Ema Ushioda
Centre for Applied Linguistics
University of Warwick

 ‘ given motivation , it is inevitable that a human being will learn a second language, if he is exposed to the language data’ (Corder 1967:
164)
 Four decades of change since then … globalisation and global spread of English
 Language motivation theory only recently catching up with these changes …

 Reflecting ‘a sincere and personal interest in the people and culture represented by the other group’ (Gardner & Lambert 1972: 132)
 Strong versus weak forms
 The case of English as global language
(Crystal 2003) and English as basic educational skill (Graddol 2006) – who is the target reference group?
 Critical voices: Pavlenko (2002), Coetzee-
Van Rooy (2006)

 ‘international posture’ (Yashima 2002, 2009)
 Theoretical shift of focus to internal domain of self and identity
 Dörnyei & Csizér 2002; Dörnyei et al. 2006
 Theory of possible selves (Markus & Nurius
1986)
 L2 Motivational Self System (Dörnyei 2005,
2009): ideal and ought-to selves
 Motivation and identity (Lamb 2004, 2009)





Motivation theory has tended to focus on models and learners as abstractions
Limitations of linear models: Sean’s story …
Current shift in focus to self and identity
 need to address real social identities people bring to the language classroom
‘Understanding second language learners as people’ (Lantolf & Pavlenko 2001)
 Person-in-context relational view of motivation (Ushioda 2009)

A focus on real persons, rather than on learners as theoretical abstractions; a focus on the agency of the individual person as a thinking, feeling, human being, with an identity, a personality, a unique history and background; a person with goals, motives and intentions; a focus on the interactions between this self-reflective agent, and the fluid and complex web of social relations, activities, experiences and multiple micro- and macro-contexts in which the person is embedded, moves and is inherently part of. We need to take a relational (rather than linear) view of these multiple contextual elements and see motivation as an organic process that emerges through the complex system of interrelations.

 A concern with the learner as a fully rounded person, with a social identity, situated in a particular context (Riley 2003:239)
 Encourage Ss to develop and express their own identities through the language they are learning
 Legenhausen 1999: comparing conversation practice in traditional communicative vs autonomous classrooms

German students in traditional communicative classroom (Legenhausen 1999)
S: How old are you?
A: I’m twelve years old. And you?
S: Eleven.
A: Ehm. Do you live in a house or in a flat?
S: I live in a house in Olfen.
A: I live in a flat in Olfen, too. (..) Ehm, eh.
S: What’s your telephone number?
A: My telephone number is three five seven five, and what’s your tele / telephone number?
S: My telephone number is ehm three two two two (..)
A: Ah, ah, do you like school?
S: Yes, sometimes.

Danish students in ‘autonomous’ classroom
(Legenhausen 1999)
C: What shall we talk about?
M: I don’t know. What do you think?
C: Ah, we could talk about yesterday.
M: Ok.
C: [What did you?]
M: [What did you?] (laughing)
M: What did you do?
C: Well, I went home from school, and I write (..) some some music for my music group.
M: Yeah.
C: We shall play here Friday, after school, we have (..) borrowed a a room with drums and guitars, and so (..) we’re going to (..) record a tape, with our songs.
M: How many are you in your group?

 Richards 2006: analysis of classroom talk
(drawing on Zimmerman 1998)
 situated identities (T – S, doctor – patient)
 discourse identities (initiator, questioner …)
 transportable identities (mother of two, keen tennis player, avid science fiction fan)
 Motivational impact of invoking Ss’ own transportable identities in classroom talk

And the motivational consequences of not orienting to Ss’ own transportable identities in the language classroom …?
 Student: I am feeling bad. My grandfather he die last week and I am …
 Teacher: No – not die – say died because it’s in the past
(Scrivener 1994:19)

 Future possible selves (ideal & ought-to selves) can have strong psychological reality in the current imaginative experiences of learners (Dörnyei 2009)
 Engaging Ss’ transportable identities and
‘selves’ through L2 use now  may help them imagine future possible selves as L2 users