.
Students raising their hands to answer a teacher's
question commit themselves to a course of action
indicating that they are willing to attempt an answer if called upon, that is, if given the opportunity. The WTC model presented in Figure 1 at-
548
tempts to explain why those particular students
are raising their hands in the first place. Most
contiguous, it is because they feel self-confident
in their answer and wish to say something to their
teacher and classmates. Further, they must have
developed sufficient self-confidence with the
language in general to understand the question
and formulate a response. They feel motivated by
the interpersonal situation, likely a combination
of affiliation and control motives (to both please
the teacher and to get good grades). It is obvious
that the students are taking the language course
for a reason and, assuming that they were not coerced into it, this reflects some sort of motivation
for language learning, possibly an affiliation (integrative) or control-based (instrumental) motive.
Their prior language learning has led to development of self-confidence, which is based on a
lack of anxiety combined with a sufficient level of
communicative competence, arising from a series of reasonably pleasant L2 experiences. If
these conditions had not been met, the students
would have been disinclined to volunteer answers
in class, or likely would not be in the language
class at all. Finally, the students' personalities
may play a role in their approach to language
learning (e.g., why a conversational course versus
a literature course?). Social context may explain
not only why the language is being taught (e.g.,
why teach Spanish and not French?), but also why
the student chooses to learn one language instead of another. Theory and research related to
each of these influences will be addressed below.
WTC strongly implies a behavioural intention
such as: "I plan to speak up, given the opportunity." Behavioural intentions have been studied
widely in the fields of psychology and communication. Perhaps the best known theories are the
Fishbien-Ajzen model called the Theory of Reasoned Action (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Fishbein,
1980) and Ajzen's (1988) Theory of Planned Behavior, which adapts the Theory of Reasoned Action to situations where behaviour is not under
complete volitional control. This is appropriate
because communication usually involves the cooperation of at least two people.
The Theory of Planned Behavior holds that the
most immediate cause of behaviour is the intention to engage in a behaviour and the person's
actual control over his or her actions. In this sense,
intention must combine with opportunity to produce behaviour. Intention, which is the heart of
the model, is based on subjective norms, attitude
toward the behaviour, and perceived behavioural
control. Subjective norms are based on beliefs
that significant others want us to engage in cer-
549
550
LAYER IV: MOTIVATIONAL PROPENSITIES
The decision to initiate speech is a motivated
action that may be governed by both situationspecific and enduring influences. Motivational
propensities to communicate are, in many cases,
stable individual differences that apply in several
situations. Three clusters of variables appear to
be important here: (a) interindividual motivation, (b) intergroup motivation, and (c) L2 confidence. Motivational propensities are based on
the affective and cognitive contexts of intergroup interaction and ultimately lead to state
self-confidence and a desire to interact with a
particular person.
551
components to L2 confidence: The first component is cognitive and corresponds to the selfevaluation of L2 skills, a judgment made by the
speaker about the degree of mastery achieved in
the L2. The second component is affective and
corresponds to language anxiety, specifically, the
discomfort experienced when using a L2. L2 confidence has been the object of much research,
mostly from the point of view of the classroom
situation (Horwitz, Horwitz, & Cope, 1986;
Horwitz & Young, 1991; Maclntyre & Gardner,
1991). Generally, the concepts of anxiety and selfevaluation are closely linked and highly correlated in the L2 context (Clement, Gardner, &
Smythe, 1977, 1980; Maclntyre, Noels, & Clement,
1997) and have been shown to contribute to Ll
WTC (Maclntyre, 1994; McCroskey & Richmond,
1991). The results reported by Clement et al.
(1994) support the relationship between language anxiety and self-evaluation and demonstrate the value of combining the two variables
into a single, self-confidence construct. Selfconfidence has been shown to be related to aspects of intergroup contact (Clement & Kruidenier, 1985; see Box 10), to actual competence in
the L2 (Clement, 1986; see Box 9), as well as to
ethnic identity (Clement & Noels, 1991) and intercultural adaptation (Noels, Pon, & Clement,
1996).
In summary, interpersonal motivation is highly
specific to the individual and describes his or her
relationship to the people who speak the L2 as
well as to the L2 itself. Control and affiliation
motives are extremely important in determining
the specific persons with whom one will speak.
These motives appear to be closely related to attitudes and the structure of the relationship between persons as individuals and as representatives oflanguage-related groups. Communicative
competence and communication experience,
along with the interlocutor's pattern of personality variables, help determine L2 self-confidence,
which is primarily defined by judgments of proficiency and feelings of apprehension. We now
examine these variables in terms of the affective
and cognitive context.
LAYER V: THE AFFECTIVE AND
COGNITIVE CONTEXT
Layer V addresses variables that are somewhat
more remote from the specific language learning and communication context. Although the
hypothesised connection to WTC is through the
influence of these variables on the more specific
variables discussed above, these influences must
552
be described if our model is to be complete. The
variables discussed in this layer are individually
based, representing accumulated prior history
and broad-based attitudes and motives of an individual. These influences are less situationspecific and cover more types of events than the
previous ones, communicative or otherwise.
These variables have inspired considerable research efforts over the years. For the reasons
listed, these results should be integrated into any
model of L2 communication that seeks to be reasonably comprehensive.
553
554
(or sell), transfer information, entertain (or
edify), and reveal self.
It is easy to recognize that the topic of the communication will significantly affect the ease of
language use: Topical expertise and the familiarity with a certain register will boost one's linguistic self-confidence, whereas a lack of these may
inhibit even a generally confident speaker. There
is research evidence that superior content knowledge may result in being more verbally forthcoming and can override certain limitations the
speaker may have in his or her overall oral proficiency (Zuengler, 1993).
Bell (1984) argues that speakers will use a style
that they would normally use with persons they
associate with the topic or setting. Based on Fishman (1972), Bell introduces "domains" as socially
identifiable scenes that arrange extralinguistic
variables in clusters. In a classification showing a
remarkable similarity with Biber's (1994) six
domains mentioned above, Fishman suggests
five such broad domains that cover most interactions: employment, education, religion, family,
and friendship.
Finally, the communication channel involves
the medium chosen for the communication. The
two main channels are speaking and writing, but
within these broad categories there are further
subtypes that might cause considerable variation.
Within the oral/aural channel, telephone conversation is notoriously difficult for many L2 learners, partly because it lacks nonverbal support and
partly because the telephone conversation is a distinctive genre of interaction (cf Schegloff, 1994).
The variables listed above are interrelated in
highly complex ways; an example of these interrelations is Zuengler's (1993) study mentioned
earlier, in which levels of topic knowledge and the
relative L2 competence of the participants interact to determine dominance in conversation.
However, our focus in this paper is not so much
on the analysis of their interrelationship or the
correlation with dependent linguistic variables as
it is on the fact that these variables constitute, in
different combinations, markedly different communication situations. These situations become
"cognitively real elements of social structure"
(Preston, 1989, p.134) that are associated with
distinct registral features, for example, special
sets of vocabulary and formulaic routines, features of intonation, as well as characteristic bits
of syntax and phonology (Ferguson, 1994). This
implies that one's communicative experience in
one situation may not be transferred automatically to another, which, in turn, increases the perceived variability in L2 communication events
555
556
or do not favour the use of the L2. It is within this
particular context that the subjective aspects of
intergroup climate develop.
Perceptual and Affective Correlates. Although perceptual and affective correlates have been the
subject of much social-psychological theorising
and research, the present discussion will focus on
the role of attitudes and values regarding the L2
community and the motivation to adapt and reduce social distance between ethnic groups.
In general, it is assumed that a positive attitude
toward an ethnic group will lead to positive interactions with that group, whereas a negative attitude will be associated with fewer and less positive interactions with that language group. On
one hand, positive attitudes toward the L2 group
have been widely implicated in L2 learning motivation and achievement (see Gardner, 1985, for
review). A possible mediator of this relation is the
extent of contact between members of the two
ethnic groups (d. Clement, 1980, 1984). On the
other hand, concern about the implications of
negative attitudes on intergroup relations has
lead to a well developed body of research on prejudice and discrimination. This literature on attitude formation and maintenance emphasises the
number of different factors that may cause two
ethnic groups to dissociate. However, we will begin by discussing a process whereby individuals
strive to become more similar to others in their
surroundings: the process of adaptation.
Members of minority groups (e.g., immigrants,
refugees, sojourners, etc.) in particular, when
faced with an unfamiliar cultural environment,
can readily adapt to the new context. In such circumstances, individuals may concede certain practices and characteristics of their original culture
in exchange for participation in the host culture.
The general assumption is that this concession
will correspond with the acquisition of certain
benefits, such as social acceptance, economic
advancement, and psychological adjustment. Language may be viewed as one cultural characteristic that is open to change during the acculturation process (cf. Schumann, 1978).
For adaptation to an unfamiliar culture, L2 acquisitionmay indeed be essential. According to
Kim (1988), communication enables us to relate
to the environment and fulfil various human
needs. Consequently, harmonious adaptation is
likely to occur to the extent that we are capable of
communicating with others in that social environment. In a situation of intercultural contact,
then, it becomes necessary to acquire the linguistic and communicative skills and knowledge nee-
557
558
One must be cautious in looking for the personality profile of the good language learner
(MacIntyre & Noels, 1994). Personality is not
conceptualized as a direct influence on language
learning communication, partially because of the
flexibility introduced by variables shown in the
rest of the model in Figure 1. It should also be
noted that the role of individual differences in
personality is played out within a broader social
climate. Certain groups may be more homogeneous than others with respect to certain traits or
profiles. As well, groups may show different average or baseline levels of a given trait. For example, the average American learner is likely to be
more extraverted than the average Japanese
learner (Aida, 1994).
The model proposed here shows that personality helps to set the context in which language
learning occurs. The disposition to react positively or negatively to foreign people, in combination with the formation of positive or negative
attitudes, in a context with or without intergroup
conflict, is suggested to underpin the social distance or harmony between groups. For this reason, we regard the intergroup context and the
personality of the learner as variables that set the
stage for L2 communication, but that are less directly involved in determining a learner's WTC at
a given time.
CONCLUSION AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Conceptually, generating a WTC appears to be
a crucial component of modern L2 pedagogy. In
the past, emphasis on grammatical skill produced students with rather high linguistic competence but did not concentrate on the authentic
use of the language. Current emphasis on communicative competence may pose a similar problem, producing students who are technically capable of communicating, particularly inside the
classroom, but who may not be amenable to
doing so outside the classroom. We suggest that
a suitable goal ofL21earning is to increase WTC.
By engendering a willingness to communicate,
language instruction may achieve its social and
political goal of bringing cultures into contact
and nations together.
We have attempted to extend the WTC construct proposed by McCroskey and Baer (1985)
in two ways. First, we adapted it to refer to the L2
and identified several additional influences in
L2 communication. We were surprised to find
over 30 variables that may have potential impact
on L2 WTC, and it is encouraging that organizational principles could be proposed. We also sug-
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
559
REFERENCES
560
Chataway, C.]., & Berry,]. W. (1989). Acculturation experiences, appraisal, coping and adaptation: A
comparison of Hong Kong Chinese, French, and
English students in Canada. Canadian joornal oj
BehavioralScience, 21, 295-309.
Charos, C. (1994). Personality and individual differences as
predictors oj secondlanguage communication: A causal
analysis. Unpublished Honors Thesis, University
of Ottawa, Canada.
Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspectsojthe theoryoJsyntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Clement, R. (1980). Ethnicity, contact and communicative competence in a second language. In H.
Giles, W. P. Robinson, & P. M. Smith (Eds.), Language:Socialpsychological perspectives (pp. 147-154).
Oxford, England: Pergamon.
Clement, R. (1984). Aspects socio-psychologiques de la
communication interethnique et de l'identite sociale [Social psychological aspects of interethnic
communication and social identity]. Recherches
Soaologiques, 15, 293-312.
Clement, R. (1986). Second language proficiency and
acculturation: An investigation of the effects of
language status and individual characteristics.
journal oj Language and Social Psychology, 5, 271290.
Clement, R., Dornyei, Z., & Noels, K. (1994). Motivation, self-confidence, and group cohesion in the
foreign language classroom. Language Learning,
44,417-448.
Clement, R., Gardner, R. C., & Smythe, P. C. (1977).
Motivational variables in second language acquisition: A study of Francophones learning English.
Canadian journal oj BehavioralScience, 9, 123-133.
Clement, R., Gardner, R. C., & Smythe, P. C. (1980). Social and individual factors in second language acquisition. Canadian journal oj Behavioral Science,
12, 293-302.
Clement, R., & Kruidenier, B. G. (1983). Orientations
in second language acquisition: I. The effects of
ethnicity milieu, and target language on their
emergence. Language Learning, 33, 273-291.
Clement, R., & Kruidenier, B. G. (1985). Aptitude, attitude and motivation in second language proficiency: A test of Clement's model. [oumal oj Language and SocialPsychology, 4, 21-37.
Clement, R., & Noels, K. A. (1991). Langue, statut et acculturation: Une etude d'individus et de groupes
en contact [Language, status and acculturation:
A study of individuals and groups in contact]. In
M. Lavallee & F. Larose (Eds.) Identue, culture et
changementsocial: Actesdu Bieme colloque de I l1ssociation poor la recherche interculturelle (pp. 315-326).
Paris: Editions L'Harmattan.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and
self determination in human behavior. New York:
Plenum.
Dion, K. K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972) What is
beautiful is good. fournal oj Personality and Social
Psychology, 24, 285-290.
Dion, K. K., Dion, K. L., & Pak, A. W. (1990). The role
561
562
Patterson, M. L. (1990). Functions of non-verbal behavior in social interaction. In H. Giles & W. P.
Robinson (Eds.), Handbook of language and social
psychology (pp. 101-120). Chichester, England:
John Wiley & Sons.
Phinney,]. S. (1990). Ethnic identity in adolescents and
adults: A review of research. PsychologicalBulletin,
108,499-514.
Preston, D. R. (1989). Sociolinguistics and second language
acquisition. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.
Reeve,]. (1992). Understanding motivation and emotion.
Toronto: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College
Publishers.
Rogier, L. H., Cortes, D. E., & Malgady, R. G. (1991). Acculturation and mental health status among Hispanics: Convergence and new directions for research. American Psychologist, 46, 585-597.
Schegloff, E. A. (1994). Telephone conversation. In The
encyclopedia of language and linguistics (Vol. 9, pp.
4547-4549). Oxford, England: Pergamon.
Schumann,]. H. (1978). The acculturation model for
second language acquisition. In R. C. Gingras
(Ed.), Second language acquisition and foreign language teaching (pp. 27-50). Arlington, VA: Center
for Applied Linguistics.
Sheppard, B. H., Hartwick,]., & Warshaw, P. R. (1988).
The theory of reasoned action: A meta analysis of
past research with recommendations for modifications and future research. journal of Consumer
Research, 5, 325-343.
Sherif, M. (1958). Superordinate goals in the reduction
of intergroup conflict. American journal of Sociology, 349-356.