L2 Motivation and Multilingual Identities

Abstract

By tradition, L2 motivation research has a monolingual bias – the motivational systems of a learner's different languages conceptualized as separate entities rather than as cognitively interconnected. At a time when multilingualism has become a new world order (Douglas Fir Group, ) and where there is evidence of powerful identity experiences connected to speaking several languages (Pavlenko, ) this is unfortunate. In alignment with the multilingual and dynamic turns in SLA (de Bot, ; May, ), and adopting a complexity thought modeling approach (Larsen–Freeman & Cameron, ), this article explores multilingual learners’ L2 motivation. It is suggested that the motivational systems of a multilingual learner's different languages can be understood as constituting a higher‐level multilingual motivational self system that is part of an ecology of interconnected and interpenetrating systems. This system contains multilingual self guides, one of which is the ideal multilingual self. Drawing on construal‐level theory (Trope & Liberman, ), the manner and effects of mental representations of an ideal multilingual self are assessed. Finally, it is suggested that motivation deriving from a broader identity that encompasses but, in important ways, transcends a multilingual person's language‐specific identities has a central role to play in multilingual education.

Addressing Linguistic Diversity in the Language Classroom in a Resource‐Oriented Way: An Intervention Study With Primary School Children

“…Although much research has been conducted on the motivational force of the ideal L2 self for English in recent years, little is known about whether and how the concept can be made applicable to the understanding of the motivation to learn languages other than English (Dörnyei & Al‐Hoorie, ). Traditionally, motivational research has focused on monolingual learners who engaged only with one other language (either an L2 or a foreign language), which does not adequately reflect the situation in many learning contexts (Henry, ) and has induced a problematic monolingual bias in traditional motivational research in language education (see also Henry, ). In addition, motivational studies have focused primarily on learning English, and other languages have been less investigated (Boo, Dörnyei, & Ryan, ).…”

“…Third, dream journeys can help students conjure up the image of an ideal self speaking another language, which can be a powerful motivator (see Dörnyei, ). It can be assumed that the same holds true with regard to imagining speaking various languages (e.g., Henry, ).…”

Teachers’ and Students’ Second Language Motivational Self System in English‐Medium Instruction: A Qualitative Approach

“…In this article we intend to reflect on student and teacher identity in EMI settings, because teachers and researchers need to understand how learners’ (i.e., students’ as well as their own) identities as L2 users are engaged in class (Norton, ) and which other domains they perceive as connected to EMI from a holistic view in order to gain a deeper insight into their self‐beliefs (Henry, ; Mercer, ). For example, the native versus nonnative speaker debate has a significant influence on EMI stakeholders’ identity and ideal selves (Lasagabaster, Doiz, & Sierra, ) and will also be tackled in our analysis.…”

The ideal multilingual self: validity, influences on motivation, and role in a multilingual education

“…L2 motivation research has a longstanding monolingual bias. Although in Gardner's (1985) model of L2 motivation the integrative motive contains a component measuring a general 'interest in foreign languages', and Dörnyei has argued that the ideal L2 self -the centerpiece of his L2 Motivational Self System model -is bolstered when learners have a 'broader cosmopolitan disposition' (Dörnyei & Al-Hoorie, 2017, p. 460), both models have an underlying monolingual logic (Henry, 2017). Empirically, motivation research has had a disproportionate focus on English, much work carried out in Asian settings, such as China and Japan, that are characterized by study authors as monolingual (Boo, Dörnyei & Ryan, 2015;Ushioda, 2017).…”