Allameh Tabataba‟i University
Faculty of Foreign Languages
Master‟s Thesis
Investigating the Relationship between Willingness to
Communicate and Communication Apprehension and
Pragmatic and Linguistic Competence of Iranian EFL
Learners
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts in Teaching English as a Foreign Languages
Adviser:
Dr. R. Ghafar Samar
Reader:
Dr. S. S. Marandi
By:
Nourollah Zarrinabadi
September 2013
In The Name of God
2
Dedicated to
My Family
3
Acknowledgements
This thesis would not have been possible without the help and support of many
individuals. I would like to express my gratitude to the following people:
First, I am extremely indebted to my main adviser, Dr. Ghafar Samar, for his
expert guidance, invaluable advice and unfailing support. I particularly appreciate
the insightful comments he provided on every piece of my writing, and the
thought-provoking questions he asked. I would like to give my sincere thanks to
Dr. Marandi, the honorable reader, who provided me with the guidance and
encouragement to proceed with the study.
My gratitude is due to Dr. Khatib, Dr. Marefat, Dr. Tajeddin, and Dr.
Mostafaei, who guided me throughout my MA study, for their patience, time, and
constructive feedback. I very much appreciate the knowledge and wisdom that they
shared with me.
I am greatly indebted to the students who participated in my study, which would
not have been completed without their participation, support and contribution.
My sincere thanks are due to my mother, father, brothers, and sisters for their help
and encouragement throughout the process of this study.
.
4
Abstract
After MacIntyre and Charos (1986) introduced the concept of Willingness to
Communicate (WTC), many scholars tried to investigate the psychological and
contextual variables influencing it. But, very few studies aimed to examine its
relationship with language proficiency and achievement. The objective of this
study is to investigate the relationship between WTC and Comprehension
Apprehension (CA) and linguistic and pragmatic competence of Iranian EFL
learners. The participants of this study were 203 intermediate Iranian EFL learners
at Alpha language institute in Ilam city. There were 114 females and 89 males in
the sample tested. All of the students were between 16 to 22 years old (M = 18.3,
SD = 3.2) and their native language was Kurdish. To fulfill the purpose of this
study, the participants were asked to answer two questionnaires on WTC and CA,
grammar and vocabulary test, and a Discourse Completion Task (DCT).
Correlation analysis was performed using SPSS 18. The findings indicated that
WTC is positively correlated with linguistic and pragmatic knowledge. The results
also showed that CA is negatively correlated with linguistic and pragmatic
competence. Finally, it was concluded that WTC is related to learners‟ language
proficiency.
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract ______________________________________________________________
List of Tables _________________________________________________________ ii
List of Abbreviation____________________________________________________ iv
List of Figures ________________________________________________________ v
Chapter 1: Introduction ________________________________________ 1
1.1 Background _______________________________________________________ 2
1.2 Statement of the Problem ____________________________________________ 4
1.3 Purpose of the Study ________________________________________________ 5
1.4 Significance of the Study_____________________________________________ 6
1.5 Research Questions and Hypotheses ____________________________________ 7
1.6 Defenition of the Key Terms __________________________________________ 8
1.7 Limitations of the Study _____________________________________________ 9
Chapter 2: Review of Literature _________________________________ 10
2.1. Introduction _____________________________________________________ 11
2.2.Willingness to Communicate (WTC) __________________________________
2.2.1. Origin of WTC ________________________________________________
2.2.2. Trait-like View of WTC _________________________________________
2.2.3. Situational View of WTC ________________________________________
2.2.4. WTC and Language Learning ____________________________________
11
11
12
13
16
2.3. Communication Apprehension (CA) ____________________________________ 21
2.3.1. CA, Unwillingness to Communicate, Anxiety ________________________ 22
2.3.2. CA and Language Learning ______________________________________ 23
2.4. WTC, CA, and Language Proficiency and Achievement __________________ 25
Chapter 3: Methodology _______________________________________ 29
3.1. Introduction _____________________________________________________ 30
3.2 . Setting and the Participants of the Study _______________________________ 30
3.3. Instrumentation ___________________________________________________ 32
3.3.1. Willingness to Communicate Questionnaire (WTC) ___________________ 32
3.3.2. Personal Report of Communication Apprehension (PRCA-24) __________ 34
3.3.3. Testing Pragmatic Competence: Discourse Completion Task ____________ 35
3.3.3. Testing Linguistic Competence: Grammar and Vocabulary Test__________ 37
3.4. Procedure _______________________________________________________ 38
3.5. Design and Data Analysis___________________________________________ 39
6
Chapter 4: Results ____________________________________________ 40
4.1. Introduction _____________________________________________________ 41
4.2. Descriptive Statistics ______________________________________________
3.2.1. WTC of the Learners ___________________________________________
3.2.2. CA of the Learners _____________________________________________
3.2.3. Linguistic and Pragmatic Competence of the Learners _________________
41
41
43
45
4.3.WTC and Pragmatic and Linguistic Competence _________________________ 45
4.4. CA and Pragmatic and Linguistic Competence __________________________ 49
Chapter 5: Discussion and Conclusion ___________________________ 54
5.1. Introduction _____________________________________________________ 55
5.2. Discussion of the First Research Question ______________________________ 55
5.3. Discussion of the Second Research Question____________________________ 59
5.4. Conclusion ______________________________________________________ 62
5.4.1. Pedagogical Implications ________________________________________ 63
5.4.2. Suggestions for Further Research _________________________________ 64
References __________________________________________________ 66
Appendices __________________________________________________ 81
Appendix A: Willingness to Communicate (WTC)_____________________________82
Appendix B: Personal Report of Communication Apprehension__________________87
Appendix C: Discourse Completion Task (DCT)______________________________92
Appendix D: Grammar and Vocabulary Test_________________________________96
7
List of Tables
Page
Table 4.1: Proportion of Participants in High, Average, and Low on WTC
________________________________________________________ 42
Table 4.2: Descriptive Statistics for Willingness to Communicate___42
Table 4.3: Proportion of Participants in High, Average, and Low on PRCA24_____________________________________________43
Table 4.4: Descriptive Statistics for Communication Apprehension__43
Table 4.5: Proportion of Participants in High, Average, and Low Proficiency on
Grammar and Vocabulary Test_________________44
Table
4.6:
Percentage
of
Frequency
of
Semantic
Formulas
in
Refusals______________________________________________45
Table 4.7: Descriptive Statistics for Communication Apprehension__45
Table 4.8: Correlations between Willingness to Communicate and Pragmatic
Competence______________________________________46
Table 4.9: Correlations between Willingness to Communicate and Linguistic
Competence___________________________________48
8
Table 4.10: Correlations between Communication Apprehension and Pragmatic
Competence___________________________________50
Table 4.11: Correlations between Communication Apprehension and Linguistic
Competence___________________________________52
List of Abbreviations
9
CA_______________________________ Communication Apprehension
DCT _______________________________ Discourse Completion Task
EFL ______________________________ English as a Foreign Language
IDs _____________________________________ Individual Differences
L1 ____________________________________________ First Language
L2 _________________________________ Second or Foreign Language
OPT____________________________________ Oxford Placement Test
SLA______________________________ Second Language Acquisittion
UnWTC ________________________ UnWillingness To Communicate
WTC ______________________________ Willingness To Communicate
10
List of Figures
PAGE
Figure 2.1: MacIntyre et al.‟s (1998) heuristic model of L2 communication
________________________________________________________ 14
11
Chapter One
Introduction
1.1.
Background
Students‟ active participation in classroom is an important prerequisite for
learning a second language (L2) (Savignon, 1983, 2005). Current approaches to
12
learning and teaching foreign languages emphasize the role of interaction and
communication and assert that learners should be trained to communicate in the
target language (Skehan, 1989; Swain, 2000). Skehan (1989) believes that
interaction is the key point in learning a language and students must ″talk in order
to learn″ (p. 48).
One of the most important factors of L2 learning and communication is the
individual differences (ID) which has been found to dramatically affect learners
language proficiency and achievement (Dornyei, 2005, 2007). Variables like
attitude, motivation, self-esteem, aptitude, etc. have been found to influence the
amount of learners‟ language learning. Due to the focus on interaction and
communication in language learning, these ID variables related to communication
have gained much importance and salience in the past two decades (Dornyei, 2005;
MacIntyre, Clement, Dornyei, & Noels, 1998). Communication Apprehension
(CA) and Willingness to Communicate (WTC) are among the most important
communication traits which are believed to affect learners‟ participation and
interaction in the classroom.
WTC is one of the most recent ID variables introduced to the literature of L2
learning and acquisition (MacIntyre et al., 1998). WTC trait was first developed
13
with reference to first language (L1) communication (McCroskey & Richmond
1990, 1991) and then was introduced to the L2 learning and acquisition literature
(MacIntyre & Charos, 1996). Yashima (2002) believes that WTC is the construct
responsible for an individual‟s ability in L1 and L2 communication. After WTC
construct was introduced to the literature of L2 learning, the next step was to find
out those variables exerting influence on it. Scholars began to investigate the
contribution of different psychological, cultural, biological, and linguistic variables
to WTC.
CA is defined as ″fear or anxiety associated with either real or anticipated
communication with other person or persons″ (McCroskey, 1997, p.78). This
construct is concerned with individual‟s apprehension and anxiety when speaking
in various contexts and with various types of interlocutors. CA was studied as an
important variable in all of those studies as a communication trait and a construct
closely connected with WTC (e.g. MacIntyre, 1994).
WTC, together with CA, as its more relevant construct, has been the focus of
research on communication traits related to language learning in the past two
decades. Studies have shown that WTC and CA are closely connected to each
other so that scholars have proposed that CA is one of the strongest predictors of
WTC (Baker & MacIntyre 2000; MacIntyre, 1994; McCroskey & Richmond,
14
1991). The importance of WTC for language learning and teaching reaches to the
point that some scholars believe that generating WTC should be the ultimate goal
of language instruction (Kang, 2005; MacIntyre et al., 1998). They also notice that
WTC and the constructs related to it, like CA, should be studied in order to benefit
from their potentials for language learning and teaching. The first necessary point
to move in that direction is to know what the relationship and contribution of WTC
and CA variables to the language learning and achievement of EFL students is.
The current study will therefore try to investigate the relationship between
communication-related variables of WTC and CA, and linguistic and pragmatic
abilities of Iranian EFL learners.
1.2.
Statement of the Problem
MacIntyre et al., (1998) conceptualized L2 WTC in order to explain the
interrelations among various affective variables that influenced learners‟ tendency
for communication. They stated that if language teaching programs could generate
WTC in the learners, they would achieve their main goal of bringing nations and
cultures into contact. They claimed that their model explained the reasons of some
learners‟ willingness and unwillingness to communicate and proposed that
generating WTC should be the ultimate goal of language instruction. Although
some studies have been conducted on the theoretical aspects of WTC, there are
15
very few studies investigating its relationship with language proficiency and
achievement of second language learners. Stakeholders and decision-makers
should be provided with empirical evidence about the relationship and contribution
of WTC to language attainment of students before deciding to implement it into
their language teaching programs. This study is an attempt to examine the
relationship between WTC and linguistic and pragmatic competence. The
relationship between CA, as a variable closely preventing WTC (MacIntyre, 1994),
and linguistic and pragmatic competence has also been investigated in order to
present a clearer picture of the relationship between willingness and unwillingness
to communicate and language proficiency.
1.3.
Purpose of the Study
This study aims to investigate the relationship between WTC and CA and
linguistic and pragmatic competence of Iranian EFL learners. Scholars have
suggested that if language teaching programs aim at generating WTC, they will
have learners actively and autonomously seek opportunities to use their L2 for
communication both inside and outside the classroom (Kang, 2005). A decision to
implement WTC in language teaching needs empirical evidence on whether such a
variable is related to language proficiency and achievement. A study investigating
the relationship between WTC and CA and language competence seems to provide
16
the information needed for making such decisions. Therefore, the objective of this
research will be to fill the gap in the literature between variables of WTC and CA
and pragmatic and linguistic competence.
1.4.
Significance of the Study
Kang (2005) claimed that by generating WTC language teachers will have
very active learners. She added that learners with high level of WTC will be more
autonomous and independent learners which will extend their leaning opportunities
not only inside the classroom but also outside the classroom and in real life
situations (Kang, 2005). MacIntyre et al. (1998) claimed that if we recognize the
transitory and enduring variables influencing WTC, we can aim at generating it
and benefit from its potential advantages. In the past two decades, many
researchers have tried to identify the predictors of WTC. This study is going to
investigate the relationship between two other variables and WTC. With reference
to CA, the findings of this study will hopefully show that whether there is any
relationship between CA and linguistic and pragmatic competence. The
information produced in this study will help us broaden our knowledge about WTC
and CA, gain more knowledge about their influence on students‟ language learning
and achievement. The findings of this research help us to move toward WTC as the
ultimate goal of language (Kang, 2005) instruction and find out the ways in which
17
we can produce more active and cooperative language learners who seek to use the
language communicatively inside and outside the class.
1.5.
Research Questions and Hypotheses
This research study aims at examining the relationship between WTC and
CA and linguistic and pragmatic competence of EFL learners. Therefore, the
objective of the study will be to respond to the following research questions:
RQ1: Is there any relationship between EFL students' willingness to communicate
and their pragmatic and linguistic competence?
RQ2: Is there any relationship between EFL students' communication
apprehension and their pragmatic and linguistic competence?
To this end, the current study will aim to reject the following null hypotheses:
H01: There is no relationship between EFL students' willingness to communicate
and their pragmatic and linguistic competence.
H02: There is no relationship between EFL students' communication apprehension
and their pragmatic and linguistic competence.
18
1.6.
Definition of the Key Terms
Communication Apprehension (CA): is defined as ″fear or anxiety
associated with either real or anticipated communication with other person or
persons″ (McCroskey, 1997, p.78).
Linguistic Competence: Hoff (2001, p. 260) defines linguistic competence as "the
ability to produce and understand well-formed meaningful sentences."
Pragmatic competence: Barron defines pragmatic competence as "knowledge of
the linguistic resources available in a given language for realizing particular
illocutions, knowledge of the sequential aspects of speech acts and, finally,
knowledge of the appropriate contextual use of the particular language‟s linguistic
resources" (2003, p.10).
Willingness to communicate (WTC): MacIntyre et al. (1998) define it as ″a
readiness to enter into discourse at a particular moment with a specific person or
persons, using an L2″ (p. 547).
1.7.
Limitations and Delimitations of the Study
19
This study is based on MacIntyre et al.s’ (1998) conceptualization of
WTC and McCroskey’s (1997) CA construct. Therefore, the study is limited
by the accuracy of the theoretical framework to reflect the phenomena
under study.
One of the delimitations was concerned with the sample being studied. It is
clear that a wider sample with a larger number of participants would give a clearer
image and help more to identify the nature of relationship between variables
investigated. Furthermore, the recruited university students voluntarily participated
in this study. In other words, the sample used in this study was not a random
sample. The methodology of the study necessitated that two questionnaires and two
tests to be administered at more than one session and unfortunately some
participants dropped out of the study or replied in a way that made it necessary for
the researcher to exclude them. Because this study was conducted in only one city
Ilam, it is delimited to the setting of the study. This study is limited to time issue,
as well. Any study conducted over a certain interval of time is a snapshot
dependent on conditions occurring during that time.
20