Conceptualizing Willingness to Communicate in a L2: A Situational Model of L2 Confidence and Affiliation

Abstract

Why do some students seek, while others avoid, second language (L2) communication? Many language teachers have encountered students high in linguistic competence who are unwilling to use their L2 for communication whereas other students, with only minimal linguistic knowledge, seem to communicate in the L2 whenever possible. Despite excellent communicative competence, spontaneous and sustained use of the L2 is not ensured. A colleague, who teaches a L2 and whose L2 competence is excellent, is well known to avoid "like the plague" L2 communication in social settings. A related observation is that many learners have noticed that their willingness to communicate (WTC) varies considerably over time and across situations. Our aim in this article is twofold. First we wish to provide an account of the linguistic, communicative, and social psychological variables that might affect one's "willingness to communicate." As demonstrated in the text below, and examination ofWTC offers the opportunity to integrate psychological, linguistic, and communicative approaches to L2 research that typically have been independent of each other. We view the WTC model as having the potential to provide a useful interface between these disparate lines of inquiry. Our second goal is to suggest potential relations among these variables by outlining a comprehensive conceptual model that may be useful in describing, explaining, and predicting L2 communication. In an effort to move beyond linguistic or communicative competence as the primary goal of language instruction, this article represents an overt attempt to combine these disparate approaches in a common theme, that is, proposing WTC as the primary goal of language instruction.Willingness to communicate (WTC), originally conceptualized with reference to first or native language (Ll) communication, was introduced to the communication literature by McCroskey and Baer (1985), building on the earlier work of Burgoon (1976) and others. McCroskey and Baer conceptualized WTC as the probability of engaging in communication when free to choose to do so. WTC reflects the stable predisposition to talk in various situations and is seen essentially as a personality trait. McCroskey and associates have shown that WTC is related to such attributes as communication apprehension, perceived communication competence, introversion-extraversion, self-esteem, and so forth. Although it is certain that the situation would influence a person's level of WTC, the construct developed by Me-Croskey and associates has been conceptualized explicitly as a personality trait rather than as a situation-based variable. It is not necessary to limit WTC to a trait-like variable and in the present discussion, we treat it as a situational variable with both transient and enduring influences. Further, although McCroskey's work on WTC focuses on speaking, we propose to extend WTC to influence other modes of production, such as writing and comprehension of both spoken and written language.MacIntyre (1994) proposed a model describi...

Investigating Tertiary Level EFL Learners’ Willingness to Communicate in English

“…WTC, as an overpowering communication personality construct, is considered to influence every aspect of one's life and contribute enormously to one's social, educational, and organizational success (Richmond & Roach, 1992). (MacIntyre et al, 1998) Originally introduced by McCroskey and Baer (1985) with regard to L1 communication, the WTC construct was later applied to second language communication situations and redefined as "a readiness to enter into a discourse at a particular time with a specific person or persons, using an L2" by MacIntyre and his associates (1998, p. 547). It refers to a multifaceted construct that integrates psychological, linguistic, educational and communicative dimensions of language (MacIntyre, Burns, & Jessome, 2011).…”

“…It refers to a multifaceted construct that integrates psychological, linguistic, educational and communicative dimensions of language (MacIntyre, Burns, & Jessome, 2011). The often-cited heuristic model presented in Figure 1 (MacIntyre et al, 1998) is comprised of many variables in a six-layered pyramid and provides a comprehensive account of linguistic, communicative and social psychological factors that potentially influence L2 WTC and thus the real use of L2 (Jung, 2011).…”

“…A greater L2 WTC will result in better L2 development and more effective communication in various communication settings (MacIntyre, Dörnyei, Clément, & Noels, 1998). To put it differently, as "a means and an end at the same time" (Dörnyei, 2005, p. 210), L2 WTC takes the role of both the individual difference variable facilitating the second language learning process and final objective of L2 instruction (MacIntyre et al, 1998). It is a complex ID variable that integrates a number of learner variables which have been widely accepted to exert influence on second language acquisition (Dörnyei, 2005).…”

The Relationship between Ideal L2 Self and Willingness to Communicate Inside the Classroom

“…At the top, there is the actual L2 usage. At the second layer, there is one's intention to communicate with a specific person at a specific time (WTC) which is the last step to start to speak in L2 (MacIntyre et al, 1998) and the layer goes to more enduring antecedents. Namely, at the bottom there is personality and intergroup climate.…”

Switches to English during French Service Encounters: Relationships with L2 French Speakers’ Willingness to Communicate and Motivation

“…L2 speakers' willingness to communicate, that is, their intention to speak or remain silent in a particular speech setting, is influenced by factors such as their perceived communicative competence, anxiety, and personality traits MacIntyre & Charos, 1996;MacIntyre, Clément, Dörnyei, & Noels, 1998). Willingness to communicate has also been linked to the attitudes of both the L2 speaker and the TL speech community, with positive attitudes facilitating successful interactions and linguistic self-confidence, and negative attitudes leading to more breakdowns in communication (Clément, Noels, & Denault, 2001).…”