Recently, situated willingness to communicate (WTC) has received increasing research attention in addition to traditional quantitative studies of trait-like WTC. This article is an addition to the former but unique in two ways. First, it investigates both trait and state WTC in a classroom context and explores ways to combine the two to reach a fuller understanding of why second language (L2) learners choose (or avoid) communication at given moments. Second, it investigates the communication behavior of individuals and of the group they constitute as nested systems, with the group as context for individual performance. An interventional study was conducted in a class for English as a foreign language (EFL) with 21 students in a Japanese university. During discussion sessions in English over a semester in which Initiation–Response–Feedback (IRF) patterns were avoided to encourage students to initiate communication, qualitative data based on observations, student self-reflections, and interviews and scale-based data on trait anxiety and WTC were collected. The analyses, which focused on three selected participants, revealed how differences in the frequency of self-initiated turns emerged through the interplay of enduring characteristics, including personality and proficiency, and contextual influences such as other students’ reactions and group-level talk–silence patterns.
AndersonF.E. (1993). The enigma of the college classroom: Nails that don’t stick up. In: WaddenP. (Ed.), A handbook for teaching English at Japanese colleges and universities (pp. 101–110). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2.
BernalesC. (2016). Towards a comprehensive concept of willingness to communicate: Learners’ predicted and self-reported participation in the foreign language classroom. System, 56, 1–12.
3.
CaoY. (2011). Investigating situational willingness to communicate within second language classrooms from an ecological perspective. System, 39, 468–479.
4.
CaoY. (2014). A sociocognitive perspective on second language classroom willingness to communicate. TESOL Quarterly, 48, 789–814.
5.
CaoY.PhilpJ. (2006). Interactional context and willingness to communicate: A comparison of behavior in class, group, and dyadic interaction. System, 34, 480–493.
6.
ClémentR.BakerS.C.MacIntyreP.D. (2003). Willingness to communicate in a second language: The effects of context, norms, and vitality. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 22, 190–209.
7.
de BotK.LowieW.VerspoorM. (2007). A dynamic systems theory approach to second language acquisition. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 10, 7–21.
8.
DeniesK.YashimaT.JanssenR. (2015). Classroom versus societal willingness to communicate: Investigating French as a second language in Flanders. The Modern Language Journal, 99, 718–739.
9.
de Saint LégarD.StorchN. (2009). Learners’ perceptions and attitudes: Implications for willingness to communicate in an L2 classroom. System, 37, 269–285.
10.
DörnyeiZ. (2001). Teaching and researching motivation. Harlow: Longman.
11.
DörnyeiZ. (2005). The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
12.
DörnyeiZ. (2009). The psychology of second language acquisition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
13.
DörnyeiZ.RyanS. (2015). The psychology of the language learner revisited. London: Routledge.
14.
DörnyeiZ.MacIntyreP.D.HenryA. (Eds.). (2015). Motivational dynamics in language learning. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
15.
FerrisD.TaggT. (1996). Academic listening/speaking tasks for ESL students: Problems, suggestions, and implications. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 297–320.
16.
FujieY. (2000). Isseijugyou no hanashiai ni okeru kodomo no ryougiteki na hatsuwa no kinou [Children’s in-class participation mixing academic and personal materials: Teachers’ instructional response]. Kyouikushinrigaku Kenkyu, 48, 21–31.
17.
GassS.MackeyA. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
18.
GregersenT.MacIntyreP.D.MezaM. (2014). The motion of emotion: Idiodynamic case studies of learners’ foreign language anxiety. Modern Language Journal, 98, 574–588.
19.
KangS.J. (2005). Dynamic emergence of situational willingness to communicate in a second language. System, 33, 277–292.
20.
KingJ. (2013). Silence in the second language classrooms of Japanese universities. Applied Linguistics, 34, 325–343.
21.
KorstT.J. (1997). Answer, please answer! A perspective on Japanese university students’ silent response to questions. JALT Journal, 19, 279–291.
22.
Larsen–FreemanD. (2013). Transfer of learning transformed. Language Learning, 63, 107–129.
23.
Larsen–FreemanD.CameronL. (2008). Complex systems and applied linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.
24.
LittlewoodW. (1999). Defining and developing autonomy in East Asian contexts. Applied Linguistics, 20, 71–94.
25.
LiuM.JacksonJ. (2008). An exploration of Chinese EFL learners’ unwillingness to communicate and foreign language anxiety. The Modern Language Journal, 92, 71–86.
26.
MacIntyreP.D. (2007). Willingness to communicate in the second language: Understanding the decision to speak as a volitional process. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 564–576.
27.
MacIntyreP.D.CharosC. (1996). Personality, attitudes, and affect as predictors of second language communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 15, 3–26.
28.
MacIntyreP.D.ClémentR. (1996). A model of willingness to communicate in a second language: The concept, its antecedents, and implications. Unpublished paper presented at the 11th World Congress of Applied Linguistics, Jyväskylä, Finland.
29.
MacIntyreP.D.LegattoJ.J. (2011). A dynamic system approach to willingness to communicate: Developing an idiodynamic method to capture rapidly changing affect. Applied Linguistics, 32, 149–171.
30.
MacIntyreP.D.BabinP.A.ClémentR. (1999). Willingness to communicate: Antecedents and consequences. Communication Quarterly, 47, 215–229.
31.
MacIntyreP.D.BurnsC.JessomeA. (2011). Ambivalence about communicating in a second language: A qualitative study of French immersion students’ willingness to communicate. The Modern Language Journal, 95, 81–96.
32.
MacIntyreP.D.ClémentR.DörnyeiZ.NoelsK. (1998). Conceptualizing willingness to communicate in an L2: A situated model of confidence and affiliation. The Modern Language Journal, 82, 545–562.
33.
NakaneI. (2006). Silence and politeness in intercultural communication in university seminars. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 1811–1835.
34.
NortonB. (2000). Identity and language learning: Gender, ethnicity, and educational change. London: Longman.
35.
PawlakM.Mystkowska-WiertelakA. (2015). Investigating the dynamic nature of classroom willingness to communicate. System, 50, 1–9.
36.
PawlakM.Mystkowska-WiertelakA.BielakJ.(2015). Investigating the nature of L2 willingness to communicate (WTC): A micro-perspective. Language Teaching Research. Epub ahead of print9October2015. DOI: 10.1177/1362168815609615.
37.
PengJ. (2012). Towards an ecological understanding of willingness to communicate in EFL classrooms in China. System, 40, 203–213.
38.
PengJ.WoodrowL. (2010). Willingness to communicate in English: A model in the Chinese EFL classroom context. Language Learning, 60, 834–876.
39.
RyanS. (2008). The ideal L2 selves of Japanese learners of English. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.
40.
RyanS. (2009). Self and identity in L2 motivation in Japan: The ideal L2 self and Japanese learners of English. In: DörnyeiZ.UshiodaE. (Eds.), Motivation, language identity, and the L2 Self (pp. 120–143). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
41.
StraussA.CorbinJ. (1998). Basics of qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
42.
SwainM. (2005). Three functions of output in second language learning. In: CookG.SeidlhoferB. (Eds.), Principles and practices in applied linguistics: Studies in Honour of H.G. Widdowson (pp. 471–483). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
43.
van LierL. (1996). Interaction in the language curriculum. New York: Routledge.
44.
YashimaT. (2002). Willingness to communicate in a second language: The Japanese EFL context. The Modern Language Journal, 86, 54–66.
45.
YashimaT. (2009). International posture and the ideal self in the Japanese EFL context. In: DörnyeiZ.UshiodaE. (Eds.), Motivation, language identity, and the L2 self (pp. 144–163). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
46.
YashimaT. (2014). [Japanese university students’ attitudes toward and affect about learning English]. Unpublished raw data, Kansai University, Japan.
47.
YashimaT.Zenuk-NishideL.ShimizuK. (2004). The influence of attitudes and affect on willingness to communicate and second language communication. Language Learning, 54, 119–152.
