Cited by 190EFL/ESL Teaching and LearningSecond Language Learning and TeachingFrench Language Learning Methods

Ambivalence About Communicating in a Second Language: A Qualitative Study of French Immersion Students’ Willingness to Communicate

MACINTYRE, PETER D., BURNS, CAROLYN, JESSOME, ALISON·2011·The Modern Language Journal

Abstract

The defining feature of immersion language learning is the omnipresent pressure to communicate in the second language (L2), even as incipient skills are being acquired. This study uses the focused essay technique to investigate ambivalence about communicating among adolescent French immersion students (12–14 years of age). Students described situations in which they were most willing to communicate (241 entries received) and situations in which they were least willing to communicate (179 entries received). Responses reveal complex interrelations among linguistic development, L2 self‐development, and the nonlinguistic issues that typically face adolescents. Most frequently, students discussed communication with teachers and friends in a school context, but other entries described situations outside the classroom, with extended family or encounters with media. Perceived competence and error correction were identified as major issues. Students also described feeling excluded or mocked because of their status as immersion students, but at other times they used language to form a secret club to exclude or poke fun at other people. Although we found substantial similarities between situations in which students are most or least willing to communicate, they can be differentiated by subtle changes in context that affect the authenticity of communication and needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1540-4781.2010.01141.x

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Willingness to communicate could considerably impact learners' interaction behaviour.

    “Also, willingness to communicate (WTC), which concerns 'the probability that a learner will USE the language in authentic interaction' (emphasis in original: MacIntyre et al. 1998: 558), could considerably impact learners' interaction behaviour (see MacIntyre, Burns & Jessome 2011).”

    From Interaction and instructed second language acquisition (2018) · cites this paper as MacIntyre, Burns & Jessome 2011

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
MACINTYRE, P. D., BURNS, C., & JESSOME, A.
Affiliations
Cape Breton University (CA)
Corresponding author
  • MACINTYRE, PETER D.
  • BURNS, CAROLYN
  • JESSOME, ALISON
Venue
The Modern Language Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-02-24
Volume
95
Issue
1
Pages
81-96
ISSN
  • 0026-7902 (ISSN-L)
  • 1540-4781
OpenAlex
W2074930895
Cited by
190
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 4
FWCI
49.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Modern Language Journal (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Second Language Learning and Teaching
  • Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › French Language Learning Methods
Keywords
French immersion, willingness to communicate, second language communication, adolescent students, perceived competence, error correction, social exclusion, peer teasing, language development, autonomy, competence, relatedness, teacher-student communication

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review