A Critical Analysis of Learning and Teaching Goals in Gardner's Theory of Attitudes and Motivation

Title
A Critical Analysis of Learning and Teaching Goals in Gardner's Theory of Attitudes and Motivation

Authors
M. Samaie, R. Sahragard and R. Parhizkar

Biodata:
Mahmood Samaie is an assistant professor in English Language Teaching. He obtained his PhD degree from Shiraz University in 2006. He is affiliated with Ilam University, Ilam, Iran. His main interests are in the area of Critical and mainstream Discourse Analysis, Sociolinguistics, and Pragmatics and their interface with the issues in English Language Teaching.

Rahman Sahragard is an assistant professor in Applied Linguistics. He obtained his PhD degree from Leicester University, England in 2001. He is now affiliated with the Department of Foreign Languages and Linguistics at Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran. He teaches Sociolinguistics, Discourse Analysis, Pragmatics, Research Methods, and Materials Development at postgraduate level. He has two forthcoming books on research methods and language teaching. He has written several articles and presented papers at both national and international conferences.

Reza Parhizgar is an assistant professor in TEFL. He obtained his BA in English Literature from Shiraz University, his MA in TEFL from the American University of Beirut and his PhD in TEFL from Allameh University in Tehran. He has been affiliated with Shiraz University since 1980. His areas of research are in Critical and mainstream Discourse Analysis, Sociolinguistics and pragmatics. He is also actively involved in translation from English into Persian and vice versa. He has published more than a dozen articles, three of which have appeared in the Asian EFL Journal.







Abstract
This is a report of a critical analysis of one aspect of Gardner's theory of attitudes and motivation. The analysis examines a few pieces of discourse produced by Gardner and his associates on the topic of learning and teaching goals in that theory. Looked at from the perspective of critical discourse analysis, the theory is found to be problematic at least as far as the discourses on its learning and teaching goals are concerned. More specifically, the discourses on the topic assume a great deal of ideological slanting in the sense that they typically involve the superiority of the second language community and the things associated with it but the inferiority of the first language community and the things associated with it. This ideology, whose main axis is the second or foreign language group's values, culture, etc., is termed here as 'xenocentrism'.

1. Introduction
A central concern of scholars interested in second/foreign language acquisition (S/FLA) has always been the factors most significantly contributing to success in S/FLA. Scholars in various camps of the discipline have laid emphasis on different situational or individual characteristics as the most important factor contributing to the process. One group of researchers led by R. C. Gardner, a Canadian psychologist, has chosen to underscore the role played by attitudes and motivation. Their speculations and studies for about the past half century on the issue, however, have received a number of criticisms as well as some support. Their evidence has not remained secure against counterevidence, nor their arguments against counterarguments. The present study will look at the products of this line of research from a new angle that differs from those of other studies which have so far reviewed the theory. More specifically, inspired by the views in critical discourse analysis (CDA) this study recognises a major source of controversies not in the manner in which facts speak but rather in the way in which we choose to speak on the part of facts that is the way in which facts are represented through our discursive practices.
Literature Review


A review of the literature would provide us with arguments or empirical evidence indicating in one way or another presence of some bias in the theory. The bias has almost always been reflected in the writings by Gardner and associates themselves as well as the critics. This is reflected, for instance, in Gardner and Lambert (1972) who thank "several colleagues who have forced us to think through the theoretical implications of our work and broaden our often biased interpretations: John B. Carroll, William W. Lambert, Dalbir Bindra, Lee Cronbach, Richard Tucker, and Susan Ervin-Tripp" (p. vi). The bias is attributed to a number of aspects of the work done by Gardner and his associates. One major source of criticism (Au, 1988; Crooks & Schmidt, 1991) concerns their viewing second language learning (LL2) as a social-psychological rather than an educational phenomenon. This perspective that is reflected in various models of the theory to date has normally resulted in the formulation of the process with a narrow set of affective individual factors to the exclusion of other contributors.

Thus, the theory is frequently attacked for its recognition of the superiority of integrative orientation over instrumental orientation (Lukmani, 1972). Another major source of criticism concerns the underestimation of the contribution of factors that are often held to moderate the relationship between integrative factors and achievement in LL2. This is usually taken to reflect an overgeneralization which in turn tends to assume a bias towards particular states. An instance of such criticism is related to the bias in the setting of the studies. As most of the studies supporting the theory have been conducted in Canada, the results derived from these studies are often charged with Canadian bias particularly in the sense that they make no distinction between second and foreign language acquisition (Dornyei, 1990; Oller, 1978). Critics would have it that integrative motivation might be more relevant for the former rather than the latter context. Other factors which are frequently proposed to moderate the relationship are the learner's age and experience with the language. Thus, unlike the position held by Gardner and associates, Crooks and Schmidt (1991), for instance, argue that the relationships between integrative motivation and achievement in a second language differ as a function of such factors.




In line with the critics of Gardner's theory but unlike Gardner and associates' claim, these researchers feel that the theory involves a considerable amount of bias and further that the bias is conveyed by the discourses advocating it. Unlike the traditional critical views, however, the CDA perspective looks for ideologically loaded bias in the sense of being in favour of one group and against another. In other words, according to CDA, any bias would have ideological functioning. From the same perspective, any discourse that has ideological bias would constitute a problem and a legitimate object for analysis and research.

Rationale
This article is a report of a critical analysis carried out on one aspect of the theory, namely learning and teaching goals. Building on the assumption that learning any foreign language inevitably involves aspects of at least two communities, the L1 group and the L2 group, this analysis aims to show how critically they are represented in Gardner and associates' discourses on those goals. In line with theoretical underpinnings of CDA, the types of representation that suggest a bias in favour of the L2 group and/or against the L1 group will be identified as critical and will therefore delimit the scope of this analysis.

The rationale behind the choice of this theory in general for critical analysis here is twofold. First, the choice has been made because in SLA, it is known to be the most influential theory of language learning motivation, or rather "too influential" (Dornyei, 1994, p. 273). The second reason has been the extreme bias observed underlying the representations and formulations of the theory. However, as far as the available literature shows, the biased implications of the theory have not as yet been systematically investigated from a CDA standpoint. Nor do the recurrent revisions of the theory exhibit any substantial change in the nature of the theory as (Au, 1988). In addition to the general rationale, the reason for the focus in this analysis on the 'goals' has to do with the critical role they play in the whole theory particularly in the 'central' concept of motivation that is defined as "goal-directed behavior" (Gardner & Masgoret, 2003, p. 128).

2. Method
The data used here are based on the materials produced by Gardner and his associates throughout the life of the theory since 1959. Since this study is topic-bound and only some of the publications directly raise the topic of 'goals', the selected data are purposefully sampled. As the result of this sampling, the analysis primarily draws on the earlier texts published by Gardner's team although considerable attention will be initially paid to the most recent study, a meta-analysis, by Masgoret and Gardner (2003) to analyze some of its problems, particularly opacities. To save space, only those parts of the selected sources that are related to the 'goals' are reproduced here for analysis. These passages are referred to as 'subtexts' here. These subtexts are numbered, and the sentences in them are identified with letters of the alphabet put inside square brackets to facilitate referral.

The data will be analyzed within the framework of CDA. The approach to CDA that primarily inspires this analysis is the one known as critical linguistics and more fully developed in Fowler and Kress (1979) and Hodge and Kress (1993). However, an attempt will be made here to draw less on the technical jargon in the field to facilitate access to the material.

3. Analysis
The discussion of learning and teaching goals, or ends, within the context of the Gardner's theory will be undertaken here from two major vantage points. These are (a) the learner's goals, and (b) the goals of the teacher and the educational program.

3.1. The learner's goals
The discussion here on the ends or goals of the learner is intimately linked with the concepts of motivation and orientation. The relationship of the learner's goals to motivation is reflected in the very definition of motivation as is proposed by Masgoret and Gardner (2003):

Subtext 1: [a] Motivation refers to goal-directed behavior (cf. Heckhausen, 1991), and when one is attempting to measure motivation, attention can be directed to a number of features of the individual. [b] The motivated individual expends effort, is persistent and attentive to the task at hand, has goals, desires, and aspirations, enjoys the activity, experiences reinforcement from success and disappointment from failure, makes attributions concerning success and/or failure, is aroused, and makes use of strategies to aid in achieving goals. [c] That is, the motivated individual exhibits many behaviors, feelings, cognitions, etc., that the individual who is unmotivated does not. (p. 128)

This treatment of goal(s) through the definition of motivation raises several questions about the goal(s) of LL2 which will be addressed throughout this section. Among these include the nature of goal, the types of goals, and the relative status of goals (i.e., their relative contribution to success in LL2).

Concerning the nature of 'goal', the above discourse on the definition of motivation as 'goal-directed behavior' serves to make the key concept of goal backgrounded or vague. This state results from both the grammatical and semantic aspects of the phrase.

Grammatically, it is created by both the function and the distribution of the word 'goal' in the above phrase while not being made explicit elsewhere in the text. In terms of grammatical function, the term 'goal' simply constitutes a dependent component of a compound word rather than an independent lexical category. However, taken together, the compound functions as a non-head word within the phrase. Both these functional statuses contribute to the backgroundedness of 'goal'. What is more, the compounded construction serves to conceal both the countability and definiteness of the word 'goal'. The construction thus does not reveal the number of goals that might be involved in the behavior in question; nor does it signal the definiteness of goal(s) via articles or other determinants. More importantly, the compound structure has allowed the use of 'goal' without any modifier in a way which seems unequivocal. One might contrast this structure with an alternative relatively more expanded construction to see how quickly the equivocation meets the eye (e.g., "Motivation refers to behavior which is directed to a goal."). Faced with such a wording, the reader is more likely to wonder to what category of goals (e.g., linguistic or non-linguistic) this goal is intended to refer. Regarding the distribution, the term 'goal' is withheld from the final lexical category position which normally attracts more attention as does the unmarked position of new information in the distribution of old and new information.

Semantically, the above definition of motivation does not help to adequately clarify the concept of motivation in general and that of 'goal' in particular. The problem has to do with the fact that the definition is over-restricted in one respect, its class, and over-generalized in another, its distinctive feature. That is, it is over-restricted on the grounds that motivation is defined in this phrase in purely behavioral terms, which is not consistent even with the elaborations and operationalizations which are immediately brought up in the same text. What is more relevant to the present discussion concerns the 'goal-directed' phrase which serves as the distinctive feature component of the definition. The point is that the phrase is too general to perform the function expected of it. The over general concept of 'goal' can refer to both linguistic and/or non-linguistic goals. Accordingly, the behavior so modified is applicable to almost all non-linguistic as well as linguistic behaviors.

Of crucial importance in this representation of the concept of 'goal' is the obscurity created concerning the relative status of goals. The point is that the theory accords distinctive values and statuses to the so-called goals at different stages of the classification of the concept but the different discursive strategies employed have increasingly resulted in the above obscurity. At a primary stage, the theory discriminates between linguistic and non-linguistic goals. At the next stage, it discriminates between the subcategories in either of the above types of goals. What makes the discriminations critical is not so much the mere differences as the fact that at each level the hierarchical order and value judgments attached to them display a conspicuous bias in favor of one side, the L2 group, and against the other side, the L1 group. The bias that is addressed elsewhere in this article is obscured in this subtext since the categories and nature of these goals are not made clear here. These aspects of the discourses on the theory particularly as presented in the meta-analysis will be raised again and further explained below.

The status quo mentioned above concerning the definition of motivation largely results from the application of multiple transformations to an underlying structure which is hardly recoverable. Put briefly, the underlying structure could be based on, for example, any one of the following roughly formulated statements which only focus on the variations of the noun phrase 'goal'.

Motivation refers to a behavior which is directed to a goal
Motivation refers to a behavior which is directed to some goals.
Motivation refers to a behavior which is directed to a specific goal.
Motivation refers to a behavior which is directed to specific goals.
The opacity of the phrase 'goal-directed behavior' goes beyond the above ambiguity and similarly spreads to other significant elements such as tense, modality, and agencies which are suppressed through multiple transformations (e.g., passivization, deletion, and movement transformations) applied to the underlying structure of the phrase. We can therefore see that in spite of the fact that the topic of 'goals' is held to be a defining feature of motivation and that motivation has a 'central' role in the theory in the sense that out of the three classes of factors in the theory only motivation is held to be directly responsible for achievement, no explicit attempt is made in the most recent forty-one-page meta-analysis to specify what is meant by 'goals'.

As far as the related literature shows, an entry point which can help to shed light on the nature of the learner's goal(s) and other relevant issues such as the types and relative statuses of the goals and the role of motivational component which are left opaque in the meta-analysis is the notion of orientations.

In Masgoret and Gardner (2003) the following account is given for the concept of orientations:

Subtext 2:
[a] two scales of the AMTB refer specifically to classes of reasons for studying a second language. [b] The Integrative Orientation scale presents reasons for learning a second language that emphasize the notion of identification with the community. [c] The Instrumental Orientation scale presents practical reasons for learning the language, without implying any interest in getting closer socially to the language community. [d] Orientations do not necessarily reflect motivation.
[e] Noels and Clement (1989), for example, demonstrated that some orientations are associated with motivation and some are not. [f] That is, one might profess an integrative orientation in language study but still may or may not be motivated to learn the language.
[g] Similarly, one might profess an instrumental orientation and either be motivated or not to learn the language. [h] In the socio-educational model of second language acquisition, the factor most directly linked to achievement is motivation. [i] Thus, it is conceivable that an individual who is instrumentally oriented could be more motivated than one who is integratively oriented and because of the differences in motivation may experience more success at learning the language. (p. 129)

There are certain meaningful aspects to orientation as treated here and elsewhere in the same text which require closer inspection.

An immediate issue of major concern for this section of the present analysis is the relationship between the goals and orientations in LL2. As the above passage on orientations and other discussions in the meta-analysis show – including that on the concept of motivation which is introduced as the major affective factor in LL2 and defined as 'goal-directed behavior', no reference is made to such a relationship. A review of the earlier accounts of the theory shows that by the learner's goals Gardner and associates essentially mean orientations. For example, Gardner and Lambert (1959) write:

Subtext 3: [a] It is our contention then that achievement in a second language is dependent upon essentially the same type of motivation that is apparently necessary for the child to learn his first language. [b] We argue that an individual acquiring a second language adopts certain behavior patterns which are characteristic of another cultural group and that his attitudes towards that group will at least partly determine his success in learning the new language. [c] Our use of attitude as a motivational construct presupposes an intention on the part of students to learn the language with various aims in mind, and to pursue these aims with various degrees of drive strength. [d] Our test battery consequently included indices of motivational intensity and orientation. [e] The "Orientation Index" classifies purposes in one of two ways: "integrative," where the aim in language study is to learn more about the language group, or to meet more and different people; "instrumental," where the reasons reflect the more utilitarian value of linguistic achievement. [f] The "Motivational Intensity Scale" measures the amount of effort and enthusiasm students show in their attempt to acquire the language. (p. 192; see also Gardner & Lambert, 1972; Gardner & Smythe, 1975).

Another opaque feature of the discourse has to do with the representation of different forms of orientations. In their discussions on the concept of orientation, Gardner and associates used to acknowledge the existence of miscellaneous forms of orientations (see, for example, Gardner & Lambert, 1972; Gardner & Smyth, 1975). Of course, among the "many possible forms the student's orientation could take" (Gardner & Lambert, 1972, p. 132), they would restrict their attention either to both integrative and instrumental orientations or just to the integrative one which was always conferred a superior status. In the present exposition of the theory, however, Masgoret and Gardner (2003) suppress any reference to those many possible forms of orientations. And this suppression takes place in spite of the over-general sub-title, 'orientations to language study' (ibid. p.129), and chosen for the relevant discussion quoted here (subtext 2). Following the more recent trend, the authors simply focus on what Gardner and associates usually regard to be the major orientations. The opening sentence of subtext 2 would seem to be revealing enough for the purpose of the analysis of this issue; the rest of the material just focuses on the integrative and instrumental orientations.

A further complicated issue that is closely associated with the goal–orientation relationship is the link between orientations and motivation. One claim made in the meta-analysis concerns Gardner and colleagues' frequently making "a clear distinction between motivation and orientation … over the years." (Masgoret and Gardner, 2003, p. 130) Charging a number of researchers whom they recognize as "influential writers" (ibid. p.130), with confusing orientation and motivation at least ever since 1972, Masgoret and Gardner (2003, p. 130) go on to propose the following.

Subtext 4: The socio-educational model of second language acquisition makes a very clear distinction between motivation and orientation, and over the years Gardner and colleagues have referred to this distinction many times (Gardner, 1973 [originally published in 1968], 1985a; Gardner & Macintyre, 1991; Gardner & Smythe, 1975).

Unfortunately, a review of the relevant earlier studies by Gardner and associates is not unlikely to give one an opposite impression. As evidence, reference can be made to Gardner and Lambert (1972, p. 15) where integrative and instrumental orientations are referred to as "two forms of motivation". Similarly, in Gardner and Smythe (1975), integrative orientation is considered to be an index of motivation - while it is a subcategory of integrativeness in the meta-analysis.

A second suggestion made in the meta-analysis (subtext 2: [d]) about the relation between orientations and motivation is that "orientations do not necessarily reflect motivation". On the face of it, this conservative proposition might be interpreted as a radical modification of two of the most hotly-debated and correlated aspects of the theory, namely the superiority of integrative orientation over other types of orientations particularly the instrumental one and its indispensable role in determining motivation and achievement in LL2. Nevertheless, closer analysis would indicate that this sentence and the others which follow it in the same paragraph only add to the ambiguities in the theory's stance on the above issues. These two issues are in turn addressed below.

The superiority of integrative orientation over other types of orientations particularly the instrumental one should be seen from two angles, in terms of its relation to achievement and to motivation. The initial discourses on the theory refused to encourage such a dichotomous vision and generally stressed the superiority in question. This differential role assignment used to be simply justified on the basis of 'no reason' but of a 'feeling' that "the integratively oriented learner might be better motivated because the nature of his goals is more likely to sustain the long–term effort needed to master a second–language" (Gardner & Lambert, 1972, p.16; see also Gardner & Smyth, 1975; Gardner et al, 1976a).

The present formulations in the meta-analysis, on the other hand, would foster the dual perspective and would seem to deny the supremacy of integrative orientation in either case, in relation to motivation or to achievement. The former case is explained in sub-text 2: [d-i]. As was already mentioned, however, the explanations are far from transparent. First, the opening sentence (sentence [d]) is ambiguous at best. The generic noun "orientations" leaves the sentence open to several interpretations such as the following.
(a) It is possible that all orientations do not reflect motivation.
(b) No individual orientation necessarily reflects motivation.
(c) Some orientations always reflect motivation while others do not.
(d) Some orientations always reflect motivation while others never do so.

Of course, the details provided in subtext 2:[e] tend to rule out all the interpretations except the last one [d]. This interpretation is signalled in this sentence (subtext 2:[e]) by the tense and the modality of the verb phrase "are associated" which serves to draw a rigid line dividing the two as yet unspecified groups of orientations without allowing for any functional variation for either group as a result of, say, contextual or individual factors. Yet, the above apparently only possible interpretation with its rigid dichotomy turns out to be false as soon as one reads the third sentence (sentence [f]). In other words, this sentence which is meant, through 'that is', to be an explication of the preceding sentence is indeed in direct conflict with it because according to this third sentence an individual orientation is subject to variation in terms of its motivational function across individual learners. Whereas the sentences of the paragraph to this point are in dire need of disambiguation, transparency, consistency and further development, one is surprised to read the next sentence [h] that is totally irrelevant to the main idea of the paragraph that must be concerned with the relation between orientations and motivation.

Aside from the above ambiguities, the paragraph (subtext 2: [d] to [i]) tends to give way to the questionable assumption that the theory prefers neither orientation to the other in terms of its potential relation to motivation. This assumption is primarily activated by sentences [f] to [g] and [i] taken together as they apparently hypothesize comparable potential functions for the two orientations.

Such an assumption that accords comparable roles to the two orientations and seems to be valid by itself, however, fails to receive adequate support even from the discursive practices within the same sentences. The invalidity of the assumption within the context of the theory is partly due to the fact that the comparison is made within a restricted scope, the scope of possible individual cases rather than that of a significant number of learners. In other words, it simply suggests possible exceptions rather than a general rule or a reasonably widespread propensity. Such a restricted scope is inferred from the tendency in the text to marginalize the agents concerned by representing them as 'one' or 'an individual' rather than, say, 'some', or 'some learners'. The invalidity of the comparability assumption from the real point of view of the theory is further inferred from the very low probability assigned to the above underestimated cases. This assignment is signalled by the modality expressions, employed in the same sentences (subtext 2: [f] to [g], and [i]), such as 'may', 'might', is'conceivable', and 'could'.

In addition to the discursive practices, what further give force to the above interpretations as to the invalidity of the comparability assumption are the present as well as past formulations of the theory. For instance, apart from the fact that Gardner and associates used to somewhat clearly underscore the supremacy of integrative orientation both through their explanations and through their often exclusive inclusion of this orientation in the theoretical framework, in the current formulations including the meta-analysis, in spite of their attempt to avoid being charged with bias toward a specific orientation, they nonetheless only include integrative orientation in their model and suppress others including instrumental orientation therein. A further piece of evidence in support of the above interpretations comes from the overemphasis in the theory on the notion of integration. This is textualized by the terms "integrative orientation", "integrativeness" and "integrative motivation" that are used in identifying the components of the theory (Masgoret & Gardner, 2003).

The current discourse on the theory thus represents a further instance of complex ideology. On the one hand, to avoid a long–standing criticism against the theory, it attempts to allow for comparable effects of the two orientations on motivation, which would be traditionally regarded as counterintuitive (e.g., Gardner & Lambert, 1972, pp.15-16). On the other hand, the discourse tends to suppress such an assumption by attributing the situations described to single individuals rather than certain groups of learners and by subjecting the occurrence of those restricted situations to very weak possibilities. The ideological complexity is further signalled by the exclusion of all orientations but the integrative one from the current model.

Similar arguments can be raised in regard to the relationship between orientations and achievement. On this, Masgoret and Gardner (2003) claim the following.

Subtext 5: Despite comments to the contrary (see Crooks & Schmidt, 1991), nothing in the model claims that an integrative orientation will be more highly related to achievement in the second language than an instrumental orientation. (p.130)

Here again, despite the above claim, the mere exclusive inclusion of the integrative orientation in the model is indicative of its privileged status in the model.

The superordinate concept of integrative motive has more forcefully suggested that kind of role assignment and its justification. The conclusion derived from such a formulation amounts to the recognition of LL2 simply as a means to an end which tends to be exclusively prescribed as one of group membership. The earlier discourses on the theory appear again to better articulate the theory's stance on various aspects of the learner's goal particularly through the concept of integrative motive or integrative motivation. For example, extending Mowrer's (1950) notion of identification in first language learning (LL1) to LL2, Gardner and Lambert (1972) propose the following. Please note that it deemed necessary to include a large body of the original text here. This text is important since it addresses the origin and the main aspects of the theory most of which have survived to date.

Subtext 6: [a] Our initial speculations grew out of the theoretical explanations of first-language development, particularly those of Mowrer (1950). [b] Mowrer suggests that the parents' activities and, indeed, their mere presence are reinforcing or rewarding because such activities are regularly associated in the infant's mind with satisfaction of basic biological and social needs. [c] Since this reinforcement is generally accompanied by verbalization on the part of the parents, the language sounds themselves can acquire "secondary" or derived reinforcing properties. [d] When the infant is alone and utters a sound sequence like one in the language of the parents, this act, through auditory feedback, is in itself reinforcing for him. [e] The tendency of the child to imitate the parents in this way Mowrer calls "identification." [f] Such a scheme may not explain the whole of first-language acquisition, since much of language learning takes place through subtle forms of perceptual learning where the role of reinforcement is much less obvious (see Hebb, Lambert, and Tucker, 1971) or through direct forms of reinforcement as when the parent withhold a reward until the child makes the appropriate language response. [g] Mowrer argues, however, that a good deal of instrumental learning of various forms—including perceptual learning itself—is based on an emotionally toned dependence between infant and parent.
[h] We reasoned that some process like identification, extended to a whole enthnolinguistic community and coupled with an inquisitiveness and sincere interest in the other group, must underlie the long-term motivation needed to master a second language. [i] Other motivations such as a need for achievement or a fear of failure seem appropriate for short-term goals such as passing a language course, but seem insufficient to account for the persistence needed in the laborious and time-consuming task of developing real competence in a new language. [j] The notion of identification as used in the second-language learning situation differs in degree and substance from Mowrer's use of the term in his explanation of first-language learning. [k] As a consequence, we introduced a new term, "an integrative motive." [l] For Mowrer, identification derives from the reduction or satisfaction of basic biological needs while in most second-language learning situations more interpersonal or social motives are obviously brought into play. [m] (Their social needs are referred to technically as secondary or derived drives by Miller and Dollard, 1941). [n] In both the first- and second-language cases, however, language is a means to an end rather than an end itself, in the sense that languages are typically learned in the process of becoming a member of a particular group, and the sustaining motivation appears to be one of group membership, not of language acquisition per se. [o] We will, therefore, reserve the term identification for the first-language condition, and when it is a question of second-language learning refer to a willingness to become a member of another ethnolinguistic group as an integrative motive. [p] This distinction is useful since it emphasizes the desire for integration (common in both situations) but distinguishes it from identification and the antecedent conditions which promote such a motive.
[q] Numerous observations suggested to us that some integrative-like process plays an important role in second-language acquisition. [r] In an early study of bilingualism, for example, Lambert (1955) discussed the case of an English-speaking American graduate student who when measured with psychological tests proved to be clearly dominant in his use of French over English. [s] Interviews indicated that this particular student had a distinctive pattern of attitudes; he was disillusioned with the American scene, reacted against anything that was not European, and read only French newspapers and other reading material. [t] He claimed that he had recently been to France and was returning as soon as possible, apparently to stay. [u] This rather dramatic case typifies an extreme form of what we mean by an integrative motivation. [v] Less striking but similar cases are reported by Whyte and Holmberg (1956). [w] They found that among numbers of Americans working in Latin America those who believed that they shared physical attributes with Latin Americans and who wanted to interact with them as social equals learned the local language and became much more fluent than workers who could not or would not make this identification. [x] Finally, Nida (1956) presented a case history that illustrates the influence of a factor like identification in second-language achievement, but in this instance one sees how an overemotional desire to be integrated in one linguistic group can deter the acquisition of another group's language. [y] Nida describes a missionary who had extreme difficulty in acquiring a usable command of a foreign language despite good teachers, a great deal of effort, and a high level of intelligence. [z1] Under study, it turned out that this man's parents had immigrated to the United States, and as a boy he had dissociated himself from his foreign [sic.] cultural background and insisted on speaking English exclusively at home. [z2] His desire for integration into the American culture was so intense that he denied knowing the parental language. [z3] Nida suggests that this person was unable to overcome his intense emotional reaction to a "foreign" non-English language. [z4] The notion of an integrative motive implies that success in learning a second language depends on a particular orientation on the part of the learner, reflecting a willingness or a desire to be like representative members of the "other" language community, and to become associated, at least vicariously, with that other community. [z5] Hence the acquisition of a new language involves much more than mere acquisition of a new set of verbal habits. [z6] The language student must be willing to adopt appropriate features of behavior which characterize members of another linguistic community. [z7] The words, grammatical patterns, mode of pronunciation, and the sounds themselves should have a significance for the successful learner that goes beyond simple translations or equivalences given by a teacher, a grammar book, or a dictionary. [z8] Instead these come to be regarded as distinctive aspects of the behavior of the other cultural group. [z9] The student's attitudinal orientation toward that group, we argue, will influence his progress and efficiency in adopting these novel and strange linguistic habits into his own repertoire. [z10] We felt one could estimate or measure the value orientation of a prospective student of a foreign language by means of structured interviews or carefully planned questionnaires. [z11] If a student when questioned about his interest in foreign-language study and the potential value it held for him assigned high priority to learning more about the other ethnolinguistic group as a people (be it the ancient Greeks or Spanish-speaking immigrants from Cuba), or to meeting and becoming acquainted with the members of that community, this we would take as a reflection of an integrative orientation. [z12] Hence when the rationale for studying a foreign language reflected an inquisitiveness and genuine interest in the people comprising a cultural group, being it an interest in an ancient people or a contemporary one, or a desire to meet with and possibly associate with that group, we take it to be a symptom of an integrative outlook. [z13] Of course, an intelligent manipulator of people would pass this filter, too, since he would also realize the need know about and associate with the other group in order to exploit them. [z14] No attention was given to this manipulative form of motivation in the studies presented here, but the fascinating work of Christie and Geis (1970) on Machiavellianism provides researchers with a valuable means of measuring manipulative personality dispositions. [z15] Future research on foreign language learning could well profit from a consideration of this form of motivation.
[z16] The contrasting form of motivation we did give attention to is referred to as an instrumental orientation toward the language- learning task, one characterized by a desire to gain social recognition or economic advantages through knowledge of a foreign language. [z17] The perspective in this instance is more self-oriented in the sense that a person prepares to learn a new code in order to derive benefits of a non-interpersonal sort. [z18] This notion is a simple extension of Skinner's (1953) and Parson's (1951) uses of the concept "instrumental." [z19] The contrast we have drawn, then, has at one extreme an integratively oriented learner who in considering the learning task is oriented principally towards representatives of a novel and interesting ethnolinguistic community, people with whom he would like to develop personal ties. [z20] At the other extreme the instrumentally oriented language learner is interested mainly in using the cultural group and their language as an instrument of personal satisfaction, with few signs of an interest in the other people per se. [z21] Our index of these two forms of motivation for language learning is, at this stage, crude, since in categorizing students, we pay attention only to the order of priority—instrumental reasons given priority over integrative ones, or the converse—labeling each student with one or another form of orientation….
[z22] There is another form of orientation to language learning that could come into play, but again we have only superficially touched on it in our analyses. [z23] This is the resentment members of one linguistic group (usually the minority group) can have toward another group whose language or dialect they are forced to learn through social or economical pressure. [z24] We will see the influence of this orientation on certain American-French students studying through English in the United States and among certain Filipino students who also study through English. [z25] Comprehensive modes of analyzing this outlook could of course be developed and the topic certainly merits special consideration in research. [z26] When behavioural scientists talk about motivation they usually make a distinction between the goal toward which concerted activity is directed and the effort or persistence demonstrated in the process of striving for the goal. [z27] Dunkel (1948) suggested that this dichotomy was useful for the case of second-language learning, where the attention should be given both to the objectives or purposes of second-language acquisition and the intensity of motivation shown by the language learner. [z28] In our work, we see the major motivational goal—from the point of view of the learner—to be a general orientation or outlook toward the learning process which can take either an integrative or an instrumental form. [z29] There is no reason to expect to find a relationship between one form or the other of motivational orientation and motivational intensity, since the instrumentally oriented learner could be as intense or more so than the integratively oriented student. [z30] Still, we felt that the integratively oriented learner might be better motivated because the nature of his goals is more likely to sustain the long-term effort needed to master a second language, especially when one starts only at the high school age level. [z31] This becomes one of the working hypotheses in our studies and we will return to it at several points in the chapters to follow. (pp. 12-16)

This formulation of the means and ends of LL2 by drawing on certain hypothetical notions concerning LL1 involves certain critical assumptions that merit closer analysis. Of crucial importance is the alternative concept to identification, integrative motive, and the role assigned to it. The choice of verbal processes in general and of modality and tense expressions in particular is quite meaningful in this respect. Take, for instance, sentence [h] wherein the authors use the strong modal verb "must" to indicate the probability of the motivation in question. Like other modal auxilaries, must is vague about temporality. The vagueness involved serves to interpret the whole statement as a general principle which applies to any time. Similarly, the claim made here is not context-bound. In like manner, as can also be understood from the agentless passive verb of "needed", the general law is implicitly extended to any learner who seeks to develop "real competence" in a new language. What is more, the general necessity expressed by must is claimed to be based on an appeal to certain "reasoning" [h]. However, upon reading the following discussions concerning orientations (sentences [z29] and [z30]), one finds that the universality expressed by must had been based on "no reason" [z29] but personal "feelings" [z30].

The overemphasis on integrative motive and integrative orientation particularly through linking them to LL1 conditions gives them and their elements an unwarranted superior status. Likening LL2 learners to infants learning their L1 and conferring a parental status to the L2 community, vis-à-vis L2 learners, trigger the assumption that the learners are not mature enough to decide their own way. In other words, the learners belonging to the L1 group (hereafter G1) must, according to the theory, consider the members of the L2 group (hereafter G2) as their parents and 'imitate' them as infants imitate their parents. Furthermore, the scope of imitation in this formulation goes far beyond the linguistic issues and is extended to almost all spheres of the learner's life. The corollary assumed here would be that like parents, G2 also must have a dominant status in almost all spheres of the learner's life if s/he wants to master the L2. Such value judgments are indeed frequently passed overtly or covertly in favour of G2 both in the earlier discourses on the theory as well as the more recent ones.

In addition to the dominant power conferred to the G2, a further bias often tends to represent this group as a homogeneous entity. The homogeneity bias is covertly realized by expressions such as "a whole ethnolinguistic community" and "the other group" [h]. Such representations of the target community overlook the groups of individuals within that community with distinct subcultures and identities.

An important aspect of such discourse concerns the way the two concepts of identification in LL1 and integrative motive in LL2 are classified in terms of their nature. The comparison made between the two concepts appears to be problematic from several respects. For example, the comparability of the two concepts is not sufficiently clarified. On the contrary, they are compared through inconsistent phrases such as [h] and [q], "differs in degree and substance" [j], and elsewhere (Gardner & Lambert, 1959, p. 192) "essentially the same". Moreover, the two concepts cannot be cross-compared because they do not share the same class, one of them, identification, pointing to some imitation process [e] although elsewhere [p] it is referred to as a motive, but the other, integrative motive, to the motivation underlying such a process [o].
What is the most significant about the above discourse is the way ends and means of language learning are formulated. Sentence [n], for example, is quite noticeable in this respect. On the face of it, the sentence formally serves to persuade the reader of the distinction between the means and the end, which is emphasized twice in the same sentence. The distinction that is offered as new information, however, has been far less controversial than certain other ideas which are taken for granted as given information. One is that the means and end are equally defined for and applied to both LL1 and LL2, though with apparently different motives (i.e., biological motives in the case of LL1 but social motives in the case of LL2). However, while in sentence [l] the motivation for identification in LL1 is said to be biological, it is redefined in sentence [n] as "one of group membership" that is actually a social rather than biological motive. Thus, apart from the similarity ascribed to the two processes in LL1 and LL2, the two situations are claimed to involve a single process variously worded as "becoming a member of a particular group" [n], "group membership" [n], and "integration" [p]. The questionable assumption made here is that the process in both situations represents a single identity, namely an end, which in that context means a goal - also called an orientation [z28]. However, while it may be conceivable to refer to the above process in LL2 as an 'end' meaning 'goal', it is meaningless to identify the similar process in the case of infants learning their first language with that label with the same meaning because according to the theory the nature of motives which bring about identification in the case of infants is basically biological [l]. As a consequence, perhaps it would be more appropriate to view 'identification' in LL1 as a side effect of the process or as an 'end' in another sense of the word, namely 'result' or 'outcome', and "the satisfaction of basic biological needs" as the 'goal'.

Moreover, one is surprised to see how in the attempt made in sentence [n] to clarify the distinction between the means and the end, the end in LL2, as well as in LL1, is instantiated in a manner as if it could have almost only one form, "becoming a member of a particular group". The modality expressions employed in the same sentence reflect the authors' judgment about the truthfulness of this view across time and learners. For instance, 'are' serves to represent certain 'speculations' and 'theoretical explanations' as statements of known facts. Similarly, 'typically' activates the assumption that the goal of "becoming a member of a particular group" is a dominant and natural one that requires no evidence, while in the following paragraph the authors feel compelled to provide certain observations as evidence. (A similar naturalizing strategy is used through the phrase 'are obviously' in sentence [l].) This mode of classification of ends suggests a bias in favor of one group, G2, whose membership is 'known' to be 'typically' sought by the learner through identifying with it, and against another group, G1, whose membership is assumed to be gradually abandoned by the learner at least in 'extreme' cases as the authors' observations suggest.

Other attempts made by the authors to classify the ends are problematic too. In one attempt [i], the authors set out to classify the goals into short-term and long-term goals. In sentence [i], in contrast to short-term goals such as passing a language course, "developing real competence in a new language" is assumed to be a long-term goal. The writers, however, do not make it clear what they exactly mean by 'real competence' for the development of which a process like identification is needed. A search through other writings by Gardner and associates will make it clear that by the 'real competence' they simply mean one that "facilitates communication with the G2". This definition is underscored in several places including in Gardner et al. (1976), Gardner et al. (1978), and more recently the following by Gardner (nd) himself;

Subtext 7: [a] Last year I gave a talk at the AAAL in which I suggested that, in the context of the notion of integrative motivation, learning a language meant the development of near native-like facility, and that this took time. [b] In fact, in a Psychological Review article on expertise in 1993, Ericsson, Krampe & Tesch-Romer claimed that it took about 10 years to develop the language skills of the typical adult. [c] Whether or not one considers this a meaningful goal of language learning, it is important to define just what one means about language learning before considering the variables that might influence success in achieving that goal. [d] Recall that Markwardt (1948) felt that different motives had different linguistic objectives. [e] For many of them something akin to "job Spanish" in Whyte and Holmberg's terms was a sufficient linguistic objective.
[f] In our research, we have assumed that by language learning we mean more than learning a few words of vocabulary, some grammatical rules, non-fluent utterances, and the like. [g] At a minimum, we assume that to say one has learned a language, one is at least able to understand and carry on a relatively fluent conversation, and probably can read and write text of a reasonable level of difficulty…. …. [h] We may…say "If the student learns the language just to get a good grade in the course, then he or she has little incentive to go beyond the class requirements. [i] If he or she views it as a means of establishing real bonds of communication with another people, then she or he truly learning the language". [j] This is the distinction between using the language as a means of communication, and using it in order to make oneself understood. (p. 11)

In this setting of the linguistic goal, or rather means as reclassified by Gardner, there are two important points. These include the degree of proficiency and its scope. As can be understood from subtext 7, the formulation provided in either case is biased toward G2. Thus, in subtext 7: [a], the criterion for the proficiency level in LL2 is generally prescribed as "near native-like facility", disregarding the fact that "different motives had different linguistic objectives". This idealistic level of proficiency can be compared with the narrow scope of the "true" or "real competence" that is defined at the necessary level as the "ability to understand and carry on a relatively fluent conversation." This conversation-based definition of proficiency is presumably justified on the grounds that "language [is viewed] as a means of establishing real bonds of communication with another people." Conversation, in other words, is the type of skill that typically directly "involves another people" and assumes a more determining role for them unlike, say, reading or writing which may be the preferred target skills for the instrumentally oriented learners who may wish to use the language to expand their knowledge or "to make themselves understood." Here again the over-restricted definition of proficiency in the theory is indicative of a sharp bias in favour of G2 with no respect being paid to the learner's needs.

Certain other discussions by Gardner and associates appear to be more straightforward on the issue of the classification of the learner's goals in LL2 and other related issues. One of the most extended expositions is the following by Gardner et al. (1978). Please note that the inclusion of this text is also necessary. The text is important because it provides us with roughly the most elaborate statements of goals in Gardner's work.

Subtext 8: [a] The model [proposed by Gardner (in press) with respect to second language acquisition] is based on the assumption that since language is an integral part of culture, the acquisition of a second language is dependent upon the individual's willingness or desire to make aspects of another culture part of his own behavioural repertoire. [b] Because of this, it is hypothesized that an individual's attitude toward the other language group, or toward other groups in general can influence the extent to which he acquires the language. [c] The model proposes that second language acquisition is facilitated by an integrative motive, which "reflects a high level of drive on the part of the individual to acquire the language of a valued second-language community in order to facilitate communication with that group" (Gardner, Smythe, Clement & Gliksman, 1976, p. 199). [d] Elaborations of the model (Gardner, in press) have postulated that attitudes serve as the foundation of the motivation; that is, attitudes influence the individual's level of motivation and differences in motivation affect how successfully an individual learns the language. [e] It is argued that the acquisition of a second language is a long and difficult process and that a stable attitudinal base is needed to maintain motivation for these long periods. [f] Such long range implications require that the ultimate goal be something other than the "acquisition of the second language", and that it involve the other cultural community since acquiring the language involves acquiring aspects of that culture. [g] The concept of the integrative motive emphasizes this ultimate goal in that it bases the motivation in a desire or willingness to become closer psychologically to the other language community. [h] It will be noted that this concept is similar to Mowrer's (1950) concept of identification in first language learning, and like Mowrer's conception suggests some rationale for actually learning the language. [i] It is more specific, however, in that it proposes that there will be associations among individual differences in generalized attitudes toward other ethnic groups, attitude toward the appropriate language community, attitudes toward contexts involving the language, etc.… and motivation to acquire the language. [j] The model proposed by Gardner (in press) borrows from the more general formulation of Lewin in that motivation, as goal directed behaviour, is central to it. [k] Furthermore, the concept of motivation is viewed as involving effort to achieve the goal of "learning the language", wants and desires to achieve this end, and favourable attitudes towards second language learning.[l] It views the goal of "learning the language" as an intermediate one, however, where the ultimate goal is viewed as a psychological integration with the other community. [m] Individual differences in the desire to attain this goal are considered to be associated with individual differences in attitudes toward social objects related to this goal (i.e., the language community concerned, outgroups in general, etc.), and individual differences with respect to which more intermediate goals (i.e., mastering some particular language skill, visiting a second language community, etc.) will be approached. [n] That is, the integrative motive is assumed to reflect a particular motivational complex with a number of associated attitudinal components. ….[o] The motive can be viewed as a multifaceted—yet unidimensional force where the ultimate goal would be integration with the other language community. [p] Obviously not all students of a second language seek integration (a few, however, appear to). [q] Furthermore, this motive is not some static force with which students enter language programs. [r] Students might enter language programs with the goal of integration; they might enter because of some requirement. [s] The expectation is, however, that where such a motive develops, or exists, second language acquisition will be made successful. [t] The major characteristic of this formulation is that a number of quite diverse attitudes are associated with the motivation to learn a second language. (pp. 181-182)

One point in this subtext 8 concerns the way in which goals are classified. The point here is that in their attempt to divide the goals into intermediate and ultimate goals, the authors often suppress any motive other than an integrative motive and thereby imply that there could only be one ultimate goal, psychological integration with the other community, for success in LL2. In sentence [a], for instance, it is claimed that LL2 'is dependent upon' the learner's integrative motive. The claim is taken for granted by being identified as an 'assumption' and further stressed by the certainty expressed by 'is'. Thus on the basis of the implications of this verbal process, Gardner's model assumes that any instance of L2 mastery depends on integrative motive, any successful learner is integratively motivated, and as a consequence the ultimate goal for any learner seeking to master an L2 is that of psychological integration with G2. The attempt to give the exclusive role to an integrative motive and to the ultimate goal associated with it can also be inferred from sentences [e] and [f]. In [e], almost everything is formulated in absolute and universal terms including learning situations ('the acquisition of a second language'), learners ('is needed'), type of motivation ('motivation', i.e. integrative motivation). Similarly, the ultimate goal in [f] which is rightly said to be a requirement of the earlier implications is assumed to be applicable to any instance of LL2 and to any L2 learner.

The authors, of course, admit that there might be other groups of learners with other motives and goals. They are, however, backgrounded or totally suppressed either in theory or through the systematic choice of discursive practices. Sentences [r] and [s] illustrate such a strategy where other goals are represented by 'some requirement', and the non-integrative motives and goals tend to be assumed to result in a failure in LL2.

What is particular about the integrative ultimate goal and distinguishes it from any other potential ultimate goal is that, like integrative motive, G2 is the center of attention. In other words, G2 is assumed to play the dominant and determining role in the LL2 process owing to the presumed appealing nature of its aspects for the successful learner. The centrality of G2 is reflected in many places including in the authors' utterance in sentence [f] that the ultimate goal must "involve the other cultural community."

Consistent with the above systematic biased assumptions, Gardner and associates sometimes also pass more explicit value judgments about orientations. Gardner and Lambert (1972), for instance, evaluate different orientations in democratic terms:

Subtext 9: [a] we have approached this absorbing question not as linguists or language teachers but as behavioural scientists—in particular, social psychologists—interested in the matter of learning. [b] When looked at from a sociopsychological perspective, the process of learning a second language takes on a special significance. [c] Over and above aptitude, one would then anticipate that a really serious student of a foreign or second language who has an open, inquisitive, and unprejudiced orientation toward the learning task might very likely find himself becoming an acculturated member of a new linguistic cultural community as he develops a mastery of that other's group language. [d] Advancing toward biculturality in this manner could have various effects on different language learners. [e] For some, the experience might be seen as enjoyable and broadening. [f] For others, especially minority group members, it could be taken as an imposition, and learning the language would be accompanied by resentment and ill feeling. [g] In other cases, it could be accompanied by deep-seated and vague feelings of no longer fully belonging to one's own social group nor to the new one he has come to know. [h] At another extreme, a learner with a less democratic orientation might consider the language learning task as a means of becoming more cultured (in the superficial sense of the term) or as equipping him with a skill or tool useful for some future occupation, with little genuine regard for the people or the culture represented by the other language. [i] In certain circumstances, the learner might be anxious to develop skill in another group's language as a means of getting on the "inside" of another cultural community in order to exploit, manipulate, or control, with personal ends only in mind. (p. 2)

In this passage, the authors describe three types of orientations which they call elsewhere in the same book (ibid., pp. 3-4) integrative, instrumental, and manipulative orientations. Beyond description, however, value judgments are passed for or against these orientations. The judgments are embedded in this discourse as well as other discourses on the theory at two levels: the level of theory and the level of discourse. Theoretically, the judgment is displayed by the fact that one orientation, the integrative one, is consistently included in the framework, whereas others are downgraded through systematic exclusion from it. Discursively, the judgment is implicitly or explicitly incorporated into the discursive practices through various strategies such as nomination, other value-laden descriptive terms, and degree of exposition or development. The labels chosen to nominate the integrative, instrumental, and manipulative orientations are distinctively loaded. While 'integrative' conveys a positive loading as it connotes unity, the last two suggest increasingly a negative sense on the grounds that they connote selfishness and selfishness plus a disposition to treat others unfairly respectively. The distinctive bias shown concerning these orientations is also reflected in other descriptive lexical items.

The integratively oriented student, for example, is described, in sentence [c], with positively loaded terms such as 'open','inquisitive', and 'unprejudiced'. The instrumentally oriented learner, on the other hand, is explicitly charged, in sentence [h], with having a less democratic orientation, thereby implicitly assigning at once the superior status to the integrative orientation. The use of democratic is quite meaningful in this context. What category of demo (e.g., G1, G2, etc.) is going to hold the supreme power in determining the right path to LL2? Finally, the manipulatively oriented learner is presumably regarded to have an antidemocratic orientation because s/he is judged, in sentence [i], to aim to exploit, manipulate, or control, with personal ends only in mind. The differential treatment of the orientations is also reflected in the extent to which the discussions about them are developed. Thus, we see that the topic of integrative orientation [c] to [g] is the most fully developed compared with those of instrumental orientation [h] and manipulative orientation [i]. What distinguishes the different types of orientations and the judgements made about them is interpreted to be the relative status of G2 and whatever belongs to it, hence bias toward G2. The authors describing the instrumental learner as having little genuine regard for the people or the culture represented by the language [h] illustrates an example that activates this assumption.

To recapitulate, as the analyses of the samples of the discourses in this section hopefully demonstrate, Gardner’s theory involves a great deal of bias in favor of the second or foreign language community (G2) but against other groups especially G1 in terms of its view of the learner’s goals in learning a second or foreign language. The bias is shown to be related to the theoretical formulations of the learner’s linguistic and non-linguistic goals as well as to the discriminatory discursive treatment of the goals. In other words, both theory and discourse alike confer almost consistently a superior status to the goals associated with G2 but an inferior status to those of other groups especially G1. What is more, the bias tends to be systematically mystified especially in the more recent treatments of the issue.

To further clarify the critical significance of the stuff in this section, the above pro-G2 bias is identified here for the want of a more telling term as an instance of xenocentric ideology underlying the theory and its discourses. The bias in the theory and its discourses is seen as an instance of xenocentric ideology in the sense that, from the CDA (critical discourse analysis) perspective (see, for example, Fairclough, 1989; Hodge & Kress, 1993) the discourses on the theory are characterized by three critically significant shades of meaning. For one thing, they serve to polarize the various categories of agents (including G1 and G2 as well as the learners themselves) involved directly or indirectly in the process of LL2. Secondly, the polarization is typically characterized by a value judgment passed by the producers of the discourses under analyses in favor of one party (i.e., G2) to the disadvantage of the others, particularly G1. That is, the foreign language community is represented as the dominant party, but the learner’s native community is represented as the dominated, under-privileged group. Thirdly, these attributes are most often textualized, particularly in the more recent discourses, via various discursive devices, techniques, and deformations (e.g., particular linguistic transformational operations, lexicalisations, rhetorical devices, modality expressions, etc.) in a quite covert manner. Critically speaking, discourses produced (irrespective of the level of consciousness involved) with these distinctive features to present the nature of a theory can serve to manipulate the opinions of the intended readers (who are in this case typically the variety of agents involved in the process of theorization and application of teaching and learning a second/foreign language) and as such to control them in the interest of a particular party (i.e., the G2), hence a xenocentric ideology.

3.2. Goals of language programs and teachers
As in the case of the learner's goals, the more recent discourses on the theory, including the meta-analysis, are quite silent or vague about the theory's stance on the goals of language teachers and programs. So the discussion in this section, also, draws largely on the few remarks made in the earlier discourses by Gardner and associates on the topic.

In a manner similar to their making a distinction between the learner's goals, Gardner and associates divide the goals of a L2 program into linguistic and non-linguistic goals. Thus, Gardner (1985) at the very beginning of his article classifies and defines these goals as follows:

Subtext 10: [a] The goals of any second language programme are partly linguistic and partly non-linguistic. [b] The linguistic goals focus on developing competence in the individual's ability to read, write, speak and understand the second language, and there are many tests available with which to assess these skills. [c] Non-linguistic goals emphasize such aspects as improved understanding of the other community, desire to continue studying the language, an interest in studying other languages, etc. (p. 1)

In an earlier slightly more revealing article, Gardner and Smythe (1975, p. 228-229) make the following remarks on the goals of L2 teachers and programs:

Subtext 11: [a] It has long been accepted that language aptitude is an important variable in determining second-language achievement. [b] However, language aptitude is somewhat of a static variable in that it is relatively stable characteristic of the student. [c] An integrative motive on the other hand is a complex interplay of attitudinal and motivational variables and it is generally accepted that such characteristics can be modified, although not easily. [d] Realizing that an integrative motive facilitates second-language achievement and the tendency to continue in the program, we then have a means by which we can work on the integrative motive and as a result actively promote second-language acquisition. [e] This is, of course, a goal of many teachers of a second language. [f] Many teachers introduce French days, bicultural excursions, bilingual immersion experiences and the like in order to make the second language more meaningful to the student as a communicational medium. [g] Such incentive programs are felt to be important to make the language come alive and make the course something more than just another school subject. [h] As such, these programs are directed, in our terminology, to affecting changes in the integrative motive.

Having made these remarks, Gardner and Smythe (ibid.) now refer to a recent study by themselves on the facilitating effects of one type of incentive program on the integrative motive and then go on to add:

Subtext 11 (cont’d): [i] What then does all of this mean for one who teaches a second language? [j] To begin, it does suggest that the motivation to learn a second language is not a matter of simply wanting to learn the language. [k] Many students may want to learn, but their attitudes may prevent them from doing so. [l] Such students deserve as much sympathy and understanding as the student who does not have the aptitude. [m] More importantly, however, there undoubtedly exist many students within whom the integrative motive lies dormant. [n] Encourage it and develop it and you may have a trigger by the tail! [o] There are many incentive programs which can be considered which might develop in many students a true appreciation of the language and the group who speaks the language—in short, an integrative motive. [p] It would seem, however, that these results are also relevant to the goals of second language programs. [q] If we accept that student attitudes and motivation influence their degree of second language competence, and their willingness to continue in second language programs, we might ask whether it is reasonable for teachers to aim for a high degree of second language competence. [r] We are not recommending complacency, but we are questioning whether this is a meaningful goal. [s] We teach mathematics throughout a student's period in school but we don't expect our high school graduates to be mathematicians. [t] We hope that they will be familiar with the language (and logic) of mathematics. [u] Some students go on to become mathematicians; some, too, go on to become French scholars. [v] We hope, however, that all students, if they have taken either or both programs, will develop some sophistication and expertise in either or both so that in the future they will be able to profit from the enthusiasm and knowledge which they have developed in their early education. [w] Surely, this should be the goal of our educational programs.

The arguments raised in subtext 11 concerning the goals of teachers and programs can be challenged on several respects. The authors have hypothesized two possible 'goals' [a] to [e] for teachers to promote LL2: modification of language aptitude and modification of integrative motive. However, although "it has long been accepted … [as] an important variable," language aptitude is ruled out by the authors as a determining factor simply on the basis of a personal opinion represented as a fact, via two uses of is in sentence [b], concerning its relative stability (but see Gardner (no date), p. 8). The alternative 'goal', modification of integrative motive, on the other hand, is supported here [c] on the questionable grounds that its possibility "is generally accepted" and that this motive "facilitates" LL2. However, for one thing, no documentation is provided for the so called 'general acceptance' (see also Gardner (no date)) and, for another, the facilitating effects of the motive which is indeed a hypothesis, that, if confirmed, would only be applicable to a subcategory of L2 learners, is represented as a universal fact via the present tense of the verb 'facilitates'. What makes this bias critically significant is what might be called for the want of a better term the foundation of the two goals. The vote for language aptitude would trace the main source of achievement within the capabilities of the learners themselves while the emphasis on the integrative motive would confer the dominant role, in the learner's achievement, to the G2 since this latter view recognizes the G2 and its characteristics as the source of attraction and motivation. The bias in favour of or against one or another goal, in short, would assume a bias in favour of or against the group of individuals associated with that goal.

Moreover, a further bias implied in the above subtext concerns the manner in which the 'goals' especially the one related to the integrative motive are identified or classified. Unlike the usual emphasis made by Gardner and associates in classifying or reclassifying the learner's goals on the basis of their hierarchical status into, for example, goals and means (Gardner & Lambert, 1972) or intermediate goals and the ultimate goal (Gardner et al., 1976a; Gardner et al., 1978), no such attempt is explicitly made in the case of the goals of teachers and programs. On the face of it, of course, absence of judgment about the relative status of the goals is usually interpreted as a lack of bias in favour of one goal and against others. However, if such classification demands one, due to lack of adequate justification, to give an inferior status to a concept that is consistently preferred in the theory, then the absence of the classification and judgment that is typically made in similar cases could more reasonably be indicative of a mystified bias in favour of that concept. Yet, there still seems to be a strong tendency to make such an attempt. The attempt is tried in subtext 11: [e] where modification of integrative motive is classified through nomination as a 'goal'. As is also implied in subtext 11: [d] and subtext 13 below, the modification actually serves as a means, or rather a learning condition and more particularly a pedagogic treatment to promote second-language acquisition and as such it would be implausible to be reclassified by being called a 'goal' [e]. This nomination strategy involves an evaluative judgment in favour of integrative motive and the objects associated with it, including G2.

The comparison between the goals of the learner on the one hand and those of the teacher and the program on the other, and the differential strategy adopted by the authors in identifying and classifying the goals in those two areas merits special notice. While Gardner and associates' attempt to reclassify certain 'goals' of the learner into ends and means or intermediate goals and ultimate goal may eventually turn out to be plausible in a sense, replicating the same attempt in the case of the goals of the teacher and the program by applying the same differential categories of goals or means to the same instances of the actual 'goals', or in other words, identifying the same 'goals' with the same statuses identified in the case of the learner's goals, would be quite misleading. This is because while it may, for example, be possible for some learners to try to acquire a second language (the means, or intermediate goal) in order to integrate with the G2 (the ultimate goal), this categorization cannot in theory be applicable to the goals of second language teachers and programs simply because these are by definition educational rather than, say, political agents, even though political and cultural considerations may and do indeed often affect their decisions and activities in practice. Now, although Gardner and associates do not of course make such a comparable attempt in the case of the goals of the teacher and program, their non-transparent discourse on this matter not only fails to make the distinction any clearer but also on certain occasions it even helps to foster an assumption to that effect.

Another bias reflected in the above discourse (subtext 11) concerns the adherence of the educational agents to the integrative goal. In sentence [e], for instance, modification of integrative motive is claimed to be "a goal of many teachers of a second language" but this opinion is again represented and underscored as a fact through the modality markers 'is' and 'of course'. Furthermore, while this goal of the one category of teachers is foregrounded in that paragraph and those following it, no discussion is raised here about the goal(s) of other teachers. Having pretended to be the mouthpiece of facts in the initial paragraph, the authors turn out to be authoritative in the following paragraph [i-o], indirectly by formulating the implications of their own experience universally for "one who teaches a second language", and directly by using imperative verbs [n]. In the last paragraph [p-w], the authors begin to establish the relevance of the teacher's goal, modification of integrative motive, and other issues raised in the preceding paragraph to the goals of programs in a very conservative manner. The authors are conservative in the sense that in this case they neither seem to talk about facts nor appear to directly prescribe such a goal for the programs. The conservativeness, however, seems to result in a failure to make the relevance transparent enough to the point that the paragraph might appear to be lacking in unity and coherence. The more important problem, however, has to do with the fact that the discussion on the relevance systematically suppresses any motivation other than integrative motive by tending to assume that it is only this kind of motive that will guarantee achieving a high degree of L2 competence and therefore only modification of this kind of motive should be the goal of our educational programs.

Still more importantly, the discriminatory treatment of motivational concepts in the area of the goals of the teacher and the program is tantamount to discriminating in favour of or against different groups of people. That is, the inclusion or exclusion of one or another type of motive in the theory means in practice the inclusion or exclusion of one or another group of learners. More specifically, in the theory in question, it is the integratively motivated students who are assumed to be the true and legitimate learners and it is only this group of learners for whom the whole theory has been exclusively or predominantly serviceable while learners with other motivations are roughly excluded from the theory, particularly when viewed from the perspective of the focus of the relevant discourses. The preceding piece of discourse (subtext 11) as well as other discourses on the theory to date would account for this interpretation. Take the fourth paragraph [i-o] of subtext 11. Sentences [k and l] activate the assumption that the many students who are non-integratively motivated (and who do not already have 'a high level' of language aptitude) will not be able to learn the language. (The use of 'may' in the second clause of sentence [k] may only disguise the inevitability of the relationship interpreted and expressed here by will since in the same article the authors recognize only integrative motive and language aptitude as the two independent avenues to success in LL2.) Those many non-integratively motivated students are therefore identified as incompetent and relatively 'unimportant' and the teachers are simply advised to forget about them. These suggestions, however, are not made in a straightforward manner but by way of an analogy with learners without the aptitude and the use of the euphemistic phrase "deserve as much sympathy and understanding" in sentence [l]. The status of the integratively motivated students, on the other hand, is considered, in the formulation of the goals of the teacher and the program, to be 'more important' [m] than that of other students, or rather the only thing that is important because the whole theory as represented in the relevant article focuses on this motive exclusively.

A next important discursive bias in favour of the integrative goal is related to the identification of the nature of the activity involved in achieving that goal. Achieving this integrative goal that, according to the theory, requires changing the learner's attitudes and motivation is almost always represented by a particular class of lexical items that tend to present a biased picture of reality. Far from being negative, the items selected either convey a positive connotation or are less frequently neutral (an exception being the use of manipulate by Gardner et al. (1976b)). Some of the words which are more or less frequently used in referring to the change include 'modify', 'develop', 'promote', 'increase', 'encourage', 'alter', 'change', 'improve', and so on. We may just consider a sample technique recommended in Gardner and Lambert (1972) for inducing changes in attitudes and see how well those words could describe the process involved in the application of the technique:

Subtext 12: [a] To help teachers and parents to effectively modify the attitudes of children, there is now available a growing body of knowledge in the social psychology of attitude change (see for example the excellent overviews of Triandis, 1971; Zimbardo & Ebbesen, 1969; Fishbein, 1967). [b] To take a simple example, Zimbardo and Ebbesen (1969) mention a technique which they believe is one of the most effective in changing perceptions and attitudes or increasing tolerance of contrary ideas: namely, to have the person involved "publicly espouse a set of opinions with which he strongly disagrees" (p. 57f.). [c] In this scheme, the person is made an active participant rather than a passive receiver of persuasive communications. [d] A good deal of research shows that thinking about and publicly defending the other person's point of view, much as a debater or lawyer does, has a tremendous impact on stubborn attitudes and stereotypes. [e] Talented teachers could make good use of this and related insights from psychology. (pp. 144-45, italics added)

Apart from a number of other points which are significant from a critical standpoint, the simple question to be raised here is whether the process described above especially in sentence [b] can be adequately represented by the above-mentioned set of words or should indeed be characterized as an instance of 'manipulation' of attitudes, a term which Gardner and associates avoid using.Put briefly, words such as 'change' mystify the fact that the process involved is systematic, purposeful, and value-laden. Similarly, words such as 'modify', the most frequently used term, also distort reality but on the grounds that in this context they typically assume that G2's attitudes are better than G1's. In other words, the use of the latter category of words constitutes a more striking instance of discursive bias in favour of G2.

The interpretation made above about the systematic bias in the choice of the words related to attitude change is indeed consistent with the explicit judgments that are sometimes passed about this type of goal. For instance, discussing about a suggestion made concerning two basic approaches to remedy the problem of declining enrolments and referring to one as "reinstating formal language requirements", Gardner et al. (1976a) introduce the second approach as follows:

Subtext 13: [a] A second approach which would involve a less coercive tactic would be to attempt to modify students' motivation and attitudes towards language study. [b] In view of the fact that most second language courses endorse (or at least pay lip service to) both linguistic and non-linguistic goals, the second approach would appear to be more productive in attaining both sets of outcomes. [c] For example, if such goals as greater cultural understanding and a generalized interest in foreign languages are to be promoted it is reasonable to speculate that at least some students held captive in compulsory courses might develop negative attitudes. [d] Not only are these non-linguistic goals worthy outcomes in and of themselves, but as the preceding section has demonstrated, appropriate student attitudes and motivation [i.e., non-linguistic goals] are also related to success in attaining the more purely linguistic outcomes. (p.204)

In subtext 13 the authors explicitly express their partisan opinions about non-linguistic goals on a few occasions. In sentence [a], the second approach, modification of students' motivation and attitudes which is elsewhere (Gardner & Smythe, 1975) referred to as a goal, is claimed to "involve a less coercive tactic" (but see subtext 12). In sentence [d], too, the non-linguistic goals are definitely judged to be "worthy outcomes in and of themselves". The more important point is that these personal opinions are represented as statements of definite facts through the use of the modal verbs 'would' in sentence [a] and 'are' in sentence [d]. Moreover, the associated clause in each case is more likely to escape attention than the rest of the material in the same sentence because it involves such a distribution and structure that help to naturalize its content. Both clauses are placed toward the beginning of the sentence typically occupied by given information, and one is structured in a subordinate clause and the other in a coordinate one which tends to function as a subordinate structure while in either case no justification is provided for the judgment.

Unlike the earlier doubts raised concerning the concept of 'goals' in subtext 11, however, subtext 13 might in a sense be more accurate and somewhat more explicit about the official goals of the programs in the theory. For example, in sentence [c], the authors refer to two instances of hypothetical non-linguistic goals, greater cultural understanding and a generalized interest in foreign languages (see also subtext 10:[c]). Two important points, however, should be taken into account with respect to these goals especially that of "greater cultural understanding". Firstly, as might be understood from 'if' in subtext 13:[c], they should not be seen as simply hypothetical goals on the grounds of arguments raised in the paragraph. More specifically, this is because these goals are judged [d] to be not only inherently worthy but also related to success in LL2. This interpretation is also supported by the following subtext by Clement et al. (1978) that emphasizes "cultural appreciation".

Subtext 14: [a] The intimate relationships between attitudes and motivation exemplified by the results reported here, suggest that the royal path to alerting the individual's motivation is through attitude change. [b] More specifically, increases in attitude toward the second-language community and second-language course should have a definite impact on the individual's motivation and persistence through the elaboration of inter-ethnic contact programs, such as bicultural excursions and exchanges. [c] As already documented by Clement, Gardner and Smythe, these special "incentive" programs could have an impact, not only on the student's attitude toward the language community, but also on his motivation to learn the second a language.11 [d] An implication of these results is that programs emphasizing cultural appreciation as opposed to exclusively linguistic outcomes should have a beneficial effect on persistence in second-language study. (p. 694)

The second very important point is that, paradoxically enough, the above official non-linguistic goal of "greater cultural understanding" can hardly be interpreted as the real goal or at least the ultimate goal of the programs (and the teacher) in the theory. The point is that in the light of its surface meaning the term 'understanding' (or even 'appreciation') can hardly represent the nature of the learning process or that of the learning conditions as conceptualized in any model of the theory up to the present time. This is because this concept refers to cognitive processes in the sense that it is textualizing the goal as a matter of 'knowledge'and as such would seem to presuppose a purely cognitive definition of the learning processes and learning conditions in the theory whereas the ways in which these two concepts of learning are actually conceptualized in the theory go far beyond the cognitive domain and extend to the affective and overt behavioural (action-oriented) domains. In other words, the ways in which learning processes and learning conditions are defined for the achievement of such a goal demand a change not only in the knowledge of learners but also in their value systems and overt behavior while the above official goal, greater cultural understanding, mystifies this fact. This requirement for the affective and behavioural change by the two dimensions of the theory, learning processes and learning conditions, is further examined below.

As for the learning process, as is frequently emphasized in the preceding subtexts we should note that the process in this theory has always involved modification of integrative motive which pertains to the affective domain. More specifically, modification of integrative motive that in its more recent formulations is composed of three sets of factors (one motivational and two attitudinal sets of factors) has always demanded the change of attitudes as a prerequisite to enhance motivation (e.g., subtext 14:[a]). Attitudes extend beyond the cognitive (knowledge) domain and more centrally involve affective features as they are conceptualized in terms of "beliefs and evaluation", or "evaluative beliefs" (Gardner et al., 1978).

Furthermore, the learning process is eventually defined in the theory in terms of "adoption", rather than merely knowledge or "understanding", of aspects of the behaviour which characterize G2, or in other words, in terms of 'identification'with G2. This is partially, though still vaguely, reflected in subtext 6: [z4-z6]. These sentences are vague in that they seem to attribute the success of the learning process only to "a willingness or a desire" to adopt those aspects. However, when attention is directed to the nature of motivation as one of the components of the theory, it becomes evident that the success in that process also depends, according to the theory, on another necessary element of motivation, namely "the effort or persistence demonstrated in the process of striving for the goal" (subtext 6:[z26]). This point is made more clearly in the more recent representations of the theory including the following statements, particularly sentence [b], by Masgoret & Gardner (2003):

Subtext 15: [a] The concept of integrativeness refers to an openness to identify, at least in part, with another language community. [b] This concept was hypothesized (cf. Gardner, 1985a) to influence second language acquisition because learning a second language requires the adoption of word sounds, pronunciations, word orders and other behavioral and cognitive features that are part of another culture. [c] Integrativeness implies openness on the part of individuals that would facilitate their motivation to learn the material. [d] Individuals who want (or are willing) to identify with the other language group will be more motivated to learn the language than individuals who do not" (p. 126).

As for the learning conditions, Gardner and associates have always emphasized the importance of the "modification of attitudes" to increase motivation rather than simply promotion of learners' 'understanding' or 'knowledge' of the target culture (e.g., subtext 14). Still more basically, this modification of attitudes is brought about, according to Gardner and associates, by exerting a change in the various features of the behavior of the learner (e.g., subtext 12). It would be highly questionable, however, whether a mere cultural understanding demands as a prerequisite a modification of attitudes and behavior rather than the other way round. Overall then, viewing the matter intertextually, one is likely to wonder as to how s/he should classify in terms of means and end or intermediate and ultimate goals the various linguistic and non-linguistic 'goals' of the teacher and the programs raised in the relevant discourses on the theory, including the promotion of greater cultural understanding, the modification of attitudes and motivation (already referred to as modification of integrative motive), modification of behavior, modification of language aptitude, or development of linguistic competence.

In a different sense, the goal of "greater cultural understanding" (subtext 13: [c], particularly the so-called concept of understanding turns out to be significant too. In this covert sense, it can be interpreted in a way more consistent with the notion of integrative motive on the basis of which learning processes and learning conditions are conceptualized. According to this interpretation, given the fact that in the theory motivation is directly responsible for achievement in LL2 and an "increase" in attitudes (e.g., "a generalized interest in foreign languages" subtext 13:[c]) can only contribute to achievement indirectly through motivation, then "greater cultural understanding" (subtext 13: [c]) must, if it is to be considered as a goal of 'integrative teachers and programs', play much the same part as improvement of attitudes does. That is to say, greater cultural understanding will result in an increase in motivation and increased motivation in turn improves achievement in LL2. This interpretation of the above goal, of course, assumes a value judgment in favour of the target culture because it is expected to increase motivation. Thus it assumes that that culture is something desirable. Furthermore, it also tends to imply that the target culture is superior to the learner's native culture because the serious learner is expected to identify with G2 and thus become an acculturated member of that group.

To sum up this section, as the samples of the discourses analyzed here were meant to illustrate, Gardner and associates’ accounts of their theory are critically significant in terms of their view of the goals of the language teacher and program, too. A number of particular discursive practices (e.g. lexicalization, modality markers, linguistic operations, verbal tenses, etc.) have been chosen which point rather consistently to a particular direction. Here again, as in the case of the learner’s goals, the above direction is characterized by three main features. First, some discursive practices serve to polarize the abstract concepts, goals, and the related peoples into integrative and non-integrative. An instance of such practice is the authors’ occasional tendency to assume a comparison between the learner’s goals and those of the language teacher and program. Second, the categorization of the goals and groups of people associated with them has been subjected to discriminatory value judgment in the interest of one category (i.e., the goals and groups associated with G2) but against other groups. An instance of such practice is the authors’ undocumented vote for the superiority of modification of integrative outlook as almost the only practical goal for the teacher and the program. Third, the preceding two features of the texts are typically textualized in an opaque manner. This aspect of the discourses is realized, for example, in classifying the nature of the non-linguistic goal of the program as one of developing “greater cultural understanding” and thus mystifying the fact that the theory is primarily aimed at the manipulation of the learner’s attributes in the affective and overt behavioural domains rather than those simply in the cognitive domain. Once more, such discursive practices could, as far as CDA is concerned, contribute to the maintenance of an unequal social relationship between the parties involved in the process of LL2.

4. Conclusion
Generally speaking, theoretical issues in our discipline need to be examined from a 'critical' standpoint by analyzing the discourses representing them as well as from the conventional scientific perspective. This is because discourses of any genre including scientific ones can in principle be and, as is frequently demonstrated by critical analysts, are indeed often plagued with value judgments passed in favor of one party and against another. So, unlike the assumption often made by non-critical researchers as to the objectivity of scientific discourse, discourses belonging to this genre too may be ideologically loaded. Kerlinger (1979) tends to point to this possibility in the distinction he makes between scientists and scientific procedures: "the procedures of science are objective, not the scientists. Scientists, like all men and women, are opinionated, dogmatic, ideological […], that is the very reason for insisting on procedural objectivity, to get the whole business out of ourselves" (in Denzin & Lincoln, 2000, p. 879). A more radical observation is also reflected in Peirce's (1995) first of the six tenets of critical research that are intended to inform qualitative research in language learning and teaching: "Critical research rejects the view that any research can claim to be objective or unbiased" (p. 570).

A striking example of such a tenet or dominant ideologically oriented tendency can be seen upon closer analysis in the discourses generated on Gardner's theory of attitudes and motivation. As demonstrated in the few instances in this report, regardless of what are claimed to be found as hard facts, one encounters a large number of explicit judgments, implicit assumptions, opacities, silences, conflicting propositions, backgroundings, foregroundings, universalizations of particulars, etc. built at different levels in the discourses on the theory. These phenomena have been taken to suggest a particular ideology. What accounts for the ideological interpretation of these phenomena is not so much the mere occurrence of them in the discourses under analysis as the consistency between them. In other words, these phenomena systematically point to a certain direction, tending to overestimate one particular category of concepts, the integrative concepts, to the disadvantage of another, the non-integrative ones.

Moreover, the particular treatment of the concepts has its own critical social significance. That is, when viewed from the perspective of reality in terms of their relevance to the human participants and to the social relation between the participants, those concepts and the way they are represented and formulated in the discourses on the theory can no longer be regarded as abstract entities and processes. Thus any bias in favour of, say, integrative motive would not be regarded just as one in favour of an abstract concept simply because it assumes differential roles for different groups of participants and as such has a critical social significance. That is, any bias towards this concept contributes consciously or unconsciously and for the right or the wrong reason to the maintenance or development of unequal social relations between the two groups, G1 and G2, involved in the LL2 process in the interest of the latter group. This is, in short, the ideological functioning observed in the discourse under analysis.

An adequate explanation of the specific nature of this ideology within the context of the present analysis, learning and teaching a second language, calls for attending to a level or context of analysis broader than that of discourse, which exceeds the space and scope of the present paper. Such a global level explanation would demand taking care of a number of issues such as bias in the Canadian setting of the studies conducted to support the theory, blurring the distinctions in the acquisition of a first, a second, and a foreign language, present state and status of international languages, and the unequal relationship between the developed and underdeveloped or developing countries. Still, at a minimum, a critical perspective would recognize the ideology in question as an ethnocentric, or rather 'xenocentric' one on the grounds that the discourses at issue exhibit a sharp bias toward another ethnolinguistic and cultural community. Beyond that the adequate explanation might even open the possibility for 'Anglocentrism' or 'Francocentrism' as in a bilingual setting such as Canada in the interest of "acculturation", or even for a mixture of both of these in the interest of "biculturality".

References
Au, S. Y. (1988). A critical appraisal of Gardner's social-psychological theory of second-language (L2) learning. Language Learning, 38, 75-100.

Burt, M., Dulay, H. & Finocchiaro, M. (Eds.), Viewpoints on English as a second language. New York: Regents.

Crooks, G. & Schmidt, R. (1991). Motivation: Reopening the research agenda. Language Learning, 41, 469-512.

Denzin, N. K. & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.) (2000). Handbook of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Dornyei, Z. (1990). Conceptualizing motivation in foreign-language learning. Language Learning, 40, 45-78.

Dornyei, Z. (1994). Motivation and motivating in the foreign language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 78(3), 273-284.

Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman.

Fowler, R. & Kress, G. (1979). Language and control. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Fowler, R. & Kress, G. (1979). Critical linguistics. In R. Fowler, G. Kress, B. Hodge and T. Trew (Eds.), Language and control (pp. 185–213). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Gardner, R. C. (1985). The attitude/motivation test battery: Technical report. Retrieved April, 2005 from: http://publish.uwo.ca/~gardner

Gardner, R. C. (1988). The socio-educational model of second-language learning: Assumptions, findings, and issues. Language Learning, 38(1), 101-126.

Gardner, R. C. (2001). Integrative motivation: Past, present and future. Retrieved March, 2005 from: http://publish.uwo.ca/-gardnerPublicLecture1.pdf. pp. 1-35.

Gardner, R. C. (no date). Language learning motivation: The student, the teacher, and the researcher. Retrieved March, 2005 from: http://studentsorgs.utexas.edu/fleas/tpfle/contents1.doc

Gardner, R. C., Smythe, P. C., Clement, R. & Gliksman, L (1976a). Second-language learning: A social psychological perspective. Canadian Modern Language Review, 32, 198-213.

Gardner, R. C., Ginsberg, R. E. & Smythe, P. C. (1976b). Attitudes and motivation in second-language learning: Course related changes. Canadian Modern Language Review, 32, 243-266.

Gardner, R. C., Gliksman, L. & Smythe, P. C. (1978). Attitudes and behavior in second-language acquisition: A social psychological interpretation. Canadian Psychological Review, 193, 173-186.

Gardner, R. C., & Smythe, P. C. (1975). Motivation and second-language acquisition. Canadian Modern Language Review, 31, 218-230.

Gardner, R. C. & Lambert, W. E. (1959). Motivational variables in second-language acquisition. In R.C. Gardner, & W. E. Lambert (Eds.), Attitudes and motivation in second-language learning. Massachusetts: Newbury House.

Gardner, R. C. & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and motivation in second-language learning. Massachusetts: Newbury House Publishers.

Hodge, B., & Kress, G. (1993). Language as ideology. (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.

Lukmani, Y. (1972). Motivation to learn and language proficiency. Language Learning, 22, 261-274.

Masgoret, A.M. & Gardner, R. C. (2003). Attitudes, motivation, and second language learning: A meta-analysis of studies conducted by Gardner and associates. Language Learning, 53, 123-163.

Oller, J. W. (1978). Attitude variables in second language learning. In M. Burt, H. Dulay, & M. Finocchiaro, (Eds.), Viewpoints on English as a second language (pp. 172-184). New York: Regents.






Advertising
2009 Journals
2008 Journals
2007 Journals
2006 Journals
2005 Journals
2004 Journals
2003 Journals
2002 Journals
Author Index
Blog pages
Book Reviews
Indexes
Institution Index
Interviews
Journal E-books
Key Word Index
Subject Index
Teaching Articles **
Thesis
Top 20 articles
TESOL Certificate
>V
T











xx
Part of the Time-Taylor Network
From a knowledge and respect of the past moving towards the English international language future.
Copyright © 1999-2009 Asian EFL Journal
Privacy Policy Related Links Contact Commercial International Site Map