Theory of Intrinsic Motivation and "Fossilization" of Error in Language Learning

[Ɔkyeame Kwame]

Theory of Intrinsic Motivation and "Fossilization" of Error in Language Learning


Theory of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation in Interlanguage Development and Fossilization of Error

by Obadele Kambon

Factors in Interlanguage Development
Interlanguage (Selinker 1972) as conceived of by Selinker can be understood in terms of language learner language or “transitional competence” which exists on a continuum between the learner’s “native language” and the target language (Corder 1967). Interlanguage is generally viewed as a constantly changing phenomenon in which the learner attempts to constantly approximate the system of the target language through a process that has been termed progressive restructuring along the restructuring continuum (Corder 1978, p. 75). Corder (1978) further suggests that various types of continua may be used to express the nature of interlanguage development. Another conception of this development is the idea of a recreational or developmental continuum in which the learner’s interlanguage develops increasingly greater complexity of forms and structures as the language is acquired. Although this process of approximation and development does ideally occur in the learner’s interlanguage development, there does exist the possibility of fossilization within interlanguage as posited by Selinker (1972). In reference to fossilization he states that, “certain items, rules, or subsystems that are not fully congruent with the target language can become a permanent part of the learner’s interlanguage, resistant to further instruction or explanation” (Selinker 1974, pp 118-119). Obviously this phenomenon can inhibit overall proficiency in the target language.
There are several key factors relating to learner interlanguage that may contribute to or detract from its development including, but not limited to, affective domain, input, motivation, etc. Primary among these considerations, as is the central focus of this paper, is the role of motivation in language development along the interlanguage continuum. I posit that the motivation of the individual learner is key in determining the extent to which the learner will overcome obstacles to language learning and acquisition. The individual learner’s self-determined goals, sense of self-confidence, self-determined learning strategies and expectations are to be understood, within this framework, as intrinsic motivational factors in that they intrinsic to the learner. More clearly, this may be expressed as the learner’s own attitude towards learning, towards the target language, towards perception of one’s own ability, etc. The extent to which the learning context (including teacher, materials, peers, etc.) contributes to the development of language-learner interlanguage will be understood in terms of extrinsic motivation.







Intrinsic Motivation
This paper will address the nature of motivation as a twofold phenomenon: Intrinsic and Extrinsic. The two, however, should not be understood as mutually exclusive phenomena as there are significant points of overlap in which the two influence each other. Krashen (1982) advances, in his discussion of “The Attitude Hypothesis” that:
People with certain personalities and certain motivations perform better in second language acquisition, and also that certain situations are more conducive to second language acquisition. It comes as no surprise to us today to discover that low-anxiety situations are more conducive to language acquisition than high-anxiety situations, and that people with high self-confidence and self-esteem acquire faster than those without these characteristics (Krashen 1982 p. 24).

Thus one can ascertain that both intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors are key in the development of the language-learner’s interlanguage. Factors such as self-esteem and self-confidence found in people with “certain personalities and certain motivations” are intrinsic motivational factors in that they find their origin within the individual learner. The effect of a low-anxiety learning situation that is conducive to interlanguage development is to be understood as an extrinsic motivational factor in that it is derived from the learning context in which the learner finds him or herself.
According to Dulay, Burt, and Krashen’s analysis (1982), it was concluded that, “the positive affective makeup of the learner (and learning situation) is the most important factor in allowing for approximation to any second language norm or set of norms.” Therefore, it can be deduced that the degree to which the intrinsic motivation of the learner and the extrinsic motivation provided by the learning context are conducive to interlanguage development will determine the degree to which the learner will experience substantive improvement of linguistic accuracy and proficiency in the L2. Indeed, in consideration of various predictors of successful language acquisition it has been found, “attitudinal factors related to subconscious learning are much better predictors of a student’s eventual success in gaining command of a second language” (1982: 72). Thus, variability in learner interlanguage in the L2 context may be accounted for by understanding the role of attitudinal and motivational factors. Similarly, if we are to understand the nature of this variability in the classroom, we must take into account the fundamental role of attitude and motivation. As affirmed by Schulz, “We need to keep in mind the importance of attitudes and motivation in the L2 acquisition process, which might play a similar role in classroom foreign language learning” (Schulz, 1991 p. 18).
It has been advanced through Schumann’s acculturation model that as social and psychological distance between the learner and L2 group diminish, the likelihood of approximation to second language standards of grammatical usage increases (Van Patten 1985, p 58; Schumann 1984). According to Schulz, this “Positive psychological distance is established if learners encounter neither language nor culture shock nor culture stress and if they bring high motivation and ego permeability to the task” [emphasis mine] (Schulz 1991).
Positive psychological distance in relation to the L2 has been attributed to two essential factors: integrative or instrumental motivation (Gardner and Lambert 1959, 1972). For our purposes these distinctions, while useful in terms of different types of intrinsic motivation, will both be understood as essentially aspects of intrinsic motivation (purposes for language learning determined by the learner), the central factor in interlanguage development. However, according to Gardner, it is anticipated that “Those who are integratively motivated...are probably more successful at an advanced language level than those who are not, mainly because psychological integration sustains interest in learning the language longer” (Gardner 1985, Domyei 1990). According to Walton, “Integrative motivation, the desire to become part of the second language social group, is a much better predictor of success in second language acquisition than is instrumental motivation, the desire to learn language for a specific purpose or purposes” (Walton 1992, p. 5). However, other studies have yielded different findings on the issue as it has been asserted that, “Given certain sociopolitical circumstances or even economic considerations, instrumental motivation may be just as powerful a component in L2 acquisition as integrative motivation” (Lukmani 1972, Gardner and MacIntyre 1991).
In Wen’s (1997) groundbreaking study on Motivation in Less Commonly Taught Languages, it was concluded that “Students who were highly motivated to learn the language for certain purposes had better expectations of learning strategies and efforts. Further they were willing to make efforts and to use effective strategies in their learning (1997).” This correlation between the goals of learners and interlanguage development needs to be emphasized. Learners with high intrinsic motivation to learn the language for certain purposes and to achieve certain goals were found to be far more successful developers of their interlanguage. These (intrinsic) purposes and goals such as wanting/choosing to reconnect with one’s heritage and understand the speakers of the language community were found to be the central determiners of successful development of interlanguage in the early stages of language learning and as the impetus to begin learning. Further, intrinsic motivational factors such as high expectations of individual effort in learning the language as well as high motivation to develop useful strategies to learn the language were found to be important predictors of interlanguage development. These self-determined strategies in addition to goals and purposes were found to be the most significant predictors of student achievement at the intermediate level (Wen 1997).
Although Wen (1997) differentiates between intrinsic motivation (defined as culture oriented motivation) and expectations of learning efforts and strategies, this differentiation is rejected, for the purposes of this paper, in the sense that each of these factors originate from within and are determined by the student. Wen makes this distinction for the purpose of contrasting motivating factors in initial enrollment in Chinese and motivation factors in the successful continuation of study. However my concept of intrinsic (factors determined by the learner i.e. Attitude, goals, beliefs, etc.) vs. Extrinsic motivation, provided by the learning context, is made rather to account for the role of both the learner and the learning context as factors in motivating the learner to develop successfully along the interlanguage continuum. Thus intrinsic motivation includes the learner’s own previously established goals and sense of self-efficacy or “one’s judgment of how well one can execute courses of action required to deal with prospective situations” (Oxford and Shearin, 1994). This includes both goals established by the student, beliefs in relation to one’s own ability and the learning task, as well as self-determined learning strategies and efforts. Based upon this research, it is difficult to reject the notion that underlying intrinsic student motivation determines the extent to which “prospective situations” and learning contexts will hinder or help the language learning process and the development of a proficient command of the target language. However, we will return to this point below.


Extrinsic Motivation
The concept of extrinsic motivation refers to the extent to which the learning environment (i.e. The teacher, materials, curriculum, learning tasks etc.) contributes to or detracts from intrinsic motivation of the learner to acquire a language. This is based on the notion that “affective factors determine the effort a student makes in and out of the classroom to obtain input and to use the language for communicative purposes” (Schulz, 1991 p. 18). It has been suggested by Dulay and Burt that:
A filter, an affective filter, can keep input from getting in. We used to speak of a mental block, a block against language learning. Filter is another word for mental block. You have to let the input in. There can’t be a filter keeping the input out, which is what we think the effect of attitude motivation is. With acquirers who do not have self-confidence, where the situation is tense, where (in Stevick’s terms) they are on the defensive, the filter goes up. Even when the input is there, even when it is understood, they do not acquire with full efficiency (Krashen 1982 p. 25). [Emphasis mine]

The primary consideration in our discussion of this filter is the nature of the learning context/environment. What Krashen’s filter hypothesis says about pedagogy is essentially that “the more we do to lower the filter, i.e., the more our classes are low-anxiety, the better off our students will be.”
So input is necessary but not sufficient. What you also need is a low filter. You need comprehensible input (+1) a low filter, a low-anxiety situation where people can focus on the message and not on the form.

The newer methods, the more successful ones, are the ones that encourage a low filter. They provide a relaxed classroom where the student is not on the defensive. So good methods concentrate generally on getting comprehensible input in and/or getting the filter down. When we do both we’re going to have real success (Krashen 1982, p. 25).

Whereas the impetus, in this context is placed on the language instructor to provide the learner with a low-anxiety environment, the issue of affective domain can also be used by the student as a defense strategy in language learning to avoid addressing intrinsic issues of self-confidence and ineffective strategies for language learning or communication. When this is the case, it usually leads to blame of situation/teacher and frustration when in actuality the most effective change for the purpose of development of interlanguage needs to take place within the learner.
However one must not downplay the role that the learning context plays in interlanguage development. The relation between a positive learning context, i.e. One that is conducive to interlanguage development, and the progressive restructuring of the student’s interlanguage is clear. However, the extent to which extrinsic motivational factors have an affect upon the affective domain and the developing interlanguage of the student, positively or negatively, can be attributed to the strength of intrinsic motivational factors such as beliefs of self-confidence, goals, purposes, expectations and learning strategies.
Although I recognize the primary motivational factor is the factor of intrinsic motivation, this is not to say that extrinsic motivational factors are not significant. Indeed these extrinsic factors have a significant effect on the development of learner interlanguage. In taking a dynamic view of the relation between intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation, it is clear that the learning context may have an effect upon the level of self-confidence, goals and the standards of achievement accepted by the learner.
Examples of how the learning context influences the standards and goals expected by the learner can be found in the phenomena of “classroom language” and pidginization. This can be the case when the learning context does not contribute to the lessening of social and psychological distance in relation to the target language. According to Van Patten (1985), in the development of interlanguage, the learner “may pidginize if social and psychological distance are great. In other words, these learners desire to acquire more [of the L2 or foreign language] than they already have is minimal” (Van Patten 1985 p. 59). I posit that this factor may be of particular significance in the situation of African languages where students have a great opportunity to use the “native language” as a crutch because of pidginization (English, French, etc.) in the L2 community. This may particularly be the case when the learning context accommodates this pidginization as reflected through “teacher talk,” learning materials, “language-learner language,” accommodation to language switch, etc. These factors, in providing the student with a “cognate crutch” may unwittingly be contributing to, in the best-case scenario, stabilization and in the worst case, fossilization of error in the interlanguage of the learner. The extent to which the input received by the student in the classroom and through learning materials reinforces the student’s “comfort zone” within the L1 may play a large factor in fossilization of error and hindering the development of the student’s interlanguage. This is particularly the case when extrinsic motivational factors do not present it as a necessity to leave this comfort zone due to pidginization and the large number of “borrowed cognates” of the student’s “native language” in the L2 country. This inevitably leads to the development of L1 as a crutch in the student’s interlanguage. Thus I argue that not only does the social and psychological distance in relation to the target language play a part in the development of interlanguage, the social and psychological distance of the student in relation to the L1 and the extent to which the student is willing to sacrifice this comfort zone is also of central importance.
According to Schulz (1991) “The speakers of a pidgin language fossilize at a relatively early stage of interlanguage development because, it is believed, they receive insufficient input and lack the motivation or need to perfect their language skills since their limited communication needs can be satisfactorily fulfilled without grammatical accuracy...In another vein, so called pidginized speech may indeed turn out to be the target norm for such informal contact situations” (Schulz, 1991 p. 19-20) [Emphasis mine]. This may especially be the case in classroom learning situations and may result in an underdeveloped interlanguage, especially in cases in which excessive Strategies of Second Language Communication are allowed in the learning situation. Tarone (1978) concluded that,
Students may find themselves at a loss for words due to their imperfect knowledge of the target language. Errors can result from heavy communication demands made on their interlanguage, demands that force them to use strategies like approximation, word coinage, circumlocution, translation, language switch, appeals for assistance, and mime, or else abandon their message altogether or choose to avoid the topic (Tarone 1978; 1980, p 429.)

However, when the learning situation does not motivate the student to develop past these Strategies of Second Language Communication it may lead to at best stabilized and at worst, fossilized error. This is a learning situation wherein the “cognate crutch” leads the learner to perceive that the infusion of the L1 in the incorporation of words, structure, and even language switch is permissible. This is the case when extrinsic motivational factors such as the teacher, learning materials, curriculum, classroom language, etc, lower the standards and expectations of the student to the point in which they feel that it is not obligatory to leave the L1 comfort zone of familiar words, structure, etc. When this is the case, there may be a “classroom dialect” developed as opposed to a strong proficiency in the target language (Plann 1976). As revealed in Plann’s (1976) research, it was found that “a classroom dialect had been created which while similar to the L2, did not contain all its grammatical concordance. According to Plann’s observations, the children aspired to the classroom norm set up by their peers rather than the norm evidenced in the speech of their teachers.” This effect is increased to an even greater degree when the initial standards set by extrinsic motivational factors are low in attempt to make the “Truly Foreign Language” less foreign.
This is truly a dilemma in the African language learning situation when the dominant perspective among learners may be that it is not necessary to learn the actual target language because whenever necessary, the L1 lexicon may be substituted. This perception, particularly when reinforced by learning materials and the instructor creates a kind of “trickle down effect,” wherein the assumption of the lack of necessity to leave the L1 comfort zone in the area of lexicon carries over into areas of grammar, structure, culture, etc. This may be compounded when the learner believes that while they may be competent in certain areas of the target language code, they will never be authentic bearers of it or the pragmatic system, for they simply are not native speakers of the language (Walton 1992, p. 5). This belief leads to a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy whereas in actuality the question should be “to what level will they be authentic bearers of the target language code and pragmatic system?” The answer to this question is determined by intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.
The role of the extrinsic motivation is to raise the standards to which the learner aspires. When this is not done, it leads to a terminal profile in learner interlanguage. This terminal profile wherein fossilization of speech occurs can be attributed to extrinsic motivational factors such as accommodationist learning materials leaving the learner securely based in the L1 comfort zone as well as what has been termed as “teacher talk,” and subsequently classroom dialect (Omaggio-Hadley 2001). However one should remember that acquiescence to these lowered norms and standards can be attributed to lack of intrinsic motivation.

Error in Interlanguage and Motivation
There are several known sources of error in learner interlanguage, each of which will be addressed in this section based upon whether the source of error may be defined as intrinsic or extrinsic. These sources of error based on Selinker’s (1972) treatment on interlanguage are identified as follows:
Language transfer, or interference from the mother tongue, transfer-of training, or errors due to the nature of the language-learning materials and approaches themselves, strategies of second language learning, or errors due to the learner’s own approach to the material to be learned, strategies of second language communication, or errors due to the way in which the learner attempts to communicate with native speakers in natural language-use situations, and overgeneralization of target language rules, or errors due to the way in which the learner restructures and reorganizes linguistic material (Omaggio Hadley 259-262).

According to Corder, “Interlanguage, particularly in its earliest developmental stages, frequently manifests various characteristics of the learner’s native language. However not all learners show consistent evidence of transfer from the native language and certainly not to the same degree across learners” (Corder 1978, p. 75). This variability of “interference” when fossilized subsequent to target language input may be due to affective relation to native language and lack of motivation to leave its comfort zone or as conveyed in Van Patten (1985) and Plann (1976) a lack of motivation to approximate target language norms. I posit that in the context of the African language as an L2 or foreign language, the degree to which the learner feels an affective relation to the “native language” and the degree to which the student gives an effort to leave the “comfort zone” of the L1 is largely determinant in successful acquisition of interlanguage proficiency.
In Yoruba 373 and 374, error due to Language Transfer was rampant. An example of this was the lack of assimilating the unfamiliar split verb construction. Often when splitting occurred such as in “ki-tó” (before), this was continually substituted for the single word “síwájú” which fit more into the pattern of English despite corrective input. This was also the case wherein students would asking questions with a high tone at the end, which is a feature of English and were similarly resistant to error correction. Kellerman and Sharwood Smith (1986) “suggest that the term ‘cross-linguistic influence’ might be a useful way to characterize the phenomenon of transfer, as well as avoidance, language loss, and rate of learning (Gass and Selinker 1994, p. 89).” According to my motivational hypothesis this phenomenon comes from the lack of intrinsic (usually due to affective relation to the L1) and extrinsic (due to lowering of standards) motivation. Cross-linguistic influence as manifested through the strategy of avoidance was often evident as students would consistently only assimilate cognates with English, code switch during the class, appeal for assistance in English, and speak only English before and after the class period. One of the students admitted to refusing to ask questions out of not wanting to slow down peers so instead sat and pretended to understand the material when it was not understood. This was clear particularly when what was said was a question or command, which called attention to this avoidance mechanism. This is at once a question of affective domain (extrinsic) as well as acquiescence and acceptance of not learning (intrinsic) (Knop 1986, p. 15). Moreover, affective domain in this context provided an effective scapegoat when the actual issues were with strategies of learning and communication.
In Krashen’s (1982) Hypothesis 8: The L1 hypothesis, the first (or second as the case may be) language is used as a substitute utterance initiator in situations where L2 acquired competence is not available. This is said to occur in classrooms, which require performance without competence when speaking is initiated too early as in L2 learning. This demand of performance without competence is an issue of extrinsic motivational factors (Krashen 1982, p 25-26). A situation is therefore created in which the monitor is overused as the learner is constantly thinking of rules causing the learner to produce “Pathological language output” rife with hesitancy and bringing about a disability in following and participating in conversations (Krashen 1982, p. 27). This is the essence of Krashen’s Hypothesis 9: Individual Variation in Monitor Use. Krashen asserts that he is “sure that at universities you see more overusers than anything else” (Krashen 1982, p. 27). This was certainly the case in Yoruba 373 and 374. However my observation of cross-linguistic influence is more so attributed to the dominant affective psychological distance to the L1 and L2. One student commented that she did not feel it was possible for a learner to truly be proficient in the language while not being a “native speaker” of the language. This view makes the target language a “truly foreign language,” in a way other than the conventional sense of the term. In actuality this is a self-fulfilling prophecy wherein the learner acquiesces to failure from the inception of the learning process. Scott Joplin once said, “If you think you’re beaten, you are. If you say you can’t, you won’t.” Whereas the role of the extrinsic motivational factors of the learning context is to provide standards of learning and a conducive learning context, when the underlying assumption is failure, this becomes an issue of intrinsic motivation.
Transfer of Training, within the intrinsic-extrinsic framework of understanding should be understood primarily in terms of an extrinsic motivational phenomenon. It is largely through the teacher, learning materials, and peers that standards of communication are established. Early in the course of Yoruba 373, the dominant learner perspective came to be that because of the prevalence of pidginization in Nigeria, it was not necessary to learn actual Yoruba words as one could get by with English cognates. Actual Yoruba words for words as simple as “room” and “bed” were seen as a distraction to learning pidginized Yoruba. This perspective resulted in the normalization of pidginization and “trickled down” into other areas leading to the normalization of language switch, uncorrectable transferred structures, etc. Because the underlying motivation to decrease the psychological distance between the learner and Yoruba was little to non-existent as decreasing the distance in relation to the target language was seen as unnecessary. According to Richards, “Errors that can be attributed to cross linguistic influence can be found at the level of pronunciation, morphology, syntax, vocabulary, or meaning (Richards 1974).” In the African language-learning context of Yoruba 373, this predominance of the English derived “cognate crutch” ended up as a hindrance of the development of learner interlanguage in all other areas. Although the L1 may function as an utterance initiator when competence in the target language is not yet developed, the acquiescence to this L1 comfort zone is essentially an intrinsic phenomenon.
Overgeneralization of Target Language Material, while an issue throughout the course, was hardly the biggest hindrance to interlanguage development. It did, however, contribute to in certain cases of stabilization and fossilization in the development of the target language. In this case “tí”, which translates to “that” and “pé” which also translates to “that” (although each is used in a particular context), because the target language was largely seen as being devoid of meaning outside of the context of translation to the L1, were often interchanged with impunity. This was also the case for “láti” translating to “from,” “in order to” etc. And “fún” translating to “for” or “to give” wherein “fún” was generalized to take the place of both words in all contexts because “for” is used more in Nigerian Pidgin English. Although this was a source of error, because it was mainly attributable to errors in form rather than underlying attitudes was simply a case of stabilization rather than fossilization as there is now some development in these areas.
Another source of error that predominated in Yoruba was the use of Strategies of Second Language Communication. According to Tarone (1978),
Students may find themselves at a loss for words due to their imperfect knowledge of the target language. Errors can result from heavy communication demands made on their interlanguage, demands that force them to use strategies like approximation, word coinage, circumlocution, translation, language switch, appeals for assistance, and mime, or else abandon their message altogether or choose to avoid the topic (Tarone 1978; 1980, p 429.)

In Yoruba 374, translation, language switch, appeals for assistance (usually in the L1), mime and abandonment of message and avoiding of certain topics were largely attributable to a lack of intrinsic motivation to acquire the target language and lack of confidence to do so. This lack of motivation was most clear as one learner often when reaching a situation wherein interlanguage broke down, consistently waited for the teacher to finish the utterance, as the goal of the learner was not to learn how to produce the utterance, but simply to get that instant’s meaning across. This practice was analogous to wanting a fish rather that wanting to learn how to fish. These pathological strategies of second language communication led to at least stabilization and at most fossilization, and at the end of the second semester of study, students who are no psychologically closer to the target language or further from the L1 comfort zone than they were when they began the course. This fossilization as conceived by Selinker (1974) is used “to refer to the permanent retention of non-native interlanguage forms in the learners’ developing linguistic system.” Selinker and Lamendella (1979) make a distinction between fossilization and stabilization; in the latter case, non-native items, structures, or subsystems in the interlanguage grammar are not permanent, but may eventually ‘destabilize’ or change toward the target-language norm.” In a best-case scenario, hitches in interlanguage development in Yoruba 374 may simply be the effects of stabilization. However, without a conscientious reworking of intrinsically determined factors of attitude, motivation, perception of ability, persistence, creation of opportunity to learn etc, a change in environment will likely not yield drastically different results.
I hold to the idea that a self-conscious language learner assessing various areas of intrinsic motivation presents the best way to circumvent these possible pitfalls and sources of error. As for extrinsic motivation, the greatest effort that the instructor could do to make the language context more conducive for the language learner is to set standards of learning early in the learning process that can motivate the learner to leave the L1 comfort zone in order to develop an L2/target language comfort zone. Ultimately the responsibility for learning and acquisition falls on the shoulders of the learner as a conscientious intrinsically motivated student aware of the conduciveness and/or the pathological nature of certain attitudes toward the language, toward one’s perception of one’s ability, one’s expectations of learning strategies, etc.
I acknowledge that the actual nature of the error, as to whether it is a manifestation of stabilization or fossilization will be best demonstrated as students go abroad and obtain more opportunities for corrective input. However given the uniqueness of the actual pidginized African situation, this is not necessarily the case given the already non-conducive perception of “native-like norms” in relation to the Yoruba language. The individual choice of the level to which interlanguage will develop is ultimately a question of self-knowledge. This should particularly be acknowledged if we as language instructors are to inspire the learner to acquire and learn life skills in addition to proficiency in interlanguage development. This theory, far from viewing the learner as a blank slate, views the learner and what the learner brings to language learning as central to determining how far he or she will go and grow along the interlanguage continuum.















Bibliography



Corder, S.P. “The Significance of Learners’ Errors.” International Review of Applied Linguistics 5, iv (1967): 161-70.

Corder, S.P. “Language-Learner Language.” In J.C. Richards, ed., Understanding Second and Foreign Language Learning: Issues and Approaches. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1978.

Domyei, Z. “Conceptualizing Motivation in Foreign-Language Learning.” Language Learning 40, (1990): 45-78.

Dulay, H. M. Burt, and S. Krashen. Language Two. New York: Oxford, 1982.

Ellis, Rod. Understanding Second Language Acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985.

Gardner, R. And W. Lambert. Motivational Variables in Second Language Acquisition. Canadian Journal of Psychology 13, (1959): 266-72.

Gardner, R. And W. Lambert. Attitudes and Motivation in Second Language Learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1972.

Gardner, R. And P. MacIntyre. “An Instrumental Motivation in Language Studies: Who Says It Isn’t Effective?” Studies in Second Language Acquisition 13, (1991): 57-72.

Gass, Susan M. And Larry Selinker. Second Language Acquisition: An Introductory Course. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1994.

Knop, Constance. “Recent Trends in Foreign Language Instruction.” Guide to Curriculum Planning in Foreign Languages. Ed. J. Grover. Madison: Department of Public Instruction, 1986, pp. 30-42.

Krashen, Stephen. “Theory Versus Practice in Language Training.” Innovative Approaches to Language Teaching. Ed. R. Blair. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1982, pp. 15-30.

Lukmani, Y. Motivation to Learn and Language Proficiency. Language Learning 28, (1972): 309-32.

Omaggio-Hadley, Alice. “Developing Oral Proficiency.” Teaching Language in Context, 3rd Edition. Boston: Heinle and Heinle, 2001, pp. 230-279.

Oxford, R. And J. Shearin. “Language Learning Motivation: Expanding the Theoretical Framework.” The Modern Language Journal 78: 1994, 12-28.

Plann, S. The Spanish Immersion Program: Towards Native-like Proficiency or a Classroom Dialect? Unpublished M.A. Thesis, UCLA, 1976.

Richards, Jack C. “Error Analysis and Second Language Strategies.” J. H. Schumann and N. Stenson, eds., New Frontiers in Second Language Learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1974, 32-53.

Schulz, Renate. “Bridging the Gap Between Teaching and Learning: A Critical Look at Foreign Textbooks.” Challenges for the 1990s in College Foreign Language Programs. Ed. Sally Magnan. Boston: Heinle and Heinle, 1991.

Schumann, J. The Acculturation Model: The Evidence. Paper presented at the annual Linguistics Symposium. University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, 1984.

Selinker, Larry. “Interlanguage.” International Review of Applied Linguistics 10, iii (1972): 209-31.

Selinker, Larry. “Interlanguage.” In J. Schumann and N Stenson, eds., New Frontiers in Second Language Learning. Rowley, MA: Newbury House, 1974.

Selinker, Larry and John T. Lamendella. “The Role of Extrinsic Feedback in Interlanguage Fossilization.” Language Learning 29 (1979): 363-75.

Tarone, E. Systematicity and Attention in Interlanguage. Language Learning 32: 1982, 69-84.

Van Patten, William. “The ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines: Implications for Grammatical Accuracy in the Classroom?” Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 8, 1986, pp. 56-67.

Walton. Expanding the Visions of Language Education: Enter the Less Commonly Taught Languages. National Foreign Language Center Papers. 1992.

Wen, Xiaohong. Motivation and Language Learning with Students of Chinese. Foreign Language Annals. Summer, 1997.