Willingness to Communicate

Willingness to Communicate (WTC) is a learner's readiness to enter into L2 discourse at a particular moment with a specific person, using the second language. The construct was adapted from L1 communication research (McCroskey & Baer, 1985) to L2 contexts by MacIntyre, Clément, Dörnyei, and Noels (1998), who proposed a comprehensive pyramid model that treats WTC as a situated, dynamic variable rather than a fixed personality trait.

The MacIntyre et al. (1998) Pyramid Model

The model has six layers, moving from stable, distal influences at the base to the immediate act of communication at the top:

Layer	Level	Variables
VI (top)	Communication behaviour	Actual L2 use
V	Behavioural intention	Willingness to communicate
IV	Situated antecedents	Desire to communicate with a specific person; state communicative self-confidence
III	Motivational propensities	Interpersonal motivation; intergroup motivation; L2 self-confidence
II	Affective-cognitive context	Intergroup attitudes; social situation; communicative competence
I (base)	Social and individual context	Intergroup climate; personality

The top three layers (IV–VI) are situational: they fluctuate moment to moment. The bottom three (I–III) are enduring: relatively stable traits and attitudes. The critical insight is that WTC is not simply a matter of proficiency or personality: a learner can be highly proficient yet unwilling to speak, or less proficient yet eager to engage.

Key Distinctions

Trait WTC vs State WTC

• Trait WTC: A relatively stable individual tendency to seek or avoid communication. Linked to personality variables (extraversion, communication apprehension).
• State WTC: A moment-by-moment fluctuation influenced by topic, interlocutor, task type, perceived competence, and anxiety at that instant.

MacIntyre (2007) later emphasized the dynamic, emergent nature of WTC, arguing that it fluctuates within a single lesson and even within a single activity.

L1 WTC vs L2 WTC

In L1, WTC is primarily a personality-based construct. In L2, additional layers of linguistic self-confidence, intergroup attitudes, and language anxiety make it far more complex and variable (MacIntyre et al., 1998).

Research Evidence

MacIntyre & Charos (1996) found that perceived communicative competence and communication anxiety were the strongest predictors of L2 WTC among immersion students, more so than actual proficiency.

Yashima (2002) studied Japanese EFL learners and found that international posture, meaning interest in international affairs, willingness to go overseas, and readiness to interact with people from different cultures, significantly predicted WTC. This extended Gardner's integrativeness concept beyond a single target language community.

Kang (2005) conducted a qualitative study showing WTC fluctuations within individual conversations, identifying three interacting variables: security (feeling safe), excitement (sense of interest), and responsibility (sense of obligation to communicate).

Peng & Woodrow (2010) studied Chinese EFL learners and confirmed that classroom environment (teacher support, student cohesiveness, task orientation) significantly influenced WTC through its effect on communicative confidence.

Mystkowska-Wiertelak & Pawlak (2017) used classroom observations and diaries to show that WTC fluctuates on a minute-by-minute basis, influenced by task type, partner, topic familiarity, and perceived relevance.

Teaching Implications

The ultimate goal of most language programs is not just developing communicative competence but ensuring learners actually use the L2. WTC is the bridge between knowing how to communicate and actually doing it.

• Classroom culture is crucial. A supportive, low-anxiety environment raises state WTC. Rapport, group dynamics, and error tolerance all play roles.
• Task design affects WTC. Familiar topics, clear roles, and meaningful communication gaps increase willingness. Information Gap and opinion gap tasks give learners a genuine reason to speak.
• Partner and grouping matter. Learners may be willing to speak with one interlocutor but not another. Strategic pairing (e.g., pairing a reticent learner with a supportive peer) can raise WTC.
• Self-confidence is key, not just proficiency. Building perceived competence through success experiences, rehearsal time, and graduated challenges is as important as teaching language.
• International posture can substitute for integrative motivation in EFL contexts where learners have little contact with target language communities (Yashima, 2002).

References

• Kang, S.-J. (2005). Dynamic emergence of situational willingness to communicate in a second language. System, 33(2), 277–292.
• MacIntyre, P. D. (2007). Willingness to communicate in the second language: Understanding the decision to speak as a volitional process. The Modern Language Journal, 91(4), 564–576.
• MacIntyre, P. D., & Charos, C. (1996). Personality, attitudes, and affect as predictors of second language communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 15(1), 3–26.
• MacIntyre, P. D., Clément, R., Dörnyei, Z., & Noels, K. A. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in a L2: A situational model of L2 confidence and affiliation. The Modern Language Journal, 82(4), 545–562.
• McCroskey, J. C., & Baer, J. E. (1985). Willingness to communicate: The construct and its measurement. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Speech Communication Association, Denver, CO.
• Mystkowska-Wiertelak, A., & Pawlak, M. (2017). Willingness to Communicate in Instructed Second Language Acquisition. Multilingual Matters.
• Peng, J.-E., & Woodrow, L. (2010). Willingness to communicate in English: A model in the Chinese EFL classroom context. Language Learning, 60(4), 834–876.
• Yashima, T. (2002). Willingness to communicate in a second language: The Japanese EFL context. The Modern Language Journal, 86(1), 54–66.