Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching - National University

Other researchers have challenged the idea that instrumentally oriented learners may not
achieve as well in a second language. H. Douglas Brown (2007) points out that in countries such
as India, where English has become an “international language” (p. 171) and where Indian
English is commonly spoken, the L2 can be acquired quite successfully for instrumental
purposes alone.
There has been much debate over the relevance of integrative and instrumental
orientation, but researchers do agree that it is important to distinguish orientation from
motivation. H. Douglas Brown (2007) illustrates the importance of this distinction when
explaining that within either orientation, one can exhibit either high or low levels of motivational
intensity. For example, an individual learner may be only slightly motivated to learn within a
particular context, while another learner with the same orientation may be very driven to
succeed.
Similar to integrative and instrumental orientations are the constructs of intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation. Brown (2007) refers to Jean Piaget and others when he states, “human
beings universally view incongruity, uncertainty, and disequilibrium as motivating” (p. 173). He
explains that it is perhaps the challenge to find meaning that allows intrinsically motivated
learners to succeed, and uses Stephen Krashen’s “input + 1” theory as an example.
That is not to say, however, that only those with intrinsic motivation will succeed.
Researchers, such as Ushioda (2008) are quick to point out that we should not dismiss extrinsic
motivation as less effective or desirable. She explains that in many educational contexts (for
instance success on an exam or to further academic or career success) extrinsic motivation
should be positively valued. Just as we learned that both integrative and instrumental orientations
toward second language learning can lead to fluency, individuals with strong external motivation
can and sometimes do develop fluency in a second language. What could be significant is the
extent to which the underlying motivation is internally (coming from within the learner) or
externally (coming from teachers, peers or societal norms) imposed.
Another important consideration when examining the affective domain of second
language acquisition is that of society and culture. Ushioda (2008) refers to Gardner and
Lambert’s work when she explains that language learning entails much more than simply
acquiring a particular body of knowledge, or specific set of skills. In addition to a second
language, the learner must also be willing to identify with a second culture and to acknowledge
and emulate very subtle aspects of behavior. Gardner and Lambert (1972) speculated that the L2
learners’ underlying attitudes toward the target culture and people would have a significant
influence on their motivation and ultimately success in learning the language. H. Douglas Brown
(2007) mirrors this thought when he posits that positive attitudes toward self, the native language
group and the target language group all enhanced proficiency in the L2.
Schumann (1978) and others also identify assimilation and acculturation as key
influences on language learning. The extent to which a language learner identifies with and
becomes a part of the target culture is critical to developing the “second identity” (in Brown
2007, p.194) so often referred to in the literature. Language and culture are tightly interwoven
and we would be remiss to ignore this relationship when examining second language acquisition.
While going through the acculturation process, a language learner may experience both language
and culture shock. Shuman (1978) explains that these occur when the coping and problemsolving
mechanisms a learner normally uses no longer work in the new culture. If the language
learner cannot move through the naturally occuring stages of culture shock, the resulting stress
151