Why are you learning a second language-Motivational Orientations and Self-Determination Theory

Why Are You Learning a Second Language?

Motivational Orientations and

Self-Determination Theory

Kimberly A.Noels

University of Saskatchewan

Luc G.Pelletier

Richard Cle′ment

University of Ottawa

Robert J.Vallerand

University of Que′bec at Montre′al

The data for this study were collected in my first year of graduate school for a term paper for a course I was Kimberly A.Noels,Department of Psychology:Luc G.Pelletier and Richard Cle′ment,School of Psychology;Robert J.Vallerand,Departement de Psychologie.

A version of this article was presented at the XIIIie`me Congre`s annuel de la Socie′te′que′becoise pour la recherche en psychologie at Montre′al,Que′bec, November9–11,1990.Preparation of this article was facilitated by a doctoral fellowship from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada to the first author and through various grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada,the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada,and the Medical Research Council to the second, third,and fourth authors.The authors would like to express their appreciation to Zolta`n Do¨rnyei,Peter MacIntyre,and Paul Tremblay for their invigorating and insightful discussions on the topic,and to three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this article.They would also like to thank Ann Beaton and Kim Tuson for their assistance with the data collection,as well as the students and professors of the School of Psychology at the University of Ottawa,Canada,for their participation in this project. Correspondence concerning this article may be sent to Kimberly Noels, Department of Psychology,University of Saskatchewan,Saskatoon,SK, Canada,S7N5A5.Internet:noels@https://www.wendangku.net/doc/243889491.html,ask.ca

33

34Motivational Orientations and Self-Determination taking from Luc Pelletier.When I began graduate school,

Luc also started at the University of Ottawa as a new

faculty member,and he taught a course in motivation.I

had worked with Richard Cle′ment for a couple of years

already as an honors student and as a research assistant

and had conducted research on orientations and motiva-

tion under his supervision as part of my honors thesis

project.Luc was very interested in self-determination

theory(SDT)and had worked with Bob Vallerand on an

instrument to assess academic motivation from this per-

spective.Luc and I decided to carry out a study on lan-

guage learning orientations using SDT and enlisted

Richard’s and Bob’s involvement in the project.As a

bilingual institution where all students were required to

demonstrate competence in their second language(L2),

whether French or English,the University of Ottawa was

an ideal setting for this type of research.

The project was a first examination of SDT in the language learning context,and to the best of my know-

ledge it was the only,or at least one of the very few,

empirical investigations of intrinsic and extrinsic motiva-

tion in the area.It involved the development of a valid

and reliable instrument to assess the different subtypes

of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.It also explored the

link between these motivational subtypes and various

orientations to language learning that had been identi-

fied by Cle′ment and Kruidenier(1983),including the

travel,friendship,knowledge,and instrumental orienta-

tions.The results showed that the instrumental orienta-

tion and the SDT external regulation orientation were

strongly correlated,and that the travel,friendship,and

knowledge orientations were quite highly intercorrelated

with identified regulation and intrinsic motivation.

Moreover,the instrumental and external regulation

orientation scales correlated in similar ways with the

hypothesized antecedents of perceived autonomy and

competence and the hypothesized consequences of inten-

tion to pursue L2study and anxiety.In addition,the

travel,friendship,and knowledge orientations were

correlated with the hypothesized antecedents and

Noels,Pelletier,Cle′ment,and Vallerand35 consequences in a manner similar to intrinsic motivation

and identified regulation.These results suggested that

Cle′ment and Kruidenier’s4orientations may be tapping a

similar construct as the SDT orientations.My only regret

with this study is that I did not include a scale to meas-

ure the integrative orientation(Gardner,1985)to deter-

mine its relation with the SDT subtypes.This issue

would have to wait until a later study to be addressed.

The results of this initial investigation encouraged me to pursue research integrating SDT with other theoret-

ical frameworks of language learning motivation.I believe

that the SDT framework has several advantages over

some other formulations of learner orientations.SDT

offers a parsimonious,internally consistent framework

for systematically describing many different orientations

in a comprehensive manner.It also offers considerable

explanatory power for understanding why certain orienta-

tions are better predictors of relevant language learning

variables(e.g.,effort,persistence,attitudes)than others.

Also,by invoking the psychological mechanisms of per-

ceived autonomy,competence,and relatedness,it can

account for why certain orientations are evident in some

learners and not in others.Moreover,the framework is

empirically testable and indeed has stood up well under

empirical scrutiny in our studies.Its clear predictions may

also be particularly valuable in applying the theory

in language teaching and program development.[The

present article first appeared in Language Learning,

50(1),2000,57–85]

For several decades,researchers in social psychology and edu-cation have recognized the importance of motivation for successful second language(L2)learning(see Gardner,1985;Gardner&Cle′m-ent,1990,for review).In fact,affective variables,such as attitude, orientations,anxiety,and motivation,have been shown to be at least as important as language aptitude for predicting L2achieve-ment(Gardner,1985).Recently,however,there has been some discussion regarding the formulation of L2motivation,and the argument has been advanced that L2researchers need to explore

36Motivational Orientations and Self-Determination

models of motivation developed by educational and social psycholo-gists not directly involved in L2research(cf.Crooks&Schmidt, 1991;Do¨rnyei,1994a,1994b;Oxford&Shearin,1994;Skehan, 1989).The purpose of the present study is to consider how one current conceptualization of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, self-determination theory(Deci&Ryan,1985),might inform under-standing of motivation,and,more particularly,how aspects of this theory relate to the motivational orientations described by Cle′ment and Kruidenier(1983).

Orientations:The Basis of Language Learning Motivation

In their early formulation of L2motivation,Gardner and Lambert(1959,1972)suggested that an individual’s motivation to learn an L2is sustained by both attitudes toward the L2commu-nity and the goals,or orientations,sought through the acquisition of the L2.These authors identified two classes of orientations.First, the integrative orientation refers to a desire to learn the L2in order to have contact with,and perhaps to identify with,members from the L2community.This orientation can be contrasted with the instrumental orientation,which refers to a desire to learn the L2 to achieve some practical goal,such as job advancement or course credit.Based on Mowrer’s(1950)suggestion that identification and positive affect toward parents are important for first language acquisition,Gardner and Lambert(1972)suggested that indivi-duals with an integrative orientation would demonstrate greater motivational effort in learning an L2,and,thus,achieve greater L2 competence.

This formulation inspired a considerable amount of research, the results of which have been inconsistent(for reviews see Au, 1988;Gardner,1985).Some early studies upheld the relative impor-tance of the integrative orientation(e.g.,Gardner&Lambert,1959). Others did not support the model,however,either because the instrumental orientation predicted L2outcomes as well as,or better than,the integrative orientation,or because the integrative orien-tation had a negative correlation with proficiency(e.g.,Chihara&

Noels,Pelletier,Cle′ment,and Vallerand37

Oller,1978;Gardner&Lambert,1972;Lukmani,1972;Oller, Hudson,&Liu,1977).In response to the conflicting findings of these early studies,Cle′ment and Kruidenier(1983)suggested that definitional problems and the failure to consider the influence of the social milieu were the source of these discrepancies.In their exam-ination of orientations in French and English high school students of Spanish,English,and French,in unilingual and multilingual con-texts,they found that the integrative orientation appeared only in multicultural contexts among members of a clearly dominant group. Four orientations,however,proved to be common to all groups of learners:(1)travel,(2)friendship,(3)knowledge,and(4)the instru-mental orientations.

The results of this and several similar studies(Belmechri& Hummel,1998;Cle′ment,Do¨rnyei,&Noels,1994;Do¨rnyei,1990; Mo?¨se,Cle′ment,&Noels,1990;Noels&Cle′ment,1989;Ozkut, 1990)pose a problem for the conceptualization of L2orientations. Although it was originally suggested that the desire for contact and identification with members of the L2group would be critical for L2acquisition,it would now appear that it is not fundamental to the motivational process,but has relevance only in specific sociocultural contexts.Rather,four other orientations may be seen to sustain motivation.This finding,however,has not been followed up with a conceptual rationale describing a psychological mechanism to account for the importance of the four orientations for L2motivation named above.

Perhaps because of this conceptual impasse,there has recently been much discussion about the nature of language learn-ing motivation(e.g.,Do¨rnyei,1994a,1994b;Gardner&Tremblay, 1994;Oxford,1994;Oxford&Shearin,1994),and a shift among some L2scholars to consider alternative motivational models(e.g., Brown,1990,1994;Cle′ment et al.,1994;Crooks&Schmidt,1991; Do¨rnyei,1990;Tremblay&Gardner,1995;Wen,1997).These mod-els are not meant to replace the integrative-instrumental distinction, but rather to complement it(Oxford,1996).One formulation that has received the attention of several scholars is the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation(e.g.,Brown,1994;Dickinson,

38Motivational Orientations and Self-Determination

1995;Do¨rnyei,1994a;Schmidt,Boraie,&Kassabgy,1996;Williams &Burden,1997).The following discussion describes this formu-lation as conceptualized by Deci and Ryan(1985,1995;Deci, Vallerand,Pelletier,&Ryan,1991;Vallerand,1997)in their self-determination theory(see Noels,Cle′ment,&Pelletier,1999,for a similar discussion).

A Self-Determination Approach to Motivation

According to self-determination theory,there are two general types of motivation,one based on intrinsic interest in the activity per se and the other based on rewards extrinsic to the activity itself. These types of motivation are not categorically different,however, but rather lie along a continuum of self-determination,as outlined below.

Intrinsic motivation.Intrinsic motivation(IM)generally refers to motivation to engage in an activity because that activity is enjoyable and satisfying to do.According to Deci and Ryan(1985), IM is founded upon innate needs for competence and self-determi-nation.These researchers hypothesize that when people are free to choose to perform an activity,they will seek interesting situations where they can rise to the challenges that the activity presents.By striving to meet these challenges,they develop a sense of compe-tence in their abilities.Recently,Vallerand and his colleagues(Val-lerand,1997;Vallerand,Blais,Brie`re,&Pelletier,1989;Vallerand et al.,1992,1993)proposed a three-part taxonomy of IM.The first type of IM,IM-Knowledge,is the motivation for doing an activity for the feelings associated with exploring new ideas and developing knowledge.A second type,IM-Accomplishment,refers to the sensa-tions related to attempting to master a task or achieve a goal.The third type,IM-Stimulation,relates to motivation based simply on the sensations stimulated by performing the task,such as aesthetic appreciation or fun and excitement.The common basis of these three subtypes is the pleasurable sensations experienced during the self-initiated and challenging activity.

Noels,Pelletier,Cle′ment,and Vallerand39

Extrinsic motivation.In contrast to intrinsically motivated behaviors,extrinsically motivated behaviors are those actions car-ried out to achieve some instrumental end,such as earning a reward or avoiding a punishment.This type of motivation does not necessarily imply a lack of self-determination in the behaviors performed.Rather,Deci and Ryan(1985;Vallerand,1997)main-tained that different types of extrinsic motivation(EM)can be classified along a continuum according to the extent to which they are internalized into the self-concept(that is,the extent to which the motivation is‘‘self-determined’’).

Within the realm of education,three levels of EM have been distinguished(Vallerand,1997;Vallerand et al.,1989,1992,1993). From the lowest to highest level of self-determination these are:(1) external regulation,(2)introjected regulation,and(3)identified regulation.1External regulation is defined as those activities that are determined by sources external to the person,such as tangible benefits or costs.If the reason for learning the language is taken away,there is no incentive to continue engagement in the learning process(cf.instrumental orientation,Gardner&MacIntyre,1991).

A second type of extrinsic motivation which is more internal-ized into the self-concept is introjected regulation.Introjected reg-ulation refers to reasons that pertain to performing an activity due to some type of pressure that individuals have incorporated into the self,such that they compel themselves to carry out that activity. Although the source of the pressure is internal,it is not self-deter-mined because the people are reacting to a pressure,not acting on the basis of personal choice.An example of this type of regulation are the students who practice an L2because they would feel ashamed if they could not speak the L2.Learning would only take place as long as they felt the need to reduce guilt.

The most self-determined form of extrinsic motivation is identi-fied regulation.At this point individuals invest energy in an activity because they have chosen to do so for personally relevant reasons. In this situation,students would carry out the activity because of its importance for achieving a valued goal.For instance,language learners who feel that L2fluency is an important aspect of their

40Motivational Orientations and Self-Determination

educational development will endure repetitive oral exercises in the interest of attaining this level of competence.

Amotivation.Deci and Ryan(1985)contrasted all types of IM and EM with amotivation.Amotivation refers to the situation in which people see no relation between their actions and the conse-quences of those actions;the consequences are seen as arising as a result of factors beyond their control(cf.learned helplessness; Abramson,Seligman,&Teasdale,1978).In such a situation,people have no reason,intrinsic or extrinsic,for performing the activity, and they would be expected to quit the activity as soon as possible.

IM,EM,and L2learning.Several L2scholars have suggested that IM and EM may be useful constructs for understanding L2 motivation(e.g.,Brown,1994;Crooks&Schmidt,1991;Dickinson, 1995;Do¨rnyei,1994a;Kamada,1986;Schmidt et al.,1996;Skehan, 1989;Ushioda,1996).Indeed,some empirical evidence suggests that the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic goals can be of service in predicting L2learning outcomes.For example,Ramage (1990)found that continuing students were more motivated to learn language for language’s sake—that is,they were more intrinsically motivated—than discontinuing students.Discontinuing students had a stronger interest in language learning as a means to other goals(e.g.,academic credit);that is,they were more extrinsically motivated.Tachibana,Matsukawa,and Zhong(1996)found that Japanese students’interest in English was related to increased intrinsic motivation,more determination to achieve better English scores,and a greater likelihood of achieving high scores.Ehrman (1996)reported that,among other things,intrinsic motivation correlated positively with end-of-training speaking and reading proficiencies.It is important also to note that positive attitudes toward the learning situation have consistently been associated with L2achievement and related outcomes in research conducted on Gardner’s socioeducational model(see Gardner,1985,for review). Thus,although L2motivation has not been addressed in the self-determination framework(but see Do¨rnyei,1994a,for discussion), some evidence points to the utility of the intrinsic/extrinsic distinc-tion for predicting L2learning outcomes.

Noels,Pelletier,Cle′ment,and Vallerand41

In summary,Deci and Ryan’s(1985)discussion of IM and EM allows for a reorganization of many orientations into a systematic framework.Moreover,this theory has an advantage over empiri-cally derived orientation frameworks in that it provides psycholo-gical mechanisms—self-determination and perceived competence—that can explain and predict how orientations are related to learn-ing outcomes.

Intrinsic/Extrinsic Motivation and Orientations Toward L2Learning

The question remains,however,as to how the orientations described by self-determination theory relate to the orientations described by Cle′ment and Kruidenier(1983).There is a definitional similarity between instrumentally oriented motivation and exter-nally regulated motivation in that both constructs emphasize the pursuit of an activity as a reaction to some object external to the individual and the activity per se.The relations between EM and IM and the other three orientations,however,are less obvious. Travel,knowledge,and friendship orientations could be considered extrinsically motivated goals,in the sense that they refer to reasons extrinsic to language learning itself.At the same time,it is con-ceivable that these orientations are relatively self-determined orientations in that they may be related to values that the indivi-dual has incorporated into the self-concept.Alternatively,they may be related to IM to the extent that they give rise to positive feelings through the promotion of autonomy,self-perceptions of competence, or both.Thus,to integrate self-determination theory into current formulations of orientations for L2learning,it is important to explore the relations between these orientations and the motiva-tional constructs described by Deci and Ryan(1985)and Vallerand and his colleagues(e.g.,Vallerand,1997;Vallerand et al.,1992).

Following these considerations,the present study has two purposes.First,a new instrument for assessing learners’L2orien-tations from a self-determination perspective is presented,and relations between the various subtypes of motivation and variables hypothesized to be related to variations in self-determination are

42Motivational Orientations and Self-Determination

examined.Second,given that these motivational subtypes can contribute to the understanding of the results found in studies of orientations,the relations between these motivational constructs and the four orientations discussed by Cle′ment and Kruidenier (1983)are explored.

Method

Participants

Students registered in English psychology classes at a French-English bilingual university were asked to participate in the study.2 For the present purposes,only students who were English speakers (that is,both their mother tongue and language used most often were English)and who were learning French as an L2were retained for the analyses,resulting in a sample size of159partici-pants.They ranged in age from18to50,with a mean age of22 years.Women composed70%of the sample.The length of time spent learning the L2ranged from a few months to34years,with a mean length of10.9years.

Materials

The materials used in this study consisted of a questionnaire with three sections.A description of the scales and items used, along with the Cronbach alpha,follows.

Cle′ment and Kruidenier’s(1983)orientations.The first section consisted of randomly ordered items from the instrument used by Kruidenier and Cle′ment(1986;see also Cle′ment&Kruidenier, 1983),which represented the four orientations found to be impor-tant across all groups of L2learners.Thus,nine items represented the Instrumental scale(alpha?.88;e.g.,‘‘Because it will help me to get a better paying job’’),nine items represented the Knowledge scale(alpha?.91;e.g.,‘‘Because it will make me a more knowledge-able person’’),four items represented the Travel scale(alpha?.90;

Noels,Pelletier,Cle′ment,and Vallerand43

e.g.,‘‘Because it will help me if I should ever travel’’),and four items represented the Friendship scale(alpha?.94; e.g.,‘‘Because I would like to make friends with some speakers of the second lan-guage’’).The students rated the extent to which the proposed rea-sons corresponded with their own reasons for L2learning,using a 7-point scale that ranged from1?Does not correspond at all to 7?Corresponds exactly.A high score indicated strong agreement with the proposed reason.

Intrinsic motivation,extrinsic motivation,and amotivation. The second section contained scales designed to assess Amotivation, the three types of EM,including External,Introjected,and Identified regulation,and the three types of IM,including Knowledge,Mas-tery,and Stimulation(see the Appendix for sample items).Items for these scales were adapted from the Academic Motivation Scale (Vallerand et al.,1989;for English versions,see Vallerand et al., 1992,1993),and additional items were generated in order to have eight items for each subscale.The items were randomly ordered throughout the second section.The students were asked to rate the extent to which the proposed reason applied to themselves by using the same type of7-point scale as described in the Orientations sec-tion above.A high score suggested a high degree of correspondence between the proposed reason and the students’reasons for studying an L2.

Antecedents and consequences of self-determination.The third section was composed of four scales that measured various psycho-logical variables that have been shown to be differently related to intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.The items were presented in random order.The students were asked to indicate on a7-point scale—anchored at one end by1?Disagree completely and at the other end by7?Agree completely—the degree to which they agreed with the proposed item.A high score thus corresponded to a high degree of agreement with the proposed item.

Two scales were chosen because they represented theoretical antecedents to variations in motivation across the self-determination continuum.Accordingly,the first scale,Perceptions of Competence(adapted from Harter,1982),consisted of five items

44Motivational Orientations and Self-Determination

representing the students’self-perceptions of competence in the L2 (alpha?.81;e.g.,‘‘I consider myself good in my second language’’). The second scale,Freedom of Choice(adapted from Ryan&Connell, 1989),was composed of four items indexing students’perceptions of autonomy in regulating their language learning(alpha?.68;e.g.,‘‘I experience a lot of freedom in learning a second language’’).

Two other scales were chosen because they represented con-sequences of variations across the self-determination continuum. Thus,Anxiety3consisted of three items that measured feelings of pressure or tension in learning an L2(alpha?.70;e.g.,‘‘I am gen-erally anxious when speaking my second language’’),and Intention to Continue L2Studies had four items that measured the students’intention to continue learning the L2in the future(alpha?.86, both scales adapted from Ryan&Connell,1989;e.g.,‘‘I want to continue to learn a second language’’).

Procedure

The study was conducted during regular class time.The researcher informed the students that their participation was voluntary and that their responses would remain confidential.The students filled out the questionnaires without a time limit.

Results

Overview of Analyses

The first purpose of this study was to examine the psycho-metric properties of a scale to assess amotivation,EM,and IM in L2 learners.The analytic strategy was adapted from that of Vallerand and his colleagues(e.g.,Vallerand et al.,1989,1992,1993).To derive a distinctive and reliable subscale for each motivation sub-type,exploratory factor analyses and reliability analyses were con-ducted.To assess the construct validity of the subscales,the subscales were correlated with one another and the hypothesized

Noels,Pelletier,Cle′ment,and Vallerand45

antecedents and consequences of the motivational subtypes.To explore the correspondence between the motivational subtypes and the four orientations(i.e.,the second purpose of the study), correlations were computed between the subtypes and the orienta-tions,as well as between the four orientations and the other L2 variables.These analyses are described in greater detail below.

Validity and Reliability Analyses

Exploratory factor analyses.To determine the best items for each of the motivation subscales,exploratory factor analyses were conducted using maximum likelihood extraction technique followed by oblique rotation.Because of the large number of variables,these analyses were carried out independently for the intrinsic and extrinsic subscales.4The analysis strategy involved an iterative process,whereby any item that did not contribute appreciably to the solution(i.e.,those with loadings

Once the final three items were decided upon for each of the subscales,both intrinsic and extrinsic items were included in one factor analysis.The results of this analysis yielded seven factors, accounting for67.2%of the variance(w2?75.16;df?84;p?.74;see Table1).5An examination of the factor structure revealed that, although there were some crossloadings,the factors represented the seven hypothesized motivational constructs.Overall,these results support the distinctiveness of each of the subscales.

As shown in Table2,the Cronbach alpha index of internal consistency was acceptable for all subscales,varying between.67 and.88.A score was calculated for each subject as the mean of the responses to the items composing each subscale after prorating for unanswered items(Tabachnick&Fidell,1989).An examination of the means,standard deviations,skewness,and kurtosis values for

46Motivational Orientations and Self-Determination

the final subscales suggested that a normal distribution was under-lying the responses.Only the Amotivation scale was significantly skewed.This pattern is consistent with the fact that these students were voluntarily attending a school where bilingualism is valued and where acquiring an L2is a degree requirement.Such students can be presumed to be either extrinsically or intrinsically moti-vated,and it is thus not surprising that they felt very little amoti-vation with regard to language learning.

Intercorrelations between IM and EM orientations.In order to verify the existence of a self-determination continuum,a Pearson product-moment correlation matrix was calculated on the scores of each of the subscales.It was hypothesized that a simplex pattern would be evident.That is,we hypothesized that the kinds of motivation that are more self-determined would be inversely related to those that are less self-determined.In addition, we thought correlations among adjacent scales would be positive and higher than those with the more theoretically distant scales.

The pattern of intercorrelations generally suggested a simplex pattern(see Table2).The correlations among the three types of IM were among the highest.The size of these correlations sug-gested that the subscales tapped a similar,though not identical, construct.The higher positive correlations were generally those between adjacent subscales.For example,the subscales for the three types of IM correlated highest and positively with Identified Regulation,correlated positively but less highly with Introjected Regulation,showed a nonsignificant correlation with External Regulation,and correlated negatively with the Amotiva-tion scale.

There was,however,a discrepancy from the expected pattern. Although all the EM and IM subscales were negatively correlated with the Amotivation subscale,the three types of IM exhibited lower negative correlations with this subscale than did the Identi-fied Regulation subscale.Additionally,the Introjected Regulation subscale was somewhat more highly correlated with the IM sub-scales than with the Identified Regulation subscale.Apart from

Noels,Pelletier,Cle′ment,and Vallerand47

Table1

Pattern matrix,communalities(Z2),eigenvalues,and factor variance for the final maximum likelihood factor analysis of amotivation,intrinsic motivation,and extrinsic motivation items with oblique rotation

Factors

Items a1234567Z2

Amotivation1à.06.05à.01.85.04à.16à.04.77 Amotivation2.01à.07à.03.91à.17.04.07.71 Amotivation3à.02.01à.02.69.12.11à.02.50 External1à.10.24.02à.04à.08.46à.07.90 External2.01.93à.03à.06.01à.01.05.88 External3.04.94.04.06.05.00à.01.30 Introjected1.12.01à.10à.03.13.53.19.43 Introjected2à.02à.13.00à.04.21.51.22.48 Introjected3.08à.05.18à.10à.01.61à.12.44 Identified1 1.02.03à.03à.01.01.01à.05.99 Identified2.27.17à.03à.14.02à.03.46.56 Identified3.77.00.06à.06.04.00.01.72 Knowledge1.05à.03.35.02à.05à.02.64.75 Knowledge2à.05à.02.19à.05.16.08.61.69 Knowledge3.23.03.24.00.15à.04.41.50 Accomplishment1.01à.03.77à.07.15.05.06.85 Accomplishment2.13.13.66.02à.01.09.11.72 Accomplishment3.03à.04.62à.10.18à.02.06.65 Stimulation1.04à.01.04à.01.84à.05à.04.72 Stimulation2.07.06.19.04.69à.06à.10.79 Stimulation3.08.03.06à.01.59.22.01.60

Eigenvalue 4.55 2.01 3.93 1.600.730.850.43 Percentage of

variance accounted

for by factor21.79.618.77.6 3.5 4.1 2.0 Note.Suggested factor names:1—Identified Regulation,2—External Regulation, 3—Intrinsic Motivation-Accomplishment,4—Amotivation,5—Intrinsic Motivation-Stimulation,6—Introjected Regulation,7—Intrinsic Motivation-Knowledge.

a See the appendix for corresponding items.

Table2

Motivation subscale means,standard deviations,intercorrelations,and Cronbach alpha indices of internal consistency(on diagonal)

Subscales

Subscales M SD1234567 1Amotivation 1.55 1.06(.82)

2External Regulation 3.94 1.45à.20*(.75)

3Introjected Regulation 2.23 1.16à.05.16*(.67)

4Identified Regulation 4.51 1.57à.43*.19*.29*(.84)

5Intrinsic Motivation-Knowledge 3.21 1.53à.28*.04.40*.63*(.85)

6Intrinsic Motivation-Accomplishment 3.04 1.54à.30*.15*.42*.58*.76*(.88)

7Intrinsic Motivation-Stimulation 2.66 1.54à.15*.05.45*.58*.64*.68*(.85) Note.N?159.

*p<.05.48 Motivational Orientations and Self-Determination

Noels,Pelletier,Cle′ment,and Vallerand49

these findings,however,there is evidence of a pattern of correla-tions reflecting a continuum of increasing self-determination,from amotivation to less self-determined forms of motivation(i.e.,Exter-nal and Introjected Regulation)to more self-determined forms of motivation(i.e.,Identified Regulation and IM).

Correlations between IM and EM orientations and hypothe-sized antecedents and consequences.Pearson correlation coefficients were also calculated between the IM and EM subscales and the scales of four psychological constructs that have been shown to be differentially related to the various facets of motivation:perceived competence,perceptions of freedom of choice,anxiety,and intention to continue L2studies.It was expected that Amotivation would be negatively related to Freedom of Choice,Perceived Competence, and Intention.Furthermore,it was expected that correlations with these variables would be highest and positive with more self-determined forms of motivation(Identified Regulation and IM), close to zero or slightly negative with less self-determined forms of motivation,and negative with amotivation.Correlations between the motivational constructs and Anxiety would show a similar but inverted pattern.

As shown in Table3,in all cases,the Amotivation scale corre-lated in the expected manner with the four other scales,such that it was positively correlated with feelings of Anxiety,and negatively correlated with Perceived Competence,perceptions of Freedom of Choice,and Intention to Continue L2Studies.As predicted,the External Regulation and Introjected Regulation subscales had low or no correlations with the criterion variables.Identified Regulation was strongly correlated with the criterion variables.Thus,a self-determination continuum is evident for the EM variables.Contrary to expectation,however,the Identified Regulation scale was more highly correlated with the criterion variables than were the IM subscales.With this limitation,these results demonstrate a distinction between more(i.e.,IM and Identified Regulation)and less(i.e.,External and Introjected Regulation)self-determined forms of motivation,in a manner reflective of a self-determination continuum.

Table3

Correlations between motivation subtype,hypothesized antecedents and consequences of self-determination, and other orientations

Motivation subtype

Extrinsic Intrinsic

Amotivation Ext.Intro.Id.Know.Accom.Stim.

Antecedents

Freedom of Choiceà.49*à.01.09.58*.51*.43*.43* Perceived Competenceà.23*.03.06.35*.23.23*.15* Consequences

Intention to Continueà.57*.19*.02.55*.49*.46*.34* Anxiety.17*.12à.07à.31*à.25*à.18*à.19* Cle′ment and Kruidenier(1983)Orientations

Instrumentalà.24*.74*.15*.20*.18*.20*.07 Knowledgeà.35*.12.23*.54*.62*.59*.56* Travelà.27*.06.27*.56*.80*.65*.57* Friendshipà.22*.09.32*.45*.63*.51*.55*

Note.N?159.

Ext.?External Regulation.Intro.?Introjected Regulation.Id.?Identified Regulation.Know.?Intrinsic Motivation-Knowledge. Accom.?Intrinsic Motivation-Accomplishment.Stim.?Intrinsic Motivation-Stimulation.

*p<.05.50 Motivational Orientations and Self-Determination

Noels,Pelletier,Cle′ment,and Vallerand51 Correlations Between the IM and EM Orientations and the Instrumental,Travel,Knowledge,and Friendship Orientations

The results of the correlational analysis between the motivation subscales and the orientations discussed by Cle′ment and Kruidenier (1983)indicated that,in all cases,the motivational orientations were negatively correlated with Amotivation(see Table3).The Instrumen-tal orientation was most highly correlated with External Regulation. As well,the Knowledge orientation and IM-Knowledge were highly intercorrelated.The Travel,Knowledge,and Friendship orientations were positively and highly correlated with the more self-determined forms of motivation,including the Identified Regulation and the IM subscales.These results suggest that although the Instrumental orientation and External Regulation subscale may tap similar reasons for learning an L2,the three other orientations connote relatively self-determined reasons for engaging in the L2learning task.

A second analysis examined the relations between the four orientations and the criterion variables discussed above.As can be seen from Table4,the Travel,Friendship and Knowledge orienta-tions are strongly related to the criterion variables,in a pattern reminiscent of the more self-determined subscales described above. The Instrumental orientation yields no relation between criterion and motivational variables,except for a low significant correlation

Table4

Correlations between instrumental,travel,knowledge,and friendship orientations and criterion variables

Motivational orientation

Instrumental Travel Knowledge Friendship

Freedom of Choiceà.08.47*.50*.33* Perceived Competenceà.03.17*.26*.09 Intention to Continue.28*.52*.46*.38* Anxiety.08à.16*à.28*à.15*

Note.N?159.

*p<.05.

52Motivational Orientations and Self-Determination

with the intention to continue L2study.This pattern is consistent with that pertaining to the External Regulation subscale.

Discussion

The results of the analyses suggest that learner motivation can be validly assessed using the intrinsic and extrinsic subtypes outlined by Deci and Ryan(1985)and Vallerand and his colleagues (1989,1992,1993).In general,the factor analyses demonstrated a clear distinction between the subscales.Reflecting a self-determina-tion continuum,the correlations between subscales suggest that one can distinguish between amotivation,less self-determined forms of motivation(external and introjected regulation),and more self-determined forms of motivation(i.e.,identified regulation and IM).With regard to the correlations between the subscales and the criterion variables,although several of the predicted relations were evident,contrary to expectation,the identified regulation subscale has a stronger relation with the criterion variables than the IM subscales.The strong correlation between identified regula-tion and the other variables,although unexpected,is not a unique finding in examinations of self-determination theory(e.g.,Koest-ner,Losier,Vallerand,&Carducci,1996).This pattern might suggest that IM,although related to EM,lies on a continuum separate from EM,6a possibility that warrants more research.On a more practical level,this finding might suggest that those who naturally enjoy the feeling of learning an L2may not necessarily feel personally involved in the learning process;they may view language learning as a puzzle or a language game that has few repercussions in every-day life.To foster sustained learning,it may not be sufficient to convince students that language learning is interesting and enjoy-able;they may need to be persuaded that it is also personally important for them.Overall,the present findings are consistent with earlier discussions of IM and EM in the related area of educa-tion(e.g.,Vallerand et al.,1989,1992,1993),indicating that moti-vational principles relevant in other settings may parallel some motivational constructs in the L2domain.

单音词,复音词,同义词

古漢語通論（三） 單音詞，複音詞，同義詞 我們研究古代漢語的時候，需要了解單音詞和複音詞的關係，複音詞和同義詞的關係，因為這有助於我們更徹底地了解古代漢語。 我們隨便把一篇古文翻譯成為現代漢語，就會發現譯文比原文長了許多。這主要是因為古代漢語的詞彙以單音詞為主，而現代漢語的詞彙以複音詞（主要是雙音詞）為主。例如“蹇叔之子與師”（《左傳》僖公三十二年）這一個句子中，“子”字在現代一般總說成“兒子”，“與師”更非譯成兩個複音詞“參加軍隊”不可。 古代單音詞和現代複音詞的對比，主要有三種情況：第一種情況是換了完全不同的詞，例如“與”變成“參加”，“師”變成“軍隊”；第二種情況是加上詞尾詞頭，如“虎”變成“老虎”，“杯”變成“杯子”，“石”變成“石頭”；第三種情況是利用兩個同義詞作為詞素，構成一個複音詞，例如“兒”和“子”是同義詞，合起來成為複音詞“兒子”。 最值得注意的是第三種情況。有許多古代的單音詞，作為詞來看，可以認為已經死去了；但是作為詞素來看，它們還留存在現代漢語裏。舉例來說，古代漢語有單音詞“慮”字。《論語·衛靈公》：“人無遠慮，必有近憂”；《詩經·小雅·無雨》：“弗慮弗圖”。但是，在現代漢語裏，“慮”字只作為詞素留存在“顧慮”、“考慮”等雙音詞裏，或者只出現在“深謀遠慮”，“深思熟慮”等成語裏，而不能作為單詞自由運用了。 漢語大部分的雙音詞都是經過同義詞臨時組合的階段的。這就是說，在最初的時候，只是兩個同義詞的並列，還沒有凝結成為一個整體，一個單詞。這可以從兩方面證明：第一，最初某些同義詞的組合沒有固定的形式，幾個同義詞可以自由組合，甚至可以顛倒。例如“險”“阻”“隘”（注：“隘”單用時，是狹的意思，同“險”“阻”的區别較大。）是同義詞，在上古常常單用，又可以互相組合。《左傳》僖公二十二年，既有“隘而不列”，“阻而鼓之”，又有“不以阻隘也”，“阻隘可也”。後兩句“阻”和“隘”雖然連在一起，但顯然還是兩個詞。在《史記·孫子吳起列傳》中有：“馬陵道陝（狹），而旁多阻隘”，“阻”和“隘”組合得緊一些。又《史記·淮陰侯列傳》：“恐吾至阻險而還”，是“阻”和“險”相結合。同時我們還可以看到，《左傳》成公十三年有“險阻”（逾越險阻），《離騷》中有“險隘”（路幽昧以險隘）。這說明三個同義詞組合時，各自的獨立性還很強，沒有組成新的單一的詞，還是自由組合的情況。第二，古人對於這一類同義詞，常常加以區别。例如“婚姻”很早就

单音词、复音词和同义词

单音词、复音词和同义词 【教学大纲】古代汉语是以单音词为主，现代汉语是以双音词为主，故不可将古代汉语中的单音词误认为双音词中的一个词素。复音词中要注意偏义复词和单纯联绵词。要注意辨析古汉语中的同义词，可以从含义差别、使用范围、使用条件等方面辨析。要求学生掌握古代汉语单音词、复音词、同义词的特点，以提高阅读古文的水平。 一、字和词的区别。 用现代语言学的观点来看，字是书写符号，是组成词的要素，而 词则是最小的能够独立活动的有意义成分，两者之间不能划等号。 在古汉语中，有些字的本身就是词，如“上” “天”“香”“祸” “山”“牛”“热”“乐”等，因为它们都具有作为一个词的条件：是 最小的成分，都有意义，都能独立活动。有些字本身不能成为词，必须与别的字结合在一起才能构成词，如“葡萄” “苜蓿”“蟋蟀”等连 绵词。有些字在有的情况下是词，有的情况下仅仅是字，如“犹”和“豫”都是词。“犹”有“像 , 一样”的意思，“豫”有事先的意思，它们都能够独立运用，具备词的条件，但在“犹豫”一词里，它们各自不能独立活动，不表示任何意义，仅仅起记录音节的作用。 二、单音词概说 （一）概念

由一个音节构成的词称为单音词，一般是用一个字记录，如“学”“而”“时”“习”等。 （二）古代汉语词汇中，单音词占着绝对的优势 1.古代汉语的词汇以单音词为主，而现代汉语的词汇以复音词为 主。 例一： 韩厥梦子与谓己曰：“旦辟左右。”故中御而从齐侯。邴夏曰：“射其御者，君子也。”公曰：“谓之君子而射之，非礼也。”射其左，越于车下；射其右，毙于车中。綦毋张丧车，从韩厥曰：“请寓乘。”从左右，皆肘之，使立于后。韩厥俛定其右。 《齐晋鞌 之战》（教材 32 页） 这段文字共计83 个字， 73 个词，其中单音词64 个，复音词 9个，分别是韩厥 3 次、子与 1 次、齐侯 1 次、邴夏 1 次、綦毋张 1 次、 君子 2 次，复音词占 88%。 例二： 秦国轻而无礼必败。 这句话译为现代汉语为“秦国军队轻浮而且没有礼节必定失败” ，字数增加 1 倍。 从以上两例可以看出，古代汉语的词汇以单音词为主，而现代汉 语的词汇以复音词为主。 2.古汉语词汇中单音词占绝对的优势，并不是偶然的，而是有着深刻

古汉语通论(三)单音词,复音词,同义词

古汉语通论（三）单音词，复音词，同义词 我们研究古代汉语的时候，需要了解单音词和复音词的关系，复音词和同义词的关系，因为这有助於我们更彻底地了解古代汉语。 我们随便把一篇古文翻译成为现代汉语，就会发现译文比原文长了许多。这主要是因为古代汉语的词汇以单音词为主，而现代汉语的词汇以复音词（主要是双音词）为主。例如“蹇叔之子与师”（《左传》僖公三十二年）这一个句子中，“子”字在现代一般总说成“儿子”，“与师”更非译成两个复音词“参加军队”不可。 古代单音词和现代复音词的对比，主要有三种情况：第一种情况是换了完全不同的词，例如“与”变成“参加”，“师”变成“军队”；第二种情况是加上词尾词头，如“虎”变成“老虎”，“杯”变成“杯子”，“石”变成“石头”；第三种情况是利用两个同义词作为词素，构成一个复音词，例如“儿”和“子”是同义词，合起来成为复音词“儿子”。 最值得注意的是第三种情况。有许多古代的单音词，作为词来看，可以认为已经死去了；但是作为词素来看，它们还留存在现代汉语里。举例来说，古代汉语有单音词“虑”字。《论语·卫灵公》：“人无远虑，必有近忧”；《诗经·小雅·无雨》：“弗虑弗图”。但是，在现代汉语里，“虑”字只作为词素留存在“顾虑”、“考虑”等双音词里，或者只出现在“深谋远虑”，“深思熟虑”等成语里，而不能作为单词自由运用了。 汉语大部分的双音词都是经过同义词临时组合的阶段的。这就是说，在最初的时候，只是两个同义词的并列，还没有凝结成为一个整体，一个单词。这可以从两方面证明：第一，最初某些同义词的组合没有固定的形式，几个同义词可以自由组合，甚至可以颠倒。例如“险”“阻”“隘”（注：“隘”单用时，是狭的意思，同“险”“阻”的区别较大。）是同义词，在上古常常单用，又可以互相组合。《左传》僖公二十二年，既有“隘而不列”，“阻而鼓之”，又有“不以阻隘也”，“阻隘可也”。后两句“阻”和“隘”虽然连在一起，但显然还是两个词。在《史记·孙子吴起列传》中有：“马陵道陕（狭），而旁多阻隘”，“阻”和“隘”组合得紧一些。又《史记·淮阴侯列传》：“恐吾至阻险而还”，是“阻”和“险”相结合。同时我们还可以看到，《左传》成公十三年有“险阻”（逾越险阻），《离骚》中有“险隘”（路幽昧以险隘）。这说明三个同义词组合时，各自的独立性还很强，没有组成新的单一的词，还是自由组合的情况。第二，古人对於这一类同义词，常常加以区别。例如“婚姻”很早就成为复音词，《左传》成公十三年：“寡君不敢顾婚姻”，但是《说文》还说“妇家为婚，婿家为姻”。“饥馑”在后代也是复音词，但是朱熹注《论语》还说“谷不熟曰饥，菜不熟曰馑。”今天，我们读古书的时候，应当把这些词当作复音词来理解，这样才能得到一个完整的概念。但是，词素的本来意义不能不管，因为分析复音词中的词素，不但能够帮助我们说明这些复音词是怎样形成的，而且可以从后代词义和本来意义不同的比较中看出复音词的完整性，从而把复音词和同义词区别开来。 这一类复音词的每一个词素，往往保存着一定的独立性。这就是说，在这个地方它是复音词的词素，在其他地方它又可以独立成为一个单音词。例如《战国策·齐策》：“齐王闻之，君臣恐惧。”“恐惧”可以认为复音词，但是《论语·颜渊》：“君子不忧不惧，”《孟子·梁

单音词、复音词和同义词复习进程

单音词、复音词和同 义词

单音词、复音词和同义词 【教学大纲】古代汉语是以单音词为主，现代汉语是以双音词为主，故不可将古代汉语中的单音词误认为双音词中的一个词素。复音词中要注意偏义复词和单纯联绵词。要注意辨析古汉语中的同义词，可以从含义差别、使用范围、使用条件等方面辨析。要求学生掌握古代汉语单音词、复音词、同义词的特点，以提高阅读古文的水平。 一、字和词的区别。 用现代语言学的观点来看，字是书写符号，是组成词的要素，而词则是最小的能够独立活动的有意义成分，两者之间不能划等号。 在古汉语中，有些字的本身就是词，如“上”“天”“香”“祸”“山”“牛”“热”“乐”等，因为它们都具有作为一个词的条件：是最小的成分，都有意义，都能独立活动。有些字本身不能成为词，必须与别的字结合在一起才能构成词，如“葡萄”“苜蓿”“蟋蟀”等连绵词。有些字在有的情况下是词，有的情况下仅仅是字，如“犹”和“豫”都是词。“犹”有“像…一样”的意思，“豫”有事先的意思，它们都能够独立运用，具备词的条件，但在“犹豫”一词里，它们各自不能独立活动，不表示任何意义，仅仅起记录音节的作用。

二、单音词概说 （一）概念 由一个音节构成的词称为单音词，一般是用一个字记录，如“学”“而”“时”“习”等。 （二）古代汉语词汇中，单音词占着绝对的优势 1. 古代汉语的词汇以单音词为主，而现代汉语的词汇以复音词为主。 例一： 韩厥梦子与谓己曰：“旦辟左右。”故中御而从齐侯。邴夏曰：“射其御者，君子也。”公曰：“谓之君子而射之，非礼也。”射其左，越于车下；射其右，毙于车中。綦毋张丧车，从韩厥曰：“请寓乘。”从左右，皆肘之，使立于后。韩厥俛定其右。 《齐晋鞌之战》（教材32页）这段文字共计83个字，73个词，其中单音词64个，复音词9个，分别是韩厥3次、子与1次、齐侯1次、邴夏1次、綦毋张1次、君子2次，复音词占88%。 例二： 秦国轻而无礼必败。 这句话译为现代汉语为“秦国军队轻浮而且没有礼节必定失败”，字数增加1倍。 从以上两例可以看出，古代汉语的词汇以单音词为主，而现代汉语的词汇以复音词为主。

单音词复音词同义词

单音词、复音词、同义词 一、古汉语的单音词 1 古汉语词汇以单音词为主 在古代汉语中，单音词占绝对优势，与现代汉语以双音词为主的情况很不相同。只要翻阅任何一篇文言作品，我们就能发现这一特点。例如： 《庄子·秋水》：“秋水时至，百川灌河，泾流之大，两涘渚崖之间，不辨牛马。于是焉河伯欣然自喜，以天下之美为尽在己。顺流而东行，至于北海；东面而视，不见水端。于是焉河伯始旋其面目，望洋向若而叹曰：‘野语有之曰：“闻道百，以为莫己若”者，我之谓也。且夫我尝闻少仲尼之闻而轻伯夷之义者，始吾弗信，今我睹子之难穷也，吾非至于子之门，则殆矣。吾长见笑于大方之家。’” 这篇短文共140个字，其中双音词仅12个，即：河伯(出现2次)、欣然、天下、北海、面目、望洋、以为、且夫、仲尼、伯夷、大方。其余都是单音词，共116个。如果译成现代汉语，这些单音词中有许多词就必须用双音词来表示。 2 古汉语单音词与现代汉语双音词的比较 拿古汉语的单音词同现代汉语的双音词进行比较，主要有以下三种情况：

①从古代单音词到现代双音词，换了完全不同的词： 至——到来以——认为 视——观看殆——危险 ②利用古代的单音词作语素，再加上一个实义语素，合成现代的双音词： 秋——秋天流——水流灌——灌注 道——道理叹——感叹 ③利用古代的单音词作语素，再加上词头或词尾： 虎——老虎果——果子石——石头 3 不要把古代连用的两个单音词误认为双音词 古汉语中连用的两个单音词，有时候在形式上与现代汉语中的双音词相同，如果以现代双音词的意义去粗粗解释，而不细加推敲玩味，似乎也讲得通，但实际上却错解了古书的含意。对于这种情况，必须细加辨别。例如： ①虽然——《墨子·公输》：“王曰：‘善哉!雖然，公输般为我为云梯，必取宋。’”句中的“虽然”是“尽管这样”、“虽然如此”之意，是个词组，“虽”是转折连词，“然”是代词，不同于现代的转折连词“虽然”。 ②然而——《孟子·梁惠王上》：“老者衣帛食肉，黎民不饥不寒，然而不王者，未之有也。”句中的“然而”是“这样却……”、“如此，可是……”之意，“然”是代词，“而”是连