L2 Self of Beginning‐Level Heritage and Nonheritage Postsecondary Learners of Chinese

Abstract: Dornyei (2005) proposed the second language (L2) motivational self system in response to the need to develop the socioeducational model. This motivational theory has not been examined in language learners other than those studying English. This study, through investigating Chinese heritage and nonheritage language learners, found that the theory can be extended to motivation studies of Chinese learners and suggests the application to other language students. The findings demonstrate that the perspective of L2 self provides new insights into the motivation of foreign language learners and the heritage and nonheritage learner comparison. Finally, the study provides pedagogical implications corresponding to the findings.Key words: Chinese learners, college level, heritage, L2 self, nonheritageIntroductionA number of models, including Gardner 's (1985) socioeducational model, have attempted to explain differences in motivation across a variety of learners and settings. Since the 1990s, researchers have proposed other models (Dornyei, 1990b, 1994a; Dornyei & Csizer, 2002; Noels, 2003; Noels, Pelletier, & Vallerand, 2000; Ushioda, 2001; Yashima, 2000), one of which is the second language (L2) motivational self system (Dornyei, 2005). A number of researchers have used this model to explain differences in motivation for learners of English as a foreign language (e.g. Csizer & Kormos, 2009; Kim, 2009; Ryan, 2009; Taguchi, Magid, & Papi, 2009; Yashima, 2009). In order to better understand differing types and levels of motivation in learners of Chinese as a foreign language, this study examined the validity of the L2 motivational self system as a framework and investigated the extent to which heritage and nonheritage language learners sought to approximate an ideal L2 self.Review of LiteratureBackgroundThe socioeducational model (Gardner, 1985; Gardner & Lambert, 1972) identified the impact of the social and cultural milieu on L2 learning and addressed the signifi- cance of learners' attitudes toward the com- munity during L2 acquisition. The model proposed two types of motivation-integrative and instrumental-with the former referring to positive attitudes and openness to the tar- get language group and even an eventual intention to identify with them, and the latter referring to utilitarian motives for learning another language. However, the model was not without faults. First, although it was agreed that instrumentality and integrative- ness were, to a certain extent, mutually inclu- sive (Dornyei, 2010; Gardner & MacIntyre, 1993; Gardner, Tremblay, & Masgoret, 1997), the subjects whom Gardner and his associates investigated were quite young school learners who hence lacked consider- ation for future career and salaries (Dornyei, 1994b); thus "instrumentality" was left unex- plored (Oxford, 1996) and studies inevitably conveyed the incorrect impression that the socioeducational model dichotomized the two motivations (Dornyei, 2010). What is more, some researchers have posited that integrative motivation does not exist in for- eign language settings (Clement & Kruidenier, 1983; Dornyei, 1990a, 1990b, 2003; Oxford, 1996; Oxford & Shearin, 1994; Warden & Lin, 2000): According to Clement and Kruidenier (1983), the two con- ditions that are necessary for the generation of integrativeness are the significance of the tar- get language and the immediacy of intercul- tural contact. According to Dornyei (2003) and Clement and Kruidenier, "bookish" in- terest in the target language and culture has been confused with integrative motivation. Finally, the definition of integrativeness has been far from consistent because it has em- braced different degrees of openness to the target community, ranging from general in- terest to intentional membership in the com- munity (Gardner, 2001; Gardner & Lambert, 1972), which has unfortunately caused in- consistent operationalization of integrative- ness for research purposes. …