París, Torre de Bois-Le-Prêtre

The L2 Motivational Self-System (Dörnyei, 2005) represents a major paradigm shift in language learning motivation research and has shown great potential as a theoretical model with which to explore and understand English language learning contexts within the ever expanding frontiers of the global EFL landscape. However, the idea of identity

espoused by this theory is based on the notion of selfhood advanced by psychology, education and other related fields in Western culture. In these domains the self is generally regarded as individualistic, simplistic and unproblematic (Harvey, 2013). This notion of self applies to the conception of identity in the core element of the L2

Motivational Self-System (Dörnyei, 2005), the Possible Selves theory (Markus and Nurius, 1986) and therefore this critique is pertinent to it (Harvey, 2013, 159).This account of self

72

is based on Jack Martin’s (2007) critique of the predominance of the Western cultural viewpoint and the general neglect of the historical and sociocultural context of the person in educational psychology research (Martin et al., 2010, 171; Martin, 2007). The L2 Motivational Self-System demonstrates the motivational potential of the Ideal L2 Self but does not pay much attention to the learner’s actual present selves or identities (Taylor et al., 2013, 4). Proponents of the L2 Motivational Self-System also concede that the

Learning Experience component of this model, which relates to the learner’s perception of the learning situation, is under theorised and offers little explanation of how the

construction and internalisation of future possible selves are affected by the learning context (Dörnyei, 2005, Ushioda, 2014). Harvey (2013, 159) argues that in order to understand what motivates learners and why as well as the ways in which their specific sociocultural context promotes or impedes motivation, it is essential to move away from the individualistic, apolitical, unproblematic view of identity. The present study confirmed that such a Western bias is present in the conceptualisation of the Ideal L2 Self and it is here where the present study makes a significant contribution (see 7.4). Similarly the L2 Motivational Self theory promotes an individualistic bias in terms of its focus on the ideal future self as the most effective motivational agent and its lukewarm acknowledgement of the motivational potential of the ought-to self. The present study found that the ought-to self contributes as much to the motivation of students than the Ideal L2 Self.

This individualistic approach focuses predominantly on arriving at generalizable rules to explain how context affects identity rather than expounding on the person as a multifaceted, agentive individual who has a complex relationship with his or her own dynamic context, and therefore, it fails to explain how motivation may be socially

73

negotiated and constructed. Identity and motivation are therefore inextricably connected to the specific context in which they come into being because the identities that people

choose to take on, as uniquely personal as they may seem, originate from the social dynamics prevalent in that particular context (Harvey, 2013, 159).

It is clear from the above argument that despite the wide applicability of the L2 Motivational Self-System (Dörnyei, 2005), it may not fully account for the complexity of the self in L2 motivation arising from the multifaceted nature of identity and motivation and the significance of the specific context in which they develop. Comparative studies employing the L2 Motivational Self-System in Iran, China and Japan (Taguchi, Magid and Papi, 2009) confirmed the validity of this construct in certain foreign language learning contexts,

however the particular workings of each of the three core components of this framework differ from one context to the next (Aubrey and Nowlan, 2013, 129). In particular, the third core principle of this model, the Learning Experience (Fig.1) component, which is

predicated on the influence of the learning environment on the learner’s language learning motivation, has not been conceptualised on the same level as the other two components (Dörnyei, 2005). Research done in support of the L2 Motivational Self-System has

predominantly focused on the Ideal L2 Self principle, while some studies included a focus on the Ought-to L2 Self; however, the Learning Experience component has been largely ignored. It is also evident from these studies that there is no unitary definition of this aspect among the proponents of this theory. Taylor (2011) mentions, for example, that MacIntyre and colleagues (2009) define it as a history of learning success, while Yashima (2009) describes it as the actual experiencing of language learning.

74

The idea of identity is central to the L2 Motivational Self-System which focuses on the motivational potential presented by the desire of the language learner to bridge the gap between the present self and the vivid image of a possible L2 future self. Future selves can only be effective if there is a noticeable difference between the current self and the possible self; irrespective of whether a vivid possible self exists in the mind of an individual or not. If there is merely a slight disparity between the current and future selves, cuing the future self may not have any motivational value because expending effort then can seem superfluous. It is only when a positive or negative future self that shows a clear and definite discrepancy between the current and future selves is salient that the potential for motivated effort exists (Oyserman and James, 2006). This idea is closely associated with Higgins’s (1987,1998) self-discrepancy theory which holds that people are motivated to act by their need to alleviate the discrepancy that exists between the present and possible selves. In this way, possible selves represent points of comparison by which the gap between the current and possible selves is revealed, and they provide the incentive, direction and impetus to reduce this gap (Dörnyei and Ushioda, 2009). From another perspective, either the ideal desired self or the feared self may be more likely to

encourage motivation. This depends on which of these two selves is more dissimilar from the current self. For example, cuing a healthy ideal possible self for individuals who are in good physical shape is unlikely to prompt motivated action; rather a feared unhealthy possible self is more likely to result in motivation due to the greater discrepancy between it and the current self (Oyserman and James, 2011).

The L2 Motivational Self-System is however predominantly future oriented and therefore does not pay particular attention to present identities (Taylor, 2010, 57).

75

Consequently, it is difficult to gauge whether there is a discrepancy between the present and future selves of the learner. It is for this reason that the present investigation has included a component that focuses on the learners’ salient present identities.

It is for this reason that Taylor (2011) felt the need to expand on the tripartite system of the motivational self-system to adapt it to her own research context which involved adolescent English foreign language learners in Romania. This was done by reconceptualising the L2 Motivational Self-System as a more present actual-self orientated quadripolar idea. Her notion of identity, although solely related to adolescents, contributes a broader and more comprehensive understanding of the foreign language learner identity in relation to their L2 language learning motivation. This system is characterised by the internal/external and actual/possible dichotomies which form the basis of the four main components of this system. These are the private-self, public-self, imposed-self and the ideal-self. The private-self represents the actual internal self which comprises of all the present intimate attributes. The public-self is the actual external self that involves the social presentation that a person may display to others depending on the relationship. The ideal-self is the private possible self which represents the person that one would like to become in the future. The imposed-self is the possible external self which can be

described as the hopes, expectations and desires that others believe a particular person should achieve. Taylor’s (2011) theory may, therefore, be better practically applicable to foreign language learning context such as the one in which present research was

conducted.

Teimouri’s (2016) research into the role that emotions play in the language learning motivation of Iranian students also suggested an expansion of the L2 Motivational Self

76

System. His research examined the relationship between the students’ self-concept and three different emotions, anxiety, shame and joy. He suggested a revision of the L2 Motivational Self-System because of inconsistencies regarding the Ought-to L2 Self in previous research. His revision of this theoretical model was done so that it may be in congruence with the original theory of Higgins (1987). Higgins’s self-discrepancy theory holds that three identity aspects are involved in motivation, the ideal self, the ought-to self and the actual self and people strive to narrow the gap between the actual present self and the possible future selves (ought-to self and ideal self). In Higgins’s (1987) study, this conception is based on four identity aspects, the ideal self (own) relating to the ideals, hopes and wishes that one has for oneself; the ideal self (other) that represent the hopes and desires that others wish to see in a person; the ought-to self (own) and the ought-to self (other) which are the possible future selves that one is supposed to become based on the duties and obligations set by oneself and others respectively. Dörnyei has adopted only two of these identity aspects for his Motivational Self System theory, namely the ideal self and the ought-to-self which he named the Ideal L2 Self and the Ought-to-L2 Self. Teimouri holds that this was done to avoid confusion. However this has contributed toward relegating his idea to a narrower concept. Teimouri (2016) applied Higgins’s original model to produce more nuanced results in term of the how these possible selves interrelate with some emotions and how it affects language learning motivation.

Teimouri (2016) found that these four possible selves represent a motivational continuum based on the level of internalisation of motives denoted by each self. At one extreme is the most externally motivated aspect, the ought-to self (other) followed by the ought-to self (own) and then ideal-self (other) followed by the ideal-self (own) at the most

77

internalised extreme. His main contention with the L2 Motivational Self-System is that although the Ideal L2 Self and the Ought-to L2 Self are distinctively defined, they seem to be poorly represented in the items of the multivariate scales involving each of these self aspects. He claims that there is an overlap between these two identity aspects in the items of the survey and that some of items are ambiguous. Teirmouri (2016) emphasised the distinction between these two aspects because of the contrasting motivational effect that result from each of these identity aspects.

Due to the multifaceted nature of motivation it is necessary for the present research to concentrate exclusively on those aspects of motivation that are relevant to its core notions and to use a diversity of applicable theories to support those significant aspects related to motivation (Kimura et al., 2001). Based on the preceding discussion, it is crucial for the present study to consider ideas from identity research in language learning and other theoretical models from general psychology to augment the L2 Motivational Self- System Model to more effectively explore the specific Saudi Arabian university English language learning context. Thus, the Identity Based Motivation model (Oyserman, 2001) has been used to provide the present research with the theoretical basis to explore the language learner’s current salient identities in relation to possible future selves. Taylor (2011) and Teimouri’s (2016) respective expansions of the L2 Motivational Self-System are also significant to the present research as alternative ideas in relation to the possible selves presented by the L2 Motivational Self-System. The two sections that follow discuss these aspects in greater detail. The preceding section discussed the need for the L2MSS to be reviewed and expanded so that it reflects the complexity and dynamism and of language learning motivation and its contexts specificity. The question that arises from this

78

is whether the L2MSS is theoretically suited to merge with other paradigms to

accommodate the demands of a complex and dynamic view of motivation across learning contexts. Research done over the past decade or so seems to favour the L2MSS for such a role as discussed in the following section.

The research of Boo et al. (2015) and Al-Hoori (2017) is especially significant in supporting the idea that the L2MSS is well suited for future research when it is applied in collaboration with other theoretical paradigms. The diversity of research done in 2014 also supports this notion. These studies evidently extended the L2MSS by merging it with other ideas about motivation and identity with some studies applying tried and tested research paradigms while others ventured into creatively different ways of examining these complex and dynamic concepts.