Chapter One INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of This Study
The goal of second language learning is to facilitate better communication betweenindividuals who come from diverse cultural backgrounds and speak various languages,so the focus of English instruction worldwide has shifted from linguistic abilities oflistening, speaking, reading and writing to communicative abilities. When the objectiveof English instruction is defined in the light of communication, the issue of whether thelanguage learners will communicate in English when they have the chance and whatwill affect their willingness to communicate gain importance. Ever since the concept ofwillingness to communicate (WTC) was first put forward by McCroskey in 1985, agrowing number of studies have been conducted on this topic. In recent years,“Willingness to communicate” (WTC) model, which integrates psychological, linguistic,and communicative variables to describe, explain, and predict second languagecommunication, has been developed by MacIntyre, Clement, Dornyei, and Noels (1998),and the publication of this pyramid model has set a comprehensive foundationalthreshold for a series of follow-up studies (MacIntyre, Baker, Clement, & Conrad, 2001;Baker & MacIntyre, 2000, 2003; Kim, 2004; Cetinkaya, 2005) which in turn haveprovided some strong evidences to support the applicability of the pyramid WTC modelacross contexts.Research on WTC abroad can be divided into three periods: the first is from 1980to 1989 during which the notion of willingness to communicate (WTC) was initiallyraised in L1 Communication, and studies concerned focused on the foundation of WTCconstruct. Meanwhile, some scholars started to realize the significance of extendingWTC research into the second language acquisition (SLA) area (McCroskey & Baer,1985; McCroskey, Gudykunst, & Nishida, 1985).
………..
1.2 Purpose and Significance of This Study
The present study intends to conduct a study on Chinese English learners’willingness to communicate in L1 and L2 by exploring the characteristics of their L1and L2 WTC and whether there are similarities/differences and correlation existingbetween their L1 and L2 WTC. Correlation of personality traits and Chinese Englishlearners' L1 and L2 WTC will be especially examined in the current study so as toinvestigate the reason why a person has different L1 WTC and L2 WTC when his/herpersonality traits remain consistent and long lasting. In addition, the relationshipbetween L2 language proficiency and Chinese English learners’ L2 WTC will beinvestigated. This study will try to help teachers have a thorough understanding ofChinese English learners' L1 and L2 WTC and make them realize the significant role ofpersonality traits and language proficiency in their WTC so as to adjust their teachingmethods accordingly to achieve the ultimate goal of enhancing language learners’communicative ability, in the hope of shedding light on the further understanding onWTC and offering some suggestions for language teaching.
…………
Chapter Two LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Research on WTC
The willingness to communicate (WTC) construct has evolved from the earlierresearch of Burgoon (1976) on unwillingness to communicate, of Mortensen, Arntson,and Lustig (1977) on predispositions toward verbal behavior, and of McCroskey andRichmond (1982) on shyness, which all centered on a presumed trait-like predispositiontoward communication.The concept of “willingness to communicate” (WTC) was first raised in L1communication by McCroskey and his associates (McCroskey & Richmond, 1987), andWTC is conceptualized positively as a tendency of an individual to initiatecommunication when free to do so. They argued that “L1 WTC reflects the stablepredisposition to talk in various situations and it was regarded as a personality-based,trait-like predisposition that remains stable across situations, which explains why oneperson will speak and another will not in a similar situation” (McCroskey & Richmond,1991). In a word, L1 WTC was thought to be a personality trait, presenting stabletendencies toward talking across various communication contexts.WTC offers the opportunity to integrate psychological, educational andcommunicative approaches to L2 researches that typically have been independent ofeach other, and it may be treated as both an individual difference factor facilitating L2acquisition, especially in a pedagogical system that emphasizes communication, and asa nonlinguistic outcome of the language learning process. Under such circumstances,WTC research was gradually expanded into L2 communication. MacIntyre et al.
…………
2.2 Research on Personality Traits
Personality, a particular combination of emotional, attitudinal, and behavioralresponse patterns of an individual, has been defined by different scholars. Eysenckbelieves that personality is “a more or less stable and enduring organization of aperson’s character, temperament, intellect, and physique, which determines his uniqueadjustment to the environment” (1970, p.2). Ryckman holds the view that personality is“a psychological construct, which includes the person’s unique learning history andgenetic background (assuming that he or she is not an identical twin) and the ways thatthese organized and integrated complex events influence his or her responses to certainstimuli in the environment” (1985, pp.4-5). Richards gives the definition of personalityas “those aspects of an individual’s behavior, attitudes, beliefs, thought, actions andfeelings which are seen as typical and distinctive of that person and recognized as suchby that person and others” (1998, p.340).
………..
Chapter Three METHODOLOGY.........29
3.1 Research Questions ........29
3.2 Participants .......29
3.3 Instruments .......30
3.3.1 Questionnaire .......30
3.3.2 In-depth Interview.......32
3.4 Data Collection Procedure.....33
3.5 Data Analysis Procedure .......34
Chapter Four RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS....35
4.1 Characteristics of Learners’L1 WTC.........35
4.2 Characteristics of Learners’L2 WTC.........42
4.3 Similarities/Differences and Relationship Between………54
Chapter Five CONCLUSION.........61
5.1 Summary of the Study....61
5.2 Pedagogical Implications ......62
5.3 Limitations of the Study ........62
5.4 Suggestions for Future Study .......63
Chapter Four RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1 Characteristics of Learners’ L1 WTC
As mentioned in Section 3.3, participants were required to answer how willingthey would like to communicate in L1 and L2 respectively on 27-item scale which wasdivided into four-skill areas, i.e. listening, speaking, reading, and writing. This sectioncenters on the characteristics of L1 WTC which are primarily based on thequestionnaire of L1 WTC scale and data analysis results of L1 WTC. It should be notedthat the item numbers of each sub-skill WTC in the questionnaire are not the same,which indicates that the raw scores cannot reflect the real situation. Therefore, thefirst-hand data have been processed by figuring out the mean scores of each sub-skillWTC before conducting the data analysis in order to ensure the comparability of eachskill area on WTC. Table 4.1 shows mean scores and standard deviations for each skillarea on L1 WTC.
……….
Conclusion
The similarities between L1 and L2 WTC: Chinese English learners’ WTC in inputis higher than that in output; their WTC in speaking is higher than that in writing; thecorrelation between four personality traits (except neuroticism) and Chinese Englishlearners’ L1/L2 WTC is significantly positive, while neuroticism has insignificantcorrelation with their L1/L2 WTC; apart from agreeableness in L1 and openness toexperience in L2, the correlation between extroversion and their L1/L2 WTC isrelatively higher than that between the other three traits and their L1/L2 WTC. As forthe differences between the two, Chinese English learners’ L1 WTC in reading is a bithigher than that in listening whereas Chinese English learners’L2 WTC in listening is abit higher than that in reading; agreeableness has the strongest correlation with their L1WTC, while openness to experience has the strongest correlation with their L2 WTC.As for the relationship between the two, significant and positive correlation existsbetween Chinese English learners’ L1 and L2 WTC, and their L1 WTC is significantlyhigher than their L2 WTC.
…………
Reference (omitted)
