Expanding the theoretical base for the dynamics of willingness to communicate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The dynamics underlying willingness to communicate in a second or third language (L2 for short), operating in real time, are affected by a number of intra- and inter-personal processes. L2 communication is a remarkably fluid process, especially considering the wide range of skill levels observed among L2 learners and speakers. Learners often find themselves in a position that requires the use of uncertain L2 skills, be it inside or outside the classroom context. Beyond issues of competencies, which are themselves complex, using an L2 also evokes cultural, political, social, identity, motivational, emotional, pedagogical, and other issues that learners must navigate on-the-fly. The focus of this article will be on the remarkably rapid integration of factors, such as the ones just named whenever a language learner chooses to be a language speaker, that is, when the moment for authentic communication arrives. Communicative events are especially important in understanding the psychology of the L2 learner. Our research group has developed the idiodynamic method to allow examination of an individual’s experience of events on a timescale of a few minutes. Results are describing complex interactions and rapid changes in the psychological conditions that accompany both approaching and avoiding L2 communication. The research takes a new approach to familiar concepts such as motivation, language competence, learning strategies, and so on. By examining willingness to communicate as a dynamic process, new types of research questions and answers are emerging, generating new theory, research methods, and pedagogical approaches applicable both within language classrooms and beyond.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".