Integrative Motivation

Integrative motivation is the desire to learn a language because of a genuine interest in the target language community: its people, culture, and way of life. The learner wants to interact with and potentially become part of the community. The concept was introduced by Gardner and Lambert (1959, 1972) and later developed within Gardner's Socio-Educational Model (1985, 2001).

Integrativeness in Gardner's Model

Gardner (2001) defined integrativeness as a complex of three components:

Component	Description
Integrative orientation	Desire to learn the L2 to interact with and become closer to the TL community
Interest in foreign languages	General curiosity about and openness to other languages
Attitudes toward the L2 community	Positive perceptions of TL speakers and their culture

Integrativeness, combined with attitudes toward the learning situation (teacher, course, materials) and motivation (effort + desire + positive affect), forms what Gardner called the integrative motive: the full motivational complex that predicts L2 achievement.

The Integrative-Instrumental Debate

Gardner and Lambert (1972) initially claimed integrative motivation was superior for sustained L2 learning. This became the dominant position in SLA motivation research for decades. However:

• The finding held primarily in bilingual, multicultural contexts (e.g., anglophone Montreal) where interaction with the L2 community was possible and socially meaningful.
• In EFL contexts (e.g., Japan, Hungary, Taiwan), where learners had minimal contact with TL communities, instrumental motivation was often a stronger predictor (Dörnyei, 1990; Lukmani, 1972).
• Globalization complicated the concept: who is the "target community" when English is a global lingua franca used among non-native speakers? (Yashima, 2002; Dörnyei, 2005).

The L2 Motivational Self System

Dörnyei (2005, 2009) proposed the L2 Motivational Self System as a reconceptualization that largely subsumes the integrative/instrumental distinction:

Component	Replaces	Description
Ideal L2 self	Integrativeness (partly)	The person one would ideally like to become as an L2 user
Ought-to L2 self	Instrumental (obligation type)	Attributes one believes one ought to possess to meet expectations
L2 learning experience	Attitudes toward learning situation	Immediate learning environment, teacher, curriculum, peers

Dörnyei argued that integrativeness can be reinterpreted as the desire to reduce the gap between one's current self and one's ideal L2 self, a concept that works even without a clear target language community.

Research Evidence

Gardner & Lambert (1972): Foundational Montreal studies: integratively oriented francophone learners of English showed higher proficiency and more sustained effort.

Clément & Kruidenier (1983): Studied motivation orientations across diverse Canadian groups and found that integrative orientation emerged clearly only in multicultural contexts where learners had direct contact with TL speakers.

Dörnyei (1990): In the Hungarian EFL context, integrative motivation was less predictive than instrumental motivation and a newly identified "need for achievement" factor.

Yashima (2002): Proposed international posture as a functional equivalent of integrativeness for EFL contexts: interest in international affairs and willingness to interact interculturally predicted WTC and L2 use.

Dörnyei (2009): Large-scale validation studies in Hungary, Japan, China, and Iran supported the L2 Motivational Self System, with the ideal L2 self consistently the strongest motivational predictor.

Gardner (2001, 2010) defended the integrativeness construct, arguing it captures a genuine psychological orientation distinct from the self-concept approach and that the two frameworks are complementary rather than competing.

Teaching Implications

• Build cultural engagement into courses. Films, music, literature, authentic media, and cultural discussions can nurture integrative motivation even in EFL settings.
• International posture matters in EFL. Where learners cannot access a specific TL community, fostering interest in global communication, exchange programs, and international media serves a similar motivational function.
• The ideal L2 self is actionable. Help learners visualize themselves as competent L2 users through future self-guides, goal-setting, and exposure to L2 role models.
• Don't rely on integrativeness alone. In exam-oriented and professional contexts, instrumental motivation may be the primary driver, and that is perfectly functional.
• Acculturation connects directly. In immersion and study-abroad contexts, integrative motivation interacts with acculturation; learners who are more open to the host culture tend to acquire more.

References

• Clément, R., & Kruidenier, B. G. (1983). Orientations in second language acquisition: The effects of ethnicity, milieu, and target language on their emergence. Language Learning, 33(3), 273–291.
• Dörnyei, Z. (1990). Conceptualizing motivation in foreign-language learning. Language Learning, 40(1), 45–78.
• Dörnyei, Z. (2005). The Psychology of the Language Learner: Individual Differences in Second Language Acquisition. Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Dörnyei, Z. (2009). The L2 Motivational Self System. In Z. Dörnyei & E. Ushioda (Eds.), Motivation, Language Identity and the L2 Self (pp. 9–42). Multilingual Matters.
• Gardner, R. C. (1985). Social Psychology and Second Language Learning: The Role of Attitudes and Motivation. Edward Arnold.
• Gardner, R. C. (2001). Integrative motivation and second language acquisition. In Z. Dörnyei & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Motivation and Second Language Acquisition (pp. 1–19). University of Hawai'i Press.
• Gardner, R. C., & Lambert, W. E. (1972). Attitudes and Motivation in Second Language Learning. Newbury House.
• Yashima, T. (2002). Willingness to communicate in a second language: The Japanese EFL context. The Modern Language Journal, 86(1), 54–66.