The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics

Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 22

[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 22, No. 0, pp. 229-245
Abbreviation: KASELL
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print) 2586-7474 (Online)
Print publication date 31 Jan 2022
Received 13 Feb 2022 Revised 20 Mar 2022 Accepted 28 Mar 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.22..202203.229

Motivational Principles underlying Linguistic Characteristics of Second Language Writing
Mijin Eom ; Mostafa Papi
(1st author) Adjunct Professor, Florida State University (me11h@my.fsu.edu)
(co-author) Assistant Professor, Florida State University (mpapi@fsu.edu)


© 2022 KASELL All rights reserved
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

The present study explored how a learner’s motivational foundation driven by regulatory focus and mode is related to the linguistic characteristics of complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF) of L2 writing. It was hypothesized that learner’s regulatory focus and mode would lead the learners to focus on certain aspects of the writing processes, thus resulting in individual variations in CAF levels of writing. English argumentative essays written by 48 Korean EFL students were analyzed with reference to writing CAF measures. The participants’ regulatory foci and modes were also measured using two questionnaires. The results of multiple regression analyses showed that the promotion-focus positively predicted complexity and the prevention-focus negatively predicted fluency and accuracy. Regarding regulatory mode, the assessment-mode positively predicted both complexity and accuracy and the locomotion-mode was not significantly related to any measures of CAF. The findings may contribute to understanding individual differences in L2 development through writing and suggest that learners’ inherent motivational characteristics play a role in the L2 writing process. Results are discussed in relation to the writing process models, and pedagogical implications and future research directions are suggested.


Keywords: motivational orientation, L2 writing, complexity, accuracy, and fluency (CAF), regulatory focus, regulatory mode, individual difference

References
1. Ai, H. and L. Xiaofei. 2010, June. A Web-based System for Automatic Measurement of Lexical Complexity. Paper presented at the 2010 27th Annual Symposium of the Computer-Assisted Language Consortium (CALICO-10). Amherst, MA.
2. Amato, C., A. Pierro, A. Chirumbolo and G. Pica. 2014. Regulatory modes and time management: How locomotors and assessors plan and perceive time. International Journal of Psychology 49(3), 192-199.
3. Baoshu, Y. and N. Chuanbi. 2015. Planning and working memory effects on L2 performance in Chinese EFL learners’ argumentative writing. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics 5, 44-53.
4. Baoshu, Y. and S. Luo. 2012. The effect of working memory capacity on written language production of second language learners. Foreign Language Teaching and Research 44, 536-546.
5. Brockner, J. and E. T. Higgins. 2001. Regulatory focus theory: Implications for the study of emotions at work. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 86(1), 35-66.
6. Brown, A. L. and J. C. Campione. 1994. Guided Discovery in a Community of Learners. The MIT Press.
7. Chernikova, M., C. L. Destro, R. Mauro, A. Pierro, A. W. Kruglanski and E. T. Higgins. 2016. Different strokes for different folks: Effects of regulatory mode complementarity and task complexity on performance. Personality and Individual Differences 89, 134-142.
8. Crowe, E. and E. T. Higgins. 1997. Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and prevention in decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 69(2), 117-132.
9. Dörnyei, Z. 2009. The L2 motivational self-system. In Z. Dörnyei and E. Ushioda, eds., Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self, 9-42. Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters.
10. Dornyei, Z. and S. Ryan. 2015. The Psychology of the Language Learner Revisited. Routledge.
11. Förster, J. and E. T. Higgins. 2005. How global versus local perception fits regulatory focus. Psychological Science 16(8), 631-636.
12. Eom, M. 2018. The Potential Influence of a Learner’s Regulatory Orientations on the Linguistic Dimensions of Second Language Writing Task Performance. Doctoral dissertation, The Florida State University.
13. Förster, J., E. T. Higgins and A. T. Bianco. 2003. Speed/accuracy decisions in task performance: Built-in trade-off or separate strategic concerns? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 90(1), 148-164.
14. Han, Y. and K. McDonough. 2018. Korean L2 speakers’ regulatory focus and oral task performance. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 56(2), 181-203.
15. Han, Y. and K. McDonough. 2021. Motivation as individual differences and task conditions from a regulatory focus perspective: Their effects on L2 Korean speech performance. Innovation in Language Learning and Teaching 15(1), 1-12.
16. Han, Y. 2017. Mediating and being mediated: Learner beliefs and learner engagement with written corrective feedback. System 69, 133-142.
17. Haws, K. L., U. M. Dholakia and W. O. Bearden. 2010. An assessment of chronic regulatory focus measures. Journal of Marketing Research 47(5), 967-982.
18. Hashemian, M. and A. Heidari. 2013. The relationship between L2 learners’ motivation/attitude and success in L2 writing. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 70, 476-489.
19. Hayes, J. R. 2000. Understanding cognition and affect in writing. In R. Indrisano and J. R. Squire, eds., Perspectives on Writing: Research, Theory, and Practice, 6-44. Taylor & Francis.
20. Higgins, E. T. 1997. Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist 52(12), 1280.
21. Hyland, F. 2011. The language learning potential of form-focused feedback on writing. Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in an additional language. In R. M. Manchón, eds., Learning-to-Write and Writing-to-Learn in an Additional Language, 159-179. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
22. Inoue, C. 2016. A comparative study of the variables used to measure syntactic complexity and accuracy in task-based research. The Language Learning Journal 44(4), 487-505.
23. Jang, Y. and J. Lee. 2019. The effects of ideal and ought-to L2 selves on Korean EFL learners’ writing strategy use and writing quality. Reading and Writing 32(5), 1129-1148.
24. Johnson, M. D. 2017. Cognitive task complexity and L2 written syntactic complexity, accuracy, lexical complexity, and fluency: A research synthesis and meta-analysis. Journal of Second Language Writing 37, 13-38.
25. Kark, R. and D. Van-Dijk. 2007. Motivation to lead, motivation to follow: The role of the self-regulatory focus in leadership processes. Academy of Management Review 32(2), 500-528.
26. Kellogg, R. T. 1996. A model of working memory in writing. In C. M. Levy and S. Ransdell, eds., The Science of Writing: Theories, Methods, Individual Differences, and Applications, 57-71. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
27. Kormos, J. 2012. The role of individual differences in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 21(4), 390-403.
28. Kormos, J. and A. Sáfár. 2008. Phonological short-term memory, working memory and foreign language performance in intensive language learning. Bilingualism 11(2), 261-271.
29. Kruglanski, A. W., A. Pierro, E. T. Higgins and D. Capozza. 2007b. “On the move” or “Staying put”: Locomotion, need for closure, and reactions to organizational change. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 37(6), 1305-1340.
30. Kruglanski, A. W., E. P. Thompson, E. T. Higgins, M. Atash, A. Pierro, J. Y. Shah and S. Spiegel. 2000. To “do the right thing” or to “just do it”: Locomotion and assessment as distinct self-regulatory imperatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79(5), 793-815.
31. Kuiken, F. and I. Vedder. 2007. Cognitive task complexity and linguistic performance in French L2 writing. In M. d. P. García Mayo, F. Kuiken and I. Vedder, Investigating Tasks in Formal Language Learning, 117-135. Bristol, Blue Ridge Summit: Multilingual Matters.
32. Lockwood, P., C. H. Jordan and Z. Kunda. 2002. Motivation by positive or negative role models: Regulatory focus determines who will best inspire us. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 83(4), 854-864.
33. Manchón, R. 2009. Writing in Foreign Language Contexts: Learning, Teaching, and Research Vol. 43, Multilingual Matters.
34. Mauro, R., A. Pierro, L. Mannetti, E. T. Higgins and A. W. Kruglanski. 2009. The perfect mix: Regulatory complementarity and the speed-accuracy balance in group performance. Psychological Science 20(6), 681-685.
35. Ortega, L. 2003. Syntactic complexity measures and their relationship to L2 proficiency: A research synthesis of college‐level L2 writing. Applied Linguistics 24(4), 492-518.
36. Papi, M. 2018. Motivation as quality. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 40(4), 707-730.
37. Papi, M., A. V. Bondarenko, S. Mansouri, L. Feng and C. Jiang. 2019. Rethinking L2 motivation research: The 2× 2 model of L2 self-guides. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 41(2), 337-361.
38. Papi, M. and G. H. Khajavy. 2021. Motivational mechanisms underlying second language achievement: A regulatory focus perspective. Language Learning 71(2), 537-572.
39. Pham, M. T. and H. Chang. 2008. Regulatory focus and regulatory fit in consumer search and consideration of alternatives. Advances in Consumer Research 35, 229-232.
40. Pham, M. and H. H. Chang. 2010. Regulatory focus, regulatory fit, and the search and consideration of choice alternatives. Journal of Consumer Research 37(4), 626-640.
41. Pham, M. T. and E. T. Higgins. 2005. The state of the art and theoretical propositions. In S. Ratneshwar and D. G. Mick, eds., Inside Consumption: Consumer Motives, Goals, and Desires, 8-43, Psychology Press.
42. Pierro, A., A. W. Kruglanski and E. T. Higgins. 2006a. Progress takes work: Effects of the locomotion dimension on job involvement, effort investment, and task performance in organizations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 36(7), 1723-1743.
43. Pierro, A., S. Leder, L. Mannetti, E. T. Higgins, A. W. Kruglanski and A. Aiello. 2008. Regulatory mode effects on counterfactual thinking and regret. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 44(2), 321-329.
44. Polio, C. 2012. The relevance of second language acquisition theory to the written error correction debate. Journal of Second Language Writing 21(4), 375-389.
45. Rahimi, M. and L. J. Zhang. 2019. Writing task complexity, students’ motivational beliefs, anxiety, and their writing production in English as a second language. Reading and Writing 32(3), 761-786.
46. Scholer, A. A., X. Zou, K. Fujita, S. J. Stroessner and E. T. Higgins. 2010. When risk seeking becomes a motivational necessity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 99(2), 215-231.
47. Selinker, L. and S. M. Gass. 2008. Second Language Acquisition. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
48. Semin, G. R., T. Higgins, L. G. de Montes, Y. Estourget and J. F. Valencia. 2005. Linguistic signatures of regulatory focus: How abstraction fits promotion more than prevention. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 89(1), 36-45.
49. Sheen, Y. 2007. The effect of focused written corrective feedback and language aptitude on ESL learners’ acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly 41(2), 255-283.
50. Sheen, Y. 2011. Corrective Feedback, Individual Differences and Second Language Learning. Springer.
51. Skehan, P. and P. Foster. 1997. Task type and task processing conditions as influences on foreign language performance. Language Teaching Research 1(3), 185-211.
52. Skehan, P. and P. Foster. 1999. The influence of task structure and processing conditions on narrative retellings. Language Learning 49(1), 93-120.
53. Snow, R., B. O’Connor, D. Jurafsky and A. Y. Ng. 2008. Cheap and fast---but is it good? Evaluating non-expert annotations for natural language tasks. In Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 254-263. Association for Computational Linguistics.
54. Sun, T. and C. Wang. 2020. College students’ writing self-efficacy and writing self-regulated learning strategies in learning English as a foreign language. System 90, 102221.
55. Tsao, J. J., W. T. Tseng and C. Wang. 2017. The effects of writing anxiety and motivation on EFL college students’ self-evaluative judgments of corrective feedback. Psychological Reports 120(2), 219-241.
56. Tahmouresi, S. and M. Papi. 2021. Future selves, enjoyment, and anxiety as predictors of L2 writing achievement. Journal of Second Language Writing 53, 100837.
57. Teng, L. S. and L. J. Zhang. 2018. Effects of motivational regulation strategies on writing performance: A mediation model of self-regulated learning of writing in English as a second/foreign language. Metacognition and Learning 13(2), 213-240.
58. Wan, W. 2014. Constructing and developing ESL students’ beliefs about writing through metaphor: An exploratory study. Journal of Second Language Writing 23, 53-73.
59. Zabihi, R. 2018. The role of cognitive and affective factors in measures of L2 writing. Written Communication 35(1), 32-57.
60. Zhang, L. J. 2013. Second language writing as and for second language learning. Journal of Second Language Writing 22(4), 446-447.
61. Zhang, L. J., V. Aryadoust and D. Zhang. 2016. Taking stock of the effects of strategies-based instruction on writing in Chinese and English in Singapore primary classrooms. In R. E. Silver and W. D. Bokhorst-Heng, eds., Quadrilingual Education in Singapore, 103-126. Springer, Singapore.
62. Zhang, Y. and M. Papi. 2021. Motivation and second language pragmatics: A regulatory focus perspective. Frontiers in Psychology 12. 753605.