Motivation and Cultural Distance

in Second-Language Acquisition
Bjorg Svanes
University of Bergen

Previous studies have found that motivation, and in particular integrative motiva-
tion, is an essential factor in the acquisition of a second language. In the present
study of the acquisition of Norwegian by foreign students at the University of
Bergen, Norway, a questionnaire assessing motivation was presented to 167 foreign
students enrolled in classes of “Norwegian for foreign students”, a short time before
the examination in Norwegian, Level 2. European and American ctudents were
found to be more inregratively motivated than the Middle Eastern, African and
Asian students, who were found to be more instrumentally motivated than the
Western students. Moreover, a significant difference in means of grades was
recorded; Europeans having the best and Asian students the poorest grades. In the
total group a weak positive correlation between integrative motivation and language
proficiency, and a negative correlation between instrumental motivation and grades
were found. However, when motivation and grades were analyzed within each
group, no positive correlation between grades and integrative motivation was found.
When ‘cultural distance’ was entered into a multiple regression analysis, in addition
to the two motivation variables, the results indicated that the motivation variables
explained very little of the variance in language proficiency. The best predictor of
variance in groups of students with various language and cultural backgrounds was
‘cultural distance’.

INTRODUCTION

During past decades, second-language learning and factors influencing

the acquisition of a second language have been the object of a great
number of studies, especially in the USA. Many studies have tried to
determine why the acquisition of a second language is more difficult than
the acquisition of the first language. Research has focused on the influ-
ence of factors such as language aptitude, intelligence, age, motivation
for studying the language, attitudes t o the target people, social distance
and personality traits. The present study will deal with the influence of
motivation on the acquisition of a second language by foreign students at
the University of Bergen, Norway, and with the relationship between
motivational variables and cultural distance.

341
342 Language Learning Vol. 37, No. 3

Several previous studies have found a positive relationship between

motivation and achievement in foreign languages. The basic work is the
study by Gardner and Lambert (1972) wherein they described the two
types of motivation most relevant for foreign-language learning; integra-
tive and instrumental motivation. Those who were interested in studying
the language in order to be able to identify with the target people, or
because they were interested in the culture of the target people, were said
to be integratively motivated. Those who wanted to study the language
for the purpose of career advancement, were instrumentally motivated.
An integrative motivation was found to favor acquisition. An instrumen-
tal motivation could be effective as well when there was an urgent need to
learn the language: in a foreign language setting (the Philippine study,
Gardner and Lambert 1972). Results of studies by Spolsky (1969) and
Laine (1984) support this theory. Laine found a strong instrumental
motivation for learning English as a foreign language in the secondary
schools in Finland, but he also found that an integrative motivation was
connected with high achievement. Spolsky found a significant correla-
tion between proficiency in English and integrative motivation and he
concluded, “A person learns a language better when he wants to be a
member of the group speaking that language” (Spolsky 1969). Oller et al.
(1977), on the other hand, found in their study of the acquisition of
English as a second language by Mexican-Americans in New Mexico,
that those students who were anti-integratively motivated towards the
Anglo American majority and instrumentally motivated to learn English,
scored highest on the proficiency tests.
Gardner and Symthe (1981) developed an Attitude Motivation Index,
whereby they studied the influence of motivation and attitude on the
acquisition of French as a second language by 29 samples of stu-
dents from various grades of high schools across Canada. They found
that motivation and attitude accounted for 14% of the variance in
language proficiency, whereas language aptitude accounted for 17% of
the variance.
As the cited studies show, motivation is considered an important fac-
tor in language acquisition; however, the results are not clear. Gardner
and Lambert, Spolsky and Laine find that integrative motivation is posi-
tively related to achievement in language proficiency. Gardner also finds
an instrumental motivation to be positively related to language learning
in a foreign language setting. Oller finds an instrumental motivation to
be the best predictor of language proficiency in a second-language set-
 Svanes 343

ting, and also finds a negative correlation between integrative motivation

and language proficiency. More research on the interrelationships of
these factors seems to be needed.
It could be assumed that students from developing countries, who
come to Norway to get an education, would be primarily instrumentally
motivated. These students probably choose Norway because the Norwe-
gian Government gives special grants and loans to students from devel-
oping countries. Students from other European countries and from the
USA may choose Norway for other reasons: interest in the country, its
nature and culture. Some of the American students have relatives in
Norway. All in all, these students are likely to be primarily integratively
motivated. The question then, is whether or not the acquisition of Nor-
wegian is influenced by possible differences in motivation. Empirical
support for the theory that ethnicity influences motivational orientation
is provided by Clement and Kruidenier (1983). They found integrative
orientation only among members of clearly dominant groups.
It is also reasonable to assume that the more one has in common with
the target language group, the easier it will be to learn the language.
According t o hermeneutic principles, some ‘preunderstanding’ (Gadamer
1960) will facilitate communication. If the TL belongs to the same type
of language as the mother tongue, this will facilitate language learning.
And if one is familiar with the culture of the host country, the easier it
will be t o communicate, and this again will promote language learning.
Closeness in cultural background will also imply that one’s own culture is
respected and that one is in a way a member of a cultural majority.
Learning a second language will then be felt as ‘additive’ and not as
‘subtracting’ something valuable from one’s culture (cf. Lambert 1974).
Closeness in culture would probably promote an integrative orientation
towards the TL culture and people and thereby develop an integrative
motivation to study the target language. When one belongs to the same
cultural majority as the TL group, interest in the TL culture and people is
not felt as a threat to one’s identity. Support for this way of thinking can
be found in Schumann (1976, 1978) who proposes that ‘social distance’
(defined as cultural, technical, economic and political status) between the
2LL (second language learning) group and the TL group is an important
factor in language learning. If there are great differences between the
cultures of the TL group and the 2LL group, the 2LL group becomes
more difficult and language learning will be impeded. The feeling of
belonging t o a cultural minority may perhaps also make the development
344 Language Learning Vol. 37, No. 3

of an integrative motivation more difficult. A member of a cultural

minority group may feel it necessary to cling to his/her own culture and
limit interest in the TL culture or contact with the TL people because it
may be viewed as a threat to the individual’s ethnic identity. This may
also lead to strong in-group identification (Giles and Byrne 1982) by the
2LL group who may even feel reluctant to learn the language of the host
country.
In the present paper the term ‘cultural distance’ will be used. ‘Cultural
distance’ is not meant to refer to the distance between national culture
and Norwegian culture. As the 167 respondents represent 27 countries,
the present data do not allow this. The term ‘cultural distance’ will be
used to refer to an interaction of the following factors:
(1)- knowledge of/familiarity with Western culture. Although there
may be a great difference between national culture and Norwe-
gian culture, the exposure to, or the familiarity with Western
culture in the home country, through educational system, read-
ing, mass media, may help to bridge this gap. The condition of
being culturally versatile or bicultural may diminish a possible
culture shock.
( 2 ) - mother tongue and/or proficiency in English or another Euro-
pean language. Distance between mother tongue and target lan-
guage is certainly an important factor in the acquisition of a
second language. But if the students know another language
more closely related to the target language than their mother
tongue, it is difficult to separate the influence of mother tongue
from the influence of this other language on second-language
acquisition. Whether an African language is closer to Norwegian
than Urdu or Vietnamese is difficult to say, but familiarity with
another European language closer to Norwegian than hidher
own would be of great help for an African, a Pakistani or a
Vietnamese student.
The main aim of the present study then, is to find out (1) if there are
differences in Norwegian language proficiency between groups of stu-
dents from various countries, (2) if there are corresponding group differ-
ences in motivation, (3) if possible differences in language proficiency
can be accounted for by motivational factors, and (4) if there is a rela-
tionship between possible group differences of proficiency and ‘cultural
distance’.
 Svanes 345

METHOD

SUBJECTS

The subjects are 167 foreign students at the University of Bergen,

Norway. The students were enrolled in classes of ‘Norwegian for foreign
students’, Level 2, during the years 1981 to 1983. The students came from
27 different countries (Table 1).
Most of the students know English or another European language.
The exceptions are: one Polish student and five Asian students.
About 90% of the students had been in Norway less than 2 years.
Apart from the refugees from Vietnam and Poland, most of the students
will return t o their home countries when they have finished their studies.
Knowledge of Norwegian is essential to the success of their studies at the
University of Bergen, but it will probably be of no use to them once they
return home.

VARIABLES

On the basis of the assumptions above about ‘cultural distance’ it was

decided to group the students in the following way: The European stu-
dents all speak two or more European languages which are closely
related. Their mother tongues are SVO-languages (subject-verb-object).
(The Finnish students are bilingual, Finnish and Swedish.) They all
belong to a common European cultural tradition. The American students
have English as their mother tongue. Culturally, they have much in
common with the Europeans, but American culture also has characteris-
tics of its own. Thus, the European students are ranked first, then come
the American students.
The 13 African students come from countries that have been heavily
colonized. In all these countries English or French is the official language
or a second language. Their school system is either English or French,
thus these students are extensively exposed to Western culture through
their education. Twenty-three students from the Middle East (Iran, Leb-
anon, Palestine and Turkey) come from countries that probably have
more contact with Western culture than the other Asian countries. This
group will constitute a sort of in-between group. Linguistically, this
group is on the border-line between VO-languages (verb precedes object)
and OV-languages (object precedes verb). Thus, Arabic, Hebrew and Twi
are VO-languages whereas Turkish, Persian and Telugu are OV-
346 Language Learning Vol. 37, No. 3

Table 1
Distribution of Subjects
Europe Middle East
Austria 1 Iran 3
England 3 Lebanon 1
Finland 2 Palertine 4
France 2 Turkey 15
-
Germany 5 23
Itall 2 Africa
Jugoslavia Cameroun I
Poland Ghana 5
Portugal Morocco 4
Spain Tanzania 1
Switzerland 2
- Tunisia 2
-
25 13
N o r t h America Am
Canada 4 Bangladesh 12
USA 31
- llidia I2
35 Paki\tan 15
Sri Lanka 24
Vietnam 8
-
71

languages. Although the in-between group differs considerably both in

language and local culture from Norwegian language and culture, their
exposure to or familiarity with Western language and culture has proba-
bly diminished this gap; however, the boundaries of the in-between
group may be discussed. There is probably a gradual transition from one
group to the other.
The fourth group are the other Asian students, from India, Bangla-
desh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Vietnam. Their languages and cultures are
very different from Norwegian language and culture. Apart from Viet-
namese, their mother tongues are all OV-languages. Moreover, these
students are probably less exposed to Western language and culture than
the students of the in-between group. Although they know English, they
have probably had less opportunity to practise it than the African stu-
dents, since their national languages are used as official languages.
In this way the subjects are divided into four groups, largely based on
familiarity with/exposure to Western culture and language. The group-
ing ‘cultural distance’ is coded so that 1 = close and 4 = distance
(Europe = 1, USA = 2, Middle East/Africa = 3, Asia = 4). The size of
the groups is recorded in Table 1 and distribution of subjects according
 Svanes 34 7

to sex in Table 2 . (Two of the American subjects failed to report on sex,

hence the total of 165.)
The students’ motivation for studying Norwegian was assessed by pre-
senting them with a questionnaire consisting of 20 statements that
expressed different reasons for learning Norwegian and for coming to
Norway. The students were asked to indicate on a five-point scale how
important these reasons were to them. The low end of the scale was
labeled ‘not at all important’ ( = 1) and the high end of the scale was
labeled ‘very important’ ( = 5 ) . The 20 statements were adapted from
01Ier’s (1977) questionnaires. A few items were taken from Gardner and
Lambert’s questionnaire (1972). The subjects were tested one to two
weeks before the Level 2 examination. The language of testing was Nor-
wegian. The questionnaires were presented to the students by their
second-language teachers who first explained the unknown words of the
questionnaire. The students filled it out during the lesson while the teach-
ers were present.
As a measure of the students’ proficiency in Norwegian, the grades of
the Level 2 examination were used. This examination includes
essay,
reading comprehension,
listening comprehension,
cloze test, and
oral proficiency.
Grades at university level in Norway range from 1 .O (best possible result)
to 4.0. Thus good results are indicated by low numerical values.

DATA TREATMENT

For the analysis of the data, the SPSS (Statistical Package for the
Social Sciences) is used, especially frequencies, factor analysis, reliabil-
ity, breakdown with analysis of variance, pearson correlation and new
regression analysis.

RESULTS

Scores on the motivation variables for the students grouped according

to continents, are recorded in Table 3 .
Motives 1, 2 , 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17 and 19 represent integrative
348 Language Learning Vol. 37, No. 3

Table 2
Distribution of Subjects According to Sex
Men Women Total
Europe 16 9 25
North America 15 18 33
Middle East, Africa 32 4 36
Asia -57 14
- -71
Total I23 47 165
NB: T w o American5 habe no1 reported $ex.

motivation, whereas motives 3, 5, 6, 13, 16, 18 and 20 represent instru-

mental motivation. Motives 9 and 12 d o not belong in either group.
Americans and Europeans showed similar values for some of the inte-
grative and instrumental motivation variables. Exceptions were the
motives Having a chance to live in another country, Finding out how
students live and Meeting different kinds of people (7, 8 and 11) where
the American students score significantly higher than the European stu-
dents. On the instrumental motive To get a goodjob in Norway (16), the
European students gave higher scores than the Americans. On the other
instrumental motives the scores of the European and American students
had similar values. The Asians and Middle Easterners/Africans showed
similar values for the instrumental as well as the integrative motivation
variables. In all, Europeans and Americans were more integratively
motivated than Asians and Middle Easterners/Africans, while Asians
and Middle Easterners/Africans were more instrumentally motivated
than the Western students.
Significant differences between the means of the four groups were
found in 18 of the 20 motivation variables.
The motive To begin to think and behave as Norwegians do scored
lowest of all the integrative motives in all groups. Apparently the ‘identi-
fication’ motive was not found very important by the students and least
important in the European group, although the difference in means
between the groups was not significant. This is in agreement with the
findings of Clement and Kruidenier (1983). Their data showed that four
orientations were common to all groups: to achieve pragmatic goals, to
travel, to seek new friendships and to acquire knowledge. No reference
to eventual identification with members of the second-language group
was found.
The American and European students scored significantly higher than
 Svanes 349

Table 3
Mean Scores on 20 Motivation Variables
P- Values of Analysis of Variance
North M-East
Europe Amer. Africa Asia Prob-
n=25 n=35 n=36 n=71 ability
Reasons f o r Coming lo Norway:
* I . Seeing Norway, the Fcenery 3.28 3.54 2.33 2.46 0.0000
* 2. Getting to know Norwegians 3.08 3.63 2.68 2.51 O.oo00
* * 3. Getting a degree 2.71 2.32 4.42 4.24 0.0000
* 4. Finding out how people live 3 .on 3.46 2.28 2.25 0.0000
* * 5. Studying in Norway 2.83 2.94 4.24 4.06 0.0000
** 6 . Getting training in my field 2.40 2.26 3.27 3.06 0.0137
* 7. Having a chance to live in 2.20 3.94 2.00 2.03 0.0000
another country
* 8. Finding out how students live I .67 2.45 I .76 2.26 0.0056
9. Joining family member5 2.39 I .n2 1.23 1.38 0.0005
* 10. Having new experiences 3.52 4.06 2.94 2.95 0.0000
* 1 1 . Meeting different kinds of 2.71 3.57 2.56 2.74 0.0005
people
12. Fleeing from my country 1S O 1.06 1 .97 1.74 0.0051

Reasons f o r Studying Norwegian:

* * 13. In order to be able to study at 3.16 3.43 4.33 4.35 0.0000
the university
* 14. Interest in Norwegian culture 3.44 3.53 2.77 2.72 0.0014
* 15. Interest in Norw. language 3.28 3.34 2.53 2.70 0.0138
* * 16. To get a good job in Norway 2.32 1.57 1.71 1.68 0.0392
* 17. To begin to think and behave 1.75 2.29 2.09 2.32 0.2512
as Norwegians d o
* * 18. To get a good job in home I .96 I .65 3.16 3.38 0.0000
country
* 19. To establish beiter relations 3.71 3.91 3.25 3.40 0.0900
with Norwegians
* * 20. To get an education in order 1.75 I .59 3.77 4.08 0.0000
to serve my country
* Integrative motivation
** I n m u m e n t a l motivation

the two other groups on the integrative motives; Seeing Norway, the
scenery, Getting to know Norwegians, Finding out how people live,
Having new experiences, Interest in Norwegian culture and Interest in
Norwegian language, whereas the Asian and Middle EasterdAfrican
students scored highest on the instrumental motives; Getting a degree,
Studying in Norway, In order to be able to study at the university, To get
a good j o b in home country and To get an education in order to serve my
350 Language Learning Vol. 37, No. 3

country. The integrative motive To establish better relations with Norwe-

gians got high scores in all groups. The highly significant difference in
the means of the motive To get an education in order to serve my country
is worth noticing. How one considers the importance of one’s education
and its usefulness for one’s own country, is probably related to one’s
cultural background.
In order to reduce the number of variables, a factor analysis was
performed on the data of all four groups, using a principal components
analysis with varimax rotation.
The analysis revealed an underlying pattern of relationships so that the
data could be reduced to two factors, one that included integrative
motives and another one that included instrumental motives. Thus the
factor analysis supported the theory of two main groups of motivational
variables, integrative and instrumental.
Then factor analyses for the data of each one of the groups were
performed in order to ascertain the influence of group membership. For
three of the groups the analyses showed a clear dichotomy of the varia-
bles in integrative and instrumental motivation, although the integrative
or instrumental variables that got highest loadings differed somewhat
from one group to the other. In the Middle EasternIAfrican group,
however, the factors were not so clearly either integrative or instrumen-
tal; one factor contained four instrumental in addition to eight integra-
tive items, and one contained one integrative together with five instru-
mental variables.
In order to be able to compare the groups, two new variables were
computed consisting of items with loadings over 0.38 from the all-groups
analysis. Included in the integrative motivation variable were all the
integrative motives except one, 17, the identification motive To begin to
fhink and behave as Norwegians do which did not have a loading high
enough to be included in the computed variable. The Alpha coefficient
of the integrative motivation variable was 0.937. All the instrumental
motives except one, 16, To get a good j o b in Norway, were included in
the computed instrumental motivation variable which led an Alpha coef-
ficient of 0.856.
An analysis of variance of these two new motivation variables and of
the grades variable was performed to investigate the significance of dif-
ferences in means between the four groups. The results of these analyses
are presented in Table 5.
The European and American students were significantly higher inte-
 Svanes 35I

Table 4
Factor Loadings f o r 20 Motivation Variables
Factors
Motivation Variables 1
Reasons f o r Coming to Norway:
* 1 . Seeing Norway, the scenery 0.73 -0.140 -0.13
* 2. Getting to know Norwegians 0.80 -0.070 -0.06
** 3. Getting a degree -0.06 0.800 -0.21
* 4. Finding out horn people live 0.81 -0.200 0.04
** 5. Studying in Norway 0.07 0.740 -0.27
** 6. Getting training in my field 0.12 0.470 -0.04
* 7. Having a chance to live in 0.70 -0. I90 0.03
another country
* 8. Finding out how students li\c 0.58 0.160 0.04
9. Joining family members 0.03 -0.260 0.26
* 10. Having new experiences 0.67 0.020 -0. I4
* 11. Meeting different kinds of 0.70 0.090 -0.05
people
12. Fleeing from my country -0.28 0.060 0.45

Reasons f o r Sludyrng Norwegian:

** 13. In order to be able to study at 0.04 0.680 0.16
the university
* 14. Interest in Norwegian culture 0.62 -0.050 0.33
* 15. Interest in Norw. language 0.38 0.004 0.26
* * 16. To get a good j o b in Norway -0.07 -0.130 0.67
* 17. To begin to think and behave 0.28 0. I50 0.38
as Norwegians d o
* * 18. To get a good j o b in home -0.05 0.570 0.09
country
* 19. To establish better relations 0.46 0.010 0.44
with Norwegians
** 20. To get an education in order -0. I7 0.790 0.17
to serve my country
* Integratibe moti\ation
** In\trurnental motivation

gratively motivated than the other students, while the students from
Middle East/Africa and from Asia were significantly higher instrumen-
tally motivated than the Western students. There were significant differ-
ences in means of proficiency in Norwegian; European and American
students having the best grades, the students from Middle EastIAfrica
third best and Asians, the poorest.
Table 5 shows that in the groups with the best grades integrative moti-
vation is high and instrumental motivation low, and in the groups with
352 Language Learning Vol. 37, No. 3

Table 5
Meun Scores with Standard Deviations on Grades, Integrative Motivation
and Instrumental Motivation
P- Values of Analysis of Variance
Grades Integrative Motivation Instrumental Motivation
Standard Standard Standard
Mean Deviation Number Mean Deviation Number Mean Deviation Number
Europe 2.18 0.74 25 3.01 0.64 25 2.47 0.86 25

North 2.28 0.64 34 3.35 0.69 35 2.39 0.80 35

America

hliddlt. 2.90 0.64 36 2.50 0.80 33 3.88 0.7 1 34

€ast /
Africa

Asia 3.16 0.81 71 2.61 0.74 66 3.87 0.90 66

P-Val tie p < .0001 p < .0001 p < .0001

Grades: Best = I
Poorebi = 4

%lotibation: M a u n i u m = 5
Minimum = 1

poor grades the pattern is reversed. This, in turn, seems to indicate an

overall positive relationship between grades and integrative motivation
and a negative relationship between grades and instrumental motivation.
To check this, correlation coefficients between grades, integrative moti-
vation, instrumental motivation and cultural distance were computed
and are presented in Table 6.
The Table shows a weak but significant positive correlation between
grades and integrative motivation (good grades = low numerical values).
There is also a significant negative correlation between instrumental
motivation and grades; the more instrumentally motivated, the poorer
(higher) the grades. Highly significant correlations between cultural dis-
tance and grades and between cultural distance and both motivation
variables were found.
In order to examine the relationship between grades and motivation
within the groups, a correlation analysis was performed for each group.
The results are presented in Table 7 . N o significant positive correlations
between grades and the two motivational variables were found. The
 Svanes 353

Table 6
Intercorrelations bet ween Grades, Integrative Motivation,
Instrumental Motivation and ‘Cultural Distance’
Integrative Instrumental
Grades Motivation Motivation
Integrative -0. I6*
Motivation
Intrumental 0.21** -0.03
‘Cultural 0.48** -0.33* * 0.58* *
Distance’
*p < .05 **p < .01
(Group m e m b m h i p : Europe= I . North America = 2, Middle Eas[/Africa= 3, Aria = 4 )
(Grades: best = 1, poorest = 4)
(Mothation: may = 5 , min I )7

Table 7
Correlations bet ween Grades, integrative Moiivation and insirumental Motivation in
the Four Groups of Studenis
Grades Integr. Motivation
Europe Integrative -0.09
( N = 25) Motivation
Instrumental 0.11 -0.08
Motivation

N. America Integrative 0.46**

( N = 35) Motivation
Instrumental 0.16 0.51**
Motivation

Mid. East, Africa lntegrat ive 0.05

( N = 36) Motivation
Instrumental -0.17 0.43**
Motivation

Asia Integrative 0.01

(N=71) Motivation
Instrumental -0.12 0.25**
Motivation
*p <.05 **p c.01
(Grades: best = I , poorest = 4)
(Motivation: max = 5 , min = I )
354 Language Learning Vol. 37, No. 3

Tuble 8
Cumulative Amount of Vuriance IR’) in Language Proficiency Expluined by Integrutive
Motivation. Incti~irnenralMotivution and ‘Cultural Distance’, Entered Hierarchically in
Three Different Regression Models

R? F R2A FA
Predictor Variables in
Three Different Models
I . Integrative Motivation 0.02 2.71
11. Integrative and 0.09 7.84** 0.08 12.76**
Instrumental Motivation
111. Integrative and 0.23 14.79** 0.13 26.11**
Instrumental Motivation
and ‘Cultural Distance’
0 T
Predictor?
( I ) Integrative Motivation 0.019 0.25
(2) Instrumental Motivation 0.017 0.19
(3) ‘Cultural Distance’ 0.471 5.11**
* * p < .O1

relationship between integrative motivation and grades was negative in

the American group. The correlations between the two motivational vari-
ables were positive in three of the four groups (see Table 7).
The explanation of these seemingly contradictory results lies in the
rather large differences in grades and motivation between the groups.
That is, though there is a negative correlation between grades and inte-
grative motivation in the Western group, and no correlation at all
between the variables in the Asian group, the Western students, as a
group, have considerably higher integrative, motivation scores and better
grades than the Asian group. When the groups are pooled a positive
correlation between grades and motivation emerges, though no such
relationship exists within each group.
To examine the relationship between grades, cultural distance and the
t w o motivational variables, a multiple regression technique was used.
Grades was defined as the criterion variable, and integrative motivation,
instrumental motivation and cultural distance were entered hierachically
as predictors in the regression equation. The regression analysis is pre-
sented in Table 8.
The table shows that only about 2% of the variance in grades can be
accounted for by integrative motivation. Adding instrumental motiva-
tion as a predictor in the regression equation led to an increase in
 Svanes 355

Table 9
Sex Differences in Grades, Integrative Motivation and Instrutnenral Motivation. Mean
Scores with Standard Deviations
Middle East/
Europe N . America Africa Asia
Standard Standard Standard Standard
Mean Deviation Mean Deviation Mean Deviation Mean Deviation F
lntegrative Motivation
Men 3.11 0.65 3.38 0.68 2.54 0.78 2.61 0.70 6.66**
Women 2.84 0.62 3.71 0.69 2.23 1.03 2.47 0.85 9.31**
F 0.971 2.05 0.512 0.409

Instrumental Motivation
Men 2.45 0.90 2.29 0.81 3.82 0.70 4.03 0.64 36.68**
Women 2.50 0.85 2.49 0.81 4.29 0.77 3.10 1.33 4.28*
F 0.022 0.533 1.55 13.24**

Grades
Men 2.00 0.54 2.14 0.61 2.96 0.64 3.25 0.80 19.02**
Women 2.49 0.96 2.39 0.68 2.43 0.38 2.83 0.85 0.91
F 2.71 1.22 2.58 3.01
* p < .05
* * p < .O1
(Grades: best = 1, poorest = 4)
(Morivation: m a x = 5 , m i n = I )

explained variance to about 9%. The addition of cultural distance

accounts for about 23% of the variance in grades. From the Beta values
it can be seen that in the full model (III), only cultural distance is
an independent predictor of grades. In other words, differences in grades
between the different groups cannot be explained by motivational
factors.
To investigate if there were any significant sex differences in grades or
in motivation, an analysis of variance of scores for women and men was
performed within each group, (see Table 9).
There is no significant sex difference in integrative motivation in any
of the groups. Concerning instrumental motivation, men and women
showed about the same values in the Western groups. In the Asian group
the men showed somewhat higher instrumental motivation than the
women. Sex differences in grades were only found in the European/
American group. On the other hand, differences in motivation according
to cultural groups were approximately the same for women and men.
Differences in grades, however, were only significant in the male group.
356 Language Learning Vol. 37, No. 3

The ages of the students range from 19 to 45. Two-fifths of the stu-
dents are over 26 years of age. In the European group and in the Asian
group about half of the students are over 26. There is a significant
correlation between age and proficiency (r = 0.28**), so that higher age
is related to higher grades-poorer grades. Studies of the age factor in
second-language acquisition (SLA) have mostly dealt with differences
between child and adult second-language acquisition (Krashen 1979,
Snow and Hoefnagel-Hoehle 1978). However, the Heidelberg Research
Project (1975) of the acquisition of German by adult immigrants, shows
that increasing age correlates with lesser command of the second lan-
guage. Our result supports this finding.

DISCUSSION

The present study reports significant differences in motivation

between different groups of students; students from the Western coun-
tries scored higher on the integrative motivation variable than the stu-
dents from Middle EastIAfrica and Asia, whereas students from the last
two groups scored highest on the instrumental motivation variable.
Thus, type of motivation seems to be closely related to the background
of the students. American and European students can afford to have
luxury motives for coming t o Norway to study; they want to have new
experiences, meet new people, see how people live. In contrast, for stu-
dents from “third world countries” the motivation to come to Norway is
not for culture or new experiences, but to get an education.
This difference in motivation between the groups may also be said to
be in agreement with hermeneutic principles; how can Asians be inter-
ested in a culture that they know very little about? Interest is dependent
on some degree of ‘preunderstanding’ (“Vorverstandnis’ Gadamer 1960).
The Europeans and the Americans have much in common with the Nor-
wegians; they have ‘preunderstanding’-and are interested in knowing
more about the special characteristics of the Norwegian way of life,
Norwegian culture.
Difference in motivation from ethnic group to ethnic group corrobo-
rates the findings of Clement and Kruidenier (1983). They also found
that motivational orientation differed in the same group from one target
language to another. It would therefore be very reasonable if students
from India developed a more integrative type of motivation for studying
 Svanes 357

another Indian language than for studying the language of the host
country for their professional education.
The results indicating that students with the best grades also score
highest on the integrative motivation variable and lowest on the instru-
mental motivation variable, may at first sight appear to be in agreement
with Gardner’s findings. The correlations between grades and motives,
however, were not strong. The rather strong correlation between grades
and ‘cultural distance’ could under no circumstances be explained by the
differences in motivation found to exist between the groups. Summing
up these findings, it could be concluded that whereas ‘cultural distance’
seems to be decisive for language learning in the present study, motiva-
tional factors seem to be of much less importance as a predictor of
language proficiency. The correlation analysis of grades and the motiva-
tional variables within each group support this finding. There is no posi-
tive correlation between integrative motivation and grades in any of the
groups. On the contrary, there is a negative relationship between grades
and integrative motivation in the American group, a result that seems to
be in agreement with Oller et al.’s (1977) findings. All the motives
included in the integrative motivation variable in the present study are
perhaps not favorable for hard language study. Thus, integrative motiva-
tion, as assessed in the present study, cannot explain the variance in
second-language proficiency either within the groups or between the
groups.
The results of the present study do not support Gardner’s findings
concerning the importance of the integrative motivation. The disagree-
ment may be due to a difference in methods used to assess motivation;
Gardner using a more comprehensive test battery than the present study.
However, differences of groups being studied is another important rea-
son for the discrepancy. Because Gardner’s subjects (Gardner and Lam-
bert 1972, Gardner and Smythe 1981) were high school students, there
was probably great variation in motivation. In the present study, on the
other hand, there was great variation in the linguistic and cultural back-
ground of the students and little variation in integrative or instrumental
motivation. All the students were motivated, integratively or instrumen-
tally. This may point to the conclusion that although motivation is an
important factor in the acquisition of a second language, type of motiva-
tion is of less importance in groups of adult university students, who are
all well motivated. In this context ‘cultural distance’ has been found to be
the best predictor of second-language proficiency.
358 Language Learning Vol. 37, No. 3

The present study also reports significant differences in Norwegian

language proficiency between groups of students from various regions;
European and then American students had the best grades, students
from the Middle East/Africa third best and the Asian students had the
poorest grades. The data of the present study cannot explain why there is
a difference in grades of students from different regions. But the results
may be said to be in agreement with the assumptions made about ‘cul-
tural distance’ and thus support the hypothesis that there is a relationship
between ‘cultural distance’ and second-language learning. One may,
therefore, interpret the results as an indication that the variance in profi-
ciency may be due in part to difference in ‘cultural distance.’ Support for
this interpretation can be found in Schumann’s theories (1976, 1978)
about ‘social distance’. Also the theories of Giles and Byrne (1982), that
strong ingroup identification and weak outgroup identification will
inhibit second-language learning, may support the interpretation above.
The great linguistic and cultural distance between the Asian and the
Norwegian students may promote a strong ingroup identification among
the Asians and weak identification with other students’ organizations.
This, according to Giles and Byrne, will not promote language learning.
The European and the American students, however, share the same cul-
tural traditions as the target people. That they feel assured of their own
language and culture and are psychologically free to identify with other
social groups may stimulate language acquisition (Lambert 1974).
Concerning sex differences in grades and in motivation, some of the
results of the present study are significant, even if the distribution is not
ideal; 123 men and 47 women. The most important finding is probably
that sex differences in motivation is related to cultural background. The
lack of sex differences in motivation in the Western groups may reveal
something about the position of women and about sex roles in the West-
ern countries. Women are just as career oriented as men, even a little bit
more, though not significantly. The Asian women, however, are signifi-
cantly less instrumentally motivated than the men, a fact that probably
reflects the sex roles and the position of women in the Asian countries.

REFERENCES

Clement, R . and B . G . Kruidenier. 1983. Orientations in second language acquisition: 1.

The effects of ethnicity, milieu, and target language on their emergence. Language
Learning 33:273-291.
 Svanes 359

Gadamer. H . G . 1960. Wahrheit und Methode (Truth and Method). Tubingen, Federal
Republic of Gerniany: J . C. ti. Mohr.
Gardner R. C . 1979. Social psychological aspects of second language acquisition. In Lun-
guage and Sociul Psychology, eds. H . Giles and R . St. Clair, Oxford, United Kingdom:
Basil Blackwell.
Gardner, R . C. 1980. O n the validiry of affectite variables in 5ecorid language acquisition:
conceptual, conte\tual and \rat istical con5iderations. Lunguuge Learning 30:255-270.
Gardner, R . C . 1983. Learning another language: a true social psychological experiment.
Journul qf Langiruge und Social Ps.vcho1og.v 2:219-239.
Gardner, R . C. and W. E. Lambert. 1972. Attitudes and Motivation in Semnd Lunguuge
Leurnrng. Rowley, Massachusetts: Newbury House.
Gardner. R . C. and P. C. Smythe. 1981. O n the development of the attitude/motivation
test battery. Cunudiun Modern Lunguage Review 371510-525.
Gilcs, H. and I . 1.Byrne. 1982. An intergroup approach io wcond language acquisition.
Mulrilinguul und Mirltrculrural Developnrent 3: 17-40.
Heidelberg Research Project. 1975. In Second Lunguuge Acqirivirion: The Siure ofthe A r t ,
eds. H . Nicholas and J . 11. Meisel, Tubingen, Federal Republic of Germany: Language
Development 5 ( 1983).
Krashen, S. 1979. Age, rate and eventual attainment in \econd language acquisition.
TESOL Quurter1.v 13:573-582.
Laine, E. 1984. Variations in FL Learning Motivation: Some Theoretical Consideration\.
Paper presented at AILA, Brussels, Belgium.
Latnbert. W. E . 1974. Culture and language and factor\ in learning and education. I n
Culturul Factor5 in Learning und Education, eds. F. E. Aboud and R. D. Meade.
Bellingharn, Washington: Fifth Western Washington Sympo5ium on Learning.
Oller, J . W.,1. Baca and F. Vigil. 1977. Attitudes and attained proficiency in ESL: a
\ociolinguistic study of Mexican Americans in the southweit. TESOL Quurterlv
11:175-183.
Schumann, .I. H . 1976. Social distance a \ ii factor in yecond language acquisition. Lull-
,yiru,qe Learnin,? 26: 135- 143.
Schumann, J . H. 1978. The accultural model tor second language acquisition. In Second
Lunguuge Acquisition und Foreign Lunguuge Teaching, ed. R . C . Gringas, Washington,
D.C.: Center for Applied Linguistics.
Snow, C . E. and M. Hoefnagel-Hoehle. 1978. The critical period for language acquisition:
evidence from zecond language learning. Child Development 49: I 1 14-1 129.
Spol\ky. B. 1969. Attitudinal a5pects of second language learning. Langiruge Learning
19:270-285.
SPSS: Slalistrcal Package f o r t h e Sociul Science5. 1975. Neu York, NeN York: McGra\r-
Hill.
SPSS: Update 7-9. 1981. New York, Neu Yorh: McCiraw-Hill.