1 – Understanding attitudes
It is fairly clear that embarking on this research requires the definition of the most relevant concept. The word ‘attitude’ is a flimsy one. Its meaning is evasive. The word is used in different contexts interchangeably with other words such as ‘motivation’, ‘beliefs’, or ‘impression’. If we were to pin down the one single meaning of the word, we may find ourselves talking about perception, culture, past experiences, assumptions, beliefs, impressions and so on and so forth. All these concepts undoubtedly have a strong tie with the word. Although it is not an easy one to define, some definitions seem to be more favored than others. One of the most cited definitions for the word is that of Sarnoff. He defines it as “a disposition to react favourably or unfavourably to a class of objects” (1970: 279). Based on this definition, attitudes can have two directions: positive and a negative one.
“An attitude is a psychological tendency that is expressed by evaluating a particular entity with some degree of favour or disfavour.” (Eagley and Chaiken 1998: 269)
Sarnoff, Eagley, and Chaiken in their definitions of attitudes recognize the binary nature of attitudes; that they either have to be positive or negative. However, that is not the end of the matter. There is more to attitudes than just two dichotomic inclinations.
“The concept of attitudes is central to explaining our thoughts, feelings, and actions with regard to other people, situations, and ideas.” (Bordens and Horowitz – 2013 158)
According to Bordens and Horowitz, attitudes are at the heart of mental processes. They are the key concept to understanding personal and subjective experiences. Yet, this definition seems vague and does not render the concept into a graspable and unambiguous meaning. It could be that the ambiguity of the word is what makes it enjoy a sort of flexibility in its use. A more elaborate definition is in order: Attitudes are:
“a mental and neural state of readiness, organized through experience, exerting a directive or dynamic influence upon the individual’s response towards all subjects and situations with which it is related.” Allport (1954: 45)
Allport relates attitudes to personal past experiences. He makes attitudes seem like a repository of impressions accumulated through experience. These impressions filter one’s subjective perception as well as one’s external practices. Although attitudes per se may seem passive and have nothing to do with decision-making, they can have huge influence on one’s behaviors. Pioneered by LaPiere (1934), ‘the relationship between attitudes and behaviors’ triggered a wide range of research in different fields and language teaching/learning makes no exception.
In general, the given definitions capture the most prevailing feature consisting attitudes, if not just the most acknowledged ones. Conventionally, an attitude is a permanent value judgment (Eagly and Chaiken, 1993, 2007) responsive to any given situation.
Now, if pinning down the concept of attitudes may not be achievable, let us then try to break it down into constituents. Baker (1992) divides the concept into three constituents: affective, cognitive and conative. The first constituent has to do with feeling and emotions, the second with thoughts and beliefs, and the third with behavioral intentions. Tension between these components can take place, stresses Baker. For example, somebody may have an inclination to learn English although they may not like the learning process. However, these components unify themselves at a higher lever to represent the larger concept of attitude. In general, this division is very well appreciated in social psychology (Rosenberg and Hovland 1960; Ajzen 1988; Oppenheim 1992; Böhner 2001) although the importance of each constituent may vary from one scholar to another (Bartram, 2010:36).
After having divided the concept into three major parts that may or may not overlap, now we move into differentiating attitudes from motivation which is relevant to the scope of this research.
“Research into motivation and foreign language learning reflects some difficulty with the distinction between motivation and attitude.” Chambers (1999: 26)
There is no dividing line between the two concepts. Most studies regard motivation as being encompassed by attitude (Bartram, 2010:37). However, this is not to say that there is no uncertainty about the nature of the relationship between the two. Schiefele (1963) defines motivation as a mixture of motives and attitudes. Baker (1992) on the other hand differentiates between the two concepts by making attitudes object-specific and motivation goal-oriented. In other words, Baker relates attitudes to the referent object, a foreign language for example; whereas motivation is related to a broader goal, going abroad for example. Nevertheless, this may just be another way of distinguishing between the cognitive and affective components of attitudes themselves (Bartram, 2010:38), and thus motivation is still encompassed by attitudes in this sense.
2 – Understanding attitudes in relation to language learning
Attitudes play a major role in language teaching and learning. The relationship between the two is very intricate.
“Interest in attitude research can also be explained by wide acknowledgement of the relationship between attitudes and successful learning” (Bartram, 2010:33)
Before proceeding to subsequent details, it is of necessity to provide a definition to the linguistic attitude concept. The linguistic attitudes construct is operationalized in the Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics (1992) as follows:
Linguistic attitudes are: “the attitudes which speakers of different languages or language varieties have towards each other’s languages or to their own language. Expressions of positive or negative feelings towards a language may reflect impressions of linguistic difficulty or simplicity, ease or difficulty of learning, degree of importance, elegance, social status, etc. Attitudes towards a language may also show what people feel about the speakers of that language” (p:198)
Understanding the effect of attitudes on L2 and foreign languages is not an unexplored area in language teaching enquiries (Bartram, 2010:33). There is certainly a relationship between language proficiency and attitudes towards the language, but the question is: how can we be sure that we are dealing with attitudes but not something else. Can we isolate attitudes from all other possible variables? Oller and Perkins (1980) for example found that there is zero correlation between second-language proficiency and attitudes.
“In spite of the generally acknowledged importance of attitudes, however, there is much disagreement on their precise nature, their constituent components, classification and their status as a ‘free-standing’ concept in the field of language learning.” (Bartram, 2010:33)
Could not it be possible that the presence of attitudes is merely being assumed for the practical use they provide, that of holding them accountable for behaviors we do not know or understand where they come from?
After having previously approached the concept of attitudes from different sides, it is clear by now that attitudes are not observable behaviors. We only wish to isolate the possible behaviors or inactions that are somehow supposed to be caused by something we call attitudes.
“attitudes are related to behaviour, though not necessarily directly” (Gardner 1985: 9)
Fazio (1990) and Tesser and Shaffer (1990) disapprove of the association between behaviors and attitudes and their use in explaining learning attitudes. Baker (1992), too, refuses to have behaviors as a window to observing language attitudes.
“to ignore the accumulated experiences that are captured in attitudes and concentrate solely on external behavior is unjustified” (Baker, 1992:16)
The cognitive endeavor is by nature always filled with uncertainties like these for the human mind was and still is a black box despite the recent advancement in psychology, neurology and other cognitive disciplines.
Attitudes in relation to language learning is defined in details in Chambers’ quote:
“Attitude is taken to mean the set of values which a pupil brings to the FLL[1] experience. It is shaped by the pay-offs that she expects; the advantages that she sees in language learning. The values which a pupil has may be determined by different variables, such as the experience of learning the target language, of the target language community, experience of travel, the influence of parents and friends, and the attitudes which they may demonstrate and articulate.”(1999: 27)
Most of time pupils or students do not know the cause of their disapproval with a language. It could be that the work of attitudes is probably the most subconscious and complex factor in determining students’ stand on a language. Chambers definition is relevant to the present enquiry since it gives a definition of attitudes in a loose sense and in relation to language learning and it enlists the different variables that will be scrutinized in the practical part.
Some scholars, on the other hand, tried to identify types of attitudes towards foreign language. Gardner and Lambert (1972), who are regarded as the leaders in modern foreign language learning, differentiate between three sorts of language attitudes. The first concerns itself with the target language community. The second concerns itself with the language per se. The third concerns itself with learning foreign languages in general. This classification seems useful and there is relatively a general agreement about it; however, they are far from being uncontroversial (Bartram, 2010:39). Young (1994b) for example disapproves of classifying attitudes because it is too simplistic and that there is more to attitudes than just three categories (p