BELONGINGNESS AND INTEGRATIVE MOTIVATION

IN SECOND LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

by

Robb Kvašňák

A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of

The College of Education

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Education

Florida Atlantic University

Boca Raton, Florida

December 2007

Copyright by Robb Kvašňák 2007

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Sermos mensageiros da fala Comunicarmos com o coração Gritarmos a palavra pelas ruas Mostrarmos o poder da comunicação

Translation: Let us be the messengers of speech Let us communicate with the heart Let us scream the words through the streets Let us show the power of communication. - Edmar Bernardes DaSilva (2001)

This dissertation would not have been possible without the support and encouragement of many people, among whom, just some of which:

Dr. Penelope Fritzer, from the United States, my chair, but who more fittingly deserves the German title of Doktormutter.

Dr. Angela Rhone, from Jamaica, who prepared me and guided me during my entire

graduate program.

Dr. John Morris, from the United States, who encouraged and carefully advised me

with the study design.

Dr. Hanizah Zainuddin, from Malaysia, who spent countless hours and enormous

energy discussing and revising the theory and research of this study.

Edmar Bernardes DaSilva, from Brazil, who brought me back to education, supported me in my hours of dissertational despair, and who constantly discussed my ideas and research with me.

My parents, Alice and Neil Kvasnak, from the United States, who have lovingly

supported me in every way possible on this arduous journey.

iv Dr. Michael Bendixen, from South Africa, who patiently advised me and corrected my work over and over again.

Dr. Rolv Mikkel Blakar, from Norway, who surprised me by sending me a copy of his book as a present and encouragement to complete this work.

Rafael Ñañez, from Venezuela, who helped me with his skills in graphic design during many hours with the graphic presentation of this dissertation’s content.

Without this truly international group of people, I would never have finished this dissertation which is just a small first step on the journey of research that lies before me.

v ABSTRACT

Author: Robert Neil Kvasnak

Title: Belongingness and Integrative Motivation in Second Language Acquisition

Institution: Florida Atlantic University

Dissertation Advisor: Dr. Penelope Fritzer

Degree: Doctor of Education

Year: 2007

This study investigates the perceptions that second language students have of those who speak the language that these students are trying to acquire and examines how these perceptions relate to students’ progress in acquiring the target language.

The study is based on the psychological theory of the need to belong, i.e. belongingness as well as on the concept of integrative motivation. This study is a qualitative investigation that uses the Repertory Grid Technique and Personal

Construct Theory in order to elicit subject perceptions and their constructs.

Membership checking was carried out with nine of the originally interviewed 22 subjects in order to obtain more insight into the subjects’ perceptions of themselves, their progress, and, most importantly, their perceptions of the target language speakers.

One of the important findings in this study is the establishment of what elements second language students use to construct views of target language speakers.

The subjects of this study used specific culture, generic culture, language, and

vi perceptions to try to understand target language speakers. Furthermore, those subjects

who had graduated from the community college program from which the subjects were drawn and who were now working in the everyday world showed strong desire to integrate into English-speaking society. Conversely, these program graduates showed an increased degree of criticism of American English speakers. Their views may be attributed to the close contact and lack of preparation for contact with target language speakers, as the community college program contained little or no instruction on American English culture. The perceptions of being marginalized expressed by the graduates, perceptions not shared by those students still in the community college program, indicate a need for a change in curriculum which would emphasize the students’ social needs outside of and beyond the classroom and cultivate a sense of belonging to target language society.

Belongingness and integrative motivation may well the key to a bright new future of second language acquisition. As more research is done on the significance of both concepts, and as they are increasingly incorporated into language learning classrooms, students should acquire target languages with greater ease.

vii

This dissertation is dedicated to my family:

My life partner, Edmar Bernardes-DaSilva

My parents, Alice and Neil Kvasnak

My nephew, Ethan Kvasnak TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ...... x

CHAPTER

1 Introduction ...... 1 Background of the Study ...... 2 Factors Affecting Rate of Success in Second Language Acquisition ...... 3 Rationale ...... 10 Purpose of Study ...... 16 Research Questions ...... 17 Delimitations ...... 19 Anticipated Limitations ...... 21 Assumptions ...... 21

2 Literature Review...... 24 A Quantitative Study of Integrative Motivation ...... 27 Linguistic Theories ...... 34 Second Langage Acquisition ...... 35 Definition ...... 35 Socio-Educational Models, Individual Differences ...... 42 Krashen’s Hypotheses ...... 49 Vygotsky (1934/1986), Bakhtin (1986), and Second Language Acquisition ...... 52 Definition of Communicative Competence ...... 53 Critical Period ...... 54 Second Language Acquisition Students ...... 56 The Politics of Second Language Acquisition ...... 56 Acculturation...... 64 Emotion and Learning...... 67 Need for Belongingness ...... 68 View of Self ...... 78 Citizenship in the Group ...... 80 Attachment ...... 81 Group Socialization Theory ...... 82 Group Dynamics Theory ...... 83 Integrative Motivation ...... 83 Instrumental Motivation...... 87 Belongingness and Integrative Motivation ...... 87 Instruments Used to Measure Belongingness ...... 89 Activity Theory – New Approach to Second Language Acquisition ...... 90 Summary ...... 91

3 Design of the Study ...... 93 The Problem ...... 93 Methodology ...... 93

viii Subjects ...... 96 Procedures ...... 99 Instrumentation ...... 100 Analysis Techniques ...... 103 Conclusion ...... 105

4 Findings...... 106 Demographics ...... 107 Research Questions ...... 113 Results ...... 114 Questions Number One and Two ...... 114 Perceived and Actual Levels of English Competence and Performance ...... 118 Question Number Three ...... 122 A Subject Who Appears in All Three Tables ...... 128 New Knowledge...... 130 Segments Used by Subjects to Construct their Perceptions of Target Language Speakers ...... 131 Limitations ...... 135

5 Conclusions and Implications ...... 136 Implications for SLA Learners ...... 139 Implications for SLA Curriculum Development ...... 140 Implications for SLA Teachers ...... 140 Future Studies ...... 141 Conclusions ...... 142

REFERENCES ...... 145

A Consent Form ...... 158 Consent Form in Spanish – Forma de Consentimiento ...... 159 B Pertinent Demographics ...... 162 Demograficas Pertinentes ...... 164 C Interview Protocol – Repertory Grid Technique ...... 166 Protocolo de la Entravista - Repertorio en la Técnica de Agarre ...... 173 D Second Interview ...... 179 Segunda Entravista ...... 183 E Norman’s Markers for the Big Five (Norman, 1963) ...... 186 F Discussion of Acquisition versus Learning ...... 187 G Glossary ...... 188 H Similarity to the Own Language Group (Spanish Speakers) ...... 195

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH……..…………………………………………..………196

LIST OF FIGURES

ix Figure 2.1 Graham and Brown’s (1996) Findings ...... 28

Figure 2.2 Csizér and Dörnyei’s (2005) Model of SLA ...... 49

Figure 2.3 Maslow’s (1968/1999) Hierarchy of Needs ...... 69

Figure 2.4 Oxytocin ...... 77

Figure 4.1 Subjects by Gender ...... 107

Figure 4.2 Subjects by Age ...... 108

Figure 4.3 Subjects by Age Groups/Level of English ...... 108

Figure 4.4 Subjects by Country of Birth ...... 109

Figure 4.5 Subjects by Degree of Education ...... 110

Figure 4.6 Subjects by Profession ...... 110

Figure 4.7 Subjects’ Length of Stay in the U.S.A ...... 111

Figure 4.8 Comparison of the Amount of Time Subjects had Studied English ...... 112

Figure 4.9 Languages Other than English Studied by Subjects ...... 112

Figure 4.10 Number of Subjects who had Lived in Countries Other than their Country of Birth and the United States ...... 113

Figure 4.11 Subjects sorted by Positive, Neutral, and Negative Perceptions of Target Language Speakers ...... 116

Figure 4.12 Comparison of the Subjects’ Personal Perceptions of their Level of English, their Program Assigned Level of English, and their Perceptions of Target Language Speakers ...... 117

Figure 4.13 Subjects’ Perceptions of American English Speakers Compared to Subjects’ Perceived and Actual Levels of English ...... 118

Figure 4.14 Program Assigned Levels of English ...... 119

Figure 4.15 Perceived Listening Level (self reported) ...... 119

Figure 4.16 Perceived Speaking Level (self reported) ...... 120 Figure 4.17 Perceived Reading Level (self reported) ...... 120

x Figure 4.18 Perceived Writing Level (self reported) ...... 121

Figure 4.19 Indications of Positive Belongingness Elements ...... 123

Figure 4.20 Indications of Neutral Belongingness Elements ...... 124

Figure 4.21 Indications of Negative Belongingness Elements ...... 125

Figure 4.22 Segments Used by Subjects to Construct their Perceptions of Target Language Speakers ...... 132

Figure 4.23 Individual Segment Constructs of Individual Perceptions of Target Language Speakers ...... 133

xi

CHAPTER ONE

Introduction

Today’s world is a world in which migration from one country to another is growing. Countries that were once the source of migration abroad are now accepting large numbers of refugees and immigrants. Turkey, for example, has been accepting immigrants from war-torn Iraq and politically troubled Iran. There are approximately

10,000 Iraqis now living in Turkey (Frayer, 2007). The Turkish governmental university in Ankara, Gazi Üniversitesi, has prepared a course to teach these new inhabitants Turkish and this course is also used throughout Turkey (Tömer, n.d.).

Hungary has established Hungarian classes for Cuban refugees (Hungary, 2007).

France, Germany, Sweden, South Africa, and many more countries now face the task of helping new arrivals acquire the national language or languages. Due to this globalization of migration, interest in second language acquisition has grown. Since the 1970s, second language acquisition has become an independent and interdisciplinary subject that draws on education, psychology, sociology, and linguistics. Thousands of studies have been carried out on detailed problems faced by second language students. Some of these studies have dealt with motivation and the

1 role it plays in second language acquisition. What have been missing in these studies of motivation are the qualitative element and the input of the subjects themselves.

Background of the Study

The purpose of this research is to explore the role of second language students’ perceptions of native speakers of a target language as the former acquire proficiency in the target language. This subject can be broken down into the following three parts: Part 1: The perceptions that learners have of self Every human has a perception of him- or herself. This perception is often

referred to as ‘self’ or ‘self-identity’. In this study, the way in which first language

speakers perceive themselves when attempting to acquire a second language will be

explored. The idea of ‘self’ is examined from several points of view, for example the

first language self and the second language self.

Part 2: The perceptions that learners have of native speakers of the second language being acquired People have opinions about those who speak a language other than their own.

Therefore, those who are attempting to acquire a second language have opinions

about the group whose language they are trying to acquire. In this study, some of the

opinions that non-English native speakers who are studying American English have

of American English speakers are investigated.

Part 3: The role that the differential in these perceptions plays in affecting the degree of acquiring a second language, in this case the perceptions that the non- native speakers have of their competence and performance in the target language The possible connections that exist between how the non-English-speaking

subjects view themselves within their own speech community (Part I) as well as how

they view American English speakers as a group (Part 2) are examined. Furthermore,

2 the relationships between these two perceptions, including how the Spanish-speaking subjects see or understand themselves as new American English speakers, is explored. Using these qualitative observations, one can make associations between participants' perceptions in this complex structure and their achievement in acquiring

American English.

Factors Affecting Rate of Success in Second Language Acquisition

People acquiring a second language attain different levels of linguistic competence and performance in using that second language. Some second language students remain on a basic intercommunication skills (BICS) level, incapable of participating in complex linguistic exchanges in the target language, a skill often referred to as Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) (Cummins, 1979) and needing considerably more time to process the second language than do native speakers. Two other factors which may also influence student learning are

Schumann’s (1978) Social Distance Theory and Maslow’s (1968/1999) Hierarchy of

Needs, neither of which usually is formally addressed in language classrooms.

Using Selinker’s (1972) concept of Interlanguage one sees how the L2

(second language) learner develops a language that is neither L1 (mother tongue or first language) nor L2 but a language that belongs to the L2 learner, often with elements of both. When this Interlanguage persists over a long period of time, the L2 learners must rely heavily on their short-term, or working, memories to process L2.

Since the short-term memory can only process a very limited number of items at a time, language structure vies with content information for space in the working memory, greatly slowing down communication and impeding the speaker from

3 concentrating fully on the intended exchange of ideas. To avoid this limitation, the

L2 learner often accepts the use of non-standard forms drawn from his or her

Interlanguage in order to concentrate on content.

Native speakers are generally unaware of the structure of the language they use, since the knowledge of this usage is stored in long-term memory in a phenomenon called automaticity. This lack of automaticity for large segments of L2 learners (Bialystock, 1997; McLaughlin, 1987) is different from the language development of people acquiring their mother tongue since all people attain native linguistic competence and performance in their mother tongues unless they are subject to brain dysfunctions, but not all second language learners become proficient in their target languages (TL). The target language is generally referred to as L2 (see the section on definitions in the Appendices for a definition of L2) in the field of second language acquisition.

Since the 1980s, educators around the world have come to understand that languages are acquired, not learned (Krashen & Terrell, 1983), and that authentic communication is vital to second language acquisition (McLaughlin, Rossman, &

McLeod, 1983; Bialystok, 1997; Niykos, 1991; Chamott & O’Malley,1994). But schools continue to teach language as though it were a subject similar to mathematics, in a method is referred to in second language theory as the “grammar translation” since it is highly rule-oriented (Ariza, Morales-Jones, Yahya, & Zainuddin, 2006). In this method, vocabulary is learned by rote instead of acquired through usage. Some examples of grammar-oriented courses (elaborate emphasis on rule-learning) for second language acquisition that employ a mathematics class metaphor are the high

4 school Spanish course text books used in many high schools, Paso a Paso (Met,

Sayers, & Eubanks Wargin, 2000), the French course text books used in many high schools, Discovering French (Valette & Valette, 1998) and the Spanish course text books used at some community colleges, ¡Ven Conmigo! (Humbach & Ozete, 2000).

Several research studies have shown that teaching language solely using explicit knowledge, as with the methods and goals used in teaching mathematics, does not lead to students attaining high levels of communicative competence and performance

(Zobl, 2004).

Schools in general continue foreign language instruction in the same way it has been traditionally taught, that is, using the aforementioned “grammar translation method” (Ariza, Morales-Jones, Yahya, & Zainuddin, 2000). The use of this method is the crux of the discussion in the field of foreign language studies unleashed by

Krashen and Terrell (1983), who proposed separating the ideas of language learning and language acquisition. In Krashen and Terrell’s (1983) model, one does not become a proficient user of a language by studying it in textbooks. Rather, one becomes a proficient user of a language by being involved in authentic, meaningful communication in the target language, that is trying to exchange ideas with other users of the language in order to discuss a topic relevant to the learner. The term

"negotiation of meaning" is used in second language acquisition to describe the use of such authentic meaning in the second language classroom. Furthermore, a course of study focused on memorizing lists of vocabulary and examining the use of syntax in a language, parceling out pronunciation from general language practice, and

5 prescription of cloze activities will not, in Krashen and Terrell’s (1983) view, lead the

student to becoming a proficient user of the language.

However, despite the discussion and affirmative research of a quarter of a

century, English for non-standard native English speakers, such as those who speak

Ebonics (African American vernacular), is even today usually taught by the , often resulting in students' lack of language skills on the secondary level (Rickford, 1998).

This method may be one of the significant factors that lead speakers of languages other than English to have much lower rates of high school graduation than do most other groups of students (MacDonald, 2004). For example, only 36.2% of English for

Speakers of Other Languages (ESOL) students graduate from high school in the state of Florida, mostly due to their lack of skills in American English (MacDonald, 2004).

Though ESOL classes and remedial help are offered in many schools, for a majority of ESOL students this help is not adequate. In this current research an answer or a partial answer to the dilemma is sought through examination of one element of second language acquisition: the motivation that is connected to students’ perception of native speakers of their target language (the language they are trying to learn).

Schumann (1978) proposed his Social Distance Theory, which added social context to the study of second language acquisition (Kim, 2006). Schumann (1978) looked at the social factors surrounding the second language student, claiming that these social factors play as much a role in second language acquisition as do the elements of comprehensible input and the affective filter (Kim, 2006). Schumann’s theory was, however, based on his observations but not on direct human research, a methodological limitation.

6 Anyone who has taught a class of English language learners has certainly

noted the enthusiasm and true desire on the part of most students to acquire English.

Yet, despite this authentic enthusiasm and despite the many hours that these students

invest in studying English, many of them are still struggling with English in their

third or fourth year of ESOL classes. This slow progress should make teachers seek

answers as to why these students are not making more progress more quickly. Few of

the students in ESOL classes state that they know native speakers of English on a

personal basis. Often, the teacher is the only representative of the group of native

speakers, and, due to the formal limitations of the classroom, the teacher remains a

distant figure. The textbooks contain but sparse authentic information on real native speakers (see the discussion of Focus on Grammar, Schoenberg, 1994, below), whereby the word “authentic” refers to situations or people who are real (not

hypothetical constructs or abstractions) to the second language learner.

In 1968, Maslow (1968/1999), a psychologist of the American Humanist

School, proposed a way to explain the motive to self-actualize (Larsen & Buss, 2005).

His concept is presented as a hierarchy of needs. The base of this hierarchy is composed of the basic carnal needs of survival, for example food, shelter, protection, water, etc. In the middle of his hierarchy is the concept of belongingness. Baumeister and Leary (1995) wrote a detailed critique of Maslow’s (1968/1999) original hierarchy, relocating belongingness further towards the base of the pyramidal hierarchy, by arguing that belongingness is the essence of human existence. This view

was shared by Dunbar (1996), who proposed Dunbar’s number. Dunbar (1996) had

observed other primates and discovered that non-human primates construct their

7 belonging to a group through grooming. Dunbar’s theory states that language is the

human form of grooming and that through language humans can multiply their

grooming partners exponentially thus making larger groups possible. In this way,

humans can create and maintain working units that number approximately 150,

whereas non-human primates who must groom without language can only maintain units of 15 to 18 of their species. Language, therefore, becomes an essential part of human existence as a tool for survival.

But language is not only a tool for survival. Language is a tool for developing a perception of self and of the world that surrounds self. Harris (1999) describes the

reconstruction of language by each new generation and explains that each generation

adapts its mother language to the reconstruction of society. Joseph (2004) describes

the ritual of the pubertal self redefining group identity by creating a new linguistic code that adults call slang.

Since one’s mother tongue is a strong constituent of one’s perception of self, as a second language learner one struggles with varying views of the speakers of the target language (L2) (Joseph, 2004). These views may be socially distant or not, more instrumental or more integrative. Gardner and Lambert (1972), doing research on immersion programs in Canada, introduced the terms "instrumental motivation" and

"integrative motivation".

The following may be viewed as examples of instrumental motivation: many

Europeans who study English do not necessarily nurture a very positive image of the

British people, their customs, history, and traditions. Many South Americans who learn American English may have a similarly poor image of North Americans but

8 attempt to learn American English in order to be able to do business with North

Americans and others. However, it must be noted that the acquisition of English puts the learner in a new group within his or her society, giving the learner a new identity as belonging to a new elite, that is those who can do business with the British or with

Americans, and thus earn more money and higher status.

Additionally, some people learn a second language used by an enemy group in order to acquire intelligence about that group, as is frequent in wartime. Further, minorities generally acquire fluency in the language of the majority in order to be able to function in mainstream society, and airplane pilots, as mentioned elsewhere, must learn English regardless of their perceptions of native English speakers.

Instrumental motivation is found in the attempt to acquire a target language for external purposes (Ariza et al., 2006), and so people who attempt to acquire a target language in order to do business with speakers of that language, to search out information on speakers of that language, to get better grades, or to fulfill a language requirement. Parents who try to learn the school language of their children are also motivated instrumentally, since these parents desire to speak the language spoken at school in order to help their children succeed. Although at first glance it would seem plausible that there should be a close relation between these two variables that is, a positive perception of the native speakers of the target language and the student’s linguistic competence and performance, the correlation between the student’s perception of the target language speaking community and the same student’s attained competence and performance in the target language do not always match.

9 Integrative motivation, conversely, would seem to be the other extreme of a linear model of motivation in language acquisition. Thus, it is said that people who desire to belong to a group are integratively motivated. These people include immigrants to a new country where a language or dialect different from their mother tongue is spoken, and integrative motivation can be described as the desire to blend in with the speakers of the target language. Integratively motivated people may, however, also be the conquerors of another people whose culture they admire, such an example of this blending is the Yüan dynasty in China: the Yüan were Mongols who, instead of imposing Mongolian on the Chinese, ended up speaking Chinese themselves and leading quite Sinicized lives (Schurmann, 1967; Bauer, 1974).

Another example of integration is the adaptation of English on the part of England’s nobility after several hundred years of speaking French. This change in language code from French to English was brought about by the Black Death and the separation of goods for the nobles who, until then, had been able to maintain properties in both

England and France (Baugh & Cable, 2002).

Rationale

Research on second language acquisition and related teaching strategies has been extensive. Having been exposed to the requirements of acquiring a second language in a second language environment, the researcher has thought deeply about what elements of the vast quantities of research that he has read apply to him, and what is missing. Looking at his success in acquiring several different languages as well as at the advantages that lay in mastering these languages, the researcher has pondered his own varying success in attaining a native-like fluency in the languages

10 that he is has studied and is studying. Self-reflection on the issue of integrative motivation and its relation to the learner’s perception of the speakers of the target language led to a need for a closer look at this issue. Therefore, in this research a detailed look at one small aspect of the problem has been carried out: the way in which the language students perceive themselves in relationship to the speakers of the target language and how this perception relates to their motivation to acquire the target language. Though the subjects of this study are or were students of English at a community college, the study will apply not only to English Language Learners or

New English Language Learners (ELLs and NELLS respectively (see definitions in

Appendix G) but also to native born minorities, for example Ebonics speakers, speakers of Appalachian English, speakers of Hawaiian pidgin, and other speakers of non-mainstream dialects (Rickford, 1998). Sociolinguists even point out that some

African American children refuse to ‘talk white’, meaning refuse to use mainstream

American English in their academic discourse, a clear statement linking language with its speakers (Ogbu, 2003; Rickford, 1998). Seen as a sociolinguistic explanation for learner motivation in regards to the mainstream variety, this refusal to ‘talk white’ also points to a belongingness issue, namely, “Do I want to belong to ‘white’ society or do I want to mark my speech and my belongingness to another social group by using a different variety?”

Understanding the relation between an individual’s attempts to acquire a second language and that individual’s perception of the people who speak that target language could help second language teachers present the culture and speakers of the target language to those learners so as to positively influence competence and

11 performance on the part of the second language student. In the same way,

understanding this relation between perception, on the one hand, and/or

communicative competence and performance, on the other hand, may help the

students themselves understand their perceptions of the speakers of the language that

these students are trying to acquire.

Until recently, the study of foreign languages was limited to attaining the

capacity to read in the languages studied, a technique known as the "Grammar

Translation Method". In the Grammar Translation Method, students memorize long

lists of vocabulary, declensions, and inflections (Ariza et al., 2006). In fact, the

people who speak the target language are presented in a rather impersonal and

‘cardboard’ way. If one looks at the frequently used series Focus on Grammar

(Schoenberg, 1994), one finds an array of people without true personae. There is little

or no background information about the characters’ lives, emotions, ideals, or culture,

with the exception of what are meant to be poignant vignettes. In short, though the

people and situations could be part of the lives led by the speakers of the target language, there is very little emotional, affective connection for the second language learner.

The following is an example:

Elenore: What are you doing, Pete? Pete: What am I doing? I’m cooking. Elenore: Yes, I know. But what are you cooking? Pete: I’m making two chickens with mushrooms and onions and a meatloaf with rice. Elenore: You’re cooking for an army! Who are you cooking for? Pete: I’m cooking for Caroline, Ray, Andrea, Billy, and us. Elenore: But why? Pete: The dinner party. Elenore: What dinner party? Pete: Our dinner party.

12 Elenore: Our dinner party is next week. Pete: No, it isn’t. Look at the calendar. It’s tonight. Elenore: Oh, you’re right. Is everything ready? Pete: Are you kidding? Roll up your sleeves. Elenore: Yes, sir. (Schoenberg, 1994, p. 44)

In the other parts of the text, the reader learns that Elenore and Pete are

married and that Elenore does not like one of the secretaries in the office where Pete

works (though the reader does not know why) and that they have a son who is neither

introduced to the reader nor at any point described. The book also says that they at

one point are walking down Second Avenue, but the book does not say in which city

or what time of the year, why they are there, what they are thinking – only that they

are hungry and are surprised when a pizzeria in which they want to eat is closed. In

other words, these people are soul-less, personality-less creations for the language learner, hardly people with whom students could identify.

The Grammar Translation Method of teaching a foreign language is modeled on the study of Latin and Ancient Greek, and the results are generally known in the

United States sarcastically as ‘high school French’, that is a grammatical

understanding of the functioning of a language that leaves the student capable of

reading some literature in that language but unable to use it to communicate even the

most basic needs, such as finding a restroom in the country where the target language

is spoken. Even though the previous example of textbook conversation seems

reasonable enough, the boredom factor is high and no student would come away from

studying that conversation knowing how to ask directions or to order from a menu.

13 The grammatical elements and vocabulary are detached from the story and taught as learning units. No “authentic communication” takes place.

Seen from a viewpoint taken by Vygotsky (1934/1986) and Bakhtin (1986), this vignette is without voice or persona. Monson, Keel, Stephens, and Genung (1982,

in Baumeister & Leary, 1995) found that people identified more with future interaction partners than with people with whom they did not believe that they would ever have personal contact.

However, researchers who have observed second-generation immigrants have described the general native fluency of the second generation. Some of the members of the second generation speak one language outside of the home and another one at home. In some of the studies, members of the second generation use their home language at home and also with some of their peers outside of the home but use L2

with other peers and adults outside of the home. (Adams, Reichmann, & Rippley,

1990; Cummins, 2001; Harris, 1999; Joseph, 2004). All of these observers also

indicate that most members of the second generation of immigrants identify more

strongly with the culture in which they live outside of the home than with their home

culture. Harris (1999) describes the linguistic competence and performance of the

second generation in the home language (L1) as becoming stagnant and not making progress while the linguistic competence and performance that these same people make in the language of the culture in which they live outside the home (L2) continues to grow and evolve.

The explanation for this difference is possibly the desire of the second generation to become accepted and thus successful in the new culture. Using their so-

14 called "mother tongue” (often referred to as L1) will not help them navigate the new

society. Their second language (often referred to as L2) seems, therefore, to replace

their native language. The language spoken at home still has a place in their lives but

is not necessary for success in life outside of the home or family circle. On the contrary, bilinguals who have a peer group that speaks the language spoken at home will use it in the peer group outside the home but will use the other language in contexts where speakers of their home language are not present (Harris, 1999). What

Harris (1999) describes in detail is how this peer group reconstructs the home

language, adapting it to needs of the peer group. Harris’ (1999) observations are

borne out by research done by Williams, Alvarez, and Andrade-Hauck (2002) in an

American high school regarding how a group of teenaged Latinas constructed a

Spanish-speaking community that was founded on an amalgamation of cultural views

from the home with cultural norms in the high school.

Fluency in the language spoken at home may or may not reach native speaker

levels in the situation in which bilingual speakers of the same language pair consort

(Harris, 1999). This discrepancy does not hold for all people at all times. Rather, the

relationship of the individual to the languages the individual speaks is complex and

varied.

The results of this current research should be of some guidance to both

teachers and students of second languages, to help promote acquisition of the second

language, and more specifically, to address one of the issues that vex second language

learners, that is motivation. In order to obtain these results, 1) the participants will be

asked to describe their perceptions of the speakers of the language that they are

15 striving to learn; 2) the participants will also be asked to self-assess their progress in

acquiring the language they are studying; and, 3) to further substantiate these

statements above, course level designations will be used along with the observations

of the researcher of use of common American English intonation patterns,

pronunciation of schwa and /ı/, use of common American English syntax and

vocabulary, and more.

Purpose of Study

In this current study, the possible relations between linguistic communicative

competence and performance, in association with motivations that spring from the

second language learner’s perception of self in relation to their own language

community and that of native speakers of their target language, are examined, but

emphasis is on integrative motivation. Though Dörnyei (2005) pointed out that,

instrumental and integrative motivation are not completely separable and do not

indeed represent two extremes on a linear model, this study examines only the

integrative part of Dörnyei’s equation. In Dörnyei’s (2005) new model, integrative

and instrumental motivations are intertwined in different ways in each individual,

though these motivations still remain distinct entities. Furthermore, this current

study’s approach is qualitative and not quantitative, as have been the studies carried

out to now. But contrary to many studies carried out in the past, the subjects of this

study have been asked to look at the data generated and explain these data. This

approach involving the subjects in analyzing the data goes back to Paulo Freire

(1972/2005) and his search to understand the illiterate farm workers to whom he was trying to teach reading. In accordance with Freire’s (1972/2005) philosophy, the

16 researcher (and teacher) is no longer an autonomous, distant observer of the subjects.

The researcher becomes the student of the subjects and merely applies her/his expertise in the subject matter to the problem being investigated. Until now, research on motivation in second language acquisition has been carried out without involving the input of subjects directly in the investigations, though the analyses, unlike this one, are all quantitative.

If it can be shown that there is an association between the perceptions that a second language learner has of the people whose language s/he is trying to learn and his/her success in acquiring the target language, then the focus of language instruction may be changed. Instead of concentrating on language form, that is correct pronunciation and formulation of sentences, the second language teacher may find it more important for the center of attention to be placed on the speakers of the target language. Spending the first lessons introducing the speakers of the target language may prove to be more significant in language acquisition than attempting to introduce verb conjugations and lists of vocabulary to be memorized.

This study, therefore, looks at the possible association between linguistic competence and performance in the target language of the subjects in the study and at the perception that the subjects have of the speakers of the target language that these subjects are attempting to acquire. This work attempts to find clues that link self- identity and group identity and to examine the association of these two identities with the linguistic success of the individual in acquiring a second language.

17 Research Questions

1) Do L2 students who have a positive opinion of the target speakers perceive themselves as having attained a higher level of linguistic competence than those who have a negative opinion of the target language speakers?

2) Do L2 students who identify with the target language speakers perceive themselves as having attained a higher level of linguistic competence than those who do not?

3) Do L2 students with a high level of integrative motivation have a high level of linguistic competence and performance?

One of the most important blocks to second language acquisition is the affective filter, that is the student’s emotional stance in regards to the acquisition of the target language (Krashen & Terrell,1983; Mitchell & Myles, 2004). Anxiety and motivation are thought to play an important role in the progress made by students in moving toward communicative competence (Schumann, 1986). Despite these claims, few studies have examined the significance of students’ emotional perceptions toward the group whose language they are striving to acquire. This study, therefore, is concentrated on students’ success and their perceptions of American English speakers.

Seminal to the work proposed of this paper was a study carried out in 1996 by two researchers from Brigham Young University in a part of Mexico that was partially settled by American immigrants from Utah in the late 1800s. In that study,

Graham and Brown (1996) examine the relationship of native Spanish speakers with the English spoken in their region and look at how well the native Spanish speakers,

18 the majority, succeed in acquiring English, the language of the minority. The idea for

this present study sprang from their research.

Delimitations

The selection of language learners was limited for this study. The subjects

were students who have passed the entrance exams to be admitted to English

preparatory classes at a community college in Florida. Participation in this research was on a voluntary basis and no incentive was offered for participation. Therefore,

some selection of subjects may be due to their willingness to participate in a study of

language acquisition. In order to account for interference of the mother tongue in

language acquisition of the target language (L2), the subjects were all of the same language group (Spanish).

People have varying degrees of education and competence in their mother tongues (L1). Since transfer is an important element in language acquisition, possessing strong language skills in L1 may be a factor in acquiring a second language (L2). It is most probable that the subjects of this study have acquired fairly strong language skills in their L1 in order to be able to gain admittance to a community college.

This study is limited to examining the linguistic competence and performance of adult, academic, classroom learners who have studied their L2 in an academic setting. Since the students have been tested and assigned levels of linguistic competence and performance by their college, no further instruments will be necessary to establish their levels of linguistic competence and performance. The students were, however, asked to score their own level of linguistic competence and

19 performance in the target language and these scores are compared to those assigned

by the college. The tests administered by the college to assign a class level to the

students are actually based competence and performance on academic language known as Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (see Glossary, Appendix G).

In this current study, research on the communicative competence and performance of adults who have little or no formal training in their target language has not been carried out, since a great deal of research has already been done with unschooled migrants who have no formal instruction in the target language (Klein &

Perdue, 1992; Perdue, 1993a, 1993b, 2000; Mitchell & Myles, 2004), though ideas

and results from their research cited were considered in order to find parallels to the

language students with formal instruction.

Furthermore, since language is a complex construct, the study attempts to

evaluate communicative competence as defined by Canale (1983). Accepting this

definition (see Glossary, Appendix G) means that there is an assumption made in this

research that all people have the capacity to attain native or near native fluency in a

second language (Singleton & Lengyel, 1995). In The Critical Age Hypothesis

(Robertson, 2002), Singleton and Lengyel (1995) posit that adults seem to have a harder time than children in acquiring a second language, which may be due to factors that lie outside the actual process of language acquisition, such as input and output skills, personal motivation, anxiety, social environment and amount of time invested. The works of Singleton and Lengyel (1995), Schumann (1986), and

Robertson (2002) all point to the affective aspect of second language acquisition,

since personal motivation, anxiety, and amount of time invested in language

20 acquisition may be strongly influenced by individual self perception in relation to the target language and its speakers. This current study investigates the nature of the affective aspect and its influence on second language acquisition.

This current study is not a claim to prove a theoretical model of second language acquisition, since only one aspect of second language acquisition will be examined, namely motivation. But this in-depth, qualitative, detailed, subject- involved and subject-oriented research may shed some light on the aspect of motivation being studied.

Anticipated Limitations

Since this study is not longitudinal, the research has been limited to a synchronic, single-moment evaluation of the participants’ communicative competence and of their perceptions of themselves in relation to the target language’s speakers, accompanied by an optional second interview as "member checking"

(returning to the original participants for further comments on the data analyses). The study did not follow the subjects’ progress over time in a diachronic way, that is does not study the changes the subjects’ linguistic system over a period of time. It did not take into account other factors such as subjects’ plans to return to their country of origin in the future, amount of transferable mother tongue linguistic skills that the individual students have, amount of previous education, or other factors from their past.

Assumptions

If the following assumptions were not made in this study, then the reader could validly argue that not all of the subjects in this study had an equal chance at

21 acquiring linguistic proficiency and competence in American English. The variable studied then would have to be linguistic acquisition skills which, under that assumption, may not be related to motivation but rather to cognitive skills.

As stated and explained above, one of the main assumptions of this study is that all people have the capacity to attain native or near native fluency in a second language (Singleton & Lengyel, 1995). A second assumption is that language acquisition is a social act that involves a self in relation to a group of others to which the self aims or desires to belong (Johnson, 2004). The role of the social in language acquisition is an extension of Krashen and Terrell’s (1983) “affective filter” as well as of the work done by Vygotsky (1934/1986) and Bakhtin (1986). Furthermore, this study is based on Krashen’s (1981) hypothesis of language acquisition as opposed to the traditional language learning paradigm discussed earlier. The assumption is that language is acquired and not learned, that is that attaining competence and performance derive not from focused book learning but rather from the brain’s analysis of rich input as filtered through affect and the brain’s own monitor, a process which takes place in a sequential order [Krashen’s (1981)“Natural Order

Hypothesis”, see Glossary in Appendix G] for all developing speakers whether as L1 or L2 (Johnson, 2004).

Furthermore, studies on integrative motivation were quantitative (Dörnyei,

2005; Graham & Brown, 1996), which did not triangulate by means of respondent validation. The studies on integrative motivation carried out by Dörnyei (2005), with

Hungarian students learning five foreign languages, and the study carried out by

Graham and Brown (1996 ), with English speakers in Mexico, both were based on

22 observations and subsequent analyses of these observations. Though Dörnyei (2005) speculated on the reasons why students picked the language that they studied and also speculated on the roles that the communities of those languages played in the lives of the Hungarian students, he did not do member checking to verify the authenticity of his analyses.

23

CHAPTER TWO

Literature Review

Language is not a mere means of communication that suddenly comes into being as a person acquires it. Every language, including languages that were consciously created, where they did not exist before, such as Esperanto, are the

storehouses of historical events experienced by their speakers. Deutscher (2005)

likens language to a coral reef: only the surface is alive but this living surface is

dependent on all of the coral that went before and that forms the fundament or base of

the reef. One trace of this ‘dead’ material can be found, according to Deutscher

(2005) and Danesi (1999) in metaphors. Thus, language as it is acquired by new

generations perpetuates thoughts that were uttered by people going back to the dawn

of human existence on the one side and on the other by those who more directly

participate or have participated in a specific linguistic community. An example of this

latter situation can be understood as the particularities of a specific speech community

such as Americans’ usage of English as opposed to that spoken in Great Britain, in

expressions like “put your John Hancock here,” “stop on a dime,” or “dead as a

possum.” These expressions are purely US-American ones, products of American

history, an expression of American culture. Another example of the language of a

specific speech community is the use of expressions like “Owl card,” “Breezeway,”

24 and “Wimberly” at Florida Atlantic University, that is terms not readily accessible, decodable, and understandable to members of the greater American English speech community and that only members of that specific university speech community understand.

The German philosopher, Heidegger (1965/2001, p. 27) sees language as the prerequisite for existence and as such, the foundation of identity. Heidegger

(1965/2001) calls language das Haus des Seins (the house of existence) (p. 27). He posits: Das Wesen der Identität ist ein Eigentum des Ereignisses (p. 27), that is the substance of identity is a property of the occurrence, meaning that identity comes from with-out and not from with-in. Personal identity grows out of that which surrounds one, not out of what the individual creates for himself or herself.

It is this intimate relationship that the individual has with language that

Heidegger (1965/2001) reflects in his statement: Die Sprache ist das Haus des Seins

(Language is the house of existence) ( p. 27); One’s understanding that one “exists” stems from the fact of having language; without language, people would not be conscious of their own existence (Spano, 2004).

Language, self-identity, and culture are intimately bound to each other

(Joseph, 2004). Therefore, it is almost impossible to attain competence and performance in a target language without being familiar with the target language’s culture and having a sense of identity with that target language’s speakers. An example of the failure to acquire American English was the English language program for employees of a middle-eastern airline at a British owned and run language school in Florida. For the six months of the program, the Arabic-speaking

25 students were kept separated from those students in other programs, and the Arabic- speaking students’ lodging was in a hotel instead of with host families because of the stipulations made by the client that only language, and not culture, would be taught.

The goal of the program was to train Arabic-speaking airline employees to use

English for occupational purposes, a goal that is instrumentally motivated. The students made little progress in English and the program was stopped. The then- director of the program, who had extensive experience in teaching English in Arabic- speaking countries and who spoke some Arabic himself, ascribed the failure to the lack of connecting culture with language. Clearly, attaining competence and performance in a target language involves not only mastering the complex grammar of a language, but also includes mastering the intricacies of the sociolinguistic and strategic competences associated with the culture that uses the language for general communication and in-group identification. In order to understand the interplay of all of these elements, one needs to understand the perceptions that the students of a target language bring into their efforts to acquire that language, especially linguistic pragmatics and discourse, necessary to producing meaningful language, are determined by the culture in which the language is used. If the speech production in either of these two areas ‘breaks down’ (does not correspond to the culture’s specific rules), then understanding ‘breaks down’ (is impaired between the interlocutors).

The focus of this literature review is to examine the relationship of the need to belong to a group and the linguistic competence and performance of second language acquirers in the language of that group. In order to make sense of this relationship between belonging and competence/performance, one needs to understand what

26 research has been done in general on the relationship between the need for

belongingness and success in learning, as well as on what language acquisition is and

what belongingness signifies in the process of language acquisition. This literature review includes a current second language acquisition (SLA) theory that is nascent,

known as Activity Theory.

A Quantitative Study of Integrative Motivation

Graham and Brown (1996) interviewed 48 native Spanish speakers who came

into frequent contact with native English speakers who lived in Mexico in Colonia

Juárez in the state of Chihuahua, Mexico. Colonia Juárez and its surround area are

particular in Mexico, because since the late 19th century they have been a bilingual city and region. In the late 19Th century, farmers came to Colonia Juárez from the

state of Utah in the United States and settled on farms outside the city. These settlers

were and are Mormons. The Mormon settlers built a cathedral in the city of Colonia

Juárez where they still congregate today. Church services are held in American

English. The Mormon settlers still speak American English in their homes, at the

cathedral, and in the bilingual schools that they maintain despite being surrounded by

Spanish-speaking Mexicans and Mexican culture.

The interviews were planned using 1) a 54-question instrument developed by

the researchers themselves to assess the attitudes of the subjects toward their own

Mexican group and also toward the group of the native English speakers and 2) an

Oral Proficiency Interview as created by The American Council on Teaching of

Foreign Language and administered by a trained Oral Proficiency Interviewer.

Graham and Brown (1996) found that attending the bilingual school in Colonia Juárez

27 on the part of the native Spanish speakers had the greatest correlation with a high OPI

score. The number of English-speaking friends that the native Spanish speakers had

was the second most significant factor in their ability to speak English. Graham and

Brown (1996), however, did not interview the native English speakers nor were they concerned with the native English speakers’ communicative competence in Spanish, stating simply:

…not only do language minority students become fully bilingual, as is common in many areas of the world, but also many members of the language majority community become native or near-native speakers of a second language (p. 253).

Graham and Brown (1996, p. 246) presented the following table of their

findings (Figure 2.1) (the acronyms NES = Native English Speakers and NSS =

Native Spanish speakers are used):

Figure 2.1 Graham and Brown’s (1996) Findings

Variables Mean Standard Deviation English Social Dominance 1.833 0.42 (5 items) Assimilation/Adaption to 2.206 0.24 NES Culture (7 items) Congruence of NES and 2.401 0.51 NSS Cultures (4 items) Positive attitude toward 2.102 0.74 NES (14 items) High Instrumental 1.116 0.45 Motivation (1 item)

It is, however, not known whether the minority language speakers found it necessary or convenient to speak English rather than Spanish for classroom comprehension or whether speaking English was tied to status or perceptions of status, either on their part or on the part of the other students and the teacher in the

28 classroom. Since the study also did not inquire as to the prestige of the English-

speaking minority, it is also not known what influence the perceived prestige of

English had on the Spanish speakers’ progress in English. The research done in

Colonia Juárez is of special interest because the minority language speakers are

speakers of English and the majority language is Spanish, the reverse of the situation

generally examined in the United States.

Furthermore, Graham and Brown (1996) merely gave a statistical analysis of

their findings in the interviews of the English-language learners, which led them to

believe that merely attending the bilingual school made Spanish speakers more competent in acquiring English, stating: “The variable having the strongest correlations with the three proficiency measures … was school attended (-.829, -8.41

and -.856)” (Graham & Brown, 1996, p. 251). Graham and Brown’s (1996) statistical

analysis did not give any details as to why attendance in the bilingual school would

influence the acquisition of English on the part of the Spanish speakers.

Graham and Brown (1996) were interested in the communicative competence in English of native Spanish speakers who live in and just outside of the city of

Colonia Juárez. Graham and Brown (1996) report that during the graduation ceremony in the bilingual high school in Colonia Juárez the valedictorians started

their speeches in native level English and then switched to native level Spanish.

Graham and Brown (1996) picked Colonia Juárez for their study because it is a region where the majority speakers (those who speak Spanish as their native language) also learn the language of the minority (American English).

29 Brown and Graham (1996) sought answers to two main research questions: 1) whether the high levels of English proficiency of native Spanish speakers are due to attitudes toward the target language; and 2) whether there were social and affective variables, such as close friendships, contributing to a high level of proficiency in

English among native Spanish speakers, that is whether the variables were independent of participation on the part of the native Spanish speakers in the bilingual schools.

The need for belongingness was identified by Maslow (1968/1999) in the framework of his “psychology of being” as part of his hierarchy of human needs. He situated the need for belonging, referred to in psychological research as

“belongingness,” on the third tier of his hierarchy. Maslow (1968/1999) believed that group membership and wanting to belong to a group would only enter a human being’s life after the needs for safety and security, as well as physical survival needs were met. This positioning of belongingness on the third tier of the hierarchy is debatable. However, there is some consensus in research that seems to support

Maslow’s (1968/1999) general tenet of the importance of belongingness, at least for the individual’s understanding of self (van Prooijen, van den Bos, & Wilke, 2004).

One problem is that this research done by van Prooijen et al. (2004) was carried out in a laboratory setting and not in vivo, meaning that the subjects were aware that they were participating in an experiment, possibly leading to the Hawthorne effect, that is the tendency to act differently simply because the subjects realize that they are in an experiment. Furthermore, van Prooijen et al. (2004) carried out this research in

Leiden in the Netherlands. They found no gender difference in the degree that

30 belongingness self-identified, which situation may be influenced by Dutch culture, a society in which women have a more egalitarian position than in many other societies.

Other emotional needs may, however, be at play in the development of a perception of self, such as the attachment to the individual’s primary caregiver right after birth. Lapointe and Legault’s (2004) study, carried out in Montréal, Canada, found that the relations elementary school children fostered in regard to different members at school, for example teachers, administrators, and peers, differed according to the role of the person in the school the children attended. The pupils’ relations with their teachers in school seemed to resemble their relations with their primary caregivers while their relations with their peers seemed to follow Maslow’s

(1968/1999) classic belongingness theory, that is the relations between the students and the teachers can be seen as a form of attachment, a dyadic relationship, and the relations between the pupils among each other showed signs of the individuals striving to belong to a group. Indeed, should that be the case, then peer belongingness may play an unsuspected role or a role of a different type than previously thought

(Gordon, 1996; Williams et al., 2002), not being a question of either belongingness theory or attachment theory but rather of how the need for belongingness intertwines or intersects with the need for attachment to influence the individual’s behavior.

The works of researchers like Lapointe and Legault (2004) and Gordon (1996) would indicate that the concept of a need of belongingness, though perhaps valid in its primary premise, is much more complex and sophisticated than Maslow’s

(1968/1999) description would lead one to believe. Here one could raise the question

31 of the relation of attachment, as defined by Bowlby (1969), and of safety and shelter,

which Maslow (1968/1999) identifies as more basic needs than belongingness. This

question of attachment in relationship to belongingness should be examined in more

detail as to whether safety, shelter, and food, that is the needs that Maslow

(1968/1999) locates before belongingness, are possible for humans without group

belongingness. It begs the question whether humans have access to shelter and food

without working in groups.

In fact, Chirkov, Ryan, and Willness (2005) based their work on research

carried out by Triandis (1978) and on self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000)

that also tries to describe human psychological needs. In the framework of self-

determination theory, it is believed that individuals rely on a vertical view

(acceptance of authority, societal norms, and traditions) as well as a horizontal view

(autonomy and self-fulfillment) of internalization of cultural norms and feelings of well-being, and that not only do these vary by culture but also by gender. With this

model, the need for belongingness could be seen as part of a horizontal view of

society (the peers), and the need for attachment could be seen a part of a vertical view of society (the hierarchy of child and adult). Ehrman and Dörnyei (1998) use the

terms object relations, dyadic process, and group dynamics (p. 20) to make this

distinction: females, they report, tend to have more horizontal views of group

belonging than do men, and this is the case in both individualistic and collectivistic

societies.

The indication that females have a more horizontal view of group belonging

may explain the research done by Gordon (1996). Using Grade Point Average (GPA)

32 scores to define resilient (students with a GPA of 2.75 and above) and non-resilient students (students with a GPA below 2.75), Gordon (1996) found that more successful academic achievers in school were those who were not as dependent on horizontal, for example peer (societal) norms, which would mean that girls are less likely than boys to be high academic achievers. In her study, Gordon (1996) found that of the Hispanic youths who took part, six resilient youths, that is three females and three males relied the least on peer group belongingness. Among the non-resilient group Gordon (1996) had 19 females (32% of the subjects) and eight males (38% of the subjects). To this seeming paradox Chirkov et al. (2005) would argue that “in modern society, it may be women who are more often expected to play a subordinate role, which potentially poses more conflict for them when facing the cultural norm”( p. 439). Therefore, it was probably not the dichotic pair of autonomy versus belonging alone that affected the academic success, or possibly the acquisition of a second language, of the students in the research carried out by Gordon (1996). In the research just cited, there is no explanation of whether gender plays a role in the acquisition of culture, contrary to the conflicting findings of Gordon (1996) and van

Prooijen et al. (2004).

The individual’s place of learning, that is in dyadic processes (attachment) and in group dynamics (belongingness) is very complex and may vary from individual to individual. Therefore, it is necessary to pay attention to both those ideas when carrying out research with second language students.

33 Linguistic Theories

Important in understanding language acquisition is understanding both the

nomothetic structure of linguistics, that is the law-governed and systematic patterning

of all languages (meaning that no language is a hodge-podge of irregularities), and the

human perception of reality through the lens of language. The results of studies like

those carried out by Boroditsky (2001) reinforce the theoretical nativist foundations

of language acquisition, that is that language is not a skill similar to learning to bake a

cake, play the piano, or solve an algebraic equation. Boroditsky’s (2001) work with

bilingual Mandarin and English speakers’ conception of time indicates that linguistic

thinking evolves without classroom lectures or book studies. Inspired by experiments

done in the Dani tribe in New Guinea, in which tribes-people who had only two

words for colors learned the English set of eight color categories, Boroditsky (2001)

sought to identify the change in how Mandarin speakers and English speakers view

time. Clearly, these distinctions of color categories and time telling show that social

contact with the culture supersedes formal training.

Boroditsky’s (2001) reference to vertical and horizontal views of time can be explained as follows: in English the past reference to time is horizontal, that is takes place metaphorically on a flat plane using words such as “last” and ”next. One could imagine using the metaphor of a train in order to describe or talk about time. As the train passes by, the wagon that has just passed is the last one, the one passing by is the present, and the next to come is the future. In Mandarin, speakers use a vertical paradigm. If one is in January, then December is the shāng yùe (top moon/month) and

34 February is the xìa yùe (bottom moon/month). For Mandarin speakers, the past is up

and the future is down.

Training Mandarin speakers, who think of time in a vertical way, and English

speakers, who think of time in a horizontal way, slightly improved their rapidity of

correct responses when faced with problems involving the target language (either

English or Mandarin), but social influence proved to be stronger, since the longer the

Mandarin speakers were in the United States and had contact with native English

speakers, the more quickly and correctly they responded as native English speakers

do.

Borditsky's (2001) view was corroborated in the aforementioned study

detailing how well nine American women living in Norway acquired the pronunciation of Norwegian (Lybeck, 2002), as well as in a study carried out by

Schulz a researcher who kept a log of her own progress in acquiring Spanish in

Bogotá (Schulz & Elliott, 2000). In one of her entries, Schulz (Schulz & Elliott, 2000)

recounts how her short-term memory broke down when she tried to think of all of the

rules of Spanish but notes that she did much better when she simply concentrated on what she perceived as being the communication of authentic information.

Furthermore, she carefully observed and recorded her emotions and examined how they either hindered or helped her communicate as these two speech events unfolded.

Second Language Acquisition

Definition

In the English-speaking countries of the world, there is still a debate over

“language acquisition” versus “language learning” (Mitchell & Myles, 2004). In the

35 United Kingdom and the countries that follow its educational traditions, scholars prefer to speak of language learning. In the United States and Canada, scholars use both terms but with a difference in meaning: language learning is the traditional use of books and programs, courses, teacher’s instruction, and similar methods to obtain fluency in the target language. For American and Canadian scholars, language acquisition, as proposed by Krashen (1981) in his Monitor Model, is the use of meaningful input-rich language to help the student acquire fluency in the language without direct teacher intervention (Krashen & Terrell, 1983; McCargar, 1993; Platt

& Troudi, 1997; Schulz & Elliott, 2000; Tse, 2000; Kondo-Brown, 2001; Angelova,

Gunawardena, & Volk, 2006).

This concept of acquisition versus learning has been generally accepted worldwide by second language researchers (see Appendix E for more information).

Though at first glance these two epistemological terms seem to name precise opposites that are mutually exclusive, as they were understood when Krashen (1981) first presented his Monitor Model, they are in fact rather two points on a continuum and are hard to define and separate completely. In the work carried out in this current study it is assumed that Krashen’s (1981) model is valid and that the two terms

“second language acquisition” (see section on Assumptions in Chapter One) and

“second language learning” refer to two dissimilar though related concepts.

Acquisition is, then, a Deweyan (1938/1997)-Brunerian (1960/2003) constructivist view of how a person comes to speak a second language and is an important hypothesis in arguing for integrative motivation in this process. In constructionist epistemology, the teacher does not deposit information in the student’s

36 brain. Freire (1972/2005) originally wrote: "o fazer depósitos de ‘comunicados’ – falso saber – que ele considera como verdadeiro sabe" [Author’s translation: “the depositing of information – false knowledge – that he (the teacher) considers to be true knowledge”] The original is cited here to contrast with the slightly misleading standard English translation of “banking” instead of “depositing”. If the metaphor of banking is used, then an expectation of capital growth is conjured up due to interest rates. In Freire’s (1972/2005) model, the teacher who is believed to “own” true knowledge puts that knowledge into the students’ heads, much as some second language teachers deposit vocabulary and declinations into students’ heads. The constructivist model posits that the student actively constructs knowledge (Bruner,

1960/2003), as the student processes stimuli from the real world, which results in cognitive structures that produce adaptive behavior (Dewey 1938/1997).

An example of the validity of this latter hypothesis is given in its negation by

Rickford (1998). Rickford (1998) reports that European-American classroom teachers often apply what he calls “interrupting” when instructing some non-standard-English speaking African American students in using mainstream English. Rickford (1998) describes ethnographic research done in classrooms where European American teachers were teaching non-standard-English-speaking African American students how to read. Some of these particular students pretended to understand the teachers while others guessed at decoding the words they were reading. Others simply withdrew from participating and resorted to answering the teachers’ questions as seldom as possible. Rickford (1998) believes that the students lacked participation in response to the teachers’ questions because every time the students attempted to say

37 something, the teachers would rebuke, correct, or reprimand them. This behavior is an

indication of negated instrumental motivation, whereby the students receive the impression that the teacher is only interested in how they say something, not what

they intend to say. The teacher interrupts the students’ understanding of the text and

at the same time communicates a feeling of failure to the students (Velleman & Kohn,

2006).

Furthermore, this type of “interrupting” approach is the scenario described by

Ariza et al. (2000): “Too much emphasis on accuracy can heighten learner anxiety,

which, in turn, will impede learning” (p. 224). In mathematics or while carrying out a

scientific experiment, accuracy may be the true goal of the instructor. If, for example,

a scientific experiment in chemistry is not carried out correctly, the results may be dangerous. In second language acquisition, however, minor mistakes that do not impede understanding, called “local mistakes” (Ariza et al., 2006), pose no threat.

Ehrman and Dörnyei (1998) cite classroom case studies carried out at the university level in which the students felt either emotionally safe or unsafe in their respective classrooms. In the emotionally safe classrooms, the students reported making more progress in second language acquisition (Ehrman & Dörnyei 1998). A key finding from the work carried out by Ehrman and Dörnyei (1998); Ariza et al. (2006); and

Rickford (1998) is that it may, therefore, be necessary to look beyond classroom instrumental methods for other elements componential in acquiring a second language, such as motivation, socialization, affective elements, and students’ ethnicity.

38 Safont Jordà (2005) cites work done by Cenoz and Jessner (2000) and by

Lasagabaster (1997) in which they demonstrate the role played by metalinguistic

awareness in third language acquisition. Safont Jordà’s (2005) research was focused

on bilinguals acquiring a third language. Her observations concerning the bilingual’s

metalinguistic awareness raises the question of whether monolinguals can

successfully employ metalinguistic awareness in acquiring the second language,

which skills seem plausible.

The idea of metalinguistic awareness may be one piece in the puzzle of why

acquiring a second language is not, as Dörnyei (2003) notes, the same in many ways

as learning other subjects in school. One might ask whether there is a parallel here to

other subjects with their respective meta- components, such as metamathematics. But

even though there is a kind of metamathematical awareness that helps school students

master the intricacies of mathematics, there is another component that only

marginally enters into most of the other academic disciplines: the social aspect

(Dörnyei, 2003). In the case of acquiring L2, the social aspect involves a broad array

of cultural elements connected with L2 (Dörnyei, 2003). In other subjects, though the

social role of peers and teachers is definitely an important part of learning (Vygotsky,

1934/1986), the students are not usually required to adopt a whole new set of

linguistic and cultural norms that are necessary for success in acquiring the subject.

What further complicates this social element is the fact that it is not neutral

but rather subject to social power as well as to its opposite, social powerlessness

(Blakar, 2006), such that language is often taught without regard to the relevant social

context and without an explicit perspective of communication. Blakar (2006) says

39 that schools attempt to teach language as l’art pour l’art, to desocialize language and depoliticize it. In fact, one concept that may influence integrative motivation is that

of the prestige or lack of prestige of the language being studied and the prestige or

lack of prestige of the students’ L1 (Csizér & Dörnyei, 2005). The perception of both

L1 prestige and L2 prestige must be given very special attention when analyzing data generated by second language students, something that has not been attended to in the literature hereto.

Schumann (1978) writes that not all language learning situations are alike. He divides the relationship between the two groups, L1 and L2, into two main sections:

1) dominance; and 2) integration. Under dominance Schumann (1978) distinguishes three possible variations: 1) the L2 group dominates the L1 group, as with the

American invaders of Hawai’i in 1893; 2) the L2 group is dominated by the L1 group, as with immigrants to the United States; and 3) both groups are on a par, as with

Hemingway and the American literati in Paris. Under integration, Schumann (1978) makes two distinctions: 1) the L2 group assimilates into the L1 group, for example

Eastern European immigrants to the United States during the last century; 2) the L2 group maintains its L1, for example as did the American immigrants to Colonia

Juárez described in the study carried out by Graham and Brown (1996) and discussed above.

Which solution a community seeks out is not always the decision of the community, as Schumann (1978) points out. A group may be marginalized or segregated from the mainstream as African Americans and Hawaiians were and sometimes still are in the United States, resulting in some African Americans

40 retaining the use of Ebonics and some Hawaiians creating Da Kine, also known as

Hawaiian Pidgin, even though at this time it has developed into a creole (a mother language derived from a pidgin) since it is now the native language of many its

speakers.

Schumann (1978) also spoke of enclosure, which he defined as the situation

faced by an L2 group that is segregated from the mainstream such that the group lives geographically separated from the mainstream or L1 group. The L2 group here forms

a ghetto – again, this is not necessarily the preference of the L2 group since it may

occur naturally or it may be forced on the group by the mainstream. Another aspect of

understanding L2 students’ concept of self is to look at how they perceive target

language speakers’ views of the L2 learners’ language and their native culture(s).

The concept of the socially acceptable mainstream dialect is a social construct

(Rodriguez, 2000; Leap & Boellstorff, 2004). To understand this idea, one has only to

look at the change in what is viewed to be the socially desirable variety of English

spoken in the United States over the last century: until World War II, Hollywood film

stars and national politicians aimed at a dialectical variety that reflected British usage.

After the war was over, citizens of the United States viewed themselves as the most

victorious nation and a nation that had helped rescue Great Britain from being

invaded. President Dwight Eisenhower did not attempt to speak British sounding

English, nor did his successor President John Kennedy, nor did President Lyndon

Johnson (Baugh & Cable, 2002, Skelton, 2005). At the same time, the standard for

spoken American English sought by national companies shifted from a more British

sounding dialect to that of the Ohio River basin (“Do you speak American?”, 2004).

41 The dominant culture is unstable and always changing, reflecting power centers of a

language and not, as some mistakenly believe, some aesthetic “correctness” of

language (Rodriguez, 2000).

In a study of Japanese heritage language students in Hawai’i, Kondo-Brown

(2001), using placement tests and academic grades, found correlations of culture and

language acquisition that corroborate the tenets of this new field. Though the heritage

students, meaning students with at least one parent who spoke Japanese, were placed

in mainstream classrooms to study Japanese along with non-Japanese students, no

amount of classroom study changed the proficiency of these heritage students in

Japanese, contrary to the better academic progress in Japanese of their non-Japanese

peers. Kondo-Brown (2001) attributes this lack of progress due to negative peer

pressure emanating from the non-Japanese students who put pressure on the heritage

students due to their perceived advantages in the eyes of the non-heritage students.

Important here is the role that social pressure seems to play in second language acquisition. This pressure can even be negative as Kondo-Brown (2001) posited.

Socio-Educational Models, Individual Differences

One of the leading researchers in the 1980s in the field of motivation in

second language acquisition was Gardner (1982). He based his work on studies

carried out in Canada during the incipient years of the bilingual immersion program,

and his work uses motivation as a key element in second language acquisition.

Motivation for Gardner (1982) is psychological, a trait instrumental in helping people

reach a goal.

42 Gardner (1982) proposed a Socio-Educational Model of second language

acquisition in the classroom setting, which consists of four individual differences

among students: 1) intelligence; 2) language aptitude; 3) motivation; and 4)

situational anxiety. At the time Gardner (1982) wrote this article, educators were still

using the Modern Language Aptitude Test, a form of test developed in the 1950s,

little used today. Language aptitude was defined as having four components: phonetic

coding ability, grammatical sensitivity, inductive language learning ability, and

associative memory. Phonetic coding refers to the capability of storing and

reproducing voice sounds over an extended period of time. Grammatical sensitivity

should actually be called syntactic sensitivity that is the ability to create complete

utterances using individual words. With inductive language learning ability comes the

capacity to manipulate a corpus of linguistic knowledge in a second language and

extrapolate patterns/generalizations.

Finally, associative memory refers to the capacity to recognize cognates and

to make associations between the concepts of L1 and L2. The two terms

“intelligence” and “language aptitude” were sometimes used interchangeably and

they were abandoned by Gardner in later works (Gardner, 2001b; Gardner, Masgoret,

Tennant, & Mihic, 2004). In 1993, Gardner (Gardner & MacIntyre, 1993) modified this model, adding another category, orientation, as a subset of motivation, and

differentiating situational anxiety as L2 language class anxiety and L2 use anxiety,

that is the anxiety that arises when the student uses L2 outside of the classroom.

Revised later by Gardner (2001a), the Socio-Educational Model contains four

43 sections: 1) External Influences; 2) Individual Differences; 3) Language Acquisition

Contexts; and 4) Outcomes.

Gardner (2001a) posits that the aforementioned concept of Individual

Differences has a three-based structure consisting of integrativeness, attitude toward

the learning situation; and motivation, which is further divided into the subsets: 1)

individual effort to acquire L2; 2) desire to achieve goal; 3) pleasure of acquiring L2.

In 2003, Gardner (Masgoret & Gardner, 2003) again changed his model, looking at

five classes of variables in second language acquisition: 1) attitudes toward the

learning situation; 2) integrativeness; 3) motivation; 4) integrative orientation; and 5)

instrumental orientation. At this time he defined integrativeness as a concept that

“refers to an openness to identify, at least in part, with another language community”

(Masgoret & Gardner, 2003, p. 126). With the term “attitudes toward the learning

situation” Masgoret and Gardner (2003) indicate the “individual’s reaction to

anything associated with the immediate context in which the language is taught” (p.

127).

Masgoret and Gardner (2003) define “motivation” as a “goal-directed behavior” (p. 128). He defines the motivated student as a person who “expends effort, is persistent and attentive to the task at hand, has goals, desires and aspirations, enjoys the activity, experiences reinforcement from success and disappointment from failure, makes attributions concerning success and/or failure, is aroused, and makes use of strategies to aid in achieving goals” (p. 128). Thus, for Masgoret and Gardner

(2003) motivation is a personal characteristic without a source. Masgoret and Gardner

(2003) separate “motivation” from “integrative motivation,” which they define as the

44 “total complex of these three components” (p. 128), meaning the three

aforementioned elements of “integrativeness, attitudes toward the learning situation,

and motivation”. Masgoret and Gardner (2003) conclude that motivation is more

important in second language learning, and in foreign language learning, meaning

here acquiring a second language that is not spoken in one’s immediate surroundings

to any extent, than are integrativeness and integrative motivation, but that integrative

motivation is more important than “instrumental orientation,” a term that Masgoret

and Gardner (2003) introduce in this paper and which apparently includes

instrumental motivation as well as related traits.

In Masgoret and Gardner’s (2003) study, motivation has a mean reliability of

0.92, while integrativeness has a mean reliability of 0.90 and instrumental orientation

has a mean reliability of 0.57. Integrative orientation has a mean reliability of 0.79

and attitudes toward the target language group have a mean reliability of 0.85.

Masgoret and Gardner (2003) did not carry out any member checking in their study,

which, had they done so, may have exposed some ideas on the part of the subjects as

to why the results were as they were. Furthermore, one must look at the complex way

in which motivation and integrativeness interrelate and must understand that integrative motivation is composed of motivation, integrativeness, and attitudes towards the learning situation. Hence, motivation, as a subset of integrative

motivation, is the most important element of integrative motivation.

One of Gardner’s (2001b) concerns in studying motivation is that the teacher,

the curriculum, or the classroom atmosphere may play important roles in determining

the amount of motivation a student has for acquiring the target language. For that

45 reason, this current study was done inside of one program in which all of the subjects were enrolled or had recently been enrolled, despite the fact that the researcher does not believe that Gardner’s (2001b) position is significant: the researcher believes that these factors located in the classroom may have some influence on the actual progress made by the student in acquiring American English but that the student’s general perception of American English language speakers should override these factors, at least insofar as one is interested in integrative motivation.

Motivation, writes Laborit (1974), resides in the mémoire affective, that is the

affective memory, which he equates to the long-term memory and to automaticity.

For Laborit (1974), emotion and motivation have the same root, so he concludes that no learning takes place without emotion, pleasure, or pain. For Laborit (1974), the influence of a bad teacher may affect a student’s motivation negatively in a foreign

language class, especially a student living far away from speakers of the target

language such as a Russian class in south Florida. The sheer presence of speakers

would, however, outweigh the influence of a single teacher in second language

acquisition, where the student is learning a language spoken frequently in the

proximity of that student.

One of Gardner’s (Gardner et al., 2004) insights, that language courses in

schools are different from other subjects because they involve a challenge to the

concept of self, influenced Dörnyei (2005). Dörnyei’s (2005) principal interest lies in

understanding how the aforementioned Individual Differences (ID) influence second language acquisition. He defines IDs as those stable traits that make a person distinct

(marked) from others. Dörnyei (2005) believes there are three main types of IDs in

46 second language acquisition categorized under the broader headings of personality,

ability/aptitude, and motivation. Of these three types of IDs, he believes that

motivation can override ability/aptitude and personality as a positive variable in

second language acquisition. In fact, he cites Pimsleur (1967), whose research

showed that motivation is a very strong predictor in successful second language

acquisition. Aptitude, in this case language aptitude, is a form of developing

expertise. Strangely, though Dörnyei (2005) touches on the possibility of increasing

language aptitude by means of metacognitive strategies, he does not suggest applying

these strategies in an attempt to increase motivation.

Dörnyei’s (2001) interest in motivation stems from work done in Canada in

the 1980s and 1990s by Gardner and Lambert (1972) with Gardner’s (1982)

“Motivation Theory”. This theory is based on Gardner's (1982) “integrated motivation” mentioned above. Dörnyei (2005) feels that Gardner’s (1982) theory has

been misinterpreted as implying a dichotomous pole of integrative versus

instrumental motivations, providing an argument that they are not separable entities

but rather are points of a triangular construct that also includes “Attitude toward the

Learning Situation” (p. 70). Dörnyei (2005) describes integrative motivation as “an

interpersonal/affective dimension” (p. 70) which is intrinsic. His definition of

instrumental motivation is “a practical/utilitarian dimension, associated with the

concrete benefits that language proficiency might bring about (for example career

opportunities, increased salary)” (p. 70). Attitude toward the learning situation, the

third component in Dörnyei’s (2005) motivational model is socio-cultural (p. 67),

concerned not only with the attitude about studying a foreign language in general but

47 also with the perception on the part of the students of the teaching methods and

strategies in the classroom (p. 75) and of the quality of the language instruction and

learning experience (p. 76), a perception that is dynamically changing over time (p.

87). He then cites Tremblay and Gardner’s (1995) definition of “language attitudes”:

“a composite factor made up of ‘Attitudes toward L2 speakers,’ ‘Integrative

orientation,’ ‘Interest in foreign languages,’ ‘Instrumental orientation,’ and ‘Attitude

toward the L2 course’” (p. 104). How can this seeming confusion be resolved?

Csizér and Dörnyei (2005) suggest the following solution (see Figure 2.2): L2

motivation can be broken down into seven components: integrativeness,

instrumentality, vitality of the L2 community (how rich or powerful this L2

community is), attitudes toward the L2 speakers/community, cultural interest, linguistic self-confidence (Can I learn this language?), and milieu (influence of the immediate community on ideas about L2). These seemingly different components are, however, not only open to being “collapsed” and categorized together but are all interdependent. At first examination, the two kinds of motivation would seem to be

“antagonistic counterparts” (Csizér & Dörnyei, 2005, p. 27). In order to explain their complementary rather than antagonistic aspects it is necessary to consider that they form parts of the perception that an individual has of him or her “possible self.” The authors cite work done by Markus & Nurius (1986), in which the possible self is described as the idea one has of what one might become, would like to become or is afraid of becoming. “Motivation, therefore, can be seen as the desire to reduce the perceived discrepancies between the learner’s actual and possible self” (Csizér &

Dörnyei, 2005, p. 29). Using Higgin’s (1987) concept of “ideal self” and “ought

48 self,” Csizér and Dörnyei (2005) establish two closely related yet different visions of self: a self that one would like to become (due to affect) and a self that one ought to become (due to social pressure). In this model, the “ought self,” which at first is strongly influenced by utilitarian elements, overlaps and influences the ideal self.

Who can disentangle the image of self as a successful speaker of L2 in a social setting

(conversation, business, academics)? In asking this question, one confronts the issue of how much instrumentality and how much integrativeness are contained in, for example, the image that a learner may have of self as a successful businessperson or scholar admired by those around. Therefore, Csizér and Dörnyei (2005) termed instrumentality and the language attitudes of individuals as antecedents to integrative motivation. In fact, they are integral though lesser parts of integrative motivation.

To describe the interrelatedness of the seven components named above, Csizér and Dörnyei (2005) propose the following model:

Figure 2.2 Csizér and Dörnyei’s (2005) Model of SLA

Milieu ÅÆ Self-Confidence, Milieu Æ Vitality, Milieu Æ Instrumentality, Self-

Confidence Æ Cultural Interest Æ Attitudes toward the L2 Speakers/Community Æ

Integrativeness, Vitality Æ Instrumentality Æ L2 choice, and Cultural Interest Æ

Integrativeness, Instrumentality Æ Integrativeness.

Krashen’s Hypotheses

Krashen (1981, 1985) developed a set of five hypotheses that have become the

backbone of second language acquisition studies today. Researchers are using these

hypotheses to discover possible correlations between Krashen’s hypotheses and

49 actual second language acquisition: Tse’s (2000) research that revealed the negative role played by anxiety in second language acquisition; Schulz’s (Schulz & Elliott,

2000) log of her own development in acquiring Spanish as a second language, in a

Spanish-language environment; Angelova et al. (2006) examining the affects of peer teaching in a dual language first grade; Kondo-Brown’s ( 2001) research done in a

Japanese language classroom in Hawai’i heritage and non-heritage students; Platt &

Troudi’s (1997) qualitative research in a classroom with a Grebo-speaking student acquiring English from her peers; and McCargar’s (1993) research on what students expect of teacher perceptions of student progress.

Applying Krashen’s hypotheses (1981, 1985), Tse (2000) carried out a study with students in a foreign language classroom. She found that students who failed or who perceived themselves as having failed, attributed their failure (or perceived failure) to anxiety, which corresponds to Krashen’s (1985) affective filter hypothesis.

In other words, the social setting played a significant role in second language acquisition, a role that superceded the role of classroom instruction. Schulz (Schulz &

Elliott, 2000), from her own experiences, surmises that adult learners pay less attention to rich input in favor of language structure: though lack of attention to rich input and the focus on language structure by adult learners seem to be contrary to

Krashen’s (1985) input hypothesis, that is not necessarily so, since this lack of attention to the rich input was only Schulz’s (Schulz & Elliott, 2000) subjective opinion. Furthermore, Schulz’ (Schulz & Elliott, 2000) example definitely points to support of Krashen’s (1985) monitor hypothesis, the concept of auto-correction on the part of the language learner.) This lack of attention to rich input and concentration on

50 language structure may be due to the way Schulz (Schulz & Elliott, 2000) had learned to learn. For as Tse (2000) points out, teachers tend to teach as they were taught and not as they have learned to teach in teacher education classes. If this statement is true for teaching, then it may well be true of learning as well.

Furthermore, Schulz (Schulz & Elliott, 2000) did report that she was more successful speaking Spanish when she was at ease with her colleagues instead of feeling uncomfortable in a classroom with people of different ages: in this case the affective factors overrode the instructional environment. Schulz (Schulz & Elliott,

2000) reports that her fluency in Spanish increased with a surge in adrenalin that she experienced in addressing the faculty and then later in a discussion group. She

(Schulz & Elliott, 2000) seemed to fear that she was suffering from a decline in learning abilities due to her age. Schulz (Schulz & Elliott, 2000) writes: “…older adults may experience more difficulty attending to a task when the complexity of the task is increased. They may not be able to retain information in short-term memory as well as they did before, or to process information as quickly” (p. 109).

When interviewing subjects for this current study, the researcher looked at their subjective views and at how those views related to the general body of second language acquisition theory. It was necessary to ask subjects what they thought of second language acquisition and study strategies and habits. Schulz (Schulz &

Elliott, 2000), for example, may have been more influenced by her attitudes and habits of study rather than by her ability to acquire a second language, for she also reports that language learning tasks that seemed to her to be of little consequence or

51 content caused her to feel angry and frustrated, as did working with students whom

she felt were not as competent as she in a particular subject field.

Vygotsky (1934/1986), Bakhtin (1986) and Second Language Acquisition

Though the idea of cooperative learning is becoming more and more prevalent in classrooms based on the Vygotskyan (1934/1968) concept of learning through talking, it has one great caveat: there must be someone in the group to scaffold the others to the next level and this someone is most likely the teacher. In an ethnographic case study of a Grebo-speaking student, Mary, in a school in Florida, it became apparent that the teacher relied too heavily on peer tutoring since she seemed to believe that the development of social language (BICS) preceded the development of academic language (CALP) (Platt & Troudi, 1997). In following the teacher’s tactics, it became apparent that she did not respect the student’s silent period

(Krashen, 1981) and did not help the student develop her monitor (see Krashen’s monitor hypotheses in Appendix G) (Platt & Troudi, 1997). This contradictory result

is an unusual, negative aspect of peer tutoring and peer influence.

Bakhtin (1986) added the concepts of genre and voice to Vygotsky’s

(1934/1968) theories. According to Bakhtin (1986), people do not use the same

language in the varying genres in which they express themselves. For Bakhtin (1986),

genre is not only a literary style but also a verbal one for which the individual adopts

and then adapts the voices of others in order to construct his or her own language.

Thus, the individual acquires language in a social environment and constructs his or her linguistic voice through those voices that he or she has adopted and then adapted to construct a self in that language.

52 Definition of Communicative Competence

In the case of Mary, cooperative learning and social interaction helped her develop knowledge of English as a social language that enabled her to socialize with her peers. She was not, however, able to read or write with any fluency nor was she able to follow the more academic discourse of her mathematics classes (Platt &

Troudi, 1997). Had she been exposed to the conditions observed by Weisskirch

(2005), in which the children of immigrants were forced to become the language brokers for their parents and thus come into contact with more ‘adult’ language, she may have developed more abstract knowledge in English. Schulz and Elliott (2000) define the goals of second language students as being able to function in the culture of the target language while successfully communicating in that target language. For

Schulz and Elliott (2000) communicative competence does not mean becoming linguistically indistinguishable from native speakers of the target language, though it does indeed involve being able to appreciate the contributions that the new language

makes to culture as a whole (seen cross-culturally).

The degree of communicative competence and performance depends on the

circumstance. Students and others may perceive themselves to be communicatively

competent, though they are still distinguishable from the native speakers of their

target language. Clearly, there is a strong relationship between goals of learning and

outcome of language acquisition. The perception of self and views of members of the

target language culture affect integrative motivation and lead to linguistic competence

or lack thereof.

53 Critical Period

In second language acquisition there are varying theories that claim that age

plays a significant role in the individual’s capabilities to acquire a second language

(Lybeck, 2002; Birdsong, 1999; Mitchell & Myles, 2004). If there is indeed a critical

period after which a person cannot or can hardly acquire a second language, then

most of the lemmata (linguistic sub-structures) of second language acquisition are

meaningless because they profess to apply to adults as well as to children. Bialystok

(1997) and Birdsong (1999) refute the idea of a critical period for the acquisition of a

second language (an idea that was heavily discussed in the 1980s and early 1990s).

The emphasis in this discussion on the critical period should be placed on the word

“acquisition” as opposed to on the word “learning.” The acquisition of language has

been posited to be governed by Chomsky’s (1965) Language Acquisition Device, defined by Chomsky as a generative faculty (1965), a mental organ (1977) or language faculty (1991), i.e. an instinctive, innate capacity for language. In all of his works, Chomsky posits that human language is based on a Universal Grammar (UG) that is at the deep structure level of all languages, making them more alike than different in their structure, and he suggests that all humans have mental access to UG.

The argument in the field of second language acquisition lies in the question of whether humans continue to have access to UG once they have learned L1. Bialystok

(1997) and Birdsong (1999) argue that humans do have access to UG and to their

Language Acquisition Device until their dying moments, hence humans are able to acquire, not learn, language at any age. Language acquisition is not a question of maturation in a Piagetian (Piaget & Inhelder, 1962) sense but rather a matter of

54 socialization in a Vygotskyan (1934/1986) way. Then the question is whether humans

have a critical period for adapting their social skills. In fact, Chomsky understands

language as a behavior more than anything (Chomsky, 1968). Ariza et al. (2006)

theorize that children seem to acquire a second language more quickly than do adults

because children usually are socially exposed to more rich input than are adults and

because children are less inhibited in making mistakes in public until they reach puberty. In terms set forth by Krashen (1981), the affective filter has a positive rather than a negative effect in children’s language acquisition.

Accordingly, it seems clear that the concept of identity plays a decisive role in

language acquisition. Children have social identities that are still being formed, while

adults have fully formed identities, of which L1 is an important part. Accepting acquisition of L2 may pose a threat to the adult’s well-anchored identity in L1, which

is to say that the attractiveness or prestige of L2 should be equivalent or superior to

the attractiveness and prestige of L1 in order for the adult to successfully acquire L2.

Furthermore, it is then necessary to separate the various skills of language acquisition, for example pronunciation, acquisition of correct morphology, syntax, discourse, and pragmatics (Lybeck, 2002). Schulz (Schulz & Elliott, 2000) seems to refute the critical period hypothesis, since even after a short stretch of time (one

semester) her communicative competence and performance in Spanish improved

significantly on an Oral Proficiency Interview conducted with her by her co-author.

Schulz (Schulz & Elliott, 2000) improved her competence and performance in

Spanish even though she knew that she would not be remaining in a Spanish-speaking

environment after her semester.

55 In order to avoid possible limitations due to the critical period, research into

the role(s) played by integrative motivation should be focused on subjects who are

decidedly beyond the critical period. Studies of children may be carried out in the future with the critical period debate in mind.

Second Language Acquisition Students

Monson, (1982, in Baumeister & Leary, 1995) found that people identified

more with future interaction partners than with people with whom they did not

believe that they would ever have personal contact. This idea of future contact could

at sometime be researched in regard to the students whom Dörnyei (2005) had in his

sample, i.e. English learners in Hungary who see themselves as “non-parochial,

cosmopolitan, globalized world citizen[s]” (p. 97). It is possible that Dörnyei’s (2005)

Hungarian students of English see themselves as citizens in a community in which

English is the first or second language of an international community with unspecific

boundaries. Meaningful member checking of the subjects in the population that

Dörnyei (2005) used may at some future time yield interesting results.

The Politics of Second Language Acquisition

Second language learners do not acquire language in a political and societal void. Acquiring a language means accepting the ways of a new culture and understanding these ways in relationship to the ways in which one has functioned until that time. Languages are not neutral. They carry with them the prestige, or lack thereof, of the cultures that use them for communication, and the prestige of the two

languages that a person uses varies. This section will examine from a socio-political

56 stance how second language learners see themselves in relationship to the people who

speak the language that the L2 learners aim to acquire.

Blakar (2006) argues that every speech act without exception is political, that

is there are no neutral utterances. In order to understand Blakar’s (2006, p. 11) concept of language as a means for exerting power, one need only look at the second and third paragraphs of the first article in his book entitled Språk er Makt [Language is Power]:

“Å lage ny innleiing til ei bok om vitale sociale forhold i samfunnet som opprinneleg vart skrive for eit kvart hundreår sedan, representerar ei utfordring.” “Å lage ny innleiing til ei bok om vitale sociale forhold i samfunnet som opprinneleg vart skrive for 25 år sedan, representerar ei utfordring.” [“To create a new introduction to a book on a vital social relation in society which was originally written a quarter of a century ago, represents a challenge. To create a new introduction to a book on a vital social relation in society which was originally written twenty-five years ago, represents a challenge.”]

According to Blakar (2006) these two sentences that seem so alike actually are not: a choice has been made by the writer of the two different sentences, a choice that changes the message. This choice, writes Blakar (2006), between the expressions “a quarter of a century ago” ["for eit kvart hundreår sedan"] and “twenty-five years ago” [“for 25 år sedan”] lays bare the weight of the words used in any communication, for every utterance made in language is the result of a choice.

Though the two expressions refer to the same amount of time, “twenty-five years ago” impresses the reader as being a shorter and less important amount of time than

“a quarter of a century”. A book that was written a quarter of a century ago seems to be more old-fashioned and maybe obsolete than a book that was written twenty-five

57 years ago. There is no neutral language because all language is the result of the speaker’s choice from a pool of possibilities that language offers (Blakar, 2006).

This stance taken by Blakar (2006) becomes very apparent when one is using

Kelly’s (1955) Repertory Grid, the key instrument of this study. When composing a grid of a subject’s constructs, the researcher must bear this finding concerning choice of words in mind. Though two subjects may say the same thing on a dictionary definition level with different words, the linguistic, psychological, and social intent of the words chosen must be considered. In the example cited by Blakar (2006) what was written twenty-five years ago clearly sends a different message than something that was written a quarter of a century ago.

In El Nuevo Herald’s March 31, 2007 edition, Roberto Casin laments the lack of proficiency in Spanish of United States Spanish speakers under the title

“Espánglish con alevosía” [“Spanglish with treachery.”] Casin’s (2007) anguish is not so much that people with a good education speak Spanglish (a mixture of Spanish and English) but that they do so without knowing that they are doing it. These people,

Casin (2007) writes, believe that they are speaking proper Spanish. The reason that they are mangling Cervantes’ language is that they have never read him. These

Spanish speakers who have attended schools in the United States not only confuse

Cervantes with Don Quixote but have never read the works of Borges, Cela, Neruda,

García Márquez or Paz. American English is the language of commerce, writes Casin

(2007), and U.S. Spanish speakers live in a utilitarian society of expediency. To compound the linguistic environment of Spanglish, Casin (2007) accuses these

American Spanish speakers of ignoring the global press in Spanish.

58 Casin’s (2007) lament is an example of Popkewitz’s (2000, 2001) critique of

curriculum: the issue is not so much what one puts into a curriculum, but rather what

one leaves out. Apparently, the teachers of the Spanish speakers in the United States

mentioned in Casin’s (2007) article had respected the current philosophy of bilingual

education and had not forced the ESOL students to assimilate, thus allowing them to

retain a version of their mother tongue, but had permitted them to acculturate whereby they maintained fluency in L1 while acquiring fluency in L2. But what those teachers seem to have failed to do is to encourage their ESOL students to further cultivate and develop their L1 and hence knowledge of its culture. The Spanish speakers that Casin (2007) describes believe themselves to be speaking standard

Spanish, or, if they are aware that they are using a new variant, they find it expedient for their purposes. As a linguist purist, Casin (2007) rails against Spanglish, but his point is clear: these American Spanish speakers are the product of their education, an education that has failed them in the maintenance of their mother tongue.

Though it may be argued that most English-speakers have not read great

English-language authors and thus Casin’s (2007) concerns are trivial, since English- speakers end up speaking and writing an American English that is close to the mainstream model, Casin’s (2007) point is that speaking a language is not alone enough to assure that the speaker is in full possession of the language. English- speakers have many models of mainstream American English upon which they can base their knowledge of their mother language and their performance. This knowledge of mainstream Spanish, writes Casin (2007), is what is missing in the

Spanish of Spanish-speaking students in the United States. In short, he is identifying

59 the difference between the BICS and CALP levels of language mastery, whereby, in this case, the CALP level has not been attained in L1, instead of it not being attained in L2, the more common situation. But what is also important for this research is that a language when not supported by culture breaks down. When the speakers of a language do not see the connections between the language and the culture that the language represents, then those speakers no longer maintain the language as it is spoken in the context of the related culture. This idea means that if an L2 is taught with little reference to the culture that it represents, then the students would not be able to apply the language in the way in which it is spoken in the context of that respective culture.

Obviously, the Spanish speakers living in the United States and mentioned above live in a world in which American English is the more prestigious of the two languages. In the environment of Miami and the surrounding Miami-Dade County,

Florida, however, Spanish is held in higher esteem than in other parts of the country, due to its presence everywhere and its use in international commerce. A quick perusal of the help wanted ads in the newspapers Miami Herald or Fort Lauderdale’s Sun

Sentinel, reveals the high demand for bilingual English-Spanish speakers in the work place, including managerial level jobs. Looking at the course catalogue for on-going education at a local community college, one sees that Spanish courses are the most offered language courses. The director of that program reports that she seldom has problems meeting class size minimums for Spanish courses, stating that, to the contrary, she often has to turn students away because the enrollment is full. Thus, one may safely claim that while Spanish is the less prestigious of the two languages

60 (American English and Spanish), it still enjoys high prestige value in the business community in South Florida. Why then do Casin’s (2007) American Spanish speakers use Spanglish? One can turn to the Nynorsk community in Norway in search of a clue. Blakar (2006) describes the Norwegian language problem:

Først har vi den dialekten vi lærer heime, i bygda eller gata der vi veks opp som barn. Siden møter vi andre dialetar (språksystem), meir eller mindre ulike vår eigen. Og så endeleg kjem vi til skriftspråket, og i Norge vert vi også der stilt overfor valget mellom to ulike alternativ: bokmål eller nynorsk. [Author’s translation: “In the beginning we have the dialect we learn at home, in the community or street we grow up in as children. Later we meet other dialects (language systems) that are more or like our own. And then finally we come to the written language, and in Norway we are then faced with two dissimilar alternatives: Bokmål or Nynorsk.”] (p. 115)

Blakar (2006) describes Bokmål as the language of the business class and

Nynorsk as the language of the working class and closer to the day-to-day Norwegian spoken in casual conversations. It should be noted here that Bokmål is the variant

used in books for foreigners to learn Norwegian and is generally thought to be what

the world considers Norwegian. To put this difference in an American context, one

can compare the use of Standard American English with the use of non-standard

variants for politic means. Skelton (2005) explains how George W. Bush used a

Southern variant, more precisely a Texan variant, of American English to impress and

attract voters. Skelton (2005) also opines that several presidents have done the same

thing, citing Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, and Al Gore as using the

Southern variant to send ideological messages to their constituents.

In the Norwegian context, the choice of language used for writing, usually that

which is closest to the writer’s home dialect, tells something about the writer, as it is

61 through language that people construct their identities (Blakar, 2006). Looking then at

those who use Spanglish, one sees a conscious reconstruction of self through the

conscious use of “Americanisms” in Spanish. There is a message being sent by the

speaker staking a claim of command of the English language and reflected in the use

of Hispanicized English words and phrases. When Casin (2007) writes that English is

perceived as the language of business, he may be approaching an understanding of

United States Spanish speakers trying to groom their Spanish, as it were, for use in

this perceived business community.

It seems to be that United States Spanish speakers themselves perceive some

form of power gain by using terms borrowed from American English in Hispanicized

versions. In their dealings with Spanish speakers from other countries, they may be

spreading concepts and ideas from American English to other Spanish speaking

communities, thus benefiting business people from the United States who arrive to

find their concepts of doing business already understood by a non-English speaking

population.

Dörnyei (2005) posits that English is the world language, which is also a

powerful political statement. Of course, Dörnyei (2005) is writing about the variant

spoken in Great Britain, though he makes no distinction and treats English as a

monolithic language with a single global form. American Teaching English to

Students of Other Languages (TESOL) is concerned with teaching the variant spoken

by corporate America in the United States. In the American framework, the goal is

not to teach English as a world language but to teach American English as the

language for use in school and in the work place in the United States. In fact, one can

62 see the emphasis and emotions attached to Standard American English in the so- called ‘Ebonics debates’ carried out in Oakland, California, during the last decade

(Rickford, 1998). The school board of Oakland had permitted the teachers of African-

American children to use a comparative analysis approach to teaching Standard

American English with Ebonics, or African American Vernacular, as the basis

(Rickford, 1998). What ensued was public uproar with a perception that public schools were teaching Ebonics as a target language (Rickford, 1998). Legislation was passed in the state of California barring the use of state funding for English for

Speakers of Other Languages classes to help African-American children, or the speakers of any other English variant, in acquiring Standard American English

(Rickford, 1998). These results show how emotional is the public debate on which

English to teach. One has to wonder who gains when African-American children fail to master the mainstream form of American English or when ESOL students remain on a BICS level of American English after leaving school.

In 2006, a German secondary school passed a rule forbidding students from using any language other than German “on all school related occasions, during breaks, school trips, etc.” (Elmeroth, 2006). Elmeroth (2006) compares this rule with the situation of the Tomio Valley Finns in Sweden who were subject to a similar prohibition to using their language called Meänkieli, a language highly related to

Finnish. This prohibition resulted in students becoming semilingual in both Meänkieli and Swedish, that is they spoke neither the mainstream (Swedish) nor their L1 well

(Elmeroth, 2006). Rickford (1998) explains that attempts at teaching reading first in the child’s home dialect and then later in the mainstream dialect (variant) proved to

63 be more effective in many environments including in Sweden, Norway, and the

United States.

In 1981 an experiment was carried out with children who spoke Ebonics, in which a series of readers was created under the title “Bridge” (Rickford, 1998). Four hundred seventeen Ebonics-speaking children were taught to read using the Bridge series which started with pure Ebonics-language texts and progressed slowly, using ever more mainstream language texts while one hundred twenty-three Ebonics- speaking children were taught directly in the mainstream dialect (Rickford, 1998).

The results were that after four months of instruction the control group had made 1.6 months of progress compared to 6.2 months’ progress for the experimental group

(Rickford, 1998). But there was a public outcry due to the use of Ebonics in the classroom and the publisher destroyed the remaining textbooks, there being but one full set left in a school library in Florida (Rickford, 1998).

The outcomes of experiences in Germany, Sweden, and the United States mean that in looking at progress in second language acquisition, one should acknowledge the political environment in which students are studying, including skills the students possess in their mother tongues (L1) additive or subtractive bilingualism or semilingualism, as described above. This current study does not answer these questions but it does present the situation through the eyes of the second language learners, a first step in seeking such answers.

Acculturation

Schumann (1978) posits a concept of acculturation to explain the acquisition of a second language. Schumann (1986) later adds a taxonomy of nine factors that

64 influence second language acquisition: social factors, affective factors, personality

factors, cognitive factors, biological factors, aptitude factors, personal factors, input

factors, and instructional factors. The first three factors deal with feelings and thus

are grounded in psychology, whereby sub-elements of each one overlap and

correspond to the idea of belongingness. Under the social factors, Schumann (1986)

lists, among other things, congruence, attitude and intended length of residence in the

area where the target language is spoken. Then, under the affective factors, Schumann

(1986) adds language shock, culture shock, motivation, and ego-permeability.

Tolerance for ambiguity, sensitivity to rejection, introversion/extroversion, and self-

esteem are the elements of personality factors. All of these can be seen as integral

parts of belongingness.

For the purpose of this paper, Schumann’s (1986) distinction of acculturation

versus assimilation will be used, according to which assimilation is the acquisition of

a new culture and language, with the abandonment of the first or primary culture and

language. (See Glossary in Appendix G). Acculturation, by contrast, is the addition of

a second culture and a second language so that the individual becomes bicultural and

bilingual. Roy (1962) adds the element of socioeconomic status to this equation. At

the time he carried out his study, the use of socioeconomic status was an acceptable

proposition but the work done by Lien (1994) and Ogbu (2003) would seem to refute this use of socioeconomic status.

Weisskirch (2005) found that highly acculturated, and one might argue

‘successfully acculturated,’ Hispanic adolescents had a higher level of primary ethnic

identity as indicated by applying the Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure (Phinney,

65 1992) than did less successfully acculturated adolescent peers. Research done in a dual language first grade (Angelova et al., 2006) indicated a high level of acculturation on the part of the children with the minority language, in this case

Spanish. For the English-speaking children, Spanish remained a school language even though it received a high level of acceptance in the school and was used for fifty percent of the school day. The mainstream language that surrounded the children outside of the classroom, that is English, was more successfully acquired by the

Spanish-speaking children than was Spanish by the English-speaking children. Those children who were already bilingual when they entered the dual lingual course saw their status among their peers rise, thus reinforcing their acculturation as opposed to assimilation into English-speaking society.

Dörnyei (2005) is optimistic about the possibilities of combining the study of

L2 motivation and mainstream second language acquisition research. He states that until recently, second language acquisition research has lacked a psychological view which he calls, somewhat confusingly, the integration of psychology into second language acquisition research and writes:

For real integration to take place, L2 motivation research needs to meet a final criterion, namely that it should focus on specific language behaviors rather than general learning outcomes as the criterion measure. To exemplify this, instead of looking, for instance, at how the learners’ various motivational attributes correlate with language proficiency measures in an L2 course (which would be a typical traditional design), researchers need to look at how various motivational features affect learners’ specific learning behaviors during the course, such as their increased willingness to communicate in the L2, their engagement in learning tasks, or their use of certain learning and communication techniques and strategies. The viability of such an approach has been shown by Markee’s (2001) intriguing study in which he related conversation analytical moves in interlanguage discourse to underlying motivational themes. (Dörnyei, 2005, p. 110)

66

Dörnyei (2005) posits replacing integrative motivation with a concept of the

“Ideal L2 Self,” that is how the acquirer sees herself or himself as a speaker of the target language. Thus, the concept becomes purely psychological and may include integrative as well as instrumental motivation. The question remains of how to get to know this Ideal L2 Self. What form of research will make the constructs of the Ideal

L2 Self available for studies?

Emotion and Learning

If one looks at the role of the psyche in learning, one must take into account the theory of Laborit (1974), a French biologist, who proposed in 1974 that long-term memory is biologically rooted in emotion. Gardner, Pickett and Brewer (2000) demonstrate that faced with an increase in belongingness needs, participants in their experiment retained more socially relevant information in laboratory research done with subjects who believed that they belonged to a chat group (that was fictitious).

The test group (in Gardner, Pickett, & Brewer, 2000) chatted with the members of a fictitious chat group and disagreed so strongly that the members of the test group were finally excluded from the fictitious chat group, while the members of a control group experienced no disagreements in chatting and were not excluded. In follow up interviews, Garner et al. (2000) found that the test group had a higher retention of social details when compared with the control group. In a qualitative study carried out with 51 students of foreign language in an American university, Tse (2000) examined the emotions of the students compared with the communicative proficiency they perceived to have attained in their target language. Tse (2000) writes that the level of anxiety, a concept related to Krashen’s (1977a, 1977b) hypothesis of the

67 affective filter, seemed to have played a negative role in the students’ level of

success.

Need for Belongingness

Building on Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (1968/1999), Carl Rogers (1961)

posited human ”conformity to external strictures” (Ehrman & Dörnyei, 1998, p. 25)

Since then much research has used the term to seek to explain other social behavior.

Self-perception is rooted in perceived belongingness or the lack thereof (Salmivalli &

Isaacs, 2005). Belongingness is not necessarily voluntary but may be forced on someone from society at large (Lien, 1994); is influenced by gender (Williams et al.,

2002; Bourque & Warren, 1976); and may be experienced either horizontally (with peers) or vertically (with caregivers, teachers, authorities) to differing degrees, depending on the society in which the individual lives (Chirkov et al., 2005).

Most importantly, belongingness influences cognition (Gardner et al., 2000).

In the experimental study carried out by Gardner et al. (2000) mentioned above, those subjects who had been rejected retained more details of both the positive and negative social input than did those who had felt accepted. Apparently, the rejected students suffered from being rejected and their cognitive processing of events may have been an attempt to seek to reconnect with the group. Furthermore, since the participants did not know the group by name or face, it seems that it was not the group per se that was important but the mere fact of belonging (Gardner et al., 2000).

Working with 212 students from a lower grade school in southwest Finland,

Salmivalli and Isaacs (2005) found a strong correlation between peer adversities and issues of self-esteem. The influence of peer adversities differed between the genders.

68 The researchers found that negative self-perception had a stronger influence on peer

acceptance-rejection than peer acceptance-rejection had on self-perception. This

perception of the degree that the subjects felt accepted or rejected by their peers is

important when compared with Gordon’s (1996) findings as cited above. Herrington

(2004) illustrates Maslow’s hierarchy of needs as such:

The needs for safety, belongingness, love relations, and for respect can be satisfied only by other people, that is, only from outside the person, which means the individual has considerable dependence on the environment (Figure 2.3).

Figure 2.3 Maslow’s (1968/1999) Hierarchy of Needs

A person in this dependent position cannot really be said to be governing himself, or in control of his own fate. He must be beholden to the sources of supply of needed gratifications. Their wishes, their whims, their rules and laws govern him and must be appeased lest he jeopardize his sources of supply He must be, to an extent, “other- directed,” and must be sensitive to other people’s approval, affection and good will. This is the same as saying that he must adapt and adjust

69 by being flexible and responsive and by changing himself to fit the external situation. He is the dependent variable; the environment is the fixed, independent variable. (Maslow, 1968/1999, pp. 39-40) [italics are Maslow’s]

Belongingness can be equated to identifying with a group, which may be a peer group as an immediate source of reference for the individual or the more abstract ethnic or national group (Joseph, 2004). This broad definition of group is akin to the notion of citizenship that is discussed further below. Williams et al. (2002) found female Mexican immigrants in a high school identifying themselves as a group of immediate peers defined by gender and ethnic identity. Therefore, it would seem that even though the Latinas wanted to belong to mainstream society, commonly held beliefs and the structure of their home lives defined the group to which they belonged. Such attitudes as rejecting the expensive fashions of the girls outside their group on the grounds that it would be harmful to their families to have to buy them new brand name clothes often were held by all the group members. Along similar lines, Quechua-speaking women in Peru were more likely than men to remain monolingual (89% of monolingual Quechua speakers were women) due to the fact that the family was an economic unit and that men left the home to seek work outside of the community, so women became the majority in their villages and took on stronger political roles, forming a tightly knit group (Bourque & Warren, 1976).

Though adapting to the mainstream Mestizo culture would have given them more mobility within the nation, their immediate environment rewarded them for their local belongingness (Bourque & Warren, 1976).

Members of ethnic minorities sometimes define themselves in terms of their perceptions of prejudice and discrimination (Lien, 1994): instead of the prejudice

70 being purely a negative influence on their behavior, there seems to be some

correlation between perceiving oneself as being the victim of prejudice as well as of being deprived of certain rights and correct civic behavior, such as voting. By comparing two unequally positioned groups from a socioeconomic point of view,

Lien (1994) suggests that it is not the socioeconomic level that is important in this process, but rather the perception that one has of oneself in society that is important.

This role of perception is borne out in Ogbu’s (2003) observations of African

American high school students in an affluent suburb. Unfortunately, Lien (1994) did not look at linguistic competence but rather only at political participation, that is the degree to which the members of the minority groups tried somewhat to influence the decisions made in their communities.

A study carried out in South Africa by a tri-national research team (Duckitt,

Callaghan, & Wagner, 2005), found that some groups construct their perception of group identity based on negative perceptions of other ethnicities. Race (Caucasian and Indian) and language (English and Afrikaans) bore evidence of ‘reciprocal multiculturalism in ingroup-outgroup evaluation’ (p. 643). At times ethnic identity is influenced by the self-evaluation of skills that one has. Weisskirch (2005), using the

Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure as well as the Short Acculturation Scale for

Hispanic Youth found that children who language-brokered for their parents and who deemed this skill to be positive, had a stronger L1 ethnic identification than did those youths who did not share this attitude. Using two instruments to measure ethnic identity and acculturation, Weisskirch (2005) determined that Hispanic sixth-graders who had a) become fluent in English; b) language-brokered for their parents; and c)

71 enjoyed this experience, scored higher in ethnic identity than did children who did not successfully language broker. Girls also scored higher than boys, and Weisskirch

(2005) attributed this result to the possibility that language-brokering is a verbal skill

that girls tend to do better than boys. It is interesting to note that as these Hispanic

students became more bicultural and more bilingual, their ethnic identity with their

home culture rose (Weisskirch, 2005).

Baumeister and Leary (1995) thus set out to study and describe the almost primordial importance of the concept of belongingness, since they seem to have felt that this concept was grossly underestimated. According to Baumeister and Leary’s

(1995) Belongingness Hypothesis, the need to belong to a group is innate and is to be understood as a prerequisite for the acquisition of knowledge within the group

(Universität Oldenburg, n.d.). Looking at the empirical research done up to the

publication of their paper, Baumeister and Leary (1995) made the following

observations:

“[T]he belongingness hypothesis is that human beings have a pervasive drive

to form and maintain at least a minimum quantity of lasting, positive, and significant

interpersonal relationships” (p. 497). In fact, Baumeister and Leary (1995) posit that

the need for belongingness probably has an evolutionary origin. At the outset of their

paper, they point out that Maslow (1968/1999), the most noted user of the term

‘belongingness’ in modern psychology, situated belongingness in the middle of his

pyramid of needs, that is above the needs for food and safety, but below esteem and

self-actualization. This location is controversial because it could be argued that

belongingness for human beings may be the precondition for obtaining food and

72 safety, since humans’ other means of obtaining these are not as developed as are other

animals’ means. Humans do not have very sharp claws or fangs; are not suited for the rapid pursuit of game either on land or in the water; cannot fly; and only seem to be

able to gather enough food for sustenance when working in groups. But even if single

human beings alone can obtain enough food to survive, protecting themselves from

predators is all but impossible. Furthermore, the need for belongingness has definite reproductive benefits (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Baumeister and Leary (1995) go

on to suggest that the need to belong may also entail a certain feeling of pleasantness when humans consort with strangers, viewing these strangers as possibilities for long- term relationships.

Thus, Baumeister and Leary (1995) set out to explore the hypothesis that belongingness is a fundamental human motivation and to “demonstrate the broad applicability of the need to belong for understanding human motivation and behavior”

(p. 497). They propose two features for the need to belong: 1) a high frequency of association in a conflict-free environment, and 2) the perception on the part of the participants that their bond is “marked by stability, affective concern, and continuation into the foreseeable future” (p. 500).

In fact, some of the conventional ideas about humans as hunters and their

belongingness being derived from a hunting cohort are being revised. Looking at the evolutionary evidence from new perspectives, scientists today believe that Lucy, thought to be the first skeletal proof of human ancestry, had cohorts who were just three to five feet tall and weighed 60 to 100 pounds, possessed teeth only useful in eating a vegetarian diet, and were the prey of the beasts of their day, not their hunters

73 (Begley, 2007; Hart & Sussman, 2005). Indeed, today’s scientists believe that the

only protection these early humans had was by living in groups and outsmarting the

beasts of prey by human wits, not by human hunting skills (Begley, 2007; Hart &

Sussman, 2005). The fact that early humans were the prey and not the predator is

documented by the large number of early human skulls with tooth marks from saber-

tooth tigers (Hart & Sussman, 2005; Berger, 2000). The whole concept of “man the

hunter” may be the product of a male dominated anthropology of the twentieth

century (Begley, 2007). From these physical anthropological findings one can

conclude that humans probably sought each other’s company to survive, not to only

to hunt. These findings, of course, shine new light on Maslow’s (1968/1999) theory

of belongingness, which he situates in the middle of his pyramid. If it is true that early

humans banded together in order to survive, then belonging to a group becomes the

source sine qua non of survival. Belongingness would then be the precondition for

safety, food, and shelter, all three of which Maslow (1968/1999) had positioned at the

base of the pyramid. The concept of belongingness manifests in so many different

ways that people sometimes fail to recognize how powerful and significant

belongingness is for humans.

Looking at the people of Papua New Guinea, for example, where it is

estimated that some 860 different languages are spoken, one sees some of the

wealthier tribesmen putting on enormous feasts during which countless pigs are

slaughtered and their meat distributed to the masses. The reason for this seemingly

wanton destruction of wealth is the exchange of material capital for social capital,

which is further reflected in the wealthier tribesmen’s attendance to the use of

74 vernaculars spoken by small minorities in the region, by means of which these wealthy tribesmen gain social power within various groups (Nettle & Romaine,

2000.)

To explain this phenomenon of using language to express belonging, Pierre

Bourdieu (1989) has lent the name “symbolic capital” to language. This use of symbolic capital is reflected in the use of varying vernaculars by politicians in order to gain electoral support, speaking the language of the blue collar workers during a speech in front of union members and then the language of businesspeople at an executive luncheon. In the Papuan New Guinean context, Foley (1986) calls the vernaculars of the island the “indispensable badge of a community’s unique identity.”

By using the local vernacular one is tapping into a social network, showing that one belongs and that one is committed to the group and invokes solidarity (Nettle &

Romaine, 2000.)

In The Mystery of Love, Konner, Pollard, Lukas, and Goodman (2006) explore the reasoning behind a soldier’s love of war: it is not truly a love of country nor the desire to protect the soldier’s ethnicity that is the primal driving motivation, but rather the love of the group. Many soldiers wounded and sent home bemoan being separated from their comrades. Neither the raison d’être nor Realpolitik of the war have played a significant role in their view of the war; rather, it was belonging to the group that figured largest in their minds, even though belonging to the group means even consciously risking one’s life or at least putting one’s life in grave jeopardy.

Labbe (2007) quotes a letter written by an American marine who volunteered for a second tour in Iraq. This marine, Robert C. Wood, Jr. first reports that he is

75 disillusioned with the occupation of Iraq and that he no longer believes in any of the

reasons given for it: the Iraqi people, oil, freedom in the Middle East. He writes:

Why is it then that we have American men and women returning for multiple tours of duty? Simply put, we fight for the man to the left and to the right of us. Sure, freedom from tyranny and peace in the Middle East are noble reasons to pick up arms, but not why we come back for more. I would venture that although patriotism (jingoism?) [The term “jingoism” is Wood’s] can persuade a man or a woman to sign up for the military, maybe even enough to get them to volunteer for Iraq [sic]. It’s always for his fellow Marines that he chooses to return. (Labbe, 2007, p. 19A)

Wood vacillates in his use of gender, at times talking about men and women,

but then, in the more emotional part “Simply put, we fight for the man to the left and

to the right of us,” he only uses the masculine. His writing exemplifies that esprit de corps of male camaraderie that armies have cultivated throughout history, that is, belongingness has bonded people into highly operative groups that will risk life and limb for other group members. It is a personification of the group that is taking place.

The soldier sees his or her numerically limited group as the definition of his or her belonging, as described by Dunbar’s (1996) number.

Yearning to belong is not some form of ephemeral humanistic altruism.

Instead, the saying about the right chemistry seems to be at least partially true. Brain research (Bowen, 1998) is finding that a mammalian hormone named oxytocin in the form of a neural nonapeptide consisting of nine amino acids (cysteine, tyrosine,

phenylalanine, glutamine, asparagine, cysteine, proline, arginine, and glyucine) is

responsible for human attraction to other humans, as well as for inducing women to

breast feed their offspring. Oxytocin is released in the brains of men and women after

sex in higher quantities than normal and causes them to feel happy and close to their

76 partners and is thought to influence the desire for monogamy in humans (Bowen,

1998). University of Zürich researchers found that oxytocin administered to 194

healthy male students increased their level of trust and overcame “their betrayal

aversion in social interactions” (Kosfeld, Heinrichs, Zak, Fischbacher & Fehr, 2005,

p. 673).

The oxytocin neural nonapeptide is depicted in figure 2.4 below

Figure 2.4 Oxytocin

“While the horror of aloneness is probably already given in the constitutional sociality of man, it manifests itself on the level of meaning in man’s incapacity to

sustain a meaningful existence in isolation from the nomic constructions of society"

(Berger & Luckmann, 1966, p. 102).

With this new knowledge concerning the origin of the human race as prey and

not predators, and concerning the way chemistry influences humans to bond, the

central significance of belongingness in the human psyche starts to emerge.

77 View of Self

In order to understand belongingness, it is necessary to understand how the individual (self) relates to the group (the other) in which self exists. It is paramount to

this current study of the perception of belongingness and linguistic competence and

performance to grasp how self defines self in relation to the others in self’s group and

the group to which self aspires to belong, that is the speakers of the target language.

In order to find a definition for the relation of self and the other, it is necessary to

define self and group.

In the process the ‘existent’ or subject must be radically decentered: ‘the I is first for-the-other before the very firstness of its being for .’ The radical passivity of the good will is referred to a ‘Desire,’ which ‘has its center outside of self’. The subject only comes into existence as already responsible to otherness … ‘I become responsible while I constitute myself into a subject. Becoming responsible is the constitution of me as a subject.’ (West, 1996)

The individual can only have a perception of him- or herself through the

interaction that he or she has with others. Just as words derive their meaning from

other words, individuals derive their identity from other individuals. The differences

among the collective of individuals constitute individual human self, that is, humans

derive their personal identity from relations with other humans. Hence, identity is a

relational concept, not a single reified idea. There is no “identity” nor is there a “self”

that can be isolated and identified, and because these concepts or perceptions are

relational, they are temporal and mutatis semper mutandis (Glynn, 2007).

Consequently, the individual also participates in multiple identities such as the binary

identity of gender and the non-binary identities of social and ethnic selves. But even

the intrinsic identity is dependent on the language received from others, as Glynn

78 (2007) explains, and it stems from experiences defined by culture and mediated by

language. Values and beliefs are socially constituted.

Because others see the self, the self becomes psychologically self-conscious.

The individual must also first find the psychological self before s/he can find the

philosophical self. Thus the individual does not and cannot exist in a social void, but

depends on others for definition. According to Freudian (1964) thought, the

individual comes to understand self through the pleasure principle, i.e. desire. The baby finds him or her self caught in the conflict of desire for pleasure and the reality of not always receiving the pleasure that it desires. The baby constitutes him or her self around this conflict. One thus becomes conscious of the world through the pain of this conflict of refuted desire within a group. The subject (self) is then not an afterthought but is central to the various individuals’ understanding of selves and as beings. As Deleuze (1980) put it, identity is the effect of difference. Deleuze in collaboration with Guattari (Deleuze & Guattari, 1972) thus attempts to explain the individual as a product of the organization of pre-individual desires and powers.

This seemingly entangled relationship of self veers sharply away from hitherto used definitions of integrative motivation, which is not concerned with the source of motivation other than seeing motivation as something responding to outside stimuli.

There is in Dörnyei’s (2005) interpretation of integrative motivation an intrinsic implication that motivation stems from an autonomous self. If the self is defined by those outside the individual, those with whom the individual in some way interacts, whether directly or indirectly, then motivation must stem from an other-directed self.

If motivation is something that an individual has, then it follows that it is mediated,

79 modified, or influenced by the other. It would then be important to understand the view of self that a language student has in terms of who defines self, that is does the language student define self oriented towards other second language students or rather toward a perceived attitude that the speakers of the target language have towards him/her personally or his/her group?

Citizenship in the Group

Citizenship in linguistics and sociology is not the official recognition by a government of an individual’s position in a society but rather a description of obtaining access to a group by an individual and the individual’s consequent enjoyment of the group’s benefits and protections while the individual complies with

the obligations set forth by that group (Leap & Boellstorff, 2004).

Under that definition, citizenship is not just a status within civil society but is also a mode of social action through which individuals and groups establish a subject position as citizen and from that basis assert other claims to ‘place’ within the broader social domain. (Leap & Boellstorff, 2004, p. 136)

In other words, an individual claims citizenship within a group of any dimension, be it a small, tightly-knit band of people, or a large, amorphous community such as a nation, or the speakers of a specific language, or practitioners of a certain set of beliefs. According to the theory of Dunbar’s (1996) Number, the greatest number of people with whom an individual can be personally involved in any

given epoch of the individual’s life is 150 (Dunbar, 1996). However, one can be the

citizen of a university, a country such as China with more than a billion people or a religion such as a citizen of Roman Catholicism with some other billion people. In the last two cases, it is highly unlikely that the citizen will ever meet all of the other

80 citizens of that community but the community of which the individual is a citizen is a

partial definition of the individual’s self. The individual has some concept of

“belonging” to that community, of finding Heimat within that community. Heimat is

a German word derived from Heim (home) that originally meant something like the

place in which one is at home. Today, Heimat describes geographically,

psychologically, and/or ideally the real or imagined space in which a person feels at

home, a kind of “at-home(d)-ness”. Thus, the concept of citizenship allows one to

identify with or belong to a community or group of individuals who share certain,

though not all common characteristics, and who identify with other individuals whom

one does not know except in an idealized fashion. Furthermore, citizenship as a

construction is not autonomous but rather derives its meaning from the diverse and

stratified structures of the community (Leap & Boellstorff, 2004). As Dunbar (1996)

aptly put it: “Language makes us members of a community, providing us with the opportunity to share knowledge and experiences in a way no other species can ( p.7).”

Attachment

Belongingness can be combined with attachment, a term introduced by

Bowlby (1969). It is important to understand the difference, because these two elements relate to differing concepts of how humans acquire language. If belongingness relates to group identity, then attachment describes the dyadic relationship of the new-born child and the primary caregiver (Lapointe & Legault,

2004). Who the primary caregivers are depends on the culture and the situation

(Williams et al., 2002; Jain & Belsky, 1997). Jain and Belsky (1997) found, for example, that fathers from India changed their role as distant fathers to become more

81 attentive caregivers as they acculturated to life in the United States. However, no

matter who the primary caregivers are, attitudes developed during this initial dyadic

or triadic relationship carry over into adult life and influence the individual’s behavior

in relating to society (Lapointe & Legault, 2004). Lapointe and Legault (2004)

examined the relationship of attachment and belongingness in a school in Montréal, and found that attachment and belongingness figure differently in the individual’s psyche. Based on the concept that self-esteem is correlated with attachment, Lapointe and Legault (2004) discovered that for schoolchildren the school faculty acted as an ersatz family. Furthermore, the researchers posited that self-evaluation of social competences is correlated with belongingness, that is in this case the schoolchildren’s peers. Hence, the schoolchildren’s relationship with their school was correlated to

both attachment and belongingness.

Group Socialization Theory

Another piece in understanding the acquisition of language was delivered by

Harris (1999) with the definition of Group Socialization Theory. According to her research, a person’s first language is not directly acquired from the adults who surround the individual but rather from peers. Adults may make the building blocks of language available and offer the first field of practice, but it is the reconstruction of language within the child’s peer group that assures the use of language. As discussed above, the young Latinas in the study carried out by Williams et al. (2002) created their own culture that was neither purely Mexican nor mainstream American. They selected as a group those cultural items that they found acceptable (long, unadorned hair style, inexpensive sports shoes, clothing without brand name adornments).

82 McCargar (1993) in a study looking at why some students in second language classes do not succeed, found that student expectations did not coincide with teacher expectations and that even though the teacher was the dominant personage in the classroom, the students did not change their expectations to suit those of the teacher.

The participants did, however, tend to agree with the members of their ethnic peer group on expectations, which agreement brought into context one of the conclusions proposed by Lapoint and Legault (2004), that attachment to the primary caregivers is more strongly related to the relationship between student and teacher than between student and peers.

Group Dynamics Theory

Motivation is often caused or influenced by the members of a group, referred to by Dörnyei (2005) as “Group Dynamics,” a term coined by Kurt Lewin (1943). In the group, “group norms” (according to Dörnyei, 2005, the overt and covert rules used by the group to maintain order) are established that affect the individual’s performance. These group norms may also have a negative influence when they become the “norm of mediocrity” which discourages the individual from achieving success (demotivation).

Integrative Motivation

One of the major aspects of second language acquisition is integrative or intrinsic motivation (Maslow, 1968/1999). In a longitudinal classroom observation,

Spanish-speaking and English-speaking children were observed scaffolding each other in a purely Vygotskyan (1934/1968) way in a bilingual setting (Angelova et al.,

2006). This scaffolding helped them integrate as a group. Interestingly, the children

83 who were bilingual at the start of the observation became the dominant group

members. Schulz (Schulz & Elliott, 2000) remarked on this dominance in her attempt

to acquire Spanish while working at a university in Santa Fé de Bogotá, Colombia for

the period of one semester. There she was free to use either Spanish or English to

communicate with her Spanish-speaking colleagues, but her Spanish progressed

immensely as she assimilated into her peers’ group of other professors, by using

Spanish instead of English. Schulz and Elliott (2000), in analyzing Schulz’s success

in acquiring Spanish, do not discuss the fact that she was well aware that her stay

would only span one semester. The limited time may have played a slightly negative

role in her progress, though she did acquire the ability to communicate in Spanish.

Lybeck (2002) found that women who were able to reduce social distance

using network of friends had the highest level of native-like Norwegian

pronunciation. Using interviews and an evaluation of pronunciation by a Swedish

linguist, Lybeck (2002) examined the acquisition of native-like Norwegian

pronunciation in a group of nine American women in Norway over a period of six

months. To simplify her analysis, she concentrated on the pronunciation of /r/. Native

American English speakers use a more guttural /r/ than the flapped /r/ produced

against the mouth’s alveolar ridge by native Norwegian speakers. Though the sound

does not impair understanding, it does immediately mark the user of the guttural /r/ as

a native English speaker. Classifying the women pursuant to a qualitative network

analysis, she assigned the participants to three groups: Group A, women who had

reduced social distance using networks; Group B, women with somewhat less success

in doing as the women in Group A; and Group C, women who had been totally

84 unsuccessful in “shortening cultural distance,” which Lybeck (2002) defines by studying the social exchange networks of her subjects, that is paraphrasing an English saying: “Tell me who your friends are and I will tell you how well you have acculturated”. Her findings indicate that the women in Group A had the highest level of native-like Norwegian pronunciation. They also seem to have had the highest amount of exposure to spoken Norwegian, which Lybeck (2002) does not consider in her analysis, so that it is difficult to relate the women’s emotional (integrative) view of Norwegians to their success in producing native-like speech, a limitation of the design in research focus.

This current study is geared to examining one very small part of motivation. It cannot even completely cover the topic of “integrative motivation” since this term has not been unambiguously defined by researchers hitherto. Furthermore, the term motivation is often intertwined with the term “attitudes” (Safont Jordà, 2005).

Attitudes can be about languages or about being bilingual in general, as well as about the relation of the student’s attitudes toward L1 or L2 (Safont Jordà, 2005). Safont

Jordà (2005) cites the work done by Dörnyei (1994) in which Dörnyei demonstrates the complex structure of motivation as “an eclectic construct that integrates characteristics from the learners themselves, the language and the learning situation” which would also consist of, among other things, the teacher, the course, and the context (p. 25). She does not, however, define what the context is. The degree of familiarity that the learner has with the culture of the target language may also be a factor in successful second language acquisition (Safont Jordà, 2005).

85 Studying motivation is complex due to its being an abstract concept and not directly observable, multidimensional, and inconstant (Dörnyei, 2001). Safont Jordà

(2005) differentiates between second language acquisition and bilingualism, citing several theories, for example the “Separate or Independence Hypothesis” and the

“Shared Storage or Interdependence Hypothesis” but not the seminal work done by

Kim, Relkin, Lee, and Hirsch (1997) on the distinct cortical areas associated with L1 and L2. Here it is important to note that people who are bilingual from infancy use the Broca area of the brain as the main center for both languages while people who acquire a second language later on rely on the Wernicke and Broca areas for L2, and

L1 retains its principle center in the Broca area (Kim et al.,1997). The researcher for this dissertation posits that a person with this type of bilingualism (both languages having a principle center in the Broca area) can be said to have two L1s. This dichotomy of Broca and Wernicke area usage may be due to the fact that the

Wernicke area is where syntax is processed. As the child acquires language, the

Wernicke area may be strengthened so that it takes over the initial language acquisition function of the Broca area. Studying the development and causes for the increased use of the Wernicke area would be the subject of future research. Safont

Jordà (2005) points up the difference between second and third language acquisition, more specifically in the case of English as the third language. Safont Jordà (2005) proposes a model in which the researcher does not look at each language individually

but rather at the total of a person’s language knowledge as being one system. Group

dynamics seem to have influence on certain aspects of second language acquisition as

described in the three studies cited above.

86 Instrumental Motivation

The English-speaking and Spanish-speaking children of the aforementioned

longitudinal study in a bilingual classroom carried out by Angelova et al. (2006) were

acquiring each others’ languages, though the Spanish-speaking children were better at

learning English than were the English-speaking children at learning Spanish.

Angelova et al. (2006) attribute this result to the instrumental value of Spanish for

English-speaking children, since Spanish was only important to do well in the

classroom but not in society at large. Angelova et al. (2006) did not use any measure for the children’s perception of themselves in the group nor did they measure the children’s perception of the speakers of the two languages nor did they interview the

children’s teachers on matters of group identity, integration into the group by the

children, nor any other psychological aspects of the classroom interaction.

The influence of integrative motivation may be impacted by instrumental

motivation or other external pressures. In examining the motivation reported by

subjects in this study, the researcher found it necessary to keep this complexity of

interaction among differing types of motivation in mind and to constantly reflect on

variables present in the subjects’ learning environment.

Belongingness and Integrative Motivation

The opposite of belonging is exclusion, which leads to loneliness (Kirova,

2001). Baumeister and Leary (1995) hypothesize that the need to belong is a

“powerful, fundamental, and extremely pervasive” human motivation. “[T]he

belongingness hypothesis is that human beings have a pervasive drive to form and

87 maintain at least a minimum quantity of lasting, positive, and significant interpersonal

relationships” (Baumeister & Leary, 1995, p. 497).

Kirova (2001) reports that language was described by the children in her

research as the most important factor in making them different, separate, from the rest

of the children. She reports the following statement by her son who participated in the

study:

It was like I couldn’t control what was going to come out of my mouth. It was in my head, I could hear the appropriate sounds but when I opened my mouth, the sounds were very different from the ones I thought they would be. I was really embarrassed and didn’t want to talk at all. It was like I couldn’t trust myself anymore. I felt so stupid. Sometimes it was very difficult for me to find the word I needed, so I would replace it with another English or Bulgarian word. Nobody seemed to make sense of what I was trying to say so they just ignored me or even worse, laughed at me. It was lonely, you know… (Kirova, 2001, p. 12). Building on the notion of “imagined community” introduced by Norton

(2000), Dörnyei (2005) says that the foreign language student may not know any

native speakers of the target language but may still identify with speakers of that

language. In the case of English, he believes that students see English as a world

language that would give them access to non-native speakers of the language as well.

He points out that the students in Gardner’s (1982, 1985, 2001b; Gardner & Lambert,

1972) works all had ready access to native speakers of their target language, since the studies concerned English and French speaking students in Montréal. Dörnyei has carried out several studies in Hungary with Hungarian speaking students studying a second language, which seems to be English, though he does not confirm this.

The perceptions that the individual has of him or herself in the community are important in understanding the progress made by learners of a target language. In

88 order to describe these perceptions, Dörnyei (2005) and Csizér and Dörnyei (2005) use the term mentioned above, “Ideal L2 Self.”

Instruments Used to Measure Belongingness

Though there is a standard and internationally recognized measure for linguistic proficiency, the Oral Proficiency Interview, which was designed and developed by the American Council on Teaching of Foreign Language (Schulz &

Elliott, 2000; Graham & Brown, 1996), belongingness is measured by a number of different instruments. Among these are the Inventory of Parent and Peer Attachment and the Caring Behaviors, the Support Behaviors, and the Self-Perception for

Adolescents (Lapointe & Legault, 2004). The Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure, often mentioned in testing the identity of ethnic groups, may be a viable instrument for measuring belonging (Weisskirch, 2005) or the Group Identification Scale created by Brown, Condor, Matthews, Wade, and Williams (1986) (Duckitt et al., 2005).

Gordon (1996) used the Hollingshead Index to establish socioeconomic status before administering measures of the students’ goals and beliefs, such as the High School

Assessment of Academic Self-Concept (Gordon, 1996) and the Assessment of

Personal Agency Beliefs, as well as a 4-point scale Likert assessment of stress.

Individual interviews and group interviews as used by Williams et al. (2002) might lead to an understanding of belonging, as may the analysis of journals to be kept by the participants over a determined period of time (Gardner et al., 2000; Tse, 2000).

89 Activity Theory – New Approach to Second Language Acquisition

For new bilinguals, the ontogenetic development (the development of

language in the individual) occurs similarly to the language development of children

becoming adults, that is through mediational means which change the individual’s

mental organization by way of social interaction, an idea proposed by Vygotsky

(1934/1986, cited in Pavlenko & Lantolf, 2000). In other words, true bilinguals develop a second language inner-voice based on the others’ voices that the true bilingual has heard in developing second language abilities. The main position taken by Pavlenko and Lantolf (2000) and Johnson (2004) in proposing their “activity theory” resides in the participation metaphor, that is social interaction, whereby the

language student develops a new self in the second language. Pavlenko and Lantolf

(2000) support this idea by stating that one’s culture is one’s past in the present. For

this reason, many who successfully acquire a second language are interested in recounting their childhoods in the new language, thus reinventing themselves in the new language (Pavlenko & Lantolf, 2000). Activity theory is then an extension of

Bakhtin’s (1986) concept of “ventriloquization,” a term he uses to mean that the child gradually accepts the voices (personae) of others, using them at first as a ventriloquist and then later appropriating those voices (personae) with which the child identifies, thus constructing his or her own set of adult voices. For Pavlenko and Lantolf (2000) and for Johnson (2004), the job of the second language student is to find the appropriate voices in the target language that permit him or her to construct a new concept of self in the target language.

90 Second language acquisition should not, therefore, just consist of the study of phonological and morpho-syntactic rules and structures but rather it should also consist of the study of speech (Johnson, 2004). This idea is a radical breach with tradition in second language acquisition in which the study of applied linguistics stemming from the pure structuralism represented in the writings of de Saussure

(1916/1992) figures as the mainstay.

Summary

Though there are varying views on the role played by belongingness in humans’ acculturation and though belongingness does not seem to be a monolithic need as once portrayed, there do seem to be important correlations between what a person learns and what that person’s needs to belong are. Furthermore, it seems that attachment may intersect with the need for belonging in a vertical manner, shaping the way in which the adult individual interacts with specific people outside of the peer group.

The acquisition of language seems to take place more outside of formal instruction than within, though formal instruction is not without merit in helping the individual attain competence and performance in the target language. Assuming that language competence and performance evolve mostly in a social context, that is free of formal instruction, it would be appropriate to examine the social context in which it takes place. Since the individual generally acquires the language spoken by those in the individual’s peer group and since belonging to the peer group seems to be a basic human need, it is only logical to suppose that there is some relationship between the

91 individual’s acquisition of the peer group’s language and the individual’s concept of

self in relationship to that peer group.

The research carried out thus far applied instruments to measure and

determine belongingness, attachment, and communicative proficiency. Using either the internationally accepted Multigoup Ethnic Identity Measure or an instrument of their own construction, researchers have sought to generate data along the lines that they themselves deemed important. None of the research hitherto has permitted the

subjects to determine their own directions. This means that there may be aspects of

second language acquisition that the subjects can unveil in keeping with Kelly’s

(1955) view of the human as a life-long scientist, and that do not correspond to the

preconceived notions that any researcher, including this author, consciously or unconsciously foster. In the next chapter a methodology will be proposed to circumvent this issue.

The research carried out in this study will then be centered on the complex of belongingness and attachment of individuals as they acquire the language of their peers. Understanding this relation could lead to a better understanding of how to improve or promote second language acquisition in general.

92

CHAPTER THREE

Design of the Study

The Problem

The problem investigated in this study is to determine whether it is possible to

predict a student’s second language communicative competence by examining his or her perception of the speakers of the target language.

Methodology

The purpose of this methodology is to describe a technique that can be used

for the study of perceptions in second language acquisition: Kelly’s (1955) Repertory

Grid Technique, a technique which offers the potential to enhance the understanding

of how second language learners make sense of the social component of language

acquisition. Kelly (1955) first proposed the Repertory Grid Technique as a means for

the researcher to generate data from subjects without injecting concepts drawn from an a priori theoretical framework. Since its introduction in 1955, the Repertory Grid

Technique has been used and refined by many researchers around the world. Today, the Repertory Grid, along with the complementary Laddering Analysis, is used heavily in education and other social sciences to elicit the perceptions of subjects in sense-making in education (Martin, 2000; Lee & Yang, 1995). Hadley (1996) not

93 only used the Repertory Grid Technique in a study of a Japanese English as a Foreign

Language classroom but also explained why Kelly’s (1955) Personal Construct

Theory and the use of the Repertory Grid Technique are useful for cross-cultural studies. Since the Repertory Grid Technique does not rely on a researcher-generated interview protocol but rather on the freely uttered statements of the subjects, data can

be generated that are more subject-oriented.

The Repertory Grid is used in other fields such as tourism (Naoi, Airey,

Iijima, & Niininen, 2007), organizational work practices (Ashleigh & Nandhkumar,

2007), the attitudes and beliefs of search engine users (Johnson & Crudge, 2007),

cross-cultural affinity (Swift, 2002), and managerial cognition (Wright & Cheung,

2007) as well. This sense-making has its origins in the personal perceptions that individuals have of the social component of language, that is, of how they perceive the environment in which the target language is used for communications and of where they see themselves in this perspective. The Repertory Grid Technique is based on Kelley’s (1955) Personal Construct Theory (Fransella, Bell, & Bannister, 2004;

Neimeyer & Neimeyer, 2002; Tan & Hunter, 2002; Bannister & Fransella, 1971;

Fransella & Bannister, 1977; Kelly, 1955).

Kelly (1955) sees humans as basically free to construct their own perceptions of things and other people, which he names “alternative constructionism,” that is humans can interpret and reinterpret, define and redefine perceptions despite affect and past experiences. By defining and redefining, interpreting and reinterpreting perceptions, the individual human constructs a view of the world on her or his own.

Often these constructs are clumped together in sub-constructions. Though the

94 individual is free to view events according to more than one construct, the individual

is constantly testing her or his perceptions and may modify the constructs or change

them completely. Though individuals are free to create their own constructions,

others influence them. For Kelly (1955), sociality is the extent to which individuals

influence the construction processes of others.

Another reason for using Kelly’s (1955) Repertory Grid is offered by Hunter

(2006) in explaining how he used the grid for cross-cultural research. Hunter (2006)

writes that he was torn between an emic approach, which only looks at one culture,

and an etic approach, which would be an attempt to find universal constructs by

looking at a vast number of cultures. For most research carried out by one researcher

or a small team of researchers, a truly etic approach is all but impossible, due partly to

financial constraints. Hunter (2006) thus turned to using a pseudo-etic approach

which allowed him to look at a limited number of cultures and to attempt to extrapolate suggestions for universal constructs from his study, constructs to be tested by others at later dates.

Since he was using a pseudo-etic approach, Hunter (2006) also became aware

that he would have to take his subjects’ cultures into account, that is, he had to

describe in some compact way the cultures from which his subjects originated. In order to find a concise yet efficient way to describe his subjects’ first culture, Hunter

(2006) applied Hofstede’s (1980) perspective which interprets culture as “the collective programming of the mind” (Hunter, 2006, p. 77). In this perspective, the researcher assumes that individuals develop in a culture and rarely question the assumptions made by this culture. Hofstede (1980) applies four dichotic measures to

95 cultures: individualism – collectivism; high-power distance – low-power distance;

uncertainty avoidance – uncertainty acceptance; and masculinity – femininity.

Thus, Hunter (2006) was able to summarize and compare the differences between two cultures in his Repertory Grid study of Canada and Singapore in a few short paragraphs using Hofstede’s (1980) four measures which made his results more

understandable to the reader.

This current study is based on the philosophy of “Grounded Theory.” In

Grounded Theory, the researcher assumes that the categories and the properties of

these categories arise from the data generated during the study and not from a priori

assumptions of a theoretical framework. Kelly’s (1955) Repertory Grid was

developed for such purpose as it permits “the identification of both similarities and

differences (of the subjects’ perceptions) to emerge from the data” (Hunter, 2006). At

the same time, in cross-cultural research, as is this current study, Kelly’s (1955)

Repertory Grid gives the interview structure, allows for flexibility, and reduces

researcher bias while permitting the collection of “rich, detailed, qualitative, and

narrative data relating to the research participant’s explanation of an elicited

construct” (Hunter, 2006).

Subjects

Unlike the study carried out by Graham and Brown (1996), which engaged 48

subjects, this study engaged 22 subjects, an ideal number for the use of Kelly’s (1955)

Repertory Grid Technique, which postulates that more than 17 to 30 subjects would

not produce significant variations in the data and also is feasible for conducting

interviews and group discussions (Tan & Hunter, 2002).

96 The psychological concepts of the lexical and statistical approaches to trait taxonomies, in which synonym frequency and cross-cultural universality are treated, have been shown to be the two clearest criteria for studies of traits (Larsen & Buss,

2005). Synonym frequency is founded on the works of Saucier and Goldberg (1996) based on work by Catell (1943), who found approximately 4,500 seemingly stable traits, which he reduced to 17 groups of synonyms. These 17 groups were then further

reduced to five in the “five-factor model” (Saucier & Goldberg, 1996). This five-

factor model has been replicated many times over the past few decades in a myriad of

countries, a strong indicator of its robustness (Larsen & Buss, 2005). It was,

therefore, easy to postulate that 22 subjects would fulfill the needs of research in

determining the traits of those who speak their language and of those people who

speak the language being studied. Furthermore, Kelly’s (1955) Personal Construct

Theory postulates that all traits are bipolar. Thus, a trait such as “friendly” is matched

with the opposite “unfriendly.”

The subjects were young adults at a community college in south Florida who had acquired English to varying degrees: they were either enrolled in ESOL courses at the time of the study or had successfully completed them at some time in the recent past. These subjects volunteered participation in this study.

In this study, the subjects were interviewed two times. The first interview was the lengthier one in which primary data were generated. Then, after analyzing these data, the researcher returned to the subjects to ask whether his understanding of what

they said was correct and to ask whether they would like to add something to the

analyses of their interviews. In this way, the researcher identified what function the

97 subjects’ perceptions (of the native target language speakers) had in the subjects' acquisition of the target language. Comparing these perceptions of the speakers of the target language with the subjects' self-reported levels of competence and performance, and then triangulating these data with their class levels (as assigned by the community college based on written tests and teacher recommendations), one can look for a possible association between the subjects’ perceptions of native target language speakers (and hence of their own selves – see discussion below of self and other) and one can better understand their progress in acquiring the second language..

The reason for choosing adults as subjects is that some theorists believe that there is a critical period as discussed in Chapter Two. According to these theorists, the critical period takes place for language acquisition as early as seven years old and for some as late as fourteen. The choice of adults as subjects means that inference due to the critical period is less likely to be a factor in the subjects’ acquisition of English.

In order to account for interference of the mother tongue in language acquisition of the target language, the subjects were of the same Spanish language group. Some Second Language Acquisition theorists such as Krashen (1977a, 1977b) propose that the first language has no influence on how well a person acquires a second language, that is, how similar or dissimilar the two languages are. Others feel that the speed of acquiring the target language is affected by which language the student speaks as the first language (Zobl, 2004).

98

Procedures

This Repertory Grid Technique consists of three main components:

a) Elements: “The things or events which are abstracted by a construct are called elements” (Kelly, 1955). For this study American English will be used as

the target language since the research is being carried out in the United States in an

area where there are a great number of English learners.

b) Constructs: “[A] way in which at least two elements are similar and contrast with a third” (Kelly, 1955). That is to say that a construct consists of at least three elements in this context, though there may be more (Kelly, 1955). In this study, then, the subjects were asked, in a classic approach to Repertory Grid Technique, to group the speakers of languages whom they identified in triads (triadic sort method) and asked which two in the triad were similar and which one was most dissimilar.

Then the subjects were asked to identify the trait that makes the third dissimilar. By responding in this way, the interviewees were not influenced by the interviewer in establishing the traits that they construct of English language speakers and the interviewer did not prejudice the interviewees’ terms of reference. In this way, bipolar

constructs were discovered.

c) Links: The interviewees were asked why s/he had grouped the triad

members in such fashion. If, for example, one of the traits was friendliness and the

interviewee rated herself/himself with the more friendly triad member, then the

interviewee was asked to rate all three triad members on a 1-10 scale of friendliness-

unfriendliness. The rating scale, avoided potential skewedness caused by

99 dichotomizing. Forced misinterpretation on the part of the interviewees caused by ranking elements was also avoided.

The Repertory Grids created by means of the interviews were analyzed for the interviewees’ constructs of 1) speakers of their own mother tongue; 2) speakers of

English. Special interest was focused on issues of 1) belongingness (group identity) and 2) acculturation versus assimilation.

A statistical analysis of the grids was carried out through a simple frequency count to reduce the dimensionality and identify emerging themes. Once these analyses were finished, the researcher used a qualitative research method called

“membership checking” in interviews with each of participants who chose to know the results, sharing the findings with the participants and asking for their explanations of those findings in a process called “laddering” (Tan & Hunt, 2002). This method is in accord with the philosophy of Grounded Theory in general and also with the life- long work done by Paulo Freire (1972/2005) in education.

An idiographic approach means that the results are only an indication of possible tendencies derived from individuals. There is no attempt in this study to make a co-relational generalization applicable to all societies, all languages, and all second language learners based on quantitative statements.

Instrumentation As stated above, this study was carried out with the use of the Repertory Grid

Technique based on the concept that Kelly (1955) (Fransella and Bannister, 1977) calls the Personal Construct Theory. Assembling this grid, a type of flexible matrix or rubric, involves interviewing twenty to twenty-five subjects. Research has shown that more subjects seldom increase the accuracy of the grid (Tan and Hunt, 2002). The

100 instrument is created in one-on-one interviews. In this way, a matrix is established

with the participants on the horizontal and the traits on the vertical (Figures 4.19,

1.20, 4.21). A further investigation was implemented by using a “group construct”

elicitation interview with the nine subjects who chose to do the follow-up interviews

(Tan and Hunter, 2002).

The subjects each were asked to fill out a demographics form and to rate their

own evaluation of their performance in understanding, speaking, reading, and writing

American English. Obviously, the interviewer was able to make some judgment as to how native-like the subjects’ performance in speaking American English was and the interviewer noted this judgment. Though the level assigned the student by the school was also used to determine the subjects’ native-like speech, this level is not an unchallengeable variable. No Oral Proficiency Interview was administered to establish a ‘hard grade’ analysis of the subjects’ linguistic performance proficiency.

The concept of “negative evidence” refers to negative transfer from the mother tongue, that is, the unsuccessful transfer of concept from L1 to L2. An example of this concept would be when a native Spanish-speaker says “a house white” instead of “a white house” in English, since the former is the accepted word order in Spanish. Some people believe that speakers of one linguistic community may have a harder time than speakers of another linguistic community when acquiring a specific foreign language, for example speakers of Dutch may find it easier to acquire

American English than do speakers of Chinese. No empirical proof has been yet found to confirm this (Mitchell & Myles, 2004). Therefore, it is unimportant from

101 which population the subjects of this study come, although they are, in fact, all native

Spanish speakers.

The question was raised above as to whether the subjects should all come from the same language community. In order to determine the answer to this question two things must be considered: 1) this is a study concerning perceptions and motivation, not about statistically measurable linguistic performance; and 2) in the five-factor model it is still not established exactly what the fifth factor, culture, is.

Thus, the only factor that would suggest selecting speakers of one single linguistic community is the open question of the fifth factor in the five-factor model. Cross- cultural studies have shown some instability of the determination of the fifth factor, that is culture. In Turkey, this factor can be defined more as “openness;” in the

German language community it is “intelligence, talents, and abilities;” in the Italian linguistic community it is “conventionality” as marked by “rebellious” and “critical”

(Larsen & Buss, 2005). In order to avoid any influence, the subjects participating in this study were all native speakers of Spanish, though they came from different countries.

The language triads used in establishing the grid are comparing:

1) Spanish-speakers with English-speakers and French-speakers;

2) Spanish-speakers with English-speakers and German-speakers;

3) Spanish-speakers with English-speakers and Portuguese-speakers;

4) Spanish-speakers with English-speakers and Italian-speakers; and,

5) Spanish-speakers with English-speakers and Chinese-speakers.

102 These languages were chosen based on previous conversations with students

from the countries from which the subjects came: Venezuela, Columbia, Ecuador,

Peru, Mexico, Spain, the Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico (technically part of

the Unites States). In all of these countries, with the exception of the Dominican

Republic and Puerto Rico, there was strong immigration of Germans and Italians until the mid 1950s. In today’s Spain, there is a large colony of German speakers. Even today, all of these countries have many Chinese immigrants. Until the 1970s, French was taught as an important world language in all of these countries. The subjects all live in southeastern Florida, where many Portuguese-speakers and many French- speakers live. Thus, the subjects are very likely to have had contact with the speakers of these languages and to have formed an opinion about the speakers of these languages.

The main objective of the interviews was to establish 1) how the subjects view their own language community; and 2) how the subjects view the speakers of their target language, that is speakers of American English. The third language community in each triad is used as a form of triangulation, offering another point of comparison in order to elicit different views of the two other language communities.

Analysis Techniques

In order to label the constructs in terms of belongingness, the following taxonomy was derived from Baumeister and Leary (1995):

Social bonding: inferred similarity of self to in-group members, physical proximity, formation of social attachments in the face of adverse circumstances, interpersonal attraction under fearful circumstances, social contact.

103 Conservation of bonds: people try to preserve relationships and avoid ending them, instrumentality of relationships is unimportant, social rituals, reluctance to abandon abusive relationships.

Cognition: dedication of cognitive processing energy and time to interpersonal interactions and relationships, people use the individual person as a cognitive unit of analysis for familiar people more than for unfamiliar people, information about out- group members tends to be stored and organized on the basis of attribute categories

(traits, preferences, duties, etc.), subsuming the self in the interpersonal, “illusion of unique invulnerability”, positive in-group attributions, black-and-white simplification of out-group members, transactive memory (specialization of the role of individual group members in group thinking), interpersonalness (interpretation of events due to one’s relationship), outcome dependency (judging people in belonging group differently than those not in this group), potentiality of belonging relationship, self- representation to in-group members.

Emotion: reciprocity of positive affect, shared emotions, anxiety of loss causing negative affect, anxiety of social exclusion, jealousy, loneliness, time spent with family and friends, anxiety about death, reflection process.

Partial deprivation: relatedness without interaction, interaction without relatedness (need of relatedness), caring, mutuality.

Satiation: reduction of interest in new relations as the need for belongingness is satisfied.

Substitution: replacement of relationship through a new one when the old relationship is terminated.

104 The personal constructs generated by each individual subject were examined

using the taxonomy proposed above. Constructs that did not correspond to any of the

units in the taxonomy were not taken into account. The constructs were then

classified into segments based on their similarity to each other (Figures 4.19, 4.20, &

4.21). This approach of first identifying the constructs that constituted the subjects’ belongingness and then grouping them into segments, created a general pattern to describe the individual subjects’ constructs of their perceptions of native language speakers as well of the individual subjects’ perception of their relationship to native speakers.

Conclusion

Kelly’s (1955) Repertory Grid Technique gave the participants significant influence in determining the direction of this study. It also permitted the participants the freedom to generate data that were not predetermined by the researcher or by the design of the study . This freedom led to fully unexpected results that are beyond the control of the researcher and this fact may seem to pose a danger. But it was a risk worth taking in the hopes that new light would be shed on how people acquire a second language and that the information could hint at what could be undertaken to promote this acquisition. This research broke ground in that it not only allowed the participants to construct their own perceptions, it also gave them the unique opportunity to comment on their earlier interviews. From that input there emerged new ideas about how language learners use their world to create their own perceptions of the speakers of their target language.

105

CHAPTER FOUR

Findings

This current work is a study of language and language itself is simultaneously universal and local, meaning that though language is a property of all humankind and is, in a sense one entity with some 6,000 and more dialects which are often referred to as languages, no one single speaker of any of these dialects speaks the exact same idiolect as any of his or her peers. Thus it is assumed in Personal Construct Theory, which has served as the main paradigm for this analysis, that no individual uses words that correspond one-hundred percent with the words used by other speakers or the dictionaries of that language, though synonyms may be closely related (Fransella et al., 2004). An example of difference is the use of the word ‘romantic’ which was often used by Spanish speakers to describe how they view other Spanish speakers or the community of Spanish speakers. When asked to explain what ‘romantic’ means, subjects all used different though similar synonyms to explain the word, three of which were: dramatic, passionate, and temperamental. Therefore, it was not merely one word that defined the segments of the individuals’ constructs but rather the broader meanings that that word engendered (see Figures 4.21 and 4.22).

106 Demographics

The population of this study consisted of 22 students and graduates of an

ESOL program at a community college in southeastern Florida who volunteered to

participate in this study, and they were not rewarded for participation. A complete

table of all the demographics can be found in the appendices.

Figure 4.1 Subjects by Gender

Gende rs

16 15 14 12 10 Num be r of 8 7 subjects 6 4 2 0 Female Male

Seven women and 15 men participated in the first interview (Figure 4.1).

Unlike the men, none of the women cited the fact that most immigrants are alike because they either have to learn a new language or adapt to a new culture nor did any of the women say that Spanish speakers have to work harder for success than

English speakers. None of the women expressed any feelings of being discriminated against by the American English speaking community. Ages ranged from early adulthood 18 to 55 years old, and the three men who expressed a feeling of being shut out of the American English speaking community were all in the age group 46-55 years of age (Figure 4.2).

107 Figure 4.2 Subjects by Age

AGE

10 8 9 6 Subjects 6 4 2 4 3 0 18 - 25 26 - 35 36 - 45 46 - 55 Ages

Figure 4.3 shows the level of English for participants by age group. Since the

program is aimed at the acquisition of English for academic purposes, it is often used

by students who wish to pass a professional examination in order to obtain a

professional license which would permit them to work in the field of studies that they

had completed in their homeland. This goal may explain why nine of the subjects

were in the age bracket of 46 to 55 years of age (Figure 4.3).

Figure 4.3 Subjects by Age Groups/Level of English

Level of English Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 ______Age Group 18-25 y.o. 2 subjects 2 subjects

26-35 y.o. 4 subjects 1 subject 1 subject

36-45 y.o. 2 subjects 1 subject

46-55 y.o. 1 subject 3 subject 1 subject 4 subject

Though all of the subjects were Spanish speakers, they came from different countries (Figure 4.4). The most common country of origin was Venezuela (five participants). Two of the participants were from Puerto Rico, a commonwealth of the

108 United States. Though Puerto Ricans study English in school, the two subjects in this

study said that they really learned English after moving to the mainland, and in order

to study at a community college, they had to pass this program in English as a second

language.

The subjects were asked to indicate the highest level of education that they

had obtained. Two had master’s degrees, 16 had bachelor's degrees, and two had high

school diplomas.

Figure 4.4 Subjects by Country of Birth

Country of Birth

Dominican Republic Venezuela

Puerto Rico Spain Per u

Panama Mexico Ecuador

Cuba Colombia Bolivia

012345

Number of Subjects

Two had master’s degrees, sixteen had bachelor’s degrees or their equivalent, two had associate's degree and two had high school diplomas (Figure 4.5).

109 Figure 4.5 Subjects by Degree of Education

Highest Degree of Education 15 16 14 12 10 8 6 22 4 2 1 2 Number of Subjects 0 MA BA BFA AA HS Type of Degree

Most of these students were in professional fields; only one of the students had a blue collar job, an exceptional case in this study (Figure 4.6). That subject had been in the United States thirteen years and was one of two subjects with only a high school diploma as the highest degree of education. He is married to a Puerto Rican who speaks fluent English and who has motivated him to try to enter the medical field in which she is employed. The other subject with a high school diploma as the highest level of education was taking English in order to go on to college.

Figure 4.6 Subjects by Profession

Profession Student

Business Administration - Accounting 1 3 3 Architecture - Civil Engineering

1 Law

Blue Collar 1 6

Teacher - Education 7

Medical Field

110 It is important to note that many of the subjects had been in the United States

for many years before they decided to take a course in academic English (Figure 4.7).

The length of time that the subjects had been living in the United States was calculated in months in order to make their stays more comparable.

Figure 4.7 Subjects’ Length of Stay in the U.S.A.

Time Living in U.S.A Months living in U.S. Number of Subjects 1

1 1

1 1

1 2 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1

2 4 6 9 12 14 17 19 20 24 30 36 72 84 132 156 240

Many of the subjects had studied English in their native countries for differing

amounts of time as a part of their regular schooling (Figure 4.8). They included these

courses in the estimates of how long they had studied English, even though the

courses they had taken back home were of varying quality and kind. Taken all

together, the amount of time that the subjects had studied English prior to the first

interview indicated ten groups as shown in Figure 4.8, below.

111 Figure 4.8 Comparison of the Amount of Time Subjects had Studied English

Months Learning American English

80

60 Num be r of 40 Months 20

0 12345678910

Number of Subjects 2411321143 Months Studying English 1 2 3 4 6 2436486073

Few subjects reported having acquired or studied another foreign language before English. For those who did, English was then L3 and not L2. Up until recently, little attention was given to acquisition of a third or fourth language. But in fact earlier acquisition of a foreign language besides English may mean that the students had already developed their own language acquiring models (Figure 4.9).

Figure 4.9 Languages Other than English Studied by Subjects

Languages Studied by Subjects Other than English

3

2 3 2 1 1 1 1

0 It alian French German Yiddish Port uguese

Only four of the 22 subjects had lived in another country other than their

country of birth and the United States (Figure 4.10), which may have given these four

subjects acculturation models and additional skills that they could use in acquiring

American culture.

112 Figure 4.10 Number of Subjects who had Lived in Countries Other than their Country of Birth and the United States

Lived in Other Countries?

Yes 18%

Yes No

No 82%

Research Questions

This study asks the following significant research questions:

1) Do L2 students who have a positive opinion of the target language speakers perceive themselves as having attained a higher level of linguistic competence than those who have a negative opinion of the TL speakers?

2) Do L2 students who identify with the TL speakers perceive themselves as having attained a higher level of linguistic competence than those who do not?

3) Do L2 students with a high level of integrative motivation have a high level of linguistic competence and performance?

The results of this study showed unexpected and very differentiated answers to the research questions. Unexpected was the relation of the answers to question 1) compared with the answers to question 2). Three of the subjects, who had recently graduated from the course and were now using American English for their professions, that is, those subjects with the strongest linguistic performance and competence in American English, did not always have positive opinions of the speakers of their target language, American English. These negative opinions did not,

113 however, indicate that they had less of a desire to belong to the group designated as

American English speakers. To the contrary, they seemed to be frustrated. The optimism expressed by a different participant, that is that that participant desired to acquire better performance and competence in American English in order to enter into the group of American English speakers, seemed to have waned with these three subjects. They seemed to be telling the researcher that they felt excluded, despite their time and effort at studying American English. They made statements during the first interview such as “English speakers have a pretentious language superiority; English speakers are WASPs and well established; Americans don’t wait for foreigners to speak and [Americans] have blinders”. The subject who made the comment about language superiority has but a slight Spanish accent, and the subject who made the comment about WASPs has no noticeable accent at all. These three subjects had recently graduated from the course and were working in their respective professions at the time of the interview. Most of those still in the course were working out-of- field in jobs that were less intellectually challenging than the jobs related to their training in their home countries, often in positions where they only spoke Spanish.

Only two were working directly in their fields, but these two were working in

Hispanic run companies where English was not an essential part of the working day.

Results

Questions Number One and Two

1) Do L2 students who have a positive opinion of the target language speakers perceive themselves as having attained a higher level of linguistic competence than those who have a negative opinion of the target language speakers?

114 2) Do L2 students who identify with the target language speakers perceive themselves as having attained a higher level of linguistic competence than those who do not?

In order to understand the subjects’ perceptions of American English speakers, the elements of the Repertory Grid were classified into three categories: negative, neutral, positive. Examples of a positive perception of American English speakers were: friendly, and have values like doing things right, morals; or when compared with Spanish speakers: strive for same things, life goals, that is when the

Spanish-speaking subjects viewed American English speakers as being similar to themselves. Neutral elements were: organizing, organized, different, pragmatic.

Negative elements were: lack of affection, cold, dominating, materialistic, don’t help

others, not adaptable. The numbers of positive, neutral, and negative elements in each

subject’s construct of American English speakers were counted and compared. If a

subject only had positive or negative perceptions, that subject was assigned 1 for

positive and 5 for negative. If the majority of the subject’s elements were positive but

the subject also had some negative elements, then the subject was assigned a 2. If the

majority of the elements were negative but the subject had some positive elements,

the subject was assigned a 4. If the subject only used neutral elements, a 3 was

assigned. Figure 4.11 shows the numbers of those tallies:

115 Figure 4.11 Subjects sorted by Positive, Neutral, and Negative Perceptions of Target Language Speakers

5 = positive opinion 1 subject 4 = somewhat 4 subjects positive opinion 3 = neutral opinion 7 subjects 2 = somewhat 1 subjects negative opinion 1 = negative 9 subjects opinion

The perceived levels of English proficiency and competence were derived from four self-reporting questions as to perceived level of listening, speaking, reading, and writing, reported on a voice response scale of one to ten, where one was no competence or performance and ten was absolute mastery. The four scores were added together and a mean was calculated. The calculated mean was then an expression of the four perceived skills on a scale of one to ten. In order to make these scores comparable with the actual level assigned the students by means of prior placement test results, the one-to-ten score was divided by 1.66 (the students were in fact assigned by the college to one of five ability levels--the sixth ability level was added by this researcher for those who had completed the program). By using a scale of one to ten for the self-reported perceived levels, the subjects were able to not simply accept their assigned levels as corresponding to their perceived levels; rather, the widened range of scores allowed them to be more nuanced in judging their own perceptions of their skill levels of listening (Figure 4.15), speaking (Figure 4.16), reading (Figure 4.17), and writing (Figure 4.18). These perceived skill levels are

116 compared with the actual, school assigned levels and with perceptions of American

English speakers in Figure 4.12 and Figure 4.13.

Figure 4.12 Comparison of the Subjects’ Personal Perceptions of their Level of English, their Program Assigned Level of English, and their Perceptions of Target Language Speakers

Perceptions and Performance

12345678910111213141516171819202122 Subjects

Personal Perception Actual Level Perception of Americans

117 Figure 4.13 Subjects’ Perceptions of American English Speakers Compared to Subjects’ Perceived and Actual Levels of English

Subject # Perceived level Actual level Perceptions of 1-10 1-6 American English Speakers 1 22= 5.5 = 3.3 3 3 2 24 = 6 = 3.6 5 1 3 23 = 5.75 = 3.5 3 3 4 34 = 8.5 = 5.1 2 1 5 15 = 3.75 = 2.3 2 1 6 29 = 7.25 = 4.4 3 1 7 24 = 6 = 3.6 3 4 8 20 = 5 = 3 3 4 9 24 = 6 = 3.6 2 1 10 29 = 7.25 = 4.4 3 3 11 17 = 4.25 = 2.6 2 1 12 36 = 9 = 5.4 6 1 13 40 = 10 = 6 6 3 14 30 = 7.5 = 4.5 6 3 15 20 = 5 = 3 3 3 16 40 = 10 = 6 6 1 17 35 = 8.75 = 5.3 3 4 18 34 = 8.5 = 5.1 6 1 19 24 = 6 = 3.6 3 2 20 30 = 7.5 = 4.5 2 3 21 40 = 10 = 6 6 4 22 28 = 7 = 4.2 5 5 .

Perceived and Actual Levels of English Competence and Performance

Sixteen of the subjects were still in the program which goes from levels one to

level five. The researcher used level six for those who had recently graduated from

the course. The levels one through five are assigned to the students based on in-

school language assessments and course grades. The courses include speaking and

listening courses so that the assignment of English proficiency class level is not

merely written.

118 Figure 4.14 Program Assigned Levels of English

American English Level

9

6 5 Subjects

2

Level 2 Level 3 Level 5 Level 6

Figure 4.15 Perceived Listening Level (self reported)

Listening Level

5 4 3 3 2 2 2 0 0 1

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Level 7 Level 8 Level 9 Level 10

Subjects 0021522334

Subjects

119 Figure 4.16 Perceived Speaking Level (self reported)

Speaking Level

4 4 4 3 3 2 0 0 1 1

Level Level Level Level Level Level Level Level Level Level 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Subjects 0012434413

Subjects

Figure 4.17 Perceived Reading Level (self reported)

Reading Level

4 4 4 4 3 2 0 0 0 1

Level Level Level Level Level Level Level Level Level Level 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Subjects 0001324444

Subjects

120 Figure 4.18 Perceived Writing Level (self reported)

Writing Level

6 4 3 3 0 2 2 0 1 1

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Level 7 Level 8 Level 9 Level 10

Subjects 0101236423

Subjects

The subject who has a totally positive perception of American English speakers has graduated from business school in Europe and plans to return to Europe after finishing the course. This subject is living in an apartment on a very affluent street near an upscale tourist neighborhood with many outdoor cafés and restaurants

(this remark will be relevant later) and does not need to work to support herself. She is on course level 5 and her spoken English is marked by a Spanish accent with

British influence due to the fact that she had studied English in Spain where the

British variety is more commonly the subject of study. She is actually on the fifth level of the course but perceives her English as being level 4.

Of those who had a somewhat positive perception of American English speakers three are actually on level 3 and one on level 6. One of them perceived her level to be 3 as it actually is. Two others on level 3 perceived their level to be higher

(3.6 and 5.3). The one graduate still has a marked Spanish accent when speaking

English but she situates herself on level 6, that is graduate. She is working in a bank with a very diverse employee and customer population. Her use of Spanish is held in high esteem in the bank and during the interview she was interrupted several times to

121 give instructions to customers in Spanish, a feat that she seemed to be proud of,

stating at one time to the researcher with a smile: “See how much they need me

here?”

Seven subjects have a neutral perception of American English speakers. Of

these subjects four were on actual and perceived levels 3. One was on level 2 but

perceived his level as 4. The last one had graduated but perceived his level as 4, also.

The one subject with a somewhat negative perception of American English

speakers was on both perceived and actual levels 3. Of the nine subjects with a

negative perception of American English speakers, three were graduates who were working full-time in their respective fields. Two subjects of the three on level 6 perceived their level of proficiency in English as level 5. One of the nine was on actual level 5 but perceived his level as 3 (3.6). One was on level 3 but perceived his level as 4 (4.4). The remaining five were on actual level 2 – two of whom perceived their level as 2 (2.3 and 2.6), one as 5 (5.1) and one as 3 (3.6).

These samples do not seem to show any relation between the subjects’ perceptions of American English speakers and either their actual or perceived level of competence and performance in the use of American English

Question Number Three

3) Do L2 students with a high level of integrative motivation have a high level of linguistic competence and performance? [Reminder: integrative motivation, which has been discussed diffusely throughout this paper, is the desire on the part of the L2 student to learn the target language and its culture and to integrate with the

122 speakers of the target language for reasons beyond commerce or practicality. It is an

emotional motivation as opposed to merely a rational one]

Subjects of special interest in these tables (Figure 4.19, Figure 4.20. Figure

4.21) are those on course levels 5 and 6 (graduates) since they were the subjects who

gave the most detail about their perceptions of speakers of American English. The

elements below (separated into positive, neutral, and negative tables) relate the

subjects’ points of view in relation to English speakers (E) and Spanish speakers (S).

Figure 4.19 Indications of Positive Belongingness Elements

Subject Segments Elements indicating # integrativeness/belongingness 2 Aspirations, Adaption Surviving, economic and emotional stability Americans are nice when you get to know them 7 Specific Culture E friendly 8 Specific Culture E friendly 11 Aspirations Seeking the American dream 13 Perceptions Strive for same things, life goals 17 Specific Culture E+S hard workers and friendly 21 Perceptions, Specific E+S goal oriented Culture E+S want education and have values like doing things right, morals E+S have similar beliefs Subject #21 has one of the most positive perceptions of American English

speakers. She is from Puerto Rico, where she had already studied English in school.

She works in the branch of a large, international bank, and her fellow employees are very diverse to a degree that is higher than the average population, such that only one

‘Anglo’ works in this branch. Because this bank has many branches overseas, the customers are also very international, and the subject’s Spanish is a useful skill which gives her status in this branch. Subject # 21 told the interviewer that the bank profited from her knowledge of Spanish. Her attitude seems to validate the work done by

123 Weisskirch (2005) on language brokering that those who manage to become good

language brokers set a high value on their knowledge of L1.

Subject #22 auto-corrects when she detects herself using non-English

pronunciation. The influence of schooling in Europe is obvious in her British

accentuation of many phrases and words. She positions herself as a five, that is

slightly more instrumental than integrative because she is only attending school here

for a limited amount of time and she has planned her return to her home country

where knowledge of English will help her obtain a degree in business.

Figure 4.20 Indications of Neutral Belongingness Elements

Subject Segments Elements indicating # integrativeness/belongingness 2 Specific Culture People need a car 9 Specific Culture E pragmatic E organized 14 Specific Culture E more liberal 18 Appearances S+E physically similar and influenced by geographic proximity 19 Language E different sound, easy 20 Specific Culture E organizing

Subject #18 has been in the United States for twenty years, but he did not start to study English until six years ago. At the time of the interview, he was working as an architect in a Spanish-language office. He indicated very negative views of

American English speakers, stating: “Americans don’t wait for foreigners to speak

and they have blinders – they are selfish and governed by fear.” His strong Spanish

accent may be an indication of little desire to integrate on his part, though it may also

just be an indication that he has little contact with English speakers since he works in

a Spanish-language environment.

124

Figure 4.21 Indications of Negative Belongingness Elements

Subject Segments Elements indicating # integrativeness/belongingness 1 General Culture, English is very different, Americans are very Language different 2 Perception, Generic America is materialistic Culture S + E different on cultural level with different traditions + customs American culture is more closed Americans ruled by rules P + S not mechanical, not ruled by instructions Americans think in quantity 4 Specific Culture, E unexpressive Perceptions 5 Specific Culture, E unsociable Perceptions 6 Specific Culture, E unaffectionate Perceptions 9 Specific Culture, E + G both Anglo-Saxons [sic] Perceptions E introverts and individualists E don’t show feelings

11 Aspirations, Adaptation, E Do not have to learn SL Perceptions E Do not have to adapt (3 times) Dominant Don’t have to work extra hard 12 Language, Specific Americans practice racial discrimination Culture, Generic Culture, Americans want to make Eng national language Perceptions and believe that Jesus spoke Eng, E have pretentious lang superiority Americans feel no need to learn SL Eng is a commercial lang, cold – primitive lang, boring lang (three times) 13 Specific Culture, Generic Different mind set Culture, Values Food is different Cold-distant Different mannerisms 15 Language, Generic E Anglo-Saxon Culture 16 Perceptions, Generic S have different ideas about sex, family, and Culture, Language personal things E – whatever is still there from their tradition doesn’t play a role in their lives

125 E – language not developed, not much vocabulary E are WASPs, well established C don’t assimilate as much as S but both suffer discrimination when adapting to US 17 Specific Culture, E unaffectionate Perceptions 18 Perceptions, Appearances, E speakers less traditional Origins, Generic Culture Americans don’t wait for foreigners to speak and have blinders – they are selfish and governed by fear American culture does not unify, very separate, segregate each other, society full of problems, no real identity E speakers less accepting, more complicated E speakers commerce, fear, selfish E – 80% of middleclass uneducated, don’t have real opportunity to find coherence they want

19 Specific Culture, E – Unaffectionate Perceptions 21 Perceptions, Generic E not dramatic S dramatic, I also Culture 22 Perceptions, Specific Americans – when they grow up you have to Culture, Generic Culture count on yourself, they are educated that way (*P = Portuguese speakers, **G = German speakers, *** C=Chinese speakers)

Subject #12 has since moved to Texas, where he is teaching Spanish in high school. He reports that he likes his teaching position but he does not feel that he has been able to integrate into English speaking society, though he feels that integration was a strong motivator for him. This inability to integrate may explain his very negative view of the society that he claims he wants to integrate into. During the second interview, however, which was done by telephone, Subject #12 said that he wasn’t making enough money in Texas and was seeking a position in Spain where he hoped to teach English and earn more. On the phone, his preliminary conversation was in English but he requested to dictate the answers to the second interview questions in Spanish.

126 Subject #13 was not available for a second interview. His views of American

English speakers were neutral. He preferred to be interviewed in English. His answers

were terser than those of the other high-level subjects. He is working in his field in a

company where more Spanish is spoken than English and during the first interview he admitted to not having any intimate American friends or close social contact with

Americans. It is therefore hard to pinpoint his motivation for acquiring American

English.

Subject #16 speaks American English with no trace of his first language

accent. He was teaching at the time of the first interview and has since found work in

Miami, where he only speaks Spanish, in his second profession of interior decorating.

During the second interview he said that once he had mastered American English he

started going back to his own roots, reading novels in Spanish and seeking Spanish

speaking friends. As a side comment, during the second interview, he related details

of a recent party where only Spanish and Portuguese speakers were present and noted

how much he enjoyed their conversation concerning the meanings of different words

in different parts of South America. He goes by the English translation of his given

name, but he immediately divulged his Hispanic heritage during the first interview.

He pointed out that his accent is not Spanish and neither does he look Latin, but that

he wanted the interviewer to know that he is Spanish and very proud of it. During the

first interview, he said: “Anglos are WASPs and well established, so we have to adapt

to them.” This subject situated his motivation to acquire American English as one on

the scale, that is total integrative motivation.

127 A Subject Who Appears in All Three Tables

Subject #2 has been in the United States three years. He holds a Bachelor’s degree in business and marketing and had been a corporate executive in his home country. He had visited the United States before he was forced to flee his homeland due to political unrest. He is now working in maintenance and is anxious to find a position that better suits his education and work experience. His constructs are

positive, neutral, and negative, but more negative than anything else. He participated

in the second interview during which he explained that living in another country is

different from visiting another country. On the voice response scale of one to seven,

on which one is most integrative and seven most instrumental, he positioned himself

as a four. He clarified this decision by stating: “La primera: Estoy viviendo en un

país cuyo lenguaje oficial es el inglés. Numero 2: Si deseo integrarme a esta sociedad

(anglosajona) necesito dominar el idioma. La última: Si deseo un progreso social y

económico (está una sociedad de consumo) debo dominar el idioma inglés.” ["First

off, I am living in a country the official language of which is English. Number two, if

I desire to integrate myself into this (Anglo-Saxon) society I need to master the

language. Finally, if I desire social and economic progress (it is a consumer society)

then I need to master the English language."]

This subject reported hardly ever missing English class, attending different

classes so that he has English lessons four times a week. He preferred to answer both

interviews in Spanish, during which he demonstrated a highly sophisticated use of

Spanish, carefully phrasing his answers to avoid repetitions of words and indicating

when he was using dialect to make his answers more colorful.

128 When asked for other motives for learning English, he replied: “El factor económico – es importante – vivimos en una sociedad de consumo dónde el dinero es elemento base para poder sobrevivir. Sin dinero aquí no se puede vivir.” ["The economic factor – it is important – we live in a consumer society where money is the basic element for survival. It is not possible to live without money."] He also reported having friends who do not speak Spanish and said that he enjoys teaching them words in Spanish.

This subject demonstrates a mixture of instrumental and integrative motives for acquiring English, but due to his professional situation, instrumental motives seem to weigh more heavily. His general views of Spanish speakers are more positive than are his views of English speakers, but during both interviews he spoke of his first visit to the United States during which he managed to enter into a group of English speakers who at first were, in his opinion, standoffish. By the end of that first visit, he felt that he had been integrated into that group despite his then meager knowledge of

English.

As Dörnyei (2005) points out, neither integrative nor instrumental motivation plays an exclusive role in second language acquisition. However, those subjects of this limited study who tended to see themselves as more integratively than instrumentally motivated seemed to speak a more native-like American English.

Maslow’s hierarchy (1968/1999) shows that integration or belongingness plays an integral role in satisfying physical needs. Subject #2’s statement: "Si deseo un progreso social y económico (está una sociedad de consumo) debo dominar el idioma ingles" [“If I desire to integrate myself into this (Anglo-Saxon) society I need to

129 master the language”] as cited above sums up the linguistic elements of belongingness.

One of the reasons for the strong proportion of instrumental motivation among these students may lie in the reason for them taking these ESOL courses as well as in the professional development of the subjects. The courses are part of a community college program with the aim of teaching enough English to the students so that they can enter college or acquire a professional certification, and the subjects are mainly professionals with college degrees from their home countries. The barrier for most of them to work in their profession is their inadequate knowledge of English. In other words, the reason for offering these courses, as well as their structure and the reason for students to take them, is based on professional need. The emphasis is solely on the phonetics, syntax and lexicon of American English. Language is not studied in these courses as a part of culture but rather as a focus subject.

New Knowledge

The first set of interviews recorded answers to a question that was not even asked and which has not as yet been addressed in the literature: How does the L2 student construct his or her views of native L2 speakers?

The strongest elements of these constructs are specific cultural traits (hard- working, macho, good at dancing, strict, friendly, etc.), general cultural traits (strive for education, have similar customs and feelings), perceptions (language is a reason for national pride, English speakers don’t have to adapt to other culture), and language (romance languages spoken with body movements and gestures). These

130 were the four most recorded important elements in constructing perceptions of the target language speakers.

Segments Used by Subjects to Construct their Perceptions of

Target Language Speakers

The three most important segments of this chart (Figure 4.22) fall in the realm

of culture and perceptions of that culture, followed by a fourth, which is language.

Religion, which also figures as part of generic or deep culture, was mentioned by

four subjects. Three of the subjects mentioned the fact that they have to adapt to

American English culture while American English speakers do not have to adapt to

any other culture. Surprisingly, only two subjects named ethnic origin as an

important factor, though almost all of the subjects felt that Portuguese speakers and

Italian speakers are more like Spanish speakers than are American English

speakers.

In Figure 4.22 below, the perception of the culture of English speakers is

diagrammed for all members of the sample. The second and third items, specific

and generic cultural traits, are also addressed. Figure 4.23 shows the individual

composition of constructs by subject.

131 Figure 4.22 Segments Used by Subjects to Construct their Perceptions of Target Language Speakers

Segments, compared

16 Perceptions

Specific Culture 15

10 Generic Culture

9 Language

4 Religion

3 Adaptation

Appearances 2

2 Origins

2 Aspirations

0 5 10 15 20

Segments of Construction

132 Figure 4.23 Individual Segment Constructs of Individual Perceptions of Target Language Speakers

Segment Constructs - Perception of L2 Speakers

22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Adaptation Appearances Aspiration Generic Culture Language Origins Perceptions Religion Specific Culture

133 A second questionnaire was distributed to those subjects who said that they wanted to know the results of the first part of this research. When the concepts of integrative and instrumental motivations were explained, and the subjects were asked to situation their motivation on a scale of one to seven, one subject was pure integrative motivation and seven were pure instrumental motivation. Six of those asked situated themselves either at seven. One subject situated himself at four and two subjects at one.

When the nine subjects who took part in the second set of interviews were asked about the role that teachers played in forming or influencing their motivation, they responded that the teachers were not important. This response corresponds to the research results of a study carried out by Benson (2000), according to which teachers have very little influence on students with strong extrinsic motivation. For the subjects in this research, motivation was extrinsic, that is determined by the desire to

obtain a better job but not to integrate into American society. This point of view was

reflected in the constructs produced by the subjects in the first questionnaire (Spanish

speakers have to buy a car; Spanish speakers have to adapt to a new culture for job

interviews; Spanish speakers have to work harder than native English speakers), that

is constructs related to succeeding economically in daily life but not oriented toward

making friends within the English speaking community. Furthermore, all of the

subjects in this study were over the age of 18, and the studies that Dörnyei (2005)

refers to in which the teachers played a role in motivating students, were carried out

in K-12 settings. The students of the course studied in this research were voluntary

participants paying out of their own pockets for courses that were to grant them

134 access to better working conditions. The students studied by Dörnyei’s (2005) were enrolled in mandatory education. Similarly, the parents of the subjects in this study were often not presently living in the United States and their roles would be different from the roles played by the parents of adolescent or even younger students.

When the participants in this study were asked about the teaching staff, the participants said that there were good and bad teachers. They described the good teachers as those who listen to the students and the bad teachers as those who listen only to themselves talk to the students. The students were concerned about teaching styles, not about perceptions of motivation.

Limitations

This study was limited to students in an adult ESOL program which did not include any native English speakers other than the teachers. This limitation makes it difficult to compare this study with previous studies such as Graham and Brown’s

(1996) in a bilingual high school with native speakers of both languages and

Dörneyi’s (2005) in a K-12 setting where teacher and parental input play different roles than with independent adults. Furthermore, one of the goals of this study was member checking, that is returning to the original subjects with the results of the first round of interviews and asking these subjects to explain or elaborate on the findings from those first interviews. Only nine of the 22 subjects who took part in the first interviews participated in the second interviews.

135

CHAPTER FIVE

Conclusions and Implications

This study sought to explore the influence of integrative motivation on language acquisition, and it was designed as a qualitative study. One of the strengths of qualitative research is the way in which it can lead to surprising discoveries that were not intended at the beginning of the research planning, and this study was no exception.

Instead of finding solidly concrete statements in predicting the influence of integrative motivation on learner outcomes, the study led to the observation that it would first be necessary to understand how and by what means individuals construct their perceptions of L2 native speakers. Furthermore, a number of the building blocks of these constructs were identified. In short, this study can be seen as a tiny first step in a new approach to understanding what integrative motivation is, how it is constructed by the individual and possibly also by the group, and what the concrete basic concepts are that are used in the construction of integrative motivation.

Understanding with which elements L2 learners construct their perceptions of

L2 speakers is only the first step in understanding L2 learners’ possible integrative motivation or the term proposed by Gardner and McIntyre (1993), integrativeness.

136 Without understanding the composition of L2 learners’ perceptions, it would hardly

be possible to define precisely what integrative motivation and integrativeness are.

Without defining integrative motivation or integrativeness, one cannot measure it, since one would hardly know what to measure. Though there are few definitive

answers possible, this study did uncover and partially define an important step in seeking the answers to the questions posed in Chapter Three.

Furthermore, this study has made it clear that the apparent lack of integrative motivation on the part of the subjects in regards to English language speakers raises many questions. Some of those questions in need of further research should be:

1) Why is there such a lack of integrative motivation or integrativeness on the part of English language learners towards English language speakers?

2) Would an increase in integrative motivation change the amount or speed of

progress in the acquisition of American English?

3) If an increase of integrative motivation would improve the speed and efficacy of acquiring American English, how could that increase be implemented or influenced?

In regards to 1) above, it is important to note that the subjects in this study did profess a great deal of belongingness with speakers of other languages. They were especially aware of the sameness in their culture and in that of Portuguese and Italian speakers (see Appendix H). They even often said that German speakers, French speakers, and Chinese speakers were similar to them in that they all have to learn a

new language and adapt to a new culture and that they all face some discrimination at

the hands of English speakers.

137 Based on Schumann's (1986) work, Dörnyei (2005) explains that “the social

and psychological distance between the language learner and the target language

speakers is detrimental to the attainment of the target language, inasmuch as the

learner will acquire the L2 only to the degree that he or she establishes social and

psychological contact with the dominant group”(pp. 72-73). The social element in

language acquisition is not neutral, as pointed out in Chapter Two, but rather subject

to social power as well as to its opposite, social powerlessness (Blakar, 2006). From

the interviews with the subjects of this study, it is obvious that there was little contact

between most of the subjects and the speakers of the target language and that even

those graduates of the course who now held jobs maintained social distance from native American English speakers. The students in the community college ESOL program had not been prepared socially to enter into American society. English language classes were taught in a social void inasmuch as American society was not present in the teaching material. Therefore, it is not surprising that only one of the students had obtained native-like fluency in American English. This restriction may also explain the alienation expressed by the recently graduated students who claimed a high degree of integrative motivation while holding a negative, non-integrative view of American English speakers.

Another component uncovered during this research is the intertwined relation of integrative and instrumental motivation as well as the intertwined relation of the basic needs of mankind with belongingness. The desire to acquire American English on the part of the more advanced subjects was expressed in terms of economic stability and survival. But once the concepts of integrative motivation and

138 instrumental motivation had been explained to them, and they were asked directly for

their perception of why they desired to acquire American English, two of them

positioned themselves as only integratively motivated and a third positioned himself

as in between the two ‘poles’. Therefore, it may be that Baumeister and Leary (1995)

have a very valid point when they state that belongingness is closer to the base of the

hierarchy of needs than to the middle. Indeed, belongingness may be intrinsically

interwoven with physical needs, especially in light of the role played by biology in

influencing human bonding.

Implications for SLA Learners

The subjects in this study remained separated from relationships with native

speakers during the length of the ESOL program. Though the graduates as a group

had a somewhat lower level of esteem for native speakers, these graduates were the

students with the strongest communications skills in the target language. The strength

of their communications skills was apparent in the richness of data they generated as

compared to the paucity of data generated by the lower level subjects. The graduates were no longer taking courses that focused on pronunciation, vocabulary building, and syntax, but often were using the target language at work where it is assumed that

they also practiced and observed the pragmatics and discourse construction in the

target language. This practical use implies that increased contact with native speakers

will help L2 students improve their communications skills in the target language. The

L2 student should, therefore, take subject content courses in the target language, join

clubs and associations that function in the target language, and in general seek contact

with native speakers. In short, the L2 student should seek to belong to a group that

139 uses the target language as the accepted group language. Though the language study classes are good for understanding the structure of the language, they do not substitute for authentic contact with native speakers.

Implications for SLA Curriculum Development

Since authentic contact and group belonging with native speakers seem to make a difference, L2 curricula should seek to give L2 students tools to achieve contact with native speakers. These tools could be introducing the individual students to native speakers on a personal level, encouraging L2 students to take non-language courses in the target language or join clubs and associations that use the target language as the accepted group language. An integral part of lesson planning should include information on classes and clubs as defined above, social mixers with native speakers, cognitive awareness of target language specific and generic culture, and class discussions on how the students see their views and themselves in relation to the target language culture.

Implications for SLA Teachers

Teachers should be aware of the social needs of L2 students in regards to the target language and its speakers. Teaching the structure of target language pronunciation, vocabulary, and syntax is a useful tool in language development but it must be complemented by the teaching of skills that will enable the students to seek and obtain contact with the target language culture. The findings on belongingness in

Baumeister and Leary (1995), that individuals pay more attention to possible and potential interlocutors than to fictional people, mean that the teacher has to concentrate on developing students’ expectations of using the target language in real

140 settings with real native speakers rather than with the characters in the text book.

Teachers can help L2 students acquire the target language by introducing the students to native speakers, getting the students engaged in activities in which native speakers are involved, and making it possible for the students to make and maintain contact with native speakers. Furthermore, teachers should help L2 students understand the pragmatics and discourse construction that native speakers use so as to make contact with native speakers more enjoyable for the students and less of a shock. Teachers should include deep culture as well as surface culture in the language lessons in order for the students to understand the culture and speakers of the target language.

Future Studies

Chapter Four mentioned that other factors, such as social environment, level of economic success, place of residence, and reason for studying English, seem to be more important. Therefore, future studies on this subject should look not only at such other personal factors but also at depth of knowledge of target language culture, type of knowledge of target language culture, and type and amount of contact with target language culture.

Topics for future studies would be working with different groups of second language learners from other L1 language groups as well as with second language learners who are studying a language other than American English. Longitudinal studies following the development of motivation from the first contact with the target language until such time when the students have graduated from the program and are using the target language in their daily lives might also help clarify the role of perceptions as presented in this current study.

141 Conclusions

The elements of perceptive constructs exposed in this study are emotional and

affective in their nature. The views that L2 language learners hold of those who speak

the language they are laboring to acquire, are anchored in emotions. Language studies

are social in nature (Vygotsky, 1934/1986; Dörnyei, 2005), as well as personal in

nature (Bakhtin, 1986). It may therefore be important to do more to promote students’

perception of the culture and speakers of the target language than is presently done in

most classes that emphasize a structural understanding of the target language’s

grammar. In order to promote students' comfort level with the target language and its

culture, students' feeling of both integrative motivation and belongingness should be

encouraged. This change could mean a new paradigm in language instruction in

which more time would be spent in the initial stages on culture and on the speakers of

the target language and less time on vocabulary and language structure. Student must be allowed to seek their own identities within target language culture, gaining a sense of belonging to that culture and establishing the "self" as a member of the target language community. True language acquisition plays a role in the students’ process of acculturation, meaning that language acquisition improves in correlation to acculturation.

The goal of language study is mastery of that language (Dörnyei, 2005), unless the language is only being studied for some specific reason, for example reading medical or other scientific instructions, flying an airplane, or similar limited uses. The goal in the general second language classroom should be to bring the students to a level on which they can function using the target language. Only a small

142 number of students, however, manage a high level of competence and performance in

the target language they are studying. It is hard to understand this lack of success,

especial in the case of second language acquisition (as opposed to foreign language

acquisition) since the target language surrounds students on a daily basis and is

necessary for material success in the society in which they live. Further compounding

this enigma is the fact that second language students are well aware of the necessity

to be successful in acquiring the second language. Classes are often booked to the

maximum, no matter what day of the week or what time of the day they take place.

Attendance is usually very high as students do not want to miss any instruction.

When asked why they are trying to master American English, most ESOL students

cite work and study related issues such as being promoted on the job, carrying out the

job more efficiently or passing the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) in

order to gain admission to academic programs.

In the face of an increasingly globalized world in which there are few remote

areas, few pockets of hidden civilizations, a world in which the natives of the

Amazon now demand that their languages and cultures become part of the human patrimony, in which dying languages such as Hawai’ian and Gaelic are being revived, a world in which the Internet is saving more languages than killing them, and local business means emailing with customers in Beijing and Berlin for the same transaction, the acquisition of a second language is becoming more important. This need for second language competence and performance is no longer limited to immigrants or scholars. A Chinese proverb says that every journey starts with one

143 step. In light of these thoughts, this study is but a small step further on the journey to understanding the sophisticated and complex nature of language and its acquisition.

144

REFERENCES

Adams, W., Reichmann, E., & Rippley, L. (1990). Die Deutschen im Schmelztiegel der USA: Erfahrungen im grössten Einwanderungsland der Europäer. Berlin: Die Ausländerbeauftragte des Senats von Berlin.

Anderman, L. H., & Leake, V.S. (2005). The ABCs of motivation: An alternative framework for teaching preservice teachers about motivation. The Clearing House. Washington: May/June 2005 78(5), 192-196.

Angelova, M., Gunawardena, D., & Volk, D. (2006). Peer teaching and learning: Co- constructing language in a dual language first grade. Language and Education 20(3), 173-190.

Appelman, E. (2000). Attachment experiences transformed into language. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. April 2000, 70(2), 192-202.

Ariza, E., Morales-Jones, C., Yahya, N., & Zainuddin, H. (2000). Why TESOL? Dubuque IO: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co.

Ariza, E., Morales-Jones, C., Yahya, N., & Zainuddin, H. (2006). Why TESOL? Third ed. Dubuque IO: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co.

Ashleigh, M., & Nandhkumar, J. (2007). Trust and technologies: Implications for organizational work practices. Decision Support Systems 43(2), 607-613.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Bannister, D., & Fransella, F. (1971). Perspectives in personal construct theory. London: Academic Press.

Bauer, W. (1974). China und die Hoffnung auf Glück. Munich: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag GmbH & Co., KG.

Baugh, A., & Cable, T. (2002). A history of the English language, 5th edition. Upper Saddle River NJ: Prentice Hall.

Baumeister, R.F., & Leary, M.R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachment as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497-529.

Begley, S. (2007). Beyond stones and bones. Newsweek, March 19, 2007, 28-30.

145 Benson, P. (2000). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning. London: Longman.

Berger, L. R. (2000). In the footsteps of Eve: The mystery of human origins. Washington D.C.: National Geographic – Adventure Press.

Berger, P.L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. Garden City NY: Doubleday.

Bernardes DaSilva, E. (2001). Sentimentos e paixões. Miami Beach: Academia Lingüística.

Bialystok, E. (1997). The structure of age: in search of barriers to second language acquisition. Second Language Research, 13, 116-137.

Birdsong, D. (1999). Second language acquisition and the critical period hypothesis. Applied Linguistics 20(4), 571-575.

Blakar, R. M. (2006). Språk er makt. Oslo: Pax Forlag A/S.

Boroditsky, L. (2001). Does language shape thought?: Mandarin and English speakers’ conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology 43, 1-22.

Bourdieu, P. (1989). Language and symbolic power. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Bourque, S., & Warren, K. (1976). Campesinas and comuneras: Subordination in the Sierra. Journal of Marriage and the Family 38(4), 781-788.

Bowen, R. (1998). The hypothalamus and pituitary gland. Retrieved on 25 March 2007, from http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/endocrine/hypopit/oxytocin.ht ml.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1: Attachment. New York: Basic Books.

Bruner, J. (1960/2003). The progress of education. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to a communicative language pedagogy. In J. Richards and Schmidt (Eds.) Language and communication. New York: Longman.

Canale, M., & Swain, M. (1980). Theoretical bases of communicative approaches to second language teaching and testing. Applied Linguistics, 1, 1-47.

Casin, R. (2007, March 31). Espánglish con alevosía. El Nuevo Herald, p. 23A.

146

Catell, R.B. (1943). The description of personality: Basic traits resolved into clusters. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 38, 476-507.

Cenoz, J., & Jessner, U. (2000). English in Europe: The acquisition of a third language. Clevedon GB: Multilingual Matters.

Chamott, A.U. & O’Malley (1994). The CALLA handbook: Implementing the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach. Reading MA: Addison Wesley.

Chirkov, V., Ryan, R., & Willness, C. (2005). Cultural context and psychological needs in Canada and Brazil: Testing a self-determination approach to the internalization of cultural practices, identity, and well-being. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 36(4), 423-443.

Chomsky, N, (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: The M.I.T. Press.

Chomsky, N. (1968). Language and mind. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.

Chomsky, N. (1977). Language and responsibility. New York: Pantheon Books.

Chomsky, N. (1991). Language and problems of knowledge. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.

Csizér, K., & Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The internal structure of language learning motivation and its relationship with language choice and learning effort. The Modern Language Journal, 89, 613-659.

Cummins, J. (1979). Cognitive/academic language proficiency, linguistic interdependence, the optimum age question and some other matters. Working Papers on Bilingualism 19, 121-129

Cummins, J. (2001). An introductory reader to the writings of Jim Cummins (Baker, C., & Hornberger, N. eds.). Clevedon, GB: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Danesi, M. (1999). Of cigarettes, high heels, and other interesting things. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.

Deleuze, G. (1980). Mille plâteaux. Paris: Minuit.

147 Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1972). L’Anti- Œdipe: capitalisme et schizophrénie. Paris: Minuit, Paris.

de Saussure, F. (1916/1992). Cours de linguistique générale. Paris: Payot.

Deutscher, G. (2005). The unfolding of language. New York: Metropolitan Books.

Dewey, J. (1938/1997). Experience & education. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Diaz-Rico, L.T., & Weed, K. Z. (2006). The crosscultural language and academia handbook: A complete K-12 reference guide. Boston: Pearson.

Dörnyei, Z. (1994). Understanding L2 motivation: On with the challenge! The Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 515-523.

Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Teaching and researching motivation. Harlow, England: Pearson.

Dörnyei, Z. (2003). Attitudes, orientations, and motivations in language learning. Malden MA: The Best of Language Learning Series.

Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner. Mahway NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

Do you speak American? (2004). Princeton NJ: Films Media Group.

Duckitt, J., Callaghan, J., & Wagner, C. (2005). Group identification and outgroup attitudes in four South African ethnic groups: A multidimensional approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 31(5), 633-646.

Dunbar, R. (1996). Grooming, gossip, and the evolution of language. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

Ehrman, M., & Dörnyei, Z. (1998). Interpersonal dynamics in second language education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Elmeroth, E. (2006). A Swedish perspective on the German language policy debate. Kalmar Universiteten. Retrieved on 16 April 2007, from www.tessla.org.

Euler, H. A., Hoier, S., & Rohde P. A. (March 2001). Relationship specific closeness of intergenerational family ties: Findings from evolutionary psychology and implications for models of cultural transmission. Journal Of Cross-cultural Psychology (32) 2, 147-158.

Foley, W. (1986). The Papuan languages of New Guinea. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

148 Fransella, F., & Bannister, D. (1977). A manual for repertory grid techniques. London - New York: Academic Press.

Fransella, F., Bell, R., & Bannister, D. (2004). A manual for repertory grid technique. (2nd edition). West Sussex GB: John Wiley & Sons.

Frayer, L. (November 6, 2007). Iraq increasingly divided by sect. The Miami Herald, p. 16A.

Freire, P. (1972/2005). Pedagogia do oprimido. São Paulo: Paz e Terra.

Freud, S. (1964). Zur Psychopathologie des Alltagslebens. Frankfurt am Main: Fischer Bücherei KG.

Gardner, R.C. (1982). Language attitudes and language learning. In Boudhard-Ryan, E. & Giles, H. (Eds.). Attitudes towards language variation. London: Hodder Arnold.

Gardner, R.C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes and motivation. London: Edward Arnold. Gardner, R.C. (2001a). Integrative motivation: Past, present, and future. Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario. Retrieved on April 27 2007 from http://publish.uwo.ca/~gardner/GardnerPublicLecture1.pdf.

Gardner, R.C. (2001b, March 23). Language learning motivation: The student, the teacher, and the researcher. Austin TX: Texas Foreign Language Education Conference.

Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second language learning. Rowley MA: Newbury House Publisher.

Gardner, R.C., & MacIntyre, P.D. (1993). On the measurement of affective variables in second language learning. Language Learning, 43(2), 157-194.

Gardner, R.C., Masgoret, A.-M., Tennant, J., & Mihic, L. (2004). Integrative motivation: Changes during a year-long intermediate language course. Language Learning 54(1), 1-34.

Gardner, W., Pickett, C., & Brewer, M. (2000). Social exclusion and selective memory: How the need to belong influences memory for social events. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology 26(4), 486-496.

Glynn, S. (2007). Continental philosophy. Lecture delivered on April 4, 2007, Boca Raton FL: Florida Atlantic University.

149 Gordon, K. (1996). Resilient Hispanic youths’ self-concept and motivational patterns. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 18(1), 63-73.

Graham, R., & Brown, C. (1996). The affects of acculturation on second language proficiency in a community with a two-way bilingual program. The Bilingual Research Journal 20(2), 235-260.

Hadley, G.S. (1996). Bridging the cross-cultural gap with personal construct repertory grids. Master’s thesis, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, England.

Hansen, J.C., Stevic, R. R., & Warner, R.W. Jr. (1986). Counseling theory and process (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Harris, J.R. (1999). The nurture assumption. New York: Touchstone.

Hart, D., & Sussman, R. (2005). Man the hunted: Primates, predators, and human evolution. New York: Westview Press.

Heidegger, M. (1965/2001). Identität und Differenz (ID), 11. Auflage (11th ed.), Stuttgart: Verlag Neske.

Herrington, A. (2004). Maslow's hierarchy, societal change and the knowledge worker revolution in solutions for r&d development. Retrieved on July 16, 2006 from www.pateo.com/article6.html.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Humbach, N., & Ozete, O. (2000). ¡Ven conmigo! Austin TX: Holt, Rinehard and Winston.

Hungary: 6 Cuban refugees in brawl (November 6, 2007). The Miami Herald, p. 16A.

Hunter, G. (2006). Experiences conducting cross-cultural research. Journal of Global Information Management 14(2), 75-89.

Hymes, D. (1974). Directions in sociolinguistics. Philadelphia:University of Philadelphia Press.

Informilo por Interlingvistoj/Updates for Interlinguists (2007). Aktoj de la 15-a GIL konferenco (2005): Pri Lingvo-politiko kaj lingvo-kulturo. Retrieved on September 3, 2007 from http://www.esperantic.org/publicationsipi2.htm.

150 Jain, A., & Belsky, J. (1997). Fathering and acculturation: Immigrant Indian families with young children. Journal of Marriage and the Family 59(4), 873- 883.

Johnson, F., & Crudge, S. (2007). Using the repertory grid and laddering technique to determine the user’s evaluation model of search engines. Journal of Documentation 63(2), 259-280.

Johnson, M. (2004). A philosophy of second language acquisition. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Joseph, J. (2004). Language and Identity: National, Ethnic, Religious. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire GB: Palgrave.

Kelly, G. (1955). The psychology of personal constructs. New York: W.W. Norton & Company Inc.

Kim, K.H.S., Relkin, N. R., Lee, K-M., & Hirsch, J. (1997, July 10). Distinct cortical areas associated with native and second languages. Nature 388, 171-174.

Kim, Y.-K. (fall, 2006). Why are some language learners more successful than others: Looking for answers in second language research. Retrieved on May 20, 2007 from www.alak.or.kr/2_public/2006_fall/Include/f1.pdf .

Kirova, A. (2001). Social isolation, loneliness and immigrant students’ search for belongingness: From helplessness to hopefulness. Annual International Conference of the Association for Childhood Education (Toronto, Ontario, Canada, April 3-6, 2001) (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED455009).

Klein, W., & Perdue, C. (1992). Utterance structure: Developing grammars again. Amsterdam: John Benjamin.

Kondo-Brown, K. (2001). Heritage language students of Japanese in traditional foreign language classes: A preliminary empirical study. Japanese Language and Literature 35(2), 157-179.

Konner, J., Pollard, S., Lukas, C., & Goodman, A. (2006). The mystery of love. New York: Independent Production Fund, Inc.

Kosfeld, M., Heinrichs, M., Zak, P., Fischbacher, U., & Fehr, E. (2005). Oxytocin increases trust in humans. Nature 435(2), 34-38.

Krashen, S. (1977a). The monitor model of adult second language performance. In M. Burt, H. Dulay, and M. Finocchiaro (Eds.), Viewpoints on English as a second language. New York: Regents, 152-161.

151

Krashen, S. (1977b). Some issues relating to the monitor model. In H. Brown, C. Yorio, and K. Crymes (Eds.), Teaching and learning English as a second language: Some trends in research and practice. Washington, DC: TESOL, 144-148.

Krashen, S. (1981). Second language acquisition and second language learning. Oxford: Pergamon.

Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. Harlow: Longman.

Krashen, S., & Terrell, T. (1983). The natural approach: Language acquisition in the classroom. San Francisco: Alemany Press

Labbe, J.R. (2007, April 12). War: Letter from a marine. The Miami Herald, p. 27A.

Laborit, H. (1974). La nouvelle grille. Paris: Éditions Robert Lafont.

Lafontaine, M.-F., & Lussier, Y. (January, 2003). Structure bidimensinnelle de l’attachement amoureux anxiété face à l’abandon et évitement de l’intimité. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science (35)1, 56-60.

Lapointe, J., & Legault, F. (2004). Les relations avec l’entourage et l’adaptation psychosociale à l’école secondaire. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science 36(3), 244-254.

Larsen, R., & Buss, D. (2005). Personality psychology. Boston: McGraw Hill.

Lasagabaster, H. (1997). Multilinguism in bilingual European contexts. Clevedon GB: Multilingual Matters.

Leap, W. L., & Boellstorff, T. (2004). Speaking in queer tongues: Globalization and gay language. Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press.

Lee, C.-D., & Yang, W-G (1995). Using Repertory Grid to study Taiwanese senior high school students’ discourse on forces. Graduate Institute of Science Education, national Taiwan Normal University. Retrieved on February 22, 2007 from http://www.ntnu.edu.tw/acad/docmeet/95/a3/a304-1.doc.

Lee, R., & Robbins, S. (April, 1995). Measuring belongingness: The social connectedness and the social assurance scales. Journal of Counseling Psychology (42)2, 232-241. Lewin, K. (1943). Defining the "Field at a Given Time." Psychological Review. 50: 292-310. Republished in Resolving Social Conflicts & Field Theory in Social Science, Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association, 1997.

152

Lien, P.-T. (1994). Ethnicity and political participation between Asian and Mexican Americans. Political Behavior 16(2), 237-264.

Lybeck, K. (2002). Cultural identification and second language pronunciation of Americans in Norway. The Modern Language Journal 86(2), 174-191.

MacDonald, V.M. (2004). The status of English language learners in Florida: Trends and prospects. Education Policy Research Unit (EPRU): Tempe AZ.

Markee, N. (2001, March). Reopening the research agenda: Respecifying motivation as a locally-occasioned phenomenon. Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Association of Applied Linguistics (AAAL). St. Louis, MI.

Markus, H., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist 41, 954- 969.

Martin, F. (2000). Postgraduate primary education students’ images of geography and the relationship between these and students’ teaching. International Research in Geographical and Environmental Education 9(3), 223-244.

Masgoret, A. M., & Gardner, R. C. (2003). Attitudes, motivation, and second language learning: A meta-analysis of studies conducted by Gardner and associates. Language Learning, 53 (Suppl. 1), 123-163.

Maslow, A. (1968/1999). Toward a psychology of being. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

McCargar, D. (1993). Teacher and student role expectations: Cross-cultural differences and implications. The Modern Language Journal 77(2), 192-207.

McGroarty, M. (1996). Language attitudes, motivations, and standards. In Sandra McKay and Nancy Hornberger (Eds.). Sociolinguistics and language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3-46.

McKay, S. L., & Hornberger, N.H. (1996). Sociolinguistics and language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. McLaughlin, B. (1987). Theories of second language learning. London: Edward Arnold. McLaughlin, B., Rossman, T., & McLeod, B. (1983). Second language learning: An information-processing perspective. Language Leaning 33, 135-158. Met, M., Sayers, R., & Eubanks Wargin, C. (2000). Paso a paso. Upper Saddle River NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

153 Mitchell, R., and Myles, F. (2004). Second language learning theories. Second edition. London: Arnold. Monson, T.C., Keel, R., Stephens, D., & Genung, V. (1982). Trait attributions: Relative validity, covariation with behavior, and prospect of future interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 1014-1024.

Naoi, T., Airey, D., Iijima, S., & Niininen, O. (2007). Towards a theory of visitors’ evaluation of historical districts as tourism destinations: Frameworks and methods. Journal of Business Research 60(4), 396-400.

Neimeyer, R., & Neimeyer, G. (2002). Advances in personal construct psychology: New directions and perspectives. Westport CT: Praeger.

Nettle, D., & Romaine, S. (2000). Vanishing voices: The extinction of the world’s languages. New York: Oxford University Press.

Niykos, M. (1991). Prioritizing student learning: A guide for teachers. In Lorraine Strasheim (Ed.), Focus on the Foreign Language Learner (pp. 133-154). Lincolnwood: NTC.

Norman, W.T. (1963). Toward an adequate taxonomy of personality ratings. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 66, 574-583.

Norton, B. (2000). Identity and language learning: Social processes and educational practice. London: Longman.

Ogbu, J. (2003). Black American students in an affluent suburb: A study of academic disengagement. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Ormrod, J.E. (2003). Educational psychology: Developing learners. Upper Saddle River,NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.

Pavlenko, A., & Lantolf, J. (2000). Sociocultural theory and second language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Perdue, C. (Ed.). (1993a). Adult language acquisition: Cross-linguistic perspectives. Volume 1, The Results. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Perdue, C. (Ed.). (1993b). Adult language acquisition: Cross-linguistic perspectives. Volume 2, The Results. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Perdue, C. (2000). The structure of learner varieties. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 22(3), 299-305.

154 Phinney, J. (1992). The Multigroup Ethnic Identity Measure: A new scale for use with adolescents and young adults from diverse groups. Journal of Adolescent Research (7), 156-176.

Piaget, J. (1929). The language and thought of the child. Trans. By Marjorie & Ruth Dabain (3rd edition). London and New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1929; repr. (1959) Atlantic Highlands NJ: Humanities Press.

Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1962). The Psychology of the Child. New York:Basic Books.

Pimsleur, P. (1967). A memory schedule. Modern Language Journal (51), 73-75.

Platt, E., & Troudi, S. (1997). Mary and her teachers: A Grebo-speaking child’s place in the mainstream classroom. The Modern Language Journal 81(1), 28-49.

Popkewitz, T. (2000). The denial of change in educational change: Systems of ideas in the construction of national policy and evaluation. Educational Researcher 29(1), 17-29.

Popkewitz, T. (2001). Rethinking the political: reconstituting national imaginaries and producing difference. International Journal of Inclusive Education 5(2/3), 179- 207.

Rickford, J. (1998). Using the vernacular to teach the standard. Paper delivered at the California State University Long Beach [CSULB] Conference on Ebonics held on March 29, 1997. Retrieved on September 6, 2005 from http://www.stanford.edu/~rickford/papers/VernacularToTeachStandard.html.

Robertson, P. (2002). The Critical Age Hypothesis, The Asian EFL Journal (On Line): http://www.asian-efljournal.com/marcharticles_pr.php .

Rodriguez, A. (2000). Adjusting the multicultural lens. Race, Gender and Class 7(3), 155-166.

Rogers, C. (1961). On becoming a person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Roy, P. (1962). The measurement of assimilation: The Spokane Indians. The American Journal of Sociology 67(5), 541-551.

Safont Jordà, M.P., (2005). Third language learners: Pragmatic production and awareness. Cledon UK: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Salmivalli, C., & Isaacs, J. (2005). Prospective relations among victimization, rejection, friendlessness, and children’s self- and peer-perceptions. Child Development 76(6), 1161-1171.

155

Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L.R. (1996). The language of personality: Lexica perspectives on the five-factor model. In J.S. Wiggins (Ed.), The five factor model of personality: Theoretical perspectives, 21-50. New York: Guilford Press.

Schoenberg, I.E. (1994). Focus on Grammar. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Schulz, R., & Elliott, P. (March 2000). Learning Spanish as an older adult. Hispania 83, 107-119.

Schumann, J.H. (1978). The acculturation model for second-language acquisition. In. R.C. Gingras (Ed), Second language acquisition and foreign language teaching, 27-50. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.

Schumann, J.H. (1986). Research on the acculturation model for second language acquisition. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 7(5 ), 379 - 392.

Schurmann, H. (1967). Economic structure of the Yüan dynasty. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

Selinker, L. (1972). Rediscovering interlanguage. London: Longman. Singleton, D., & Lengyel, Z. (1995). The Age Factor in Second Language Acquisition. London: Multilingual Matters Ltd.

Skelton, J. (2005). How Bush won the election. Paper presented during a course entitled Advanced Linguistics II. Boca Raton FL: Florida Atlantic University.

Spano, H. (2004). Unterwegs zum Sein: Über die Sprachonthologie Heideggers. Rome: Dialegesthai. Retrieved on March 1 2007 from http://mondodomani.org/dialegesthai/hsp03.htm#nota11 .

Swift, J. (2002). Foreign language competence and cultural affinity: A study of UK executives in foreign markets. Cross Cultural Management, 9(2), 4-24.

Tan, F., & Hunt, G. (2002). The repertory grid technique: A method for the study of cognition in information systems. MIS Quarterly 26(1), 39-57.

Tömer (n.d.). Gazi Üniversitesi Türkçe öğrenerim araştırma ve uygulama merkezi. Retrieved on July 19, 2007 from http://www.tomer.gazi.edu.tr/Yayinlar.htm .

Tremblay, P.F., & Gardner, R.C. (1995). Expanding the motivation construct in language learning. Modern Language Journal, 79, 505-518.

156 Triandis, H. (1978). Some universals of social behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 4(1), 1-16.

Tse, L. (2000). Student perceptions of foreign language study: A qualitative analysis of foreign language autobiographies. The Modern Language Journal 84(1), 69-84.

Universität Oldenburg (n.d.) Bindung und Zugehörigkeit. Retrieved on March 5, 2007 from www.uni oldenburg.de/fs-psychologie/scripte/allgemeine1/Bindung.pdf .

Valette, J.-P., & Valette, R. (1998). Discovering French. Evanston IL: McDougal Littell.

Van Prooijen, J.-W., van den Bos, K., & Wilke, H. (2004). Group belongingness and procedural justice: Social inclusion and exclusion by peers affects the psychology of voice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 87(1), 66 - 79.

Velleman, S., & Kohn, W. (2006). African American English and Reading: Perspectives and Solutions. SpeechPathology.com. Retrieved from on September 3, 2007, from http://www.speechpathology.com/articles/pf_article_detail.asp?article_id=287

Vygotsky, L. (1934/1986). Thought and language. (Translation of Myshlenie I rech’). Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.

Weisskirch, R. (2005). The relationship of language brokering to ethnic identity for Latino early adolescents. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 27(3), 286 - 299.

West, D. (1996). An introduction to continental philosophy. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Williams, L.S., Alvarez, S.D., & Andrade-Hauck, K.S. (2002). My name is not Maria: Young Latinas seeking home in the heartland. Social Problems 49 (4), 563 - 584.

Wright, R., & Cheung F. (2007). Articulating appraisal system effectiveness based on managerial cognitions. Personnel Review 36(2), 206-220.

Zobl, H. (2004). Converging evidence for the ‘acquisition-learning’ distinction. Applied Linguistics (16), 35-56.

157

Appendix A

Consent Form

1) Title: Integrative Motivation in Second Language Acquisition 2) Investigators: Dr. Penelope Fritzer and Robb Kvasnak 3) The purpose of this study is to understand how students studying English in south Florida are motivated in their English studies. 4) Participation in this study will require two interviews, a written evaluation of your own knowledge of English and answering a sheet concerning demographic information, i.e. your gender, your age, your profession or field of studies, your previous experience with studying English and similar questions. You will also be asked to permit the researcher to have access to the placement test that put you in the level that you are presently in at school. The first interview involves two parts. The first interview and questionnaire will last about 45 minutes to one hour. The second interview will last about 15 minutes and will take place several weeks after the first interview. 5) Risks: The risks involved with participation in this study are no more than one would experience in regular daily activities. Participation in this research involves two interviews. These interviews are about your perceptions and feelings about yourself and other people who speak Spanish and English and about how you see yourself and others progressing in their studies. If you feel at any time that the questions make you feel uncomfortable, you may excuse yourself from the research. You may choose the language that the interviews and written questionnaires are to be in. 6) Benefits: After the research is completed, you will have access to the findings. The results of this research may help you improve your studies of English. 7) The results will be kept confidential. Only the people working with the study will see your data, unless required by law. The data will be kept in a locked filing cabinet at Florida Atlantic University. After transcription the tapes will be destroyed thus protecting the confidentiality of the participants. 8) For related problems or questions regarding your rights as a subject, the Division of Research of Florida Atlantic University can be contacted at (561) 297-0777. For other questions about the study, you should call the principal investigators, Dr. Penelope Fritzer at (561) 297-3588, [email protected]; or Robb Kvasnak at (954) 563-7537, [email protected]. 9) I have read or had read to me the preceding information describing this study. All my questions have been answered to my satisfaction. I am 18 years of age or older and freely consent to participate. I understand that I am free to withdraw from the study at any time without penalty. I have received a copy of this consent form. Signature of subject:______Date:______Signature of investigator: ______Date: ______

158 Consent Form in Spanish - Forma de Consentimiento

1) Title: Integrative Motivation in Second Language Acquisition Titulo: Motivacion Integral en la Adquisición de Inglés Como Segunda Lengua

2) Investigators: Dr. Penelope Fritzer and Robb Kvasnak Investigadores: Dra. Penelope Fritzer y Dr. Robb Kvasnak

3) The purpose of this study is to understand how students studying English in south Florida are motivated in their English studies. El propósito de este estudio es entender, como los estudiantes que están estudiando inglés en el Sur de la Florida se motivan en sus estudios de inglés.

4) Participation in this study will require two interviews, a written evaluation of your own knowledge of English and answering a sheet concerning demographic information, i.e. your gender, your age, your profession or field of studies, your previous experience with studying English and similar questions. You will also be asked to permit the researcher to have access to the placement test that put you in the level that you are presently in at school. The first interview involves two parts. The first interview and questionnaire will last about 45 minutes to one hour. The second interview will last about 15 minutes and will take place several weeks after the first interview.

La participación en este estudio requiere de dos entrevistas, una evaluación escrita de su conocimiento de Inglés y el contestar una pagina con preguntas que contienen su información demográfica, por ejemplo su genero, su edad, su profesión y su campo de estudios, su previa experiencia con estudios de Inglés y algunas preguntas similares. A usted también se le pedirá que permita al investigador que tenga acceso a su prueba de clasificación que lo puse en el nivel de Inglés que el que usted se encuentra presentemente en su escuela. La primera entrevistas envuelve dos partes. La primera entrevistas con el formulario de preguntas se tomara de 45 minutos a una hora. La segunda entrevista se toma como 15 minutos y se llevara a cabo varias semanas después de la primera entrevista.

5) Risks: The risks involved with participation in this study are no more than one would experience in regular daily activities. Participation in this research involves two interviews. These interviews are about your perceptions and feelings about yourself and other people who speak Spanish and English and about how you see yourself and others progressing in their studies. If you feel at any time that the questions make you feel uncomfortable, you may excuse yourself from the research. You may choose the language that the interviews and written questionnaires are to be in.

159 Riesgos: Los riesgos que ocasionará su participación in este estudio no son mas que los que podría experimentar en sus actividades diarias. La participación en esta investigación envuelve dos entrevistas. Estas entrevistas son acerca de las percepciones y los sentimientos de usted y de otras personas que hablan español o Inglés y como se ve usted mismo y otros progresando en sus estudios. Si usted siente en cualquier momento, que las preguntas lo hacen sentir inconfortable, usted se puede excusar de esta investigación, usted puede escoger el lenguaje en que quiere que se haga la entrevista y las preguntas escritas.

6) Benefits: After the research is completed, you will have access to the findings. The results of this research may help you improve your studies of English. Los beneficios: Después que la investigación es completa, usted se le facilitara ver los resultados. Los resultados de esta investigación lo pueden ayudar en sus deseos de mejorar sus estudios del inglés

7) The results will be kept confidential. Only the people working with the study will see your data, unless required by law. The data will be kept in a locked filing cabinet at Florida Atlantic University. After transcription the tapes will be destroyed thus protecting the confidentiality of the participants. Los resultados se mantendrán confidencialmente, solamente las personas que trabajan en este estudio pueden ver sus datos a menos que sean requeridos por la ley. Los datos se mantendrán en una gabinete de archivo con llave en una oficina de la Universidad Atlantica de la Florida. Después de la investigación las entrevistas grabadas en cintas o discos compactos serán destruidas para proteger la confidencialidad de los participantes. 8) For related problems or questions regarding your rights as a subject, the Division of Research of Florida Atlantic University can be contacted at (561) 297-0777. For other questions about the study, you should call the principal investigators, Dr. Penelope Fritzer at (561) 297-3588, [email protected]; or Robb Kvasnak at (954) 563-7537, [email protected]. Para otros problemas o preguntas relacionadas con sus derechos a un sujeto de este estudio e investigación, usted puede contactar a la División de Estudios de Investigación de la Universidad Atlantica de la Florida al telefono (561) 297-0777 Para otras preguntas relacionadas con el estudio, usted puede llamar a los investigadores principales la Dra. Penelope Fritzer al teléfono (561)297-3588, o a su correo electrónico [email protected]; o Robb Kvasnak al teléfono (954) 563-7537, o su correo electrónico, [email protected] 9) I have read or had read to me the preceding information describing this study. All my questions have been answered to my satisfaction. I am 18 years of age or older and freely consent to participate. I understand that I am free to withdraw from the study at any time without penalty. I have received a copy of this consent form. He leído o me han leído la información que describe este estudio. Todas, las preguntas, las he contestado a mi satisfacción. Yo soy mayor de 18 anos de edad y un participante voluntario. Entiendo que soy libre de retirarme del

160 estudio a cualquier momento sin cargos. He recibido una copia de esta forma de consentimiento Signature of subject:______Date:______Firma del sujeto Fecha Signature of investigator: ______Date: ______Firma del investigador Fecha

161 Appendix B

Pertinent Demographics

Part I

1) Are you male or female?

2) In what age are you? __15-25 __ 26-35 __36-45 __46-55 __56-65

3) What is your mother language?

4) How long have you studied English?

5) What country do you come from?

6) What other languages do you speak (other than your mother tongue and

English)?

7) What is your profession?

8) What is the highest degree of education that you have? [for example: training

in your profession, college, licenses, etc.]

9) How long have you been in the United States?

10) Have you lived in a country/countries other than your own and the US?

11) If yes, which country/countries?

12) What level of English is the class that you are presently taking?

Part II On a scale from 1 to 10 on which 1 is none at all and 10 is almost perfect, please rate yourself for the following four skills:

Understanding spoken English: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Speaking English: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Understanding written English: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Writing English: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

162 Part III 1) Do you want me to share the results of this research with you? Yes No

2) If yes, how can I get in touch with you? a) email: b) Telephone number

163 Demograificas Pertinentes

Part I

13) Es Varon o Hembra ? Masculino o Femenino?

14) En que edad estás ? __15-25 __ 26-35 __36-45 __46-55 __56-65

15) ¿Cual es su Lengua Materna? ¿O la lengua de su país de origen?

16) ¿Caunto tiempo ha estudiado el idioma inglés?

17) ¿De que país es usted originalmente? ¿O de que pais viene?

18) ¿Que otros idiomas habla ? (otros mas de su lengua materna e inglés)

19) ¿Cual es su profesión ? ¿o a que se dedica?

20) ¿Cual elsel grado mas alto de educación que usted tiene? Por ejemplo:

entrenamientos en su profesion o carrera, grados de la Universidad, Licencias

profesionales, Maestrias, Postgrado, Doctorados. Etc..

21) ¿Cuanto tiempo usted ha vivido en los Estados Unidos? ¿En que Estados?

22) ¿Ha vivido en un país o paises otros que su paií de origen y los Estados

Unidos?

23) Si la respuesta es Si ¿en que paises ha vivido?

24) ¿En que nivel de inglés es la clase que usted esta tomando ahora?

Parte II En la escala de 1 a 10 en el que 1 es nada y 10 es casi perfecto por favor califiquese asi mismo en las siguientes habilidades.

Entendimiento del inglés hablado 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Hablando el inglés 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Entendimiento del inglés escrito 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Escribiendo el inglés 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

164 Parte III 1) ¿Quieres que comporta los resultados de esta investigacion de studios con usted ? Si___o No___ si ud, quiere como nos podemos comunicar con usted, por telefono______o por correo electronico (e-mail)______

165 Appendix C

Interview Protocol – Repertory Grid Technique

Stage 1

Question: Hi, my name is Robb Kvasnak. Thank you for participating in this research.

I am working on my Doctoral Degree at Florida Atlantic University in education. I

am particularly interested in understanding how people acquire a foreign language.

The reason that we are carrying out this interview is for me to get information on how

you view the people whose language you are trying to learn. This interview and the

following one will not take more than 45 minutes each.

Question: What is your first language?

Answer:

Question: What language are you trying to learn?

Answer:

166 Question: Now think of the people who speak your first language and the people who

speak the language that you are trying to learn (American English). Think about the

people who speak French. Compare the people who speak your mother tongue with those who speak your target language and with the people who speak French.

Thinking about all three groups which two groups are more alike and why? For

example, what are some of the traits and characteristics of the people of the two

similar cultures?

Answer:

Question: Which of these three is least like the other two and why? Cite some characteristics that make the speakers of this language different from the first two groups.

Answer:

167 Question: Now think of the people who speak your first language and the people who speak the language that you are trying to learn (American English). Think about the people who speak German. Compare the people who speak your mother tongue with those who speak your target language and with the people who speak German.

Thinking about all three groups which two groups are more alike and why? For example, what are some of the traits and characteristics of the people of the two similar cultures?

Answer:

Question: Which of these three is least like the other two and why? Cite some characteristics that make the speakers of this language different from the first two groups.

Answer:

168

Question: Now think of the people who speak your first language and the people who

speak the language that you are trying to learn (American English). Think about the

people who speak Portuguese. Compare the people who speak your mother tongue

with those who speak your target language and with the people who speak

Portuguese. Thinking about all three groups which two groups are more alike and why? For example, what are some of the traits and characteristics of the people of the

two similar cultures?

Answer:

Question: Which of these three is least like the other two and why? Cite some characteristics that make the speakers of this language different from the first two groups.

Answer:

169 Question: Now think of the people who speak your first language and the people who

speak the language that you are trying to learn (American English). Think about the

people who speak Italian. Compare the people who speak your mother tongue with those who speak your target language and with the people who speak Italian.

Thinking about all three groups which two groups are more alike and why? For example, what are some of the traits and characteristics of the people of the two similar cultures?

Answer:

Question: Which of these three is least like the other two and why? Cite some characteristics that make the speakers of this language different from the first two groups.

Answer:

170 Question: Now think of the people who speak your first language and the people who speak the language that you are trying to learn (American English). Think about the people who speak Chinese. Compare the people who speak your mother tongue with those who speak your target language and with the people who speak Chinese.

Thinking about all three groups which two groups are more alike and why? For example, what are some of the traits and characteristics of the people of the two similar cultures?

Answer:

Question: Which of these three is least like the other two and why? Cite some characteristics that make the speakers of this language different from the first two groups.

Answer:

171 Question: Now think of the people who speak your first language and the people who

speak the language that you are trying to learn (American English). Think about the

people who speak Spanish. Compare the people who speak your mother tongue with

those who speak your target language and with the people who speak Spanish.

Thinking about all three groups which two groups are more alike and why? For

example, what are some of the traits and characteristics of the people of the two

similar cultures?

Answer:

Question: Which of these three is least like the other two and why? Cite some characteristics that make the speakers of this language different from the first two groups.

Answer:

172 Protocolo de la Entrevista--Repertorio en la Técnica de Agarre

Fase 1

Hola, mi nombre es Roberto Kvasnak. Gracias por su participación en este proyecto

de tesis es una investigación y estudio. Yo estoy estudiando, trabajando y haciendo mi tesis para mi doctorado en Educación en la Universidad Atlantica de La Florida o

(Doctoral Degree at Florida Atlantic University). Estoy particularmente interesado en entender como las personas adquieren un idioma extranjero.

La razón porque estoy haciéndole esta entrevista es para obtener información como usted ve a la gente que hablan el idioma que usted esta tratando de aprender, las siguientes preguntas no tomaran mas de 45 minutos cada una.

Pregunta: ¿Cual es su Primer Idioma ? ¿o cual es su Lengua Materna?

Respuesta:

Pregunta: ¿Cual Idioma usted esta tratando de aprender?

Respuesta:

173 Pregunta : Ahora piense en las personas que hablan su primer idioma (el castellano) y las personas que hablan el idioma que usted esta tratando de aprender (inglés americano que se habla en los Estados Unidos). Piense en las personas que hablan el francés. Compare las personas que hablan su lengua materna con las que hablan la lengua que usted quiere aprender en este caso el inglés americano con las personas que hablan el francés. Piense en los tres grupos y de estos tres grupos ¿cuales dos grupos son mas parecidos y porque?

Por ejemplo, ¿Cuales son algunas de las costumbres, de las maneras, y de las características de la gente de dos culturas similares?

Respuesta:

Pregunta: ¿Cual de estas culturas es la menos parecida a las otras dos? ¿Y porque ?

¿Que características hacen a los que hablan este idioma diferente a los dos primeros grupos con características similares?

Respuesta:

174 Pregunta : Ahora piense en las personas que hablan su primer idioma (el castellano) y las personas que hablan el idioma que usted esta tratando de aprender (inglés americano que se habla en los Estados Unidos). Piense en las personas que hablan el alemán. Compare las personas que hablan su lengua materna con las que hablan la lengua que usted quiere aprender en este caso el inglés americano con las personas que hablan el alemán. Piense en los tres grupos y de estos tres grupos ¿cuales dos grupos son mas parecidos y porque?

Por ejemplo, ¿Cuales son algunas de las costumbres, de las maneras, y de las características de la gente de dos culturas similares?

Respuesta:

Pregunta: ¿Cual de estas culturas es la menos parecida a las otras dos? ¿Y porque ?

¿Que características hacen a los que hablan este idioma diferente a los dos primeros grupos con características similares?

Respuesta:

175 Pregunta : Ahora piense en las personas que hablan su primer idioma (el castellano) y las personas que hablan el idioma que usted esta tratando de aprender (inglés americano que se habla en los Estados Unidos). Piense en las personas que hablan el portugués. Compare las personas que hablan su lengua materna con las que hablan la lengua que usted quiere aprender en este caso el inglés americano con las personas que hablan el portugués. Piense en los tres grupos y de estos tres grupos ¿cuales dos grupos son mas parecidos y porque?

Por ejemplo, ¿Cuales son algunas de las costumbres, de las maneras, y de las características de la gente de dos culturas similares?

Respuesta:

Pregunta: ¿Cual de estas culturas es la menos parecida a las otras dos? ¿Y porque ?

¿Que características hacen a los que hablan este idioma diferente a los dos primeros grupos con características similares?

Respuesta:

176 Pregunta : Ahora piense en las personas que hablan su primer idioma (el castellano) y las personas que hablan el idioma que usted esta tratando de aprender (inglés americano que se habla en los Estados Unidos). Piense en las personas que hablan el italiano. Compare las personas que hablan su lengua materna con las que hablan la lengua que usted quiere aprender en este caso el inglés americano con las personas que hablan el italiano. Piense en los tres grupos y de estos tres grupos ¿cuales dos grupos son mas parecidos y porque?

Por ejemplo, ¿Cuales son algunas de las costumbres, de las maneras, y de las características de la gente de dos culturas similares?

Respuesta:

Pregunta: ¿Cual de estas culturas es la menos parecida a las otras dos? ¿Y porque ?

¿Que características hacen a los que hablan este idioma diferente a los dos primeros grupos con características similares?

Respuesta:

177 Pregunta : Ahora piense en las personas que hablan su primer idioma (el castellano) y las personas que hablan el idioma que usted esta tratando de aprender (inglés americano que se habla en los Estados Unidos). Piense en las personas que hablan el chino. Compare las personas que hablan su lengua materna con las que hablan la lengua que usted quiere aprender en este caso el inglés americano con las personas que hablan el chino. Piense en los tres grupos y de estos tres grupos ¿cuales dos grupos son mas parecidos y porque?

Por ejemplo, ¿Cuales son algunas de las costumbres, de las maneras, y de las características de la gente de dos culturas similares?

Respuesta:

Pregunta: ¿Cual de estas culturas es la menos parecida a las otras dos? ¿Y porque ?

¿Que características hacen a los que hablan este idioma diferente a los dos primeros grupos con características similares?

Respuesta:

178 Appendix D

Second Interview

Recently, you participated in an interview in connection with the research that I am doing for my dissertation at Florida Atlantic University. At that time, you indicated that you were interested in the results of that research. Here are some preliminary results and some questions that would help me understand the results better through your explanation. The results are the composite of all the data of twenty-two native Spanish speakers whom I interviewed, and these results do not represent the opinions of any one single person. Please read the results and answer the questions according to your opinion. You may also add any comments, cross out words that you don’t like, and change words to be more appropriate. Neither your name nor contact information will be used at any time. Once the final study is done, I will email you a copy. Thank you again for helping me. Robb Kvasnak 954-563-7537

179

The results of the first interview: Some general views held by Spanish speaking people who answered the first interview: Spanish speakers are happier than American English speakers. Spanish speakers have some things in common with other immigrants because they have to learn a new language. American English speakers do not have to learn a new language. Spanish speakers are more family-oriented than American English speakers. Spanish speakers are more passionate than American English speakers. Spanish speakers are more like other Latin peoples, especially Italian- and Portuguese speakers than like American English speakers. Spanish speakers have to work harder than American English speakers in order to be successful. American English speakers practice more racial discrimination than do Spanish speakers. Spanish speakers are more likely to hold on to their traditions than American English speakers. Spanish speakers are more romantic than American English speakers. Spanish speakers are more dramatic than American English speakers. Spanish speakers help others more than American English speakers. American English speakers learn to rely on themselves. Spanish speakers are more anxious about life than are American English speakers .American English speakers are more secure because they do not have to adapt to a new culture.

1) What motivates you to acquire the ability to speak American English?

2) What influence have your teachers had on your perceptions of Americans?

3) Do you have any close friends or family members who only speak American English?

180 4) The idea of learning a language to be more integrated in a group is called integrative motivation. The idea of learning a language to obtain a better job and earn more money is called instrumental motivation because the language becomes an instrument in reaching a goal. On a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is completely integrative and 7 is completely instrumental, circle the number that corresponds to your desire to speak American English?

Integrative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Instrumental

5) Looking at the results from the first interview, what are the most important things or feelings that would help you or other members of this study acquire American English?

6) Are there other things that would motivate you to acquire American English?

181 Could you position Spanish speakers and American English speakers on the following lines? Write S for Spanish speakers and E for American English speakers. If you do not agree with the opposite, cross it out and use your own adjective (as in the example with ‘handsome’ and ‘homely’. You may write in the Spanish or English word, if you want.

The following is an example only (these are NOT opinions from the first interview and are used only to illustrate how to fill out the table): Demanding 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Non- S E demanding

Handsome 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Homely S E Ugly

Now, fill out the table below according to your views. Have to work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Don’t have hard to work hard Family- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not family- oriented oriented

Passionate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not passionate

Tolerant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Intolerant

Traditional 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Non- traditional

Romantic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not romantic

Dramatic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not dramatic

Help others 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Don’t help others

Anxious 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not anxious about success about success Adaptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Not adaptable

182 Segunda Entrevista

Hace poco Usted participó en una entrevista ligada a las investigaciones que estoy realizando para mi disertación en la Florida Atlantic University. Por entonces Usted indicó que le interesaría saber los resultados de mis investigaciones. Aquí hay unos resultados preliminares además de unas preguntas cuyas respuestas me ayudarían a entender mejor los resultados a través de sus explicaciones. Los resultados son una composición de los datos de más de veinte hispanohablantes entrevistados y esos resultados no representan las opiniones de ningún individuo solamente. Puede añadir comentarios, borrar o tachar palabras que no sirven, o cambiar palabras por palabras que sirven mejor. No se usarán ni su nombre ni sus informaciones de contacto en ningún momento. Al terminar el estudio final, le mandaré a Usted por correo electrónico una copia. De nuevo, muchas gracias por ayudarme. Robb Kvasnak 954-563-7537

Los resultados de la primera entrevista:

1. Los hispanohablantes son más felices que los anglohablantes. 2. Los hispanohablantes tienen ciertas cosas en común con los otros inmigrantes por que tienen que aprender un nuevo idioma. Los anglohablantes no tienen que aprender un nuevo idioma. 3. Los hispanohablantes son más orientados hacia la familia que los anglohablantes. 4. Los hispanohablantes son más parecidos a los otros latinos, especialmente los de habla portuguesa e italiana, que a los anglohablantes. 5. Los hispanohablantes tienen que trabajar más duro que los anglohablantes para tener excito en la vida. 6. Los anglohablantes practican más discriminación racial que los hispanohablantes. 7. Los hispanohablantes son más dispuestos a conservar sus tradiciones que los anglohablantes. 8. Los hispanohablantes son más románticos que los anglohablantes. 9. Los hispanohablantes son más dramáticos que los anglohablantes. 10. Los hispanohablantes ayudan a otra gente con más frecuencia que los anglohablantes. Los anglohablantes dependen más de si mismo. 11. Los hispanohablantes están más preocupados por la vida que los anglohablantes. Los anglohablantes son menos preocupados por que no tienen que adaptarse a una cultura nueva.

Comentarios:

1) ¿Qué le motiva a usted a adquirir la capacidad de hablar el inglés americano?

2) ¿Cuál influencia han tenido sus profesores sobre su percepción de estadounidenses?

183

3) ¿Tiene Usted unos amigos íntimos o hay personas de su familia quienes hablan solo el inglés americano?

4) Se dice que se trata de una motivación de integración cuando alguien quiere aprender un idioma para pertenecer a un grupo. Se dice que se trata de una motivación de instrumentación cuando alguien quiere aprender un idioma para ganar más dinero u obtener un mejor trabajo por que en el último caso el idioma sirve como una arrendamiento para lograr una meta. En una escala de 1 a 7, donde 1 representa completamente la motivación de integración y 7 representa completamente la motivación de instrumentación, traza un círculo alrededor del número que mejor corresponde a su deseo de hablar el inglés americano: motivación de integración 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 motivación de instrumentación

5) Al mirar a los resultados de la primera entrevista, ¿cuales son los elementos o los sentimientos que más le ayudarían a usted o ayudarían a otras personas en este estudio a adquirir el inglés americano?

6) ¿Hay otros factores que le motivarían a Usted a adquirir el inglés americano?

184 Coloca por favor los hispanohablantes y los anglohablantes en las tablas siguientes. Usa la letra S para hispanohablantes y la letra E para anglohablantes. Sí en la tabla no le gusta a Usted la palabra opuesta táchela y escriba la palabra que según Usted es más adecuada (como en el ejemplo de ‘guapo’ y ‘feo’). Puede escribir en español o inglés.

Las dos tablas siguientes son solo ejemplos (y NO SON OPINIONES de la primera entrevista – se usan solo para ilustrar como llenar esta tabla):

Exigente 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 No exigente S E Guapo 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 feo S E Poco atractivo

Ahora, llena por favor la tabla siguiente según sus perspectivas: Tienen que 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 No tienen trabajar duro que trabajar duro Orientados 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 No hacia la orientados familia hacia la familia Apasionados 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 No apasionados Tolerantes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 No tolerantes Tradicionales 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 No Mas tradicionales Receptivos Menos Receptivos Románticos 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 No románticos Dramáticos 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 No dramáticos Ayudan a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 No ayudan a otros otros Preocupados 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 No por el éxito preocupados por el éxito Adaptables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 No adaptables

185 Appendix E

Norman’s Markers for the Big Five (Norman, 1963)

a. Surgency Talkative-silent Sociable-reclusive Adventurous-cautious Open-secretive b. Agreeableness Good-natured – irritable Cooperative – negativistic Mild/gentle – headstrong Not jealous – jealous c. Conscientiousness Responsible – undependable Scrupulous – unscrupulous Persevering – quitting Fussy/tidy - careless d. Emotional stability Calm-anxious Composed – excitable Not hypochondriacal – hypochondriacal Poised – nervous/tense e. Culture Intellectual – unreflective/narrow Artistic – non-artistic Imaginative – simple/direct Polished/refined – crude/boorish

186 Appendix F

Discussion of Acquisition versus Learning

Scholars in German language countries use the term Zweitspracherwerb (second language acquisition) – Dutch: Tweede Taalverwerving. Second language researchers in French language countries use Acquisition d’une langue seconde. Researchers in

Italian uses acquisizione de seconda lingua. The journal Informilo por Interlingvistoj

(2007) published by the University of Paderborn in Germany uses the Esperanto term:

Akirado de dua lingvo. Spanish-speaking researchers use La adquisición del segundo idioma, very similar to the Portuguese-speaking researchers and educators Aquisição de uma segunda lingua.

187 Appendix G

Glossary

Key to this work is a definition of terms, especially belongingness and

attachment since extensive work has been done to establish subgroups to these larger terms (Anderman & Leake, 2005; Lapointe & Legault, 2004; Lee & Robbins, 1995;

Lafontaine & Lussier, 2003; Appelman, 2000; Euler, Hoier, & Rohde, 2001).

Acculturation: The concept of acculturation, as opposed to assimilation, is

defined by Schumann (1986) as “the social and psychological integration of the

learner with the target language (TL)”. Acculturation is the adaptation by an

individual to the mainstream culture without necessarily giving up his or her first

culture (Díaz-Rico & Weed, 2006).

Assimilation: Assimilation may be subcategorized as cultural assimilation and

structural assimilation. Cultural assimilation is “the process by which individuals

adopt the behaviors, values, beliefs, and lifestyle of the dominant culture (Díaz-Rico

& Weed, 2006, p. 245). This process also means abandoning the L1 and adopting the

L2 in its place. Structural assimilation refers to the participation of the individual in

“the social, political, and economical institutions and organizations of the mainstream

culture” (Díaz-Rico & Weed, 2006, p. 245).

Attachment: Larson and Buss (2005) define Bowlby’s (1969) concept of

attachment as a newborn’s dynamic preference, first focused rather diffusely on

people and objects, developing then toward known people, and finally being totally

focused on the mother or prime caregiver.

188 Attitudes: Though sometimes confused with motivation in the literature,

attitude is invested by Gardner (1985) with a definition that clearly separates it from

motivation (though sometimes the expression “motivational attitude” can be found in

the literature.) Attitude is composed of cognitive and affective parts; it is the realm of

beliefs, emotional reactions, and tendencies of behavior (Gardner, 1985.)

McGroarty (1996 in McKay & Hornberger, 1996) found that the issues of

attitudes and motivation, though different, are intertwined. In a study that she carried

out in the 1980s, she found that students who managed to successfully negotiate

Spanish and Japanese courses had different reasons for their ‘success’: the students of

Spanish had a positive attitude toward language classroom instruction, while the

students of Japanese relied on the instrumental value of acquiring Japanese

(McGroarty, 1996 in McKay & Hornberger, 1996).

Belongingness: Maslow (1968/1999) sees belongingness as embedded in a hierarchy of needs between safety and love relations. Individuals have no way of satisfying this need on their own and are thus fully dependent on those around them

for need satisfaction.

BICS/CALP: J.Cummins (1979) introduced these two acronyms to give a structural view of two very distinct levels of second language acquisition. BICS

stands for Basic Inter-Communication Skills and describes the phenomenon of some second language learners seeming to speak the target language with native fluency but in reality having great gaps in understanding and using the target language. CALP

stands for Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency and refers to a higher level of

second language acquisition by means of which second language learners have access

189 to the use of the target language in academic settings in which a sophisticated form of the target language is used. The Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) is supposed to test for the CALP level of English acquisition.

Communication: Dunbar (1996, p. 81) defines communication as the act of

“someone actively trying to influence the mind of another individual.”

Communicative competence: Hymes (1974) defines communicative competence as the ability to use the language appropriately in a variety of contexts.

This definition was refined by Canale and Swain (1980) to include the four elements of communicative competence: grammatical competence, sociolinguistic competence, discourse competence, and strategic competence.

Dunbar’s Number: Having looked at the human neocortex and grouping patterns in other primates, Dunbar (1996) arrived at a fairly constant number of 150 in respect to the number of acquaintances in an individual’s circle. Dunbar (1996) brings countless examples of how this number is used by human societies to delimit work units. Dunbar (1996) arrived at this number by means of calculation of how many acquaintances a human could handle based on the thickness of the human neocortex.

ELL/NELL: In search of acronyms that avoid judgmental implications, as many see in LEP (Limited English Proficiency or Language Enriched Pupils) the

TESOL movement in the United States has introduced two acronyms to designate students who are learning American English as a second language: ELL (English

Language Learners) and NELL (New English Language Learners).

190 Grammar: In linguistics grammar is understood to include the rules of phonology, morphology, semantics, syntax, pragmatics, and discourse, as well as non-verbal communication.

Krashen’s (1977a, 1977b, 1981, 1985; Krashen & Terrell, 1983) five hypotheses terms in hierarchical order:

Silent Period: During the early stages of second language acquisition, individuals produce only terse utterances in the target language. This laconic stage is due to the heavy use of the short-term or working memory to process the target language. Since the short-term memory has a limit of approximately ten items of information that it can handle successfully at one time, the short-term memory becomes overburdened and, no longer capable of processing the items necessary to produce an utterance, it shuts down. As a result of this shutting down, the student remains silent. At the same time the student’s brain continues to make sense of the input in the new language, trying to add it to the long-term memory where the input will be processed and turned into automaticity, which will in turn permit the student to speak at a later time, since the short-term memory will not have to process so much information.

Affective filter: emotion that blocks learning if the students does not feel safe and secure in the environment. Negative influences connected with the target language will impair motivation and self-confidence, both of which are believed to be necessary for acquiring a second language.

Input hypothesis: Traditionally, study was focused on short texts which were explained in great detail in terms of phonology, semantics, morphology, and syntax.

191 Short vocabulary lists were memorized in an attempt to build work knowledge.

Krashen (1985) believes that the effectual road to fluency is through exposure to a

large corpus of input, sometimes referred to as rich input. This focus on input has led

some theorists to formulate the term authentic communication, thus discarding what

is called meaningless communication, i.e. communication which does not interest the student. Authentic communication exposes the student to rich input of great interest to the student. For example, a male student would probably not acquire much language competence (or performance) from a lesson on how to apply makeup.

Monitor: Language learners have what Ariza et al. (2006, p. 148) term an

“error-detecting mechanism” that regulates the errors made by the student when producing language, i.e. performance. If the monitor is too strong, the student will be reticent to produce speech and may even return to or remain in the silent period. If the monitor is working optimally, the student will know when to self correct.

Natural order hypothesis: All languages are learned in a sequential order, whether they are acquired as L1 or L2 (Krashen, 1981). Certain elements of the language enter the student’s competence and then performance before others. In

English, for example, L1 and L2 learners use the gerund before they use the present singular third person, for example “He’s going” is used before “He goes.”

L1 (first language): In their comprehensive overview of the theories that comprise the study of second language acquisition Mitchell and Myles (2004) describe the stages that humans go through in order to acquire their first language, often known as the mother tongue. The salient fact is the conformity or “striking

192 similarities” (Mitchell & Myles, 2004, p. 34) of the stages of all children regardless of which language they are acquiring.

L2: Any language that a person acquires or attempts to acquire, to any level, after that person’s first language (L1) i.e. mother tongue. Until recently L2 was also used to refer to a third, fourth or other further language. Now some research is showing that there is really also L3, etc. (Mitchell & Myles, 2004)

Motivation:

Baumeister and Leary (1995) set the following criteria for establishing what is fundamental human motivation:

a) production of effects under all conditions, excepting adverse conditions;

b) affective consequences;

c) direction of cognitive processing;

d) arousal of ill effects (mental and/or physical health) when thwarted

e) elicitation of goal-oriented behavior patterned for satisfying it (object

substitutability and satiation);

f) a universal, i.e. that which applies to all people;

g) not a derivative of other motives;

h) influence of a vast gamut of behaviors;

i) implications that eclipse immediate psychological functioning.

Gardner (1985) says that motivation “refers to the combination of desire and effort made to achieve a goal” (McGroarty, 1996, in McKay & Hornberger, 1996, p.

5) and that motivation connects the students’ underlying principle for their behavior with the quantity or degree of energy that they are willing to invest in acquisition.

193 Mother tongue (L1): The mother tongue (L1) is generally thought of as the

language and the dialect of that language that a child acquires and uses at home.

Vygotsky (1934/1986), Piaget (1929), Hymes (1974), and Chomsky (1991) all agree

that this language has two functions: communication and representation. Joseph

(2004) adds: “Of course, the other important factor that must be borne in mind about

the relationship between mother tongue and speaker is that the mother tongue is central to the construction of the speaker’s linguistic identity. (p. 185).”

Scaffolding: Vygotsky’s followers used the term ‘scaffolding’ to describe

Vygotsky’s method of teaching, calling it the act of enabling students to “perform tasks in their zone of proximal development” (Ormrod, 2003, p. 39).

Self: Hansen, Stevic, & Warner (1986) define the notion of self as “the organized but differentiated portion of a perception of the I or me” (p. 103).

Zone of Proximal Development (Vygotsky, 1934/1986): According to Ormrod

(2003) the Zone of Proximal Development is “(t)he range of tasks that children cannot yet perform independently but can perform with the help and guidance of others”, (p. 38).

194 Appendix H

Similarity to the Own Language Group (Spanish Speakers)

TRIADS SORTED BY DYADS

20 18 16 14 12 20 20 10 8 14 6 11 4 7 7 7 4 4 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 ES-I EF-S EP-S ES-P EI-S EC-S GS-E CS-E ES--F ES-G EG-S ES-C FS-E PS-E IS-E SUBJECTS E = English S = Spanish F = French G = German P = Portuguese I = Italian C = Chinese

195 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Robb Kvašňák was born in Washington D.C. He attended school in the United

States and the French-speaking region of Switzerland. He earned a B.A. from the

University of Pittsburgh, where he minored in German and majored in cultural anthropology under the mentorship of Dr.Hugo Nuttini, a direct pupil of Claude

Lévy-Strauss. Robb went on to attend college in Frankfurt, Germany at the Goethe

Universität where he majored in sociolinguistics, Scandinavian studies and Chinese philology. He also studied Norwegian in Norway, Turkish in Turkey, and the native language of Hawai’i in Hilo as a non-degree seeking student. He earned an M. Ed. In

Curriculum and Instruction at Florida Atlantic University. He is fluent in Esperanto as an expression of his ideas of international education and peace.

196