Page 35 [35]
OCR
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND it is impossible to create an imaginary blend of these communities representing a homogeneous anglophone culture (Jenkins 2009, Widdowson 2004). Also, native speakers of English are outnumbered by non-native speakers of English by a third (Crystal 2003); as a consequence, learners of English cannot identify with speakers of English the same way French speakers did in Canada in the Gardnerian (1985) model. A possible solution to this problem was the extension of the original Gardnerian (1985) model, as integrativeness in a globalized world “is not so much related to any actual, or metaphorical, integration into an L2 community as to some more basic identification process within the individual’s self-concept” (Dörnyei-Csizer 2002: 456). In order to justify this claim and to provide empirical support for the concept, Dérnyei et al. (2006) conducted a large-scale longitudinal study in Hungary that extended over a 12-year period and involved more than 13,000 Hungarian students. The findings reinforced the importance of integrativeness supported by positive attitudes towards L2 speakers and the positive impact of instrumentality, i.e., the practical benefits of knowing an L2, such as a higher salary or better position in the labor market. However, direct communication with members of the L2 community and “real” integration with the L2 community was not possible since most students learned English in an educational setting without direct contact with the target community. Csizér and Doérnyei (2005) explained these findings by pointing out that integrativeness in this sense is different from that of Gardner (1985) and should, therefore, be treated as a different concept, especially because there is no specific L2 community in the case of English; rather, learners may develop a globalized world identity. In light of these findings, Dôrnyei and Csizér (2002) claimed that integrativeness, on the one hand, refers to the learners’ desire to become part of the L2 community; on the other hand, it also involves “identification with the values that knowledge of the L2 could bring them” (Csizér 2019: 72). The Ideal L2 Self was chosen to be part of the present research project because, in various contexts, numerous other large-scale studies have yielded results supporting the Ideal L2 Self dimension of Dôrnyeïs (2005) theory. Studies conducted in Germany (Busse—Walter 2013, Busse—Williams 2010); Hungary (Csizer-Lukäcs 2010, Kormos-Csizer 2008); Indonesia (Lamb 2012); Japan, China, and Iran (Ryan 2009, Taguchi et al. 2009); Pakistan (Islam et al. 2013); Saudi Arabia (Al-Shehri 2009, Moskovsky et al. 2016); and Sweden (Henry 2009, 2010) validated the L2 Motivation Self System, and Dörnyei and Ryan (2015) add that the studies using both the Ideal L2 Self and Integrativeness found that the two variables correlate (correlation coefficient r=.50), which reinforces the previous assumption that they are related. + 33 +
