総説

W illingness to Communicate in the Second Language
Rieko M atsuoka

David Richard Evans

National College of Nursing；1‑2‑1Umezono, Kiyose‑shi, Tokyo, 〒 204‑8575, Japanmatsuokar＠adm.ncn.ac.jp【Abstract】 Why are some learners willing to communicate in English, whilst others are reluctant to do so? Willingness tocommunicate(WTC),which was originally developed to explicate individual differences in the first language(L 1)communication,
has started to be focused on as an important factor to account for second language(L 2)communication. First, this review article
overviews how the concept of WTC was developed in L 1 communication research.The second purpose is to describe the heuristic
model of WTC in L 2,which was developed inter‑disciplinarily in second language acquisition research,and the third is to review
the revised model in the Chinese context. Lastly, some empirical studies of WTC in an L 2 context are reviewed. The results ofprevious studies have indicated that communication apprehension(CA)and self‑perceived communication competence(SPCC)arefound to be deciding factors to WTC among other variables.

【Keywords】 willingness to communicate(WTC), communication apprehension(CA),self‑perceived communication competence(SPCC)
which indicates WTC, motivational constructs and proⅠ．Introduction

ficiency in English are relevant in accounting for communication in English.

M any language‑teaching professionals agree that

The concept of WTC was originally developed in L 1

motivation is a key part of the process of learning acommunication by M cCroskey and his associates(1987),

second or foreign language.However,in a real situation,

based on Unwillingness to Communicate(Burgoon,J.K.,

outside of the classroom in particular, where the lan-

1976,cited by M acIntyre et al., 1998).McCroskey,how-guage learners are exposed,motivation and proficiency

ever, applied his earlier framework of Communication

are not necessarilysufficient for them to start communi-

Apprehension(CA, hereafter)into the second language

cation. They actually have to initiate or participate incontext including Japan (M cCroskey et al., 1985).

communication in their less familiar language. The

M cCroskey et al.(1985)investigated levels of CA,whichnotion of Willingness to Communicate(WTC), which isis the main construct of WTC,among Japanese students

the intention to initiate communication,will be useful inin speaking Japanese and English.The results showed ainvestigating why the standard of Japanese communica-high degree of CA in both languages among Japanese

tive competence in English is not perceived to be goodcollege students；in contrast a big discrepancy exists inenough to survive in the present globalized society.

CA between Spanish and English in research on Puerto

Among the few researchers who have investigated
WTC,Yashima(2002)examined how affective variables

Rican students (M cCroskey et al., 1985). This study
implies the importance of cultural norms.

such as attitude (international posture), English learn-

The proverb says Where there is a will, there is a

ing motivation, and English communication confidence,way.”So even the less proficient learners maycommuni-

influence WTC in English in the Japanese context.The

cate in English when they are willing to. On the con-structural equation model clarifies that attitude influ-

trary, highly proficient learners may not be willing toences motivation and WTC；motivation influences pro-communicate since where there is not a will,there is not

ficiency and self‑confidence；self‑confidence influences

a wayʼ
.However,I have witnessed cases where there is

WTC. Goodness of Fit Index of the model was 0.97,

both a will and a way (sufficient proficiency),but there⎜ 3 ⎜J Nurs Studies N C N J Vol.4 No.1 2005

is no communication in English.If the ultimate purpose

primary cause of the reticence phenomenon；however,or goal of learning language is authentic communication

Phillps(1968,cited in McCroskey, 1997)pointed out thatbetween persons of different languages and cultures,asthe major cause of reticence is the individualʼs lack of

MacIntyre et al.(1998) suggest, what are all the efforts

communication skills though anxiety may be present.

expended in learning English for?
In this literature review,how the concept of WTC wasdeveloped in the study of communication in the first

Although the earliest origin of WTC was from Phil-

language, how it was applied to the second language

lipsʼreticence, McCroskey developed the WTC con-research, and how it was re‑conceptualized in an East

struct from unwillingness to communicate(Burgoon,

Asian context will be examined. In addition, the actual

1976,cited in M cCroskey, 1997),predispositions toward

studies on the second language learning in the frame-

verbal behavior(Mortensen, Arntson, & Lustig, 1977,

work of WTC will be presented. Lastly, the futurecited in M cCroskey, 1997), and shyness(M cCroskey &direction in the WTC study in second language acquisi-

Richmond, 1982, cited in McCroskey, 1997)

tion will be discussed.

Unwillingness to communicate
Burgoon(1976,cited by McCroaskey, 1997)labeled the

Ⅱ．Willingness to Communicate(WTC)

construct “unwillingness to communicate”, which is thepredisposition to avoid oral communication.As an oper-

According to M cCroskey(e.g. 1997), WTC refers toational definition of the construct,Burgoon developed athe probability of engaging in communication when theself‑report measure, which was found to include twoopportunity is given.In the first language(L 1),WTC is

factors,

regarded as the stable predisposition to talk,a personal

approach‑avoidance factor was correlated with a mea-

trait；in particular,the degree of introversion or extro-

sure of communication apprehension, interaction withversion. Whether one decides to communicate is a voli-

the reward factor was satisfaction with a group oftional choice that involves cognition. Cognition about

people. The behavioral measure of communication as

human communication is heavily influenced by the per-validating an unwillingness to communicate predisposi-

sonality of the individual,though many situational vari-tion was only correlated with the approach‑avoidance

ables, such as how the person feels that day, what

factor. Instead of providing a general predisposition ofcommunication the person has had with others recently,

unwillingness to communicate, Burgoonʼs research only

who the other person is, what that person looks like,confirmed that people fearful or anxious about commu-

what might be gained or lost through communicating

nication are likely to engage in less communication thanand other demands on the personʼ
s time, can strongly

others, according to M cCroskey(1997).

influence communicative behavior.Antecedents of WTC

Predispositions toward verbal behavior

are introversion, self‑esteem, communication compe-

Predispositions toward verbal behaviorʼ
is the term

tence, communication apprehension and cultural diver-given by M ortensen et al. (1977, cited in McCroskey,sity(M cCroskey & Richmond, 1991).

1997)for the phenomenon of consistency in the amountapproach‑avoidanceʼandrewardʼ. The

According to M cCroskey(1997), Clevenger and Phil-of communication of individual across communication

lips provided the foundation on which McCrosky has

situation that was evidenced by the data using a self‑

built his conceptualizations of WTC, CA, and Self‑per-report scale known as the Predispositions toward Ver-ceived Communication Competence(SPCC). Clevenger

bal Behavior(PVB)scale. McCroskey(1997)argues that(1959, cited in McCroskey, 1997)summarized thethe PVB does not function as a general predisposition ofresearch on stage fright in public speaking. Phillips

unwillingness to communicate, but provides additional(1965, 1968, cited in M cCroskey, 1997), moving beyond

indications that the amount of an individual communica-

public speaking, recognized that there are some peopletion is somewhat regular.

who avoid communication because they feel they have

Shyness

more to gain from remaining silent than from speaking,

Leary(1983,cited in McCroskey, 1997)postulated thatwhich he calls reticence phenomenon.Phillips(1965cited

shyness is a construct named ʻsocial anxietyʼthat isin M cCroskey, 1997)indicated that anxiety was thecomposed of an internally experienced discomfort and国立看護大学校研究紀要

第 4巻

第 1号

2005年

⎜ 4 ⎜

Figure 1 MacIntyreʼs(1994)causal sequence for predicting WTC using personality‑based variables

externally observable behavior. McCroskey and Rich-elements：degree of evaluation and prior history. In

mond(1982, cited in M cCroskey, 1997), focused on shy-terms of the CA effects, CA may have an impact in allness as an externally observable behavior, defining

three areas of communication learning, these are com-shyness as the tendency to be timid,reserved,and mostmunication competence, communication skill, and posi-

specifically,talk lessʼ(p.460cited in McCroskey, 1997).

tive communication affect. McCroskey(1997)concluded

The Shyness Scale developed byMcCroskeyet al.(1981,

that High CA is highly associated with ineffective com-cited in McCroskey, 1997)called M cCroskey Shyness

munication.

Scale(M SS)can predict an amount of talk and show

Self‑perceived communication competence(SPCC )behavioral tendencies in communication；however it

McCroskey(1997)predicted a substantial correlation

fails to validate the existence of a personality‑based

between self‑perception of communication competence

predisposition to be unwilling to communicate.

and scores on the WTC, and this prediction was confirmed across cultures with positive correlations
between self‑perceived competence and WTC, ranging

According to M cCroskey and Richmond(1990,cited infrom .44 in Sweden(McCroskey, Burroughs, Daun, &McCroskey, 1997),WTC is correlated with introversion,Richmond, 1990 cited in McCroskey, 1997)to .80 incommunication apprehension, and self‑perceived com-

M icronesia(Burroughs & Marie, 1990, cited in M cCros-munication competence and these correlations are foundky, 1997).

to be present in a variety of cultures.The correlatior of

McCroskey(1997) postulated that WTC, CA andWTC with introversion was‑.19to ‑.43,with communi-

SPCC, which are distinct constructs, are related incation apprehension, ‑.44 to ‑.52and with self‑per-predictable ways,adding that WTC is the best predictor

ceived communication competence, .44 to .80. The twoof actual communication approach/avoidance behavior,antecedents of WTC scale are communication apprehen-

while CA and SPCC may measure the factors that makesion and self‑perceived communication competence.

the major contribution to the prediction of a personʼsCommunication apprehension(CA)WTC.

M cCroskey(1997) categorized the original two types

MacIntyre(1994)examined how individual differenceof CAʼ
s,trait‑like CA and situational CA into four types

variables, regarded as determinants of WTC, are inter-of CAʼ
s；(a)trait‑like CA, (b)generalized‑context CA,

related. The personality‑based constructs, originally(c)person‑group CA, and(d)situational CA. However,identified by Burgoon(1976,cited in MacIntyre, 1994),i.

only two types of CAʼs were given causes.The etiologye., communication apprehension(CA), anomie, aliena-of trait‑like CA was given two explanations；heredity

tion, introversion, self‑esteem, and perceived communi-

and environment. Causes of situational CA have twocation competence(PCC)were tested using a causal⎜ 5 ⎜J Nurs Studies N C N J Vol.4 No.1 2005

model(See Figure 1).Results show that WTC was mostHowever,WTC in the second language should be differ-directly influenced by communication apprehension andent from in the L 1 among the adult learners in particu-

perceived communication competence, as McCroskey

lar.Adult learners of L 2,who are plausiblyfamiliarized

and associates have suggested(e.g.,M cCroskey& Rich-

with using their L 1, may range from almost no L 2mond, 1990). This means that people are willing tocompetence to full L 2 competence, as pointed out in

communicate when they are not apprehensive and per-M acIntyre et al. (1998). In the late 1990s, some SLA

ceive themselves to be a competent communicator.

researchers started to focus on WTC.

However,Figure 1indicates a reduction in CA increases

MacIntyre and Charos(1996) developed the pathboth WTC and PCC but PCC does not reduce CA. In

model of L 2WTC,which was modified from M acIntyre

other words, when people are less apprehensive, their(1994). The path model, as shown below, added inte-

perception of communication competence increases andgrativenessʼ, attitudeʼ, and motivationʼ
from Gardnerʼsconsequently they are more likely to willing to commu-

socio‑educational model(See Figure 2).The relationshipnicate.This causal model also shows that CA and PCC,

between affective variables, i.e., attitudes, motivation,in turn,were,to some extent,caused byintroversion andperceived competence, and anxiety and their impact on

self‑esteem, and anomie. According to Burgoonʼs work

WTC and the actual use measured by the frequency of(1976,cited in MacIntyre,1994),both anomie and aliena-

L 2 communication were investigated. As Figure 2 indi-tion directly correlated to WTC but these constructs

cates,significant paths affecting the L 2communication

were not proved to be causal factors to WTC. Further-

via WTC were provided from motivation,and perceived

more, MacIntyre et al. (1999), examined the hypothes-communication competence. Both anxiety and inte-

ized antecedents such as self‑perceived competence andgrativeness influence WTC indirectly. Anxiety affects

communication apprehension to WTC using a structural

WTC through perceived communication competence

equation model with a good fit to the data.

and integrativeness affects WTC through motivation.
This model was the first model focusing on WTC in L 2.

Ⅲ．WTC in L2

MacIntyre, Clement, Dornyei, and Noels(1998)
expanded MacIntyre and Charosʼ
model of L 2 WTC

Some communication experts have applied the WTC

into the heuristic model of L 2 WTC,containing twelve

research in second or foreign language(L 2)contexts(e.

variables in a layered pyramid(See Figure 3). The topg., M cCroskey, Fayer, & Richmond, 1985；M cCroskey,

four variables are situation‑specific and can be treatedGudykunst, & Nishida, 1985)and from cross‑cultural

as a dependent variable gauging WTC as Sick et al.

perspectives(e.g., Barranclough, Christophel, &(2000)did. Six variables composing

McCroskey, 1988；McCroskey & Richmond, 1990). For(motivational propensities)and fifth(affective‑cognitive

instance, McCroskey, Fayer & Richmond(1985)inves-context)layers largely overlap the socio‑psychologicaltigated Puerto Rican college studentsʼWTC, with themodel developed and modified by Gardner and associ-results indicating that the Puerto Ricans are much lessates(e.g., Gardner, 1979, 1980, 1985；Gardner & Lam-

apprehensive about communication in Spanish than are

bert, 1959, 1972).

the fourth

the U.S. students but are much more apprehensive in

The model has basically two structures；one consists

English. However M cCroskey, Gudykunst, & Nishidaof situational factors and the other consists of enduring(1985)found that Japanese students had extremely highinfluences. Situational factors are more immediate in

CA in communicating in both Japanese and English.The

taking an action of communication but situational anddiscrepancy in CA between Puerto Ricans and Japanese

may vary in a given context.They are：L 2use,willing-college students mayshed the light on the significance inness to communicate,desire to communicate,self‑confi-

expanding WTC research into the second language

dence in communicating,and anxiety in communicating.

acquisition(SLA)area with cross‑cultural considera-

These factors may change in accordance with whom antion. In fact, McCroskey and Richmond(1990)reported

individual is talking, the topic of the conversation,who

some cultural differences in WTC, based on the scoresis there.Therefore,WTC is measured via these factors.

of the instrument developed by McCroskey and Rich-

On the other hand, enduring influences include(a)mond(1987, cited in McCroskey & Richmond, 1990).

motivational propensities composed of interpersonal

国立看護大学校研究紀要

第 4巻

第 1号

2005年

⎜ 6 ⎜

(1996)model of L2 Willingness to Communicate
Figure 2 MacIntyre and Charosʼ

Figure 3 Heuristic model of variables influencing WTC from MacIntyre et al.(1998)⎜ 7 ⎜J Nurs Studies N C N J Vol.4 No.1 2005

motivation, inter‑group motivation, and L 2 self‑confi-

dence,consisting of the self‑evaluation of L 2skills anddence, (b)affective‑cognitive context(which is com-

language anxiety.

posed of inter‑group attitudes,social situation and com-

Layer Ⅴ, termed as the affective and cognitive con-municative competence), and(c)societal and individual

text, consists of(a)inter‑group attitudes, which include

context(which is composed of inter‑group climate andintegrativeness, fear of assimilation, and motivation topersonality). The details about the M acIntyre et al.ʼslearn the L 2, (b)social situation,and(c)communicativemodel(1998)are as follows.

competence.

Layer Ⅰ is communicative behavior,as a result of theIntegrativeness and fear of assimilation in the cate-complex system of interrelated variables in the lower

gory of inter‑group attitudes may be opposing forces inlayers.MacIntyre et al. (1998)propose that the ultimate

the individual depending on the power relations among

goal of language learning be to engender the willingnessgroups.Five factors that may influence the social situa-

to seek out communication opportunities and WTCtion are the participants, the setting, the purpose, theitself. WTC in Layer Ⅱ was defined as the readiness to

topic, and the channel of communication. The partici-

enter into discourse at a particular time with a specificpants are characterized by age, gender, social class,person or persons in L 2,including the situational varia-

language proficiency etc.；the settings refers to the loca-

tion, it is different from WTC as the trait‑like concept

tion and time where the communication takes place；developed byM cCroskeyet al.(1997).It is also based on

purpose refers to the goals or intension of communica-

the conviction that behavior is strongly predicted bytion such as to persuade, to transfer information；theintention or willingness to act.Van de Putte(1991,citied

channel of communication involves the medium used forin MacIntryre, 1998)reports a mean correlation ofcommunication such as speaking and writing.Regarding

r ＝.62between intention and behavior.Layer Ⅲ of situ-

topics, familiarity in the given topic was found to

ated antecedents of communication consists of(a)theenhance verbal forthcoming, with limited language pro-desire to communicate with a specific person and(b)ficiency overridden(Zuenglar, 1993, cited in M acIntyre

state communication self‑confidence. The desire to

et al., 1998). Though McCroskey and associates havecommunicate with a specific person is driven by aused the term communication competenceʼ, communi-

combination of inter‑individual and inter‑group motiva-

cative competenceʼ, coined by Hymes(1972), refers totions,which involve both affiliation(integrativeness)andL 2 proficiency. Celce‑Murcia, Dornyei, and Thurrell

control(instrumentality). State communication self‑(1995, cited in M acIntyre, 1998)pointed out five main

confidence includes(a)state perceived competence andcompetencies in communicative competence.The first is(b)a lack of state anxiety, following the framework

linguistic competence；the second is discourse compe-

offered by Clement(1980)and the results of the pathtence；the third is actional competence referring tomodel developed by McIntyre and Charos(1996). State

matching communicative intent with linguistic form；

perceived competence refers to the feeling of the capac-

the fourth is sociocultural competence involving knowl-

ity to communicate effectively at a given time；stateedge of how to express messages appropriately within aanxiety refers to the transient feelings of tension andgiven context；the fifth is strategic competence refer-apprehension accompanied by the autonomic nervous

ring to knowledge of communication strategies bysystem arousal as defined by Speilberger(1983, cited inwhich a speaker may compensate for limited profi-

MacIntyre et al., 1998).Both the desire to interact with

ciency.The last Layer Ⅵ,titled the societal and individ-

a specific person and state self‑confidence are regarded

ual context,involves the interaction of two factors：theas the most immediate determinants of WTC.

society and the individual.The societal context is refer-

The other layers deal with enduring influences or

red to by intergroup climate,defined with the structural

stable individual differences and function as independent

characteristics of the communityand the perceptual andvariables in analyzing WTC in L 2. Layer Ⅳ, termed

affective correlates as used by Gardner and Clement

motivational propensities, consists of(a)interpersonal(1990). The individual is referred to by personality.

motivation instigated by either control and affiliation,

Intergroup context and personality,which mayunderpin(b)inter‑group motivation derived directly from thethe social distance or harmony between groups, aregroup the individuals belong to, and(c)L 2 self‑confi-

placed at the bottom of the model as theyare thought to

国立看護大学校研究紀要

第 4巻

第 1号

2005年

⎜ 8 ⎜

determine the L 2 WTC to a lesser degree than otheroriented learning(Hu, 2002, cited in Wen & Clement,variables.

2003), which should enhance their WTC in English.
The following figure was proposed by Wen and Clem-Ⅳ．WTC in L2 in East Asian Contexts

ent as their schematic representation of the impact ofChinese cultural values on WTC in L 2.

As the heuristic model of M acIntyre et al. indicates,

In Wen & Clementʼs conceptualization,a distinction is

the motivational structure and a given habitus and/or

made between desire(DC), as a deliberate choice or

cultural mores must be taken into account in research-preference, and willingness(WTC), as a readiness to

ing on WTC. However, Wen and Clement(2003)argue,

enter into discourse at a particular time with a specificthat the model is based on research mainly conducted inperson or persons, based on the belief that the desire

the western context and proposed some modification ofdoes not have to be realized as willingness impeded by

the model according to the Chinese context.

traditional social orientation such as face‑protected

According to Wen and Clement(2003), how to gener-

orientation.

ate studentsʼ
WTC in order to improve the oral profi-

At the societal context level, which corresponds tociency has been a key issue for English language teach-

Layer Ⅵ in MacIntyre et alʼ
s, group cohesiveness anding(ELT)in China,since Chinese students,who are very

teacher support are posited. In the western culture,

good at grammar‑based written examinations are poorgroup cohesiveness is based on interpersonal attraction

speakers. It is also pointed out that a student‑centeredamong group members, with emotional satisfaction

communicative approach has been emphasized with theemphasized；on the other hand,in the Chinese setting,it

deepening of education reform and the increasingstems from social orientation with the inside relations

demands for communicative competency, whilst

among ingroup members, engendering a sense of belon-

teachersʼlectures are believed to be effective for enhanc-

gingness(Hogg, 1992, cited in Wen & Clement, 2003).

ing English proficiency. These societal and cultural

Teacherʼs support, embodied as teacher involvement

features have been observed and shared in Japaneseand immediacy, is regarded as an important factor incontext；therefore it seems relevant to overview thethis Chinese model.

WTC model revised by Wen and Clement(2003)as the

Personal factors include risk‑taking and tolerance of

exemplar for WTC that may be applied in the Japaneseambiguity, both of which are affectively related andcontext.

culturally significant in the Chinese context. Risk‑tak-Chinese learnersʼunwillingness to communicate ining is defined as any consciously, or non‑consciously

public is deeply rooted in two aspects of interpersonal

controlled behavior with a perceived uncertainty about

relations：an other‑directed self and a submissive way(Trimpop, 1994；9,quoted in Wen & Clemits outcomeʼof learning.Out of an other‑directed self,face‑protected

ent, 2003). Because of the cultural tendency to protect

orientation and the insider effect are brought about.

face in China,the relationship between desire to commu-

Based on Confucianism,the existential reality of self is

nicate and WTC is partially determined by how muchdialectically related to the family, the community, thethe learners will accept the risk of losing face. Thoughnation,and the world(Chai& Chai, 1965,cited in Wen &successful language learning necessitates tolerance ofClement), from which face‑protected orientation may

ambiguity(Brown, 1987,cited in Wen & Clement, 2003),

ensue；consequently,the Chinese learners are less likely

Chinese students are less tolerant of ambiguity,resulting

to be active in communication in L 2,being sensitive tofrom their rule‑dominated and face‑protection orienta-

the judgment of the public. The insider effect, realizedtion.

as ingroup‑oriented, may generate a certain distance

Motivational orientation has affiliation and task‑ori-from other members of other groups,which impedes theentation, while affiliationʼand controlʼ
are the compo-

interaction needed in order to succeed in L 2 communi-

nents in the original model by M acIntyre et al.ʼs model,cation(Hinenoya & Gatbonton, 2000). In terms of sub-since this model focuses on the classroom settings.

missive ways of learning,passing on knowledge is regar-

Affective perception,which corresponds to the affective

ded as a teaching requirement；students may not feeland cognitive context in the fifth layer of MacIntyre etthey are learning in a student‑centered communicate‑al.ʼ
s model,is regarded as directly involved in determin-⎜ 9 ⎜J Nurs Studies N C N J Vol.4 No.1 2005

Figure 4 Variables moderating the relation between DC and WTC in the Chinese EFL
classroom (Wen & Clement, 2003 )ing WTC,based on the belief that language learners areresearch focusing on WTC in the second language has

watchful and defensive in communication in an L 2

not been conducted yet.

where much attention is paid to public verdict.Inhibited

Among the few studies on WTC in an L 2,M cIntyre etmonitor and an expectation of positive evaluation areal. (2001)found that social support, particularly fromdesignated as the components in this category.An inhib-

friends, was associated with higher levels of WTC

ited monitor entails reduced self‑consciousness andoutside the classroom but played less of a role inside theconsequently,reduced anxiety or apprehension.Positiveclassroom. MacIntyre et al.(2002) investigated second

expectations of evaluation would decrease anxiety

language communication among students in a junior(Gudykunst, 1993, cited in Wen & Clement, 2003).

high French immersion program. The effects of vari-

In a different format from the MacIntyre et alʼsables on WTC was examined with the results indicating

model, this modified model of WTC within a Chinese

both age and sex influence L 2 WTC, perceived compe-

cultural context suggests the variables moderate thetence and language anxiety.Yashima(2002),in the only

relation between DC and WTC as shown in Figure 4.As

comprehensive research on WTC in L 2 in the Japanesestated earlier, similar features to these factors can becontext,examined the relationship among the variables

observed in Japanese cultural mores, therefore, thisthat are believed to affect Japanese learnersʼ
WTC inmodel may well be plausibly tested in the JapaneseEnglish, using the heuristic model by MacIntyre et alcontext, as well as the original model by M acIntyre etand Gardnerʼs socio‑educational model asa basic frame-

al.ʼ
s.

work.The results in the structural equation model showthat international posture influences motivation；in
Ⅴ．Empirical Studies on WTC in L2

turn, motivation influences proficiency in English andself‑confidence；self‑confidence in L 2 communication

A great deal of research has been written about

led to WTC in the L 2. Besides, a direct path fromsecond or foreign language learnersʼ
motivational struc-international posture to WTC in the L 2was significant.

ture in the framework or model of Gardner and his

Yashima(2004) investigated the effect of home‑stayassociates and the modified or expanded version fromexperience on WTC in the L 2. Lastly, MacIntyre et al.

Gardner et al. (e.g., Brown et al., 2001, Kimura et al.,(2003) examined the effects of prior immersion experi-2003).Many studies focusing on language learning anxi-

ence on WTC, using samples of both immersion andety in the Asian context are also available(e.g., Spiel-

non‑immersion groups of college students, finding posi-mann & Randofsky, 2001, Kondo, 2003). However,tive relations between immersion experience and WTC

国立看護大学校研究紀要

第 4巻

第 1号

2005年

⎜ 10 ⎜

communicate：A causal analysis. Communication
Research Reports, 11, 135‑142.

in the L 2.
Ⅵ．Concluding Remarks
To investigate the underlying system of WTC in
English is the most urgently required research,considering the vast amount of criticism about the inappropriate
level of communicative competence of the general
Japanese population.It is an ironic situation to recall thefact that The Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports,
Science and Technology has emphasized fostering communicative competence in English education(1989,
1999). Yashima(2000, 2002, 2004)has probed the
motivational structure in the Japanese English educa-

MacIntyre, P.D., Baker, S.C., Clement, R., & Conrod, S.
(2001).Willingness to communicate,social support,andlanguage‑learning orientations of immersion students.
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 23, 369‑388.
MacIntyre,P.D.,Baker,S.C.,Clement,R.,& Donovan,L.A.
(2002). Sex and age effects on willingness to communicate,anxiety,perceived competence,and L 2motivation
among junior high school French immersion students.
Language Leaning, 52(3), 537‑564.
MacIntyre,P.D.,Baker,S.D.,Clement,R.,& Donovan,L.A.
(2003). Talking in order to learn：Willingness to communicate and intensive language programs. The
Canadian Modern Language Review, 54(4), 589‑607.
MacIntyre,P.D.,& Charos,C. (1996).Personality,attitudes,
and affect as predictors of second language communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 15, 3‑
26.

tion focusing on WTC；however, Wenʼs reconceptualized model has not been employed in either study.Basedon Yashimaʼ
s research,more should be done on WTC in
English in the Japanese context in order to explore ways
to enhance the Japanese WTC in English throughincreasing the SPCC and decreasing the AC,taking into
account cultural behavior as posited by Wen et al.
(2003).
■References
Barraclough, R.A., Christophel, D.M ., & McCroskey, J.C.
(1988). Willingness to communicate：A cross‑culturalinvestigation. Communication Research Report, 5(2),187‑192.
Brown, J.D.,Robson,G.,& Rosenkjar,P.R. (2001).Personality, motivation, anxiety, strategies, and language proficiency of Japanese students. In Z. Dornyei & Schmidt(Eds.), Motivation and second language acquisition(pp.
361‑398). Honolulu：University of Hawaii Press.
Clement R. (1980). Ethnicity, contact and communicativecompetence in a second language. In H. Giles, W.P.
Robinson, & P.M . Smith(Eds.), Language：Social psychological perspectives(pp.147‑154). Oxford, England：
Pergamon.
Hinenoya, K. and Gatbonton, E. (2000). Ethnocentrism,
cultural traits, beliefs, and English proficiency：A
Japanese sample. The Modern Language Journal, 84,
225‑240.
Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J.B.
Pride & J. Holmes(Eds.), Sociolinguistics(pp.269‑293).

MacIntyre, P.D., Clement, R., Dornyei, Z., & Noels, K.
(1998).Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a
L 2：A situational model of L 2 confidence and affiliation. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 545‑562.
MacIntyre,P.D.,Babin,P.A.,& Clement,R.(1999).Willingness to communicate：Antecedents and consequences.
Communication Quarterly, 47, 215‑229.
McCroskey, J.C. (1977). Oral communication apprehension：A summary of recent theory and research.Human
Communication Research, 4, 78‑96.
McCroskey, J.C. (1992). Reliability and validity of thewillingness to communicate scale.Communication Quarterly, 40, 16‑25.
McCroskey, J.C. (1997). Willingness to communicate, communication apprehension, and self‑perceived communication competence：Conceptualizations and perspectives. In Daly, & J.C. McCroskey(Eds.), Avoiding communication：Shyness, reticence, & communication apprehension(pp.75‑108). Cresskill, NJ：Hampton Press.
McCroskey, J.C., Fayer, J.M ., & Richmond, V.P. (1985).
Donʼ
t speak to me in English：Communication apprehension in Puerto Rico.Communication Quarterly,33(3),185‑192.
McCroskey, J.C., Gudykunst, W.B., & Nishida, T. (1985).
Communication apprehension among Japanese students

Harmondsworth, England：Penguin.
Kimura, Y., Nakata, Y., & Okumura, T. (2001). Language
learning motivation of EFL learners in Japan：A cross‑in native and second language.Communication Research
Reports, 2, 11‑15.
McCroskey, J.C., & Richmond, V.P. (1990). Willingness tocommunicate：Differing cultural perspectives.SouthernCommunication Journal, 56, 72‑77.
［The M inistry of Education, Science, Sports, andMonbushoCulture］. (1989). Koutougakkou gakushu shidouyouryo

sectional analysis of various learning milieus. JALT
Journal, 23, 47‑68.
MacIntyre,P.D. (1994).Variables underlying willingness to［A commentary on high school
Kaisetsu；Gaikokugohen：
education guidelines Foreign languaguagges］(M ESC
I‑8937). Tokyo：Kyoikushuppan.

⎜ 11 ⎜J Nurs Studies N C N J Vol.4 No.1 2005

［The M inistry of Education, Science, Sports, andMonbushoCulture］(1999b). Koutougakkou gakushu shidouyouryo［A commentary on high school
kaisetsu：Gaikokugohen
education guidelines：Foreign languages］(MESSC 1‑
9940). Tokyo：Kaitakusha.

Wen, W.P.,& Clement,R. (2003).A Chinese conceptualiza-

Sick, J.R., & Nagasaka,J.P. (2000).A test of your willingness to communicate in English(Japanese version)：

Language Journal, 86, 54‑66.
Yashima, T., Zenuk‑Nishide, L., & Shimizu, K. (2004). The
influence of attitudes and affect on willingness to communicate and second language communication. Language Learning, 54, 119‑152.

Unpublished questionnaire.
Sick,J.R. (2001,August). Willingness to communicate as an
object of classroom assessment. Paper presented at theannual convention of PacSLRF, Hawaii.

tion of willingness to communicate in ESL. Language,
Culture and Curriculum, 16, 18‑38.
Yashima,T. (2002).Willingness to communicate in a second
language：The Japanese EFL context. The Modern

第二言語におけるコミュニケーション意欲
松岡里枝子

David Richard Evans
国立看護大学校；〒 204‑8575 東京都清瀬市梅園 1‑2‑1【要旨】 英語でのコミュニケーションに対して学習者の抵抗感が異なるのは何故だろうか。コミュニケーションへの意欲(WTC)という概念は，母語でコミュニケーションを図る場合の個人差を分析するものとして生みだされたものであるが，昨今第二言語でのコミュニケーションを分析する場合にも重要な要素であるとして注目を集めるようになってきている。当
総説では，まず，WTC の概念がコミュニケーション研究においてどのような経過をへて顕在してきたかを考察する。その上で，WTC が第二言語習得研究において学際的な概念化されたモデルと，更にそのモデルを中国の社会環境を考慮に入れて改変したモデルを解説する。最後に，WTC が実際に第二言語コミュニケーションの学習者の間でどのように重要な要素となっているかを検証した研究を概観する。コミュニケーション懸念(CA)とコミュニケーションの自己評価(SPCC)が特に WTC に重要な要因となっていることが検証されている。

国立看護大学校研究紀要

第 4巻

第 1号

2005年

⎜ 12 ⎜