Assignment title:

An analysis of motivation, willingness to communicate and communication

strategies, on the second language acquisition of a Vietnamese English language student.

Introduction

The aim of this paper is to investigate three concepts relating to second language acquisition:

motivation, willingness to communicate (WTC) and communication strategies. Firstly, a

plethora of research has been conducted into motivation, as a dominant factor affecting the

level of success in learning another language. Theories of motivation have changed

considerably over time and it is clear that it is complex and dynamic in nature, which makes

it a very difficult subject to relate to individual learners, especially when considering their

cultural background. My intention here is to analyse some of these theories in relation to one

particular learner. Secondly, with the current focus on communicative learning, a learner’s

willingness to communicate, is now seen as essential for success. This willingness is subject

to a multitude of complex inter-related variables that are again dynamic. Here I will not only

relate my participant to the more mainstream theories of WTC, but also look at more focused

situational theories that have emerged more recently. Finally, in order to be successful in

communication, a learner has to apply strategies in order to try and achieve their

communicative goals. I have analysed these strategies by focusing on the strategic

competence of the learner and by looking at which theories relate to the strategies that they

use.

Review of the literature

1
Motivation

Motivation is a multi-faceted concept that has dominated second language acquisition theory

for over 50 years. “Motivation explains why people decide to do something, how hard they

are going to pursue it and how long they are willing to sustain the activity” (Dörnyei, 2001,

p.7). Motivation theory can be seen as a continuum, building on and expanding on previous

research, resulting in paradigmatic changes that reflect societal change and increased

globalization.

One of the first dominant theories of motivation started with the social-psychological period

(Gardener & Lambert, 1959). It theorized that success in learning a language is dependent on

a person’s attitude to the target language and culture of that community, “characterized by a

willingness to be like valued members of the language community” (p.271). Admiration and

a desire to become familiar with the target language and culture dominated motivation and

success. It was later labelled an “integrative motive” (Gardner & Lambert, 1972, p.12).

However, this theory did not include more practical reasons that learners may have for

learning another language, for instance, the desire to obtain higher salaries, further careers or

gain more qualifications. These instrumental reasons for motivation became part of the later

dominant socio-educational model (Gardner & Lambert, 1972; Gardner, 1985). According to

Crookes and Schmidt, this also came under criticism in the 1990’s for being too restrictive

and unresponsive to wider developments in psychology (as cited in Ortega, 2009).

As a response to these criticisms, the cognitive-situated period considered the learners’

environment. Dörnyei, (1994) innovatively expanded the socio-educational model building

2
on the antecedents of orientations and attitudes. These include: attitudes to the L2 community

and instructional setting, social support, integrativeness, self-confidence, ethnovitality, and

inter-group contact (Ortega, 2009). In addition, he questioned integrativeness as a dominant

factor. Citing his experiences with Hungarian learners, he proposed that most language

learners do not come into contact with the target language or culture, in such a significant

way, that they have a desire, or harbour attitudes, to ‘be like’ them. According to Ortega

(2009), Dörnyei posited that, more instrumental orientations and classroom attitudes towards

the teacher, curriculum and materials, “may influence motivation more heavily” (p.173).

A subsequent theory based on self-determination, expanded the theory of instrumental

motivation and proposed that motivation is influenced by both, intrinsic and extrinsic reasons

(Noel, 2001). The former cited “whether learning the language is fun, engaging, challenging

or competence enhancing” (p.99). In other words, learning a language is based on the

individual’s enjoyment and interest rather than external pressures or perceived future

rewards. In contrast, the latter includes external pressure from outside sources, and/or the

avoidance of external punishment (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Again, the criticism of this was that

it was rather restrictive. It does not theoretically take into account the relational view of the

socio-cultural milieu (influence of the learners physical and social setting), ethnic

background, identity, and societal attitudes to the target language (Ortega, 2009).

The problem with any single theory of motivation is that there are so many influencing

factors that need to be identified. In addition, motivation has come to be seen as dynamic in

structure, and thus, changing over time. The process-oriented approach (Dörnyei & Ottó,

1998) attempted to explain this in three chronological stages: chronological stages: pre-

actional initial (choices for learning), actional stage (sustaining learning), and post-actional

3
(retrospection). This approach was later used as the basis for a more Asia-specific theory

posited by Chen, Warden and Chang (2005), which specifically looked at the Asian socio-

cultural milieu, ethnicity, identity and societal attitudes, so lacking in previous research.

Similarly, research has been expanded on due to the influence of globalization and notion of

the ‘world citizen’ (Lamb, 2004). Motivation theory can no longer be seen as culturally

homogenous but influenced by many culturally specific and global factors.

Finally, further studies done by Dörnyei (2005) culminated in the dynamic L2 Motivation

Self System. This introduced the concept of the ideal L2 self (the learner’s desire to become a

competent speaker), the ought-to L2 self (the person who we believe we should become to

meet expectations, or avoid negative outcomes; associated with extrinsic motivation), and the

L2 learning experience (the situation and environment of the learner in relation to the process

of learning). It proposed to redefine integrativeness, not as a desire to become ‘like’ the target

group, but to close the gap between the actual self and the ideal self (Ortega, 2009).

Willingness to communicate (WTC)

In the light of the current focus on communicative based methodologies, understanding WTC

is seen as crucial in its implications for pedagogy. Communicative engagement is now seen

by many as the key to successful language learning. MacIntyre, Clement, Dörnyei and Noels

(1998) stressed that “the ultimate goal of the learning process should be to engender

in language education students” the willingness to communicate

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willingness_to_communicate)

The conceptualization of WTC has seen progressive changes over time. It was originally an

4
L1 concept that was thought to be inherently stable and based on a learner’s personality trait,

or trait-WTC, and was understood as a person’s probability to engage in communicate

activity when a person has the freedom to choose to do so (McCroskey & Baer, 1985).

McCroskey and Richmond (1991) expanded the concept to include a person’s readiness to

initiate conversation, or indeed avoid it. They cited the factors that affected WTC as:

introversion, self-esteem, communicative competence, communicative apprehension and

cultural diversity. WTC was later studied in relation to L2 by MacIntyre et al. (1998). They

recognized that the above factors play a significant role in WTC, but proposed that it is more

than just stable. In their heuristic, pyramidal model, they posited that while factors maybe

stable in the beginning of their WTC continuum, as time progresses they become more

dynamic and are affected by situational variables: state-WTC. Through various stages

including personality, confidence, competence and motivation, a learner finally uses L2 as a

communicative behaviour (see Figure 1). Thus, WTC was redefined as “a readiness to enter

into discourse at a particular time with a specific person or persons, using an L2” (MacIntyre

et al., 1998, p. 547).

Figure 1.

5
What is a common theme that runs through these theories is that self-confidence, anxiety and

perceived communication competence, significantly affect a learners willingness to engage in

conversation. A learner needs to be psychologically “ready” to use L2 as a communication

behaviour (MacIntyre et al., 1998). The problem, however, with this model was that it relied

on self-reports as an instrument of research, and therefore, lacked real observations of

learner’s actual behaviour, for instance, in classroom situations. As acknowledged by

MacIntyre, Clément and Conrod (2001) ‘‘thinking about communicating in the L2 is different

from actually doing it’’ (p. 377).

It is in the situational context of the classroom that further studies into WTC have now been

focused. Cao and Philp (2006) used classroom observation, interviews and questionnaires, to

investigate learner’s decisions to interact with fellow students based on in-class behaviour.

They cited various influencing factors including: group size, interlocutor and topic familiarity

6
and self-confidence. However, this research did not take into account the role of the teacher.

Zarrinabadi (2014) looked into the affect of this role on WTC in the classroom. He studied

influences like; attitude, support and teaching style with reference to learner’s willingness to

talk in class. According to him teachers’ wait time and support substantially influence

learner’s WTC (Zarrinabadi, 2014).

What is significant is that WTC can vary considerably over time, for instance, as some

learners’ perceived communicative competence increases, anxiety levels tend to fall and

WTC subsequently increases (MacIntyre, 1994). Similarly, research has consistently shown

that as motivation increases, anxiety decreases and performance increases as a result

(MacIntyre, 2007). The latter may well be a commonality in research but it is not a given, as

highly motivated learners may show high anxiety levels with respect to communicating

(Young, 1999).

At a particular given point in time a learner must decide whether to engage in communication

or keep silent. This psychological process is dependent on a multitude of interdependent

complex variables, be they individual, linguistic or social.

Communicative strategies

The level of communicative competence, or knowledge of using a linguistic system

significantly affects what communicative strategies learner’s use in order for them to be

understood or achieve a particular communicative goal (Tarone, 1981).

Communicative strategies are closely related to and indeed are a component part of

competence, or more specifically, strategic competence. Strategic competence can be defined

7
as a learner’s knowledge of how to use verbal and non-verbal communicative strategies in

order to compensate for breakdowns, and communicate effectively (Canale, 1983).

According to Celce-Murcia, Dörnyei and Thurrell (1995) this knowledge interacts with the

planning stage of what a learner will use in a particular situational context, thus affecting

their choice of strategy.

According to Lin (2011), depending on the perspective the researchers take, communicative

strategies can be defined in different ways. Bialystock (1990) cites this as problematic

because, it has “failed to yield a universally accepted definition” (p. 1). Having said this, the

two main perspectives can be divided into interactional (Tarone, 1980) and psychological

(Færch & Kasper, 1983). The interactional perspective looks at mutual interlocutor social

interaction, in order to agree on meaning if none is shared (Tarone, 1980). These include

strategies such as paraphrasing, transfer and avoidance. Conversely, the psychological

perspective looks at the individual’s cognitive, conscious plans to achieve a communicative

goal (Færch & Kasper, 1983). These include achievement strategies: code switching, inter-

lingual strategies, cooperation and nonverbal strategies, and also reduction strategies: formal

and informal. A further study by Celce-Murcia et al. (1995), added the communication

continuity and maintenance perspective, characterized by playing for time to think to make

alternative speech plans in order to keep communication open (cf. Dörnyei, in press).

The problem with any research into communicative competence and communicative

strategies, and particularly its dynamic nature, is that it is very problematic when trying to

assess what is being used because of L2 communicative competence, and what has been

simply transferred over from strategies already learnt as part of L1 acquisition. According to

Bialystock (1990) “It would seem odd if the cognitive mechanisms that produce

8
communication strategies in a second language were fundamentally different from those

responsible for the strategic use of a first language” (p. 2).

Method of research

The participant

The participant in this research is a 35 year old, female officer in the Vietnamese People’s

Army (VPA). Her current rank is captain, and for the purposes of this paper will be forthwith

referred to as, Minh. Her profession is that of a teacher of Russian and, thus her educational

background included a 4-year degree majoring in Russian. She is also a military weapons

instructor. She was brought up in a very poor, traditionally Vietnamese, rural community

where money for comprehensive education was very limited, or indeed non-existent. She has

been studying English for 4 years, based on traditional grammar orientated methodologies,

starting for 1 year at university, and then for 3 years at the VPA Military Science Academy.

She has recently completed a 9-month intensive Australian English course consisting of

classroom-based instruction, 5 hours per day, 5 days per week. The course focused primarily

on communicative learning with an emphasis on critical thinking and learner autonomy. Her

initial pre-course proficiency level was low intermediate culminating in successfully

graduating at low upper-intermediate level across all four skills. This was measured by

comparing her pre-course ADFELPS (Australian Defence Force English Language Profiling

System), result with a final post-course assessment using the same standard.

The instrument used for the study was a one-on-one interview lasting 55 minutes. It consisted

of 63 questions divided into three main concepts: motivation, willingness to communicate

9
and communicative strategies. The amount of questions was subject to initial core questions

that were supplemented in-interview, based on the interviewee’s responses. These added

questions were deemed necessary in order to clarify and expand on given information, in

order to elicit further relevant detail that would be beneficial to the focus of the study. The

interview was recorded and then transcribed.

Results and discussion

Motivation

The following analysis of the interview with Minh is focused on explaining her responses in

relation to the various paradigms of motivation theory.

Firstly, an analysis of Minh’s integrative motivation (Gardner & Lambert, 1959) should be

considered. With regards to wanting to ‘be like’ the speakers of the target language I would

argue that this is not a dominant motivational factor for Minh. Although she obviously is

open to and respects other cultures, she only wants to travel, or be temporarily educated in

Australia, and has no desire to live permanently outside of Vietnam and fully integrate with

the target language community. She highly values her Vietnamese culture: “Vietnamese

citizen I think is very good. I can go outside Vietnam only for travelling, that’s enough”.

When asked if she wanted to become “more western”, she replied, “No, no I don’t like, to

learn be Western.” Indeed, as Minh has not travelled abroad before, and her contact with

native speakers is confined to the teachers in the classroom, she has not significantly come

into contact with the target language or culture and therefore, as suggested by Dörnyei

(1994), she seems to have no desire, or harbour attitudes, to ‘be like’ the target group. Thus,

10
if we consider Dörnyei’s (1994) counter argument to integrativeness as a dominant factor, we

can see that Minh is more in line with his theory that, instrumental orientations and classroom

attitudes seem to be more dominant. We see that Minh’s motivation is exam orientated: “My

goal is to do a Masters in Australia”, and her attitude towards the course and teachers are

positive: “To be honest, I think the course here is very good” and, furthermore: “The teachers

here are very amazing.”

Dörnyei and Otto’s (1998) proposed that motivation is dynamic, and we can see that Minh’s

intrinsic and extrinsic motivations (Noel, 2001) change over time, depending on her context.

For instance, when she first started to learn Russian, she was intrinsically motivated. When

asked why she started to learn Russian she replied that, “First, because I love Russian. When

I was at high school my teachers told me a lot about Russian, the people and culture of

Russia, so I loved it and learnt it a lot”. Citing Dörnyei (2005), she saw her ideal L2 self as a

competent Russian speaker. Her motivation for wanting to learn Chinese also follows this

intrinsic motivation: “Chinese. I don’t know but I am love it so I want to learn it.”

Conversely, her motivation for learning English was initially extrinsic, when asked why she

started to learn English she replied, “Because my job. At first I teach Russian and after that

my colleague, my commander required me to change to teach English, so I have to learn

English to meet the requirement”. Furthermore, this may also be a desire to avoid external

punishment. This initial motivation, also reflects Dörnyei’s (2005) notion of the ought-to L2

self. She is also extrinsically motivated by the reward of a higher qualification, to quote

again: “My goal is to do a Masters in Australia”. However, this initial extrinsic, instrumental

motivation towards learning English has, somewhat, changed over time to become more

intrinsic. When asked if her attitude has changed since she first started learning English she

replied, “Yes, it’s changed a lot. Four years ago I thought I only study English for my job, to

11
meet the requirement of my commander, but now I think it help me a lot. Not only in my job

but also in my future. I can help many people for example, my husband or my children to

understand more about the world”.

In addition to the above, Minh seems to be influenced by globalization as a possible

motivational factor. Lamb (2004) argues that, because of globalization and the use of English

as an international resource, there is an international predisposition to be identified as “a

vision of an English speaking, globally-involved but nationally-responsible future self”

(Lamb, 2004, p. 16). Minh soon realized that, “English is very important because I can use it

to communicate with many people in the world.” She not only recognizes the global context

of English, but also highly values herself as a Vietnamese national, as was indicated, when

evaluating her integrative motivation.

Finally, it should be noted that most motivation theories come from studies primarily carried

out in Western cultures; and thus, they may not reflect the unique motivational influences

seen in Asian cultures. In a study by Chen, et al. (2005) we see Minh’s cultural background

reflects and supports their notion of ‘required motivation’ or what has been labelled the

Chinese Imperative. According to Ushioda (2009), it reflects “culturally valued and

internalized motivation to meet societal, parental and educational expectations and

examination requirements” (p.217). This is an embedded socio-cultural motivation influenced

by Confucianist collectivism, as apposed to Western individualism. Although this construct

was originally theorized from studies of Taiwanese students, her similar Confucian based

education, and non-individualistic motivational background lends itself towards this

conclusion. This is far more than just extrinsic motivation, it is a culturally accepted

12
motivation that is required and expected of the learner in her society. This is almost an

unconscious influence that has been socialized into each learner in her culture.

Willingness to communicate (WTC)

Let us first consider Minh’s WTC and how it has dynamically changed over time. When

Minh first arrived on the course, her low WTC seemed to be affected by her introversion as

she consistently refers to herself as “nervous” and “shy” and this seemed to put pressure on

her WTC: “…But at first, to be honest I am very nervous and shy. Sometimes when I want to

speak out my opinion I have to think carefully before speaking”. Similarly, Minh’s low

perceived communicative competence level and her lack of communicative experience, may

have also affected her initial WTC: “The level that I arrived here was very low because I only

studied grammaticals and about the speaking and listening skill I didn’t do it a lot”. In

addition, in line with Young (1999), even as a highly motivated and hard-working learner,

she seemed, at first, to have a higher level of anxiety when it came to communicating. Her

background in learning English was mostly grammar orientated and this was where she felt

more confident: “… in grammar I am more confident than speaking”. Having said this,

during the course, she seemed to move up the time continuum of MacIntyre et al’s. (1998)

pyramid, towards a higher behavioural intention to communicate, resulting in a more

confident use of L2 as communication behaviour. Affecting factors seemed to positively

affect this change and help her converge towards greater L2 use. Her personality became less

introverted as her perceived communicative competence and self-confidence, thus, improved:

“ In the characteristic I think I have changed a lot, I am easier going and more enthusiastic

and more happier and about the English, I think it is more improved”.

13
Furthermore, Minh’s improvement in her WTC, and reduction in anxiety, may also be

attributed to her contextual situation. If we consider the work done by Cao and Philp, (2006)

and Zarrinabadi (2014), together with MacIntyre et al. (1998), we can see situational

influences that may have affected her willingness to engage in communication. In other

words, enduring influences may have been shaped by the situational context of the classroom.

She seemed to be more confident and extrovert in class, compared to her work, and have less

anxiety about giving her opinions: “Maybe in class I feel more comfortable, I feel extrovert.

When I was at my job, what do you think when I do that, it is not comfortable”. This may

well be due to the fact that she felt part of a social group and her intergroup motivation was

high, because she had familiarity with her interlocutors. When asked why she is more

extrovert in class she replied, “Because the men here, they are more friendly because they are

my colleagues and maybe they are my friends…” Indeed, she may well have benefited from a

situation of increasingly positive group dynamics. Levine and Moreland (1990) found that

active participation in conversations, collaborative narration and engagement in self-

disclosure is a possible consequence of being part of a cohesive group. Having said this,

Minh seemed to have a high level of classroom WTC anxiety in relation to making mistakes.

When asked why she has to think carefully before she speaks she replied, “I’m afraid of

making mistakes”. This anxiety, however, seemed to have lessened dependent on the group

size, that is, she prefers communicating in dyads compared to groups: “…when I am speaking

in a pair, I can speak any I want to and after that my partner can correct the mistakes that I

make it”.

A further influence on WTC studied by Cao and Philp, (2006) concerns familiarity of topics.

As Minh’s perceived competence increased and she became more confident in her knowledge

of a topic, her anxiety fell and her WTC seemed to increase. When asked about her

14
experiences when giving presentations in class, she was at first anxious because of her lack of

knowledge: “Yes, you know I’m a teacher. I speak in front of crowds a lot, but when I do the

presentation in English here I’m very nervous, because when I teach my students I prepare it

very carefully and I practice it a lot and, of course the knowledge that I teach the students is

different from when I do presentations, and of course the teacher will test my knowledge; and

so, I am very nervous.” However, in line with WTC as seen as a dynamic concept, it also

changed over the time she was on the course. When asked about the change she has seen in

her presentations from the first to the last she replied, “Yes it has changed a lot. At first I did

the presentation and I was very nervous and shy, but with the last presentation I was more

confident and the content we did is more complex and perfect”.

Finally, WTC can be influenced by the role of the teacher, including, teacher support and

teacher wait time (Zarrinabadi, 2014). When asked if the support of teachers helped her

communicate she indicated that this helped her reduce her anxiety:

“Because I find the teacher always satisfied and glad to help us, so I will believe in them and

maybe it lessen our shy or nervous.” Furthermore, when asked about how teachers helped her

communicate she replied, “Yes they encourage me a lot, because sometimes I am nervous

and shy, so the teachers ask me more questions so I have a chance to communicate”.

According to Zarrinabadi (2014) “motivational strategies can be beneficial factors in

influencing students’ participation in L2 communication in the classroom.” (p.294). With

reference to teacher wait-time and being asked questions, she replied that she “needs some

minutes” to “be sure that it is correct.” When asked if she got this time, she replied: “Yes, it

mean I can speak more clearly and confident.” Again, according to Zarrinabadi (2014)

“Teachers can help these learners by waiting to follow up on their question until the learners

have fully reflected and are ready to respond.” (p. 294).

15
Communicative strategies

During her time on the course, Minh used her strategic competence, and her proficiency in

this, to implement communicative strategies in such ways as to try and be understood, or

achieve certain communicative goals.

Interactional (Tarone, 1980) and psychological perspectives (Færch & Kasper, 1983) are

sometimes difficult to separate. The learner maybe being socially interactive but also making

an individual cognitive decision. That said, I will attempt to separate them in relation to

Minh’s responses. From the interactional perspective (Tarone, 1980) one of the subcategories

of paraphrasing is circumlocution, that is trying to locate a word by using a description of it, a

strategy employed by Minh: “ I try to use another words to try to get it”. She also used

approximation, using a different word to negotiate meaning: “…there are many case I speak

the word but my partner or group not understand the word I said so I have to use the other

word”. Furthermore, if both parties do not know a word she used the transfer technique of

appealing for assistance: “If we both don’t know the word, we can ask the teachers”. Another

transfer strategy she employed was using non-verbal strategies, for instance; mime: “I will

use body language, or take something that I can point the object to help my partner to

understand.” Finally, if she found herself in a position in which she had no knowledge of a

subject, she used a strategy of avoidance and abandonment, or she appealed for assistance: “If

the topic I can’t talk, maybe I will suggest the partner or teachers change the topic or maybe

ask some suggestion from the teachers”.

As stated before, separating the various theories of communication strategies is sometimes

16
difficult, as some of Minh’s behaviour with respect to Tarone’s (1980) interactional

perspective can be explained by using Færch and Kasper’s (1983) psychological one. In

relation to this we can see that Minh used various achievement strategies; she used non-

verbal strategies, such as, mime and gesture; and cooperative strategies, for instance, appeals.

For the latter, she may have made a decision to appeal to someone else or made a cognitive

decision to appeal to herself, as a self-initiated repair. When asked if she often corrects

herself she replied. “Yes I often do it”. From a purely cognitive, psychological perspective

we also saw her, sometimes resorting to code-switching, or translating from L2 to L1: “I will

try to explain in English but if in English we still don’t understand each other I will use

Vietnamese.” Finally, we see that Minh also choose to use some reduction strategies to

achieve her communicative goals. A formal reduction strategy that she used was

simplification of her language if her interlocutor had a problem understanding her: “I will

look at their face, their attitude to realize they understand. Sometime I will use simple words

and sometime I try to use another words…” According to Faerch and Kasper (1983) “A

parallel to this is found with native speakers who, in interacting with learners, may have to

communicate by means of a simplified version of their L1 system, matching the learner’s

receptive resources” (p. 38).

Finally, Minh not only used interactional and psychological strategies, but, also strategies

aligned with the communicative continuity and maintenance perspective (Celce-Murcia et

al.,1995). When faced with the possibility of making errors, Minh played for time by

speaking slowly and thought about her words in order to continue communication: “I always

think carefully before I speak and if I think I make mistake I have to speak slower and to

think about the words that I will speak”.

17
Conclusion

As a discipline of allied linguistics, second language acquisition (SLA) is relatively new.

Since the 1980’s it has been studied as a broader discipline to include not only linguistic

theories, but also sociocultural theories and cognitive linguistics. SLA is now seen as a

complex amalgam of interdependent cognitive and sociocultural influences that are now seen

to be dynamic in nature. One of the results of such a complexity is that, it is becoming

increasingly difficult to apply broad generalized theories to individual learners. Rather than

using aggregates to group people together, “we need to look at the person in context, who are

located in particular cultural and historical contexts” (Ushioda, 2009, p. 216). Furthermore,

there is now a movement away from the established heavily positivist, Western biased

theories, towards understanding SLA in the Eastern context as well.

In relation to the concepts discussed in this paper, namely: motivation, willingness to

communicate and communicative strategies, the analysis of the interview with Minh shows,

not only cognitive and sociocultural influences, but also ones which maybe culturally specific

to her Asian background. Furthermore, these were seen to have changed over time and were

dependent on many situational factors.

There are, however several limitations that apply to this piece of research. Firstly, as with

most language learners, Minh may have had a certain amount of anxiety when having a one-

to-one interview. This may have affected her comprehension of some contextual questions,

and affected her ability to produce long detailed answers. Similarly, her L2 lexical range may

not have always been sufficient to express exactly what she was thinking. In addition to this,

her cultural background of saving face (not offending others), may have led to her giving less

18
critical answers than she might have wanted, as might have been the pressures of her position

in a heavily monitored and hierarchical national army.

Despite the limitations, it is clear that the concepts discussed in this paper are extremely

complex and not fully understood in the world of applied linguistics. It is therefore important

that those involved in second language acquisition, be they researchers, teachers or academic

students, be aware of new emerging theories. Pedagogically, an understanding of motivation,

as dynamic and possibly cultural specific is crucial to developing a clearer understanding of

learners. As can be seen in Minh’s case, her motivational influences indeed changed over

time as she developed as a learner. Similarly, an understanding of the willingness to

communicate is extremely beneficial. This can be greatly enhanced by providing a safe,

positive and patient teaching environment that fosters good group dynamics. Minh was

initially a “shy” and “nervous” student, but as time progressed and favourable situational

factors ensued, she became a lot more confident. Finally, communicative strategies should be

seen as a legitimate part of the learning process, and if need be, be part of the teaching

curriculum. Most of these strategies are probably imported from a learner’s L1, but if some

are required to be taught, or identified, then this can only be beneficial for achieving

communicative goals.

Understanding SLA has grown exponentially over the past few decades, but more research

needs to be done specifically on the situational contexts of the learner. Furthermore, as the

English language increasingly becomes the lingua franca of choice in this globalized world,

an understanding of unique cultural influences on SLA needs to be further addressed, and is

especially pertinent when trying to understand SLA in an Eastern cultural context.

19
 References

Bialystok, E. (1990). Communication strategies: A psychological analysis of second-

language use. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Canale, M. (1983). From communicative competence to communicative language pedagogy.

In J.C. Richards & R.W. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 2–27). Harlow,

England: Longman.

20
Celce-Murcia, M., Dörnyei, Z., & Thurrell, S. (1995). Communicative competence: A

pedagogically motivated model with content specifications. Issues in Applied

Linguistics, 6(2), 5-35.

Chen, J.F., Warden, C.A. and Chang, H.T. (2005). Motivators that do not motivate: The case

of Chinese EFL learners and the influence of culture on motivation. TESOL Quarterly 39(4),

609_633.

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(4), 227-268.

Dörnyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom. The

Modern Language Journal, 78(3), 273-284.

Dörnyei, Z. (2001). Motivation strategies in the language classroom. Ernst Klett Sprachen.

Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second

language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Dörnyei, Z. (in press). On the teachability of communication strategies. TESOL Quarterly.

Dörnyei, Z., & Ottó, I. (1998). Motivation in action: A process model of L2 motivation.

Working Papers in Applied Linguistics (Thames Valley University, London), 47, 173-210.

Færch, C., & Kasper, G. (1983). Strategies in inter-language communication. London, UK:

Longman.

Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1959). Motivational variables in second-language

acquisition. Canadian Journal of Psychology/Revue Canadienne de Psychologie, 13(4), 266.

Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. C. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second language

learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social psychology and second language learning: The role of attitudes

and motivation. London: Edward Arnold.

Lamb, M. (2004). Integrative motivation in a globalizing world. System, 32(1), 3-19.

21
Lin, W. (2011). Communicative strategies in second language acquisition: A study of

Chinese English learners’ attitude and reported frequency of communicative strategies.

Retrieved December 15, 2014, from http://www.diva-

portal.org/smash/get/diva2:429103/FULLTEXT01.pdf

Levine, J. M. & Moreland, R. L. (1990). Progress in small group research. Annual Review of

Psychology, 41(1), 585-634.

Noels, K. (2001a). New orientations in language learning motivation: Towards a model of

intrinsic extrinsic, and integrative orientations and motivations. In Z.

MacIntyre, P.D. (1994). Variables underlying willingness to communicate: A causal analysis.

Communication Research Reports, 11(2): 135-142.

MacIntyre, P., Dörnyei, Z., Clément, R. & Noels, K. (1998). Conceptualising willingness to

communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. The Modern

Language Journal, 82, 545-562.

MacIntyre, P. D., Baker, S. C., Clément, R., & Conrod, S. (2001). Willingness to

communicate, social support, and language-learning orientations of immersion

students. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23(03), 369-388.

MacIntyre, P. D. (2007). Willingness to communicate in a second language: Individual

decision making in a social context. Retrieved December 20, 2014, from http://www-

orgf5.uoc.edu/portal/ca/catedra_multilinguisme/_resources/documents/Barcelona_paper_for_

UOC_Conference.pdf

McCroskey, J. C., & Baer, J. E. (1985). Willingness to communicate: The construct and its

measurement. Retrieved December 15, 2014, from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED265604

McCroskey, J.C. & Richmond, V.P. (1991). Willingness to communicate: A cognitive

view. In M. Booth-Butterfield (Eds.), Communication, cognition, and anxiety (pp. 19–37).

Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

22
Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding second language acquisition. London, UK: Hodder

Education

Tarone, E. (1980). Communication strategies, foreigner talk, and repair in

interlanguage. Language Learning, 30 (2), 417-431.

Tarone, E. (1981). Some thoughts on the notion of communication strategy. TESOL

quarterly, 15(3), 285-295.

Ushioda, E. (2009). A person-in-context relational view of emergent motivation, self and

identity. In Z. Dörnyei, & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, language identity and the L2 self.

Second language acquisition (pp. 215-228). Bristol, U.K.; Buffalo, N.Y.: Multilingual

Matters.

Young, D. J. (1999). Affect in foreign language and second language learning. Boston, MA:

McGraw-Hill.

Zarrinabadi, N. (2014). Communicating in a second language: Investigating the effect of

teacher on learners' willingness to communicate. System, 42, 288-295.

Appendices

Transcribed interview

Motivation

Q. Do you speak any other languages apart from Vietnamese and English?

23
A. Of course, Russian and I know a little bit Korean.

Q. Why did you learn them?

A. First, because I love Russian. When I was at high school my teachers told me a lot about

Russian, the people and culture of Russia, so I loved it and learnt it a lot.

Q. Would you like to learn any other languages? Why?

A. Yes I ‘d like learning China.

Q. Why?

A. Chinese. I don’t know but I am love it so I want to learn it. But I don’t have opportunity to

learn it so I now learn English because it’s my job.

Q. So, when you’re learning Chinese, are you learning it for your job, or because you just

want to learn Chinese?

A. That’s because I love, I want to learn it.

Q. When did you start learning English?

A. I start learning English four years ago.

Q. Can you tell me why you started?

A. Because my job. At first I teach Russian and after that my colleague, my commander

required me to change to teach English, so I have to learn English to meet the requirement.

Q. Did you want to start learning English?

A. Yes because I find that, before I didn’t like learning English but after that I realized that

English is very important because I can use it to communicate with many people in the world.

Q. Can you tell me how you were first taught English, when you first started?

A. You mean the feeling when I…

Q. No, how were you taught? How did the teachers teach you English?

A. The teachers were very good and friendly but at that time, I didn’t like English so maybe I

didn’t concentrate on the language

24
Q. How did they teach you, did they teach your through grammar or through communication?

What was the method?

A. They taught me through grammar not communicate or listening.

Q. So, you’ve been learning English for 4 years. Tell me about your goals now in learning

English.

A. My goal it to do a Masters in Australia.

Q. So, what are your long-term goals now for learning English, for you?

A. I think I will. I’m going to learn after this course, maybe I participate in some more

course, for example, American English, sometime if I have a chance to continue the

Australian English course

Q. What does your family think about you learning English? Are they supportive of you?

A. Yes, my parents not say I stop from learning, they want me to do want I want to.

Q. So, would you like to travel to other countries?

A. Yes of course, I like travelling a lot.

Q. Where would you like to go?

A. Maybe, it’s I can, I want to go to Australia.

Q. Have you been to any other countries?

A. No

Q. So you would like to live outside Vietnam, would you like to live permanently outside of

Vietnam?

A. No

Q. Would you ever give up your Vietnamese citizenship?

A. No

Q. Why not?

25
A. I think, maybe it’s, how to say? Vietnamese citizen I think is very good. I can go outside

Vietnam only for travelling, that’s enough.

Q. So, is your Vietnamese culture very important for you, or would you like to be more

Western?

A. No, no I don’t like, to learn be Western.

Q. What do you think about, what is your attitude to the English language? What do you

think about the English language?

A. English language is very interesting, because it’s a popular language, so if I good at

English, I can understand about many, many cultures in the world through the language.

Q. What would you say your level of English is now?

A. I think the level is now medium.

Q. So, is that intermediate?

A. Yes

Willingness to communicate

Q. Tell me what you think about the language course here, what do you think about the

language course?

A. To be honest, I think the course here is very good, and I’m glad to take part in this course,

because this is the first time I have been the course like this. Before I only took part in the

course, two years but the teachers were Vietnamese people, so I think not good for me for

Vietnamese student to improve their speaking.

Q. Tell me about the teachers here.

A. The teachers here are very amazing, they think about a very large of activities to students

have a chance to improve the English.

26
Q. How do the teachers and students help you help you communicate?

A. Yes they encourage me a lot, because sometimes I am nervous and shy, so the teachers ask

me more questions so I have a chance to communicate. And also the students, sometimes

they don’t understand something, they ask me.

Q. What about students here?

A. I think the students are a lot of them are very hard working but some people are…

Q. What about the atmosphere I you class?

A. The atmosphere is very cozy and vey friendly, to make people help to connect with others.

Q. How does your interest in the topics taught help you wanting to communicate in class?

A. The topics was very interesting, I think for communicate in normal life.

Q. Do you speak English outside the classroom?

A. No. At my home my husband were also studies English but I request him to speak English

with me but he didn’t like because but sometimes we speak English but we don’t understand

each other and sometimes we argue so sometimes he refused.

Q. So you have no opportunity to speak English outside of the class?

A. Yes

Q. How did you feel about speaking in class when you first arrived?

A. When I first arrived I have to concentrate on all the words that teachers speak and I feel, I

have a headache but I get used to and I think it’s normal. But at first, to be honest I am very

nervous and shy. Sometimes when I want to speak out my opinion I have to think carefully

before speaking.

Q. Why do you have to think carefully?

A. I’m afraid of making mistakes.

27
Q. Afraid of making mistakes in English, or…?

A. Yes, of course, in English.

Q. Was this different when speaking in a pair or a group, was the way that you felt different?

A. Yes of course it’s different when I am speaking in a pair, I can speak any I want to and

after that my partner can correct the mistakes that I make it.

Q. Tell me about your first presentation, how did you feel?

A. Yes, you know I’m a teacher. I speak in front of crowds a lot but when I do the

presentation in English here I’m very nervous because when I teach my students I prepare it

very carefully and I practice it a lot and, of course the knowledge that I teach the students is

different from when I do presentations and of course the teacher will test my knowledge and

so I am very nervous.

Q. Think about your first presentation and coming to your last presentation. How have you

changed?

A. Yes it has changed a lot. At first I did the presentation and I was very nervous and shy, but

with the last presentation I was more confident and the content we did is more complex and

perfect.

Q. So how did you become more confident? What happened?

A. I think it’s because I stand in front of people a lot of times, it helped me feel more

confident and a part of this feeling is I practice English a lot so it help me more confident

Q. When you first arrived here can you describe the level of participation in the class?

A. The level that I arrived here was very low because I only studied grammaticals and about

the speaking and listening skill I didn’t do it a lot.

Q. What activities do your feel most confident in?

A. Maybe the activity that do practice in grammar and some about the speaking.

Q. So, you’re confident in speaking and grammar?

28
A. But in grammar I am more confident than speaking.

Q. What do you do if you are talking to someone and communication breaks down, stops?

A. Maybe I will find an opportunity to connect it another way. Maybe I will find an

interesting topic to do it again.

Q. So what if someone doesn’t understand you or you don’t understand them?

A. I will try to explain in English but if in English we still don’t understand each other I will

use Vietnamese

Q. What else do you do?

A. I will use body language, or take something that I can point the object to help my partner

to understand.

Q. Tell me, what do you do if you make mistakes?

A. If I make a mistake I will try to correct it, maybe I find the grammar in books or maybe I

can ask the teacher, or ask my classmate

Q. Tell me about the support you get from your teachers and the students

A. The teachers always willing to help us to improve my lessons and they always suggest that

we do some activity to get more knowledge in English.

Q. Does that make you more confident in communication?

A. Because I find the teacher always satisfied and glad to help us, so I will believe in them

and maybe it lessen our shy or nervous.

Q. Do you think you are given enough time to speak in class? If you are asked a question, are

you given enough time to answer?

A. To answer the question sometimes it takes some minutes or more.

Q. Why does it take some minutes or more?

A. Because I always want to arrange to sure that it is correct when you speak out.

29
Q. Do you get this time?

A. Yes, it mean I can speak more clearly and confident.

Q. How are you different in class in giving your opinions, compared to being at home or at

work?

A. Maybe in class I feel more comfortable, I feel extrovert. When I was at my job, what do

you think when I do that, it is not comfortable.

Q. Why are you an extrovert here?

A. Because the men here, they are more friendly because they are my colleagues and maybe

they are my friends and at work the people are my commander, maybe they try to find my

mistakes and maybe they complain to me.

Q. So, how do you think you have changed since you first came here? In your personality and

in English.

A. In the characteristic I think I have changed a lot, I am easier going and more enthusiastic

and more happier and about using English, I think it is more improved.

Q. What do you think is the key to your success in learning English?

A. The key, in my opinion, I have to work hard and practice English a lot, it can get better.

Q. Do you have a positive attitude to learning English now?

A. Yes, I think in the future I want to learn more about English and take part in some more

course in English.

Q. So has that attitude changed since you first started learning English?

A. Yes, it’s changed a lot. Four years ago I thought I only study English for my job, to meet

the requirement of my commander, but now I think it help me a lot. Not only in my job but

also in my future. I can help many people for example, my husband or my children to

understand more about the world.

30
Communication strategies

Q. When you talking to someone, what do you do to make sure you are understood?

A. I will look at their face, their attitude to realize they understand. Sometime I will use

simple words and sometime I try to use another words. I’m sure I know many words but if

they don’t understand I can use other words.

Q. If you don’t know a word do you use another similar word that you think might help, even

if you no it is not exactly correct?

A. Yes, of course, many times we have to do this because there are many case I speak the

word but my partner or group not understand the word I said so I have to use the other word.

Q. How do you work with other students if you both don’t know a word?

A. If we both don’t know the word, we can ask the teachers or look at the dictionary together

or I try to use another words to try to get it.

Q. Do you sometimes correct yourself when you speak?

A. Yes I often do it.

Q. If you think you are going to make mistakes when you speak to other people, what do you

do?

A. I always think care fully before I speak and if I think I make mistake I have to speak

slower and to think about the words that I will speak.

Q. What do you do if you realize you simply cannot communicate about a topic?

A. This question, very difficult. If the topic I can’t talk, maybe I will suggest the partner or

teachers change the topic or maybe ask some suggestion from the teachers.

Thank you, that is the end.

31
32