With has been subject to various distinctions

With its vital
importance for the process of L2 learning, motivation has been one of the
issues at the top of the agenda of L2 researchers for decades (Dörnyei &
Ushioda, 2011; Gardner, 2007; Ushioda, 2010). The complex construct of motivation
has been an impetus for the recurrent attempts to define and describe the
concept with its constituents. Accordingly, the concept has been subject to
various distinctions ranging mainly from instrumental & integrative
motivation (Gardner & Lambert, 1972) to intrinsic & extrinsic
motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985) ( As cited in Olmez, 2015).

4.1. Gardner and Lambert’s views of Motivation

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

Since the
seminal work of Gardner and Lambert (1959) motivation as a central concept in
SLA developed into the socio-educational model, with integrative motivation as
its centerpiece (Gardner, 1985, 2001). In 1959, Gardner and Lambert  proposed that achievement in a second
language is dependent upon essentially the same type of motivation ( that is to
adopt the characterstics of the family members) that is apparently necessary
for the child to learn his first language. ( Gardner and Lanmbert, 1959) In
this regard Gardner and Lambert used divided motivation into two types-
integrative orientation and instrumental orientation. Integrative orientation
refers to a learner’s aim in language study in to order to learn more about the
language group and instrumental refers to the reasons that reflect more
utilitarian value of linguistic acjhievement. (Gardner and Lambert, 1959) The
theories given by Gardner and his associates dominated the whole scenario for
about three decades. Although the notion receieved worldwide attention, several
criticisms have been put forward about its validity and/or utility across
learning contexts. Among these, the lack of applicability of the integrative
orientation concept to foreign language contexts has been highlighted.  ( as cited in McEown, Noels & Saumure,
2014)    The strong impression of
integrativeness is rooted in the context where the TL language is a second
language and is very much present in the community and the learners have ample
opportunity to interact with the native speakers of the TL (as in the bilingual
context of Canada). Contrastingly, this view is not tenable in a monolingual context,
where the leaners communicate only with the members of their own native
language. Au,( 1988), Oller, (1981), and Oxford and Shearin,( 1994) have argued
that FL learners are surrounded by the speakers of their own native language
and have little opportunity for interaction with speakers of the TL. Edward D
Elan while reviewing Gardner and Lambert’s work argues that t. Countless
students in uni- cultural settings in the United States have been highly
successful language students without knowing much, if anything, about the
people whose language they were studying. (Allen, 1974) “The problematic nature
of integrativeness has been amplified by the worldwide globalisation process
and the growing dominance of Global/ World English as an international language
(Dornyei et al., 2006). In the new globalised world order, as Arnett (2002)
argues, the pressure for most people is to develop a bicultural identity.(as
cited in Dornyei, 2006) The language of this global identity is English, and
from this perspective it is not at all clear who EFL (English as a foreign
language) learners believe the ‘owner’ of their L2 is.”( Dornyei, 2006) As
such, there is no clearly defined anglophone community exists into which
language learners can integrate themselves.( Dornyei, Csizer, & Nemeth,
2006) (as cited in McEown, Noels & Saumure, 2014)