1.1 Scope of the Element

This Element addresses the challenges Global English poses to the formal (school) learning of languages other than English (LOTE). As Global English is continuing to change our language learning landscape, policymakers, educators and learners themselves need to adapt to the sometimes unpalatable reality that one language seems, to many learners, more desirable to learn than any other (Reference de Swaande Swaan, 2001a). Globally, many language education systems continue to be marked by English displacing other languages hitherto used (Englishisation), while targets for LOTE learning are not achieved. Mass migration and increasing societal multilingualism in a wide range of LOTE further add to an increasing mismatch between official language education policy (LEP) and sociopolitical needs for language skills. Language education policy planning and school provision remain ill equipped to respond to the challenging needs for a twenty-first century education (Reference KramschKramsch, 2014; Reference PachlerPachler, 2002).

While international organisations subscribe to equality of all languages (Council of Europe, 2020; UNESCO, n.d.), the Englishisation of education systems continues (e.g. Reference Wilkinson and GabriëlsWilkinson & Gabriëls, 2021a). Recently, the discipline of applied linguistics has undergone radical paradigm shifts advocating equality in language learning and language use, most importantly the multilingual turn (Reference MayMay, 2019) and the translanguaging turn (Reference García, Wei, García and WeiGarcía & Wei, 2014). Meanwhile, the undeniable preference for the learning of English over LOTE has received comparatively less attention (Reference Lanvers, Thompson and EastLanvers et al., 2021a). Thus, as modern paradigms in applied linguistics strive for ever more equity between languages, and in language use, breaking disciplinary and language boundaries (Reference WeiWei, 2020), language learning preferences and uptake patterns remain unaffected. We observe a growing gap between the conceptual developments in applied linguistics and language policy on the one hand, and practices of language learning on the other (Reference Gazzola, Gobbo, Johnson and Leoni de LeónGazzola, 2023).

This Element addresses these widening gaps in a two-pronged approach. First, it revisits traditional rationales for language learning, reframing them in a new scheme that emphasises non-material justifications for language study more than past rationales.  This holistic matrix of rationales is designed to support educators and policymakers in designing and formulating their own language policy in the most comprehensive manner possible. In a novel departure, the matrix of rationales proposed here consists of two continuum dimensions:

• Who benefits from language learning (individual or society)?

• What is the nature of the benefit (material or non-material)?

The Element then undertakes the exacting task of connecting such rationales to our – by now, considerable – knowledge about language learner motivation. Although the twenty-first century has seen some conceptual contributions on the topic of rationales for language learning, it remains somewhat under-theorised. Rationales have also rarely, if at all, been linked to learner motivation, a striking lacuna since official rationales for LEP might be utilised to help learners understand the relevance of their endeavour. The second argument of the Element is that rationales can indeed be used to help motivate learners, provided that two conditions are met: they are explicitly communicated to, and discussed with, learners, and rationales are tailored to the basic human motivational needs of learners engaged in language study.

By preference, official rationales for language learning should help motivate learners. Despite a prolific literature on language learner motivation, the relation between rationales and motivation has hardly been investigated. The reason for this lacuna is that they operate at different levels: while rationales are logically conceptualised by policymakers, motivation sits (largely) at the experiential level of the individual. The best rationale for language learning could not compensate for a learner’s experience of boredom in the classroom. Nonetheless, rational arguments for language learning have been used as motivational incentivisation in intervention studies. The online supplement to this Element (available at www.cambridge.org/lanvers) offers practical activities and methods designed to incentivise non-material motivation for language learning. In this sense, this Element bridges LEP research, language learning motivation research and pedagogical practice.

This Introduction sets out the incentive and context of the Element. Beyond, the Element is structured as follows: Section 2 asks under what conditions English might be framed as a threat to learning LOTE. Three conceptualisations of global language systems are discussed, and each system is scrutinised for the light it can shed on the question of what rationales might remain for the study of LOTE. The section concludes that, irrespective of whether English dominance in language learning is considered desirable, inevitable or harmful, language learning and teaching models conceptualising different language skills and their purposes as discrete neglect important recent paradigm shifts in applied linguistics, namely the multilingual turn and the translanguaging turn in language learning.

Section 3 first discusses the existing literature on rationales for formal language education and then presents a novel, two-dimensional matrix model of rationales for teaching foreign languages. This matrix, it is argued, can help policymakers, educators and learners themselves in reflecting on and formulating their specific motivation for language study, adapted to their contexts. Rationales for any formal language study have, hitherto, been under-theorised and often perform justificatory functions, defending policy rather than serving as a nexus from which curricula, schemes of work, pedagogies and so forth may emerge. The holistic matrix provided here is designed to help policymakers to formulate their rationales in the most holistic way possible for their context, and to communicate these better to stakeholders.

Section 4 undertakes the delicate translation from rationales to motivations. Putting rationales into the service of motivating learners is subject to many caveats, as many motivational factors, such as liking the teacher, lie outside the conceptual and logical remit of rationales. Nonetheless, some rationales overlap with motivational dimensions, and forms of incentivisation relating to this nexus remain underutilised to date. There is evidence that if rational incentivisation is targeted to specific learner groups and their specific motivational needs, it can have positive motivational effects. In other words, Section 4 puts the matrix into the service of motivating learners. Section 5 pulls together these different strings and discusses how we might best protect the learning of a diversity of languages in the future.

1.2 A Personal Professional Trajectory

If the world ‘stampedes’ towards the one language with the highest prestige while neglecting others, it might suggest that many learners share a somewhat asymmetrical motivational orientation, one that lacks appreciation of non-material, especially personal non-material rationales and benefits of language learning. The by now considerable wealth of empirical studies on language learner motivation underscores this observation. This global challenge in language learning has directed my attention towards rationales, questioning more closely why we make students learn foreign languages. Too often, in my experience as a secondary school language teacher in the UK, the legitimate student question But why should we learn this? has remained poorly addressed, if at all. The language learning crisis, triggered by Global English, has incentivised me to rethink rationales for language study more thoroughly, but the fundamental claims of (1) conceptualising all rationales holistically, with equal validity, and (2) connecting rationales to motivation reach far beyond this problem.

This Element also provides a reflection on the stages of my own involvement in language learning: from a somewhat ‘rebellious’ learner, preferring French to English as foreign language, to a teacher struggling with low student motivation, to a researcher focusing on student motivation, to a researcher focusing on education policies and global language trends, in order to finally realise the interconnectedness of these. Thus, to the extent that this Element interweaves empirical research with my personal trajectory, it is empirically grounded, but such ‘joining of the dots’ has also led me to a conceptual contribution concerning the nature of rationales for language learning, and the connectedness between rationales and motivation.

1.3 What Is Language Education Policy?

A traditional critical sociolinguistic approach to LEP views policy as ‘one mechanism by which dominant groups establish hegemony in language use’ (Reference TollefsonTollefson, 1991: 16), thus enabling dominant groups to shape language practices in alignment with their ideology (Reference ShohamyShohamy, 2016). This conceptualisation of LEP stresses the hegemonic power dynamics of institutions shaping participant behaviours. In this view, (lack of) equity in LEP might be gauged by the extent key stakeholders are involved in policymaking (Reference TollefsonTollefson, 1991: 211). Language education policy can be officially declared in ratified documents and practised at the level of educational institutions and the individual, as well as debated and contested. Language education policies are always created in their politico-ideological contexts (Reference KramschKramsch, 2005). Different metaphors have been applied to describe the multilayeredness of LEP, the best known being Reference Ricento and HornbergerRicento and Hornerger’s (1996) onion metaphor; other descriptors include top-down versus bottom-up, implicit versus explicit, de jure versus de facto.

More recent theoretical contributions to language policy stress how policy is enacted, co-created and negotiated at all levels: the macro, meso and micro-levels (Reference Gazzola, Gobbo, Johnson and Leoni de LeónGazzola et al., 2023). This Element adopts the latter view of LEP, as constantly shaped in a dynamic interaction of bottom-up and top-down forces. However prescriptive and regulatory policies might be in their inception, they are interpreted, shaped and altered by those acting out LEP (Reference Johnson and JohnsonJohnson & Johnson, 2015). Stakeholders such as learners, parents and the public contribute to and co-construct policy daily (Reference SpolskySpolsky, 2019). A nation-state passing policies on language education is a top-down, declared, deliberate, visible discourse of LEP, created by politically dominant groups. A particular teacher debating with their class why they might want to study a language, or using their preferred teaching method, sits at the opposite end of the policy continuum. Enacted policy is largely invisible, but has great impact on LEP in practice, at the micro- and even meso-level. Both are embedded in their sociopolitical context, but their exposure to political ideology differs widely: at the macro-level, policymaking is subject to greater politicisation, by virtue of the combination of greater scrutiny, accountability and the need for ideological alignment with other, more general policy directives.

In this view of LEP, all actors involved in LEP are also engaged in formulating, debating and reshaping rationales for learning and creating (in)felicitous conditions for positive learner motivation. For these reasons, discourses on language learning are integral to LEP, not separate from it. Ideologisations of policies are expressed in texts describing and debating policies.

1.4 Policy–Practice Gaps in Language Education Policies

This section offers empirical underpinning for the argument that education systems, globally, experience Englishisation in the form of increased learning of English as a foreign language. It is not hard to find examples of LEP not reaching its targets due to English dominance, in both anglophone (Reference CollenCollen, 2020; Reference Lanvers, Thompson and EastLanvers et al., 2021a) and non-anglophone (Reference Wilkinson and GabriëlsWilkinson & Gabriëls, 2021a) contexts. To some extent, discrepancies between declared and practised LEP are inevitable: in the complex process of implementing LEP, intentions and rationales get interpreted, (mis)construed, diluted and distorted, as local agents of LEP apply their own resources, limitations, preferences, attitudes and ideologies (Reference JohnsonJohnson, 2013). Such discrepancies are most apparent when language education is obligatory: declared targets can be measured against actual uptake. Degrees of discrepancy are, however, also indicative of conflicts between different stakeholders involved in language learning: they reveal underlying tensions between those in power to declare LEP, and those enacting it (Reference Johnson and JohnsonJohnson & Johnson, 2015).

1.5 English L1 Speakers as Beneficiaries of Global English

Some argue that L1 English speakers are unfairly advantaged, as they need not ‘bother’ with language learning (Reference Van Parijsvan Parijs, 2020), or that they are net gainers of the Global English phenomenon (Reference HultgrenHultgren, 2020), because the English spoken in their inner circle (Reference Kachru and KachruKachru, 1992) is often perceived as a prestige and normative variety, desirable above other varieties. This section scrutinises these arguments.

Reference HaberlandHaberland (2020) and Reference WrightWright (2009) remind us that English fluency does not guarantee mutual understanding: monolingual English speakers often lack sensitivity to the difficulties of using English as a lingua franca and may use colloquialisms, idioms, local sayings and regional accents that make conversation for a speaker using English as a lingua franca difficult (Reference Jenkins, Jenkins, Baker and DeweyJenkins, 2017). Such speakers may also make reference to UK- or US-specific cultural or political phenomena and acronyms, which leave the international interlocutor baffled (Reference HazelHazel, 2016). Any purported advantage of having ‘native speaker-like’ competence (however defined) comes at a price: English L1 speakers struggle in international conversations using English as a lingua franca (Reference GilsdorfGilsdorf, 2002), partly because new and emerging forms of English are increasingly divergent from L1 speaker varieties, and partly because they have often had little opportunity themselves to practise cross-linguistic and cross-cultural communicative strategies that tend to develop alongside formal FL learning. Most importantly, however, since future varieties of English are increasingly being shaped by second-language speakers (Reference WeiWei, 2020), any ‘L1 English speaker advantage’ in lingua franca communications seems doubtful.

Thus, it is timely to ask if English L1 speakers are indeed well served by being ‘relieved of the burden’ of language learning (Reference Van Parijsvan Parijs, 2020). Much like the cyclist ‘relieved’ of the cycle commute to work by opting for the bus, the indolence thereby gained – or freedom, depending on your perspective – comes at a price. Monolingualism is only increasing among L1 speakers of English (Reference Lanvers, Cunningham and Hall (eds.)Lanvers et al., 2021; Reference Skutnabb-Kangas, Hellinger and AmmonSkutnabb-Kangas, 1996), not in other language communities, and these monolinguals lose out on the social, cognitive and educational advantages that multilingualism brings with it (Reference BakBak, 2016). The ‘English speaker advantage’ reveals itself to be most valid if embracing a monolithic view of English (Reference Pennycook and KirpatrickPennycook, 2020), viewing English as a fixed entity with normative ‘inner circle’ standards (Reference KachruKachru, 2006). Future varieties, however, including future high-status standards of English, will be determined by their users – and these are increasingly second- rather than L1 speakers.

The next section asks if current attitudes to the dominant lingua franca can also be found in the past.

1.6 Attitudes to Learning Lingua Francas: A Historical Outlook

Reference OstlerOstler (2005: 13) reminds us that world languages and lingua francas may come and go. The future of any lingua franca, however powerful it might seem at a particular historic moment, depends on a myriad of factors including demographic migration, access to language education and, increasingly importantly, communication technology. This brief historical excursus does not offer a like-for-like comparison between past lingua franca and Global English, nor does it offer any predictions regarding the future of Global English. Rather, it examines speakers’ attitudes to historic lingua franca, including learning them.

As far as linguists are able to document, lingua francas, in the widest sense of a language used between groups who have no language in common (Reference BernsBerns, 2012), have existed for at least two millennia (Reference NolanNolan, 2019), and multilingualism was a well-known phenomenon in antiquity (Reference Schendl, Hernández-Campoy and Conde-Silvestre (eds.)Schendl, 2012). The use of lingua francas has often benefited humankind, fostering the exchange of ideas, culture and science, as the use of Greek in early antiquity demonstrates. The Greek language was considered linguistically and culturally superior to any other (Reference AdamsAdams, 2019), and Greeks generally did not feel the need to learn any languages other than their own (Reference MomiglianoMomigliano, 1975). The term barbarism was coined and applied to any incomprehensible, foreign language, as well as to incompetent use of the Greek language (Reference HallHall, 1989).

With changing power dynamics within the Roman Empire, Greek culture and language became increasingly challenged (Reference AdamsAdams, 2003), most vocally by Cicero (Reference FögenFögen, 2000). Although ancient Greek continued to be of great importance for the educated elite for centuries to come (Reference LeonhardtLeonhardt, 2013), speakers of Greek were increasingly compelled to add Latin to their repertoire (Reference Dickey, Archibald, Brockliss and GnozaDickey, 2015). Competence in Latin became a commodity for upwards social mobility, and desirable cultural and social capital (Reference AdamsAdams, 2003).

This changed as the power dynamics of the Roman Empire shifted. The – to Romans, uncomfortable – asymmetry between Roman political and military prowess, and their nagging sense of cultural and linguistic inferiority vis-à-vis Greek (Reference AdamsAdams, 2003), was increasingly challenged, most eminently by Cicero (Reference FögenFögen, 2000). For those using Latin in antiquity, however, the notion of being disadvantaged by having to communicate in this second language (L2) was anathema. Like Greek, Latin continued to be learned and used long after the end of the Roman Empire, including in areas never occupied by the Romans (Reference LeonhardtLeonhardt, 2013).

Both Latin and Greek survived as elite lingua francas for centuries, mainly thanks to meticulously guarded codification and, in teaching, adherence to a classical canon of texts, using traditional teaching methods. The codification of Latin is perhaps best illustrated by the sixteenth-century vogue for ‘Ciceronianism’, according to which only those words that were used by the classical author were deemed to be ‘good enough Latin’ to be used in teaching and writing (Reference LeonhardtLeonhardt, 2013). Furthermore, in Europe, both French and Spanish gradually gained prestige from early modernity onwards (Reference LópezLópez, 2018), while the English language was at times described as ‘passe Dover, [is] woorth nothing’ (John Florio, 1578, cited in Reference LópezLópez, 2018: 55).

Through much of human history, then, multilingualism in prestige languages was a desirable asset for those holding privileged positions, with strongly codified prestige languages functioning as lingua francas, used alongside regional languages. In the seventeenth century, as nationhood became increasingly linked to linguistic identity, the powerful association between the nation-state and its language gave rise to the notion that monolingualism, rather than multilingualism, was an advantaged status. Indeed, according to Reference GramlingGrambling (2016), this was the point when monolingualism was ‘invented’. The notion served to sustain the hegemony of colonial powers and educated elites (Reference GramlingGrambling, 2016). The following quotation by the seventeenth-century French essayist Dominique Bouhours expresses the sentiment of monolingual superiority succinctly:

A simple substituting of the word French with English would suffice to update this quotation for the twenty-first century. Similar language-chauvinistic attitudes can be found in other contexts (e.g. Reference García BermejoGarcía Bermejo, 2021). The exercise of comparing historical and current monolingual hegemonic attitudes may serve as a reminder – if it were needed – of the fragile status of any global language, when viewed longitudinally. This brief reflection on the status of past lingua francas, and attitudes towards language learning, has illustrated a number of characteristic dynamics that might apply to the current status of English, or not, as follows.

Being monolingual in a prestige lingua franca has historically been linked to a linguistic and cultural elite (Greek) or nation-state ideology. With changing political power dynamics, different language skills arise, a point at which monolinguals become disadvantaged. In today’s context, this means that multilinguals rather than English monolinguals are better positioned to adjust to language shifts towards new prestige varieties, should the need arise. Furthermore, historically, learners of lingua francas tended to see language learning not as a burden, but rather as a privilege, permitting social betterment. Here, we observe a similarity to English today in that many learners of English are motivated by the professional and personal advantages this language might afford them (Reference Lamb, Csizér, Henry and RyanLamb et al., 2019), while motivation for learning other languages declines (Reference BusseBusse, 2017). In short, for the minority of speakers of an elite lingua franca as (part of) their L1, learning other languages has previously been dismissed as superfluous, while opportunities to learn a lingua franca have always been framed positively.

However, mechanisms of diffusion, teaching and learning English differ substantially from learning past lingua francas. In today’s English learning world, both elitism and standardisation, although not absent, are on the wane (Reference Houghton and HashimotoHoughton & Hashimoto, 2018). Informal learning of English is greatly facilitated by the digital revolution, with boundaries between formal and informal learning, leisure and compulsory learning, institutional learning and self-study becoming ever more blurred (Reference SockettSocket, 2014). These key differences in learning opportunities and modes of learning provide something of an equaliser. Access to the learning of a global lingua franca has never had such a low entry point as access to English has today – even when acknowledging wide geopolitical differences in both accessibility to, and quality of, education. Access to free online resources is increasing (Reference ShearsShears, 2017); varieties and standards are becoming not only increasingly diverse but also increasingly unpredictable. This diversification precludes predictions as to if and when the language might lose mutual intelligibility, causing it potentially to break up into different languages (although such predictions exist; see Reference Jenkins, Jenkins, Baker and DeweyJenkins, 2017).

Furthermore, English currently benefits from neither unified codification (Reference LeonhardtLeonhardt, 2013: 16) nor strong institutional control, such as what the Catholic church offered for Latin. Controversies around varieties and standards, including the native speaker debate, abound in the multibillion-dollar business that is TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages). Publications in journals such as English Today, World Englishes, and TESOL Quarterly illustrate this. Thus, while it is estimated that one third of the world’s population will be involved in learning English in the near future (CEFR, 2020), there is no agreement on what counts as English. The dual impact of Covid-19 and the rise of online learning has made both the TESOL market and the English varieties taught more diverse, dynamic, fast changing and unregulated than ever (Reference Gogolin, McMonagle, Rauch and LesemanGogolin et al., 2020).

In brief, the English L1 speaker could indeed be described as advantaged today in certain elite contexts, such as academic publishing – an advantage, however, that is subject to change the more English L2 speakers drop aspirations to adopt English L1 norms, and the more English is influenced by L2 speakers.

This historical excursus concludes with the observation that current attitudes towards learning and speaking a lingua franca do indeed find echoes in history. However, with respect to dissemination and support mechanisms for the lingua franca, significant differences have emerged. The lack of central control over codification and the mechanisms for learning and teaching English is unprecedented and serves as a warning to tread carefully when comparing the fate of past lingua francas to that of English. Current proliferation of varieties of English makes it hard to predict which variety of English – if any – learners might consider most worthwhile for investing in in the future. Lingua francas come and go, and at the present moment English is changing faster than other current lingua franca such as Spanish or Arabic (Reference McWhorterMcWhorter, 2011). In an increasingly multilingual and globalised world, the one certainty about global language constellations and the forms taken by the lingua francas we have is that both will change, in status, form, and usage. Individuals and societies will need to adapt to these changes. In the current context, individuals versed in multilingual rather than monolingual practices will have the advantage of linguistic adaptability.

1.7 Terminologies

Perhaps more than other disciplines, the dynamic and fast-moving discipline of applied linguistics has its share of disputed terminology and definitions. From the ‘native speaker’ debate (Reference Isaacs and RoseIsaacs & Rose, 2021), to discussions about the term English versus Englishes (Reference Rose and GallowayRose & Galloway, 2017) or World Englishes, to the meaning of English as lingua franca (ELF) (Reference Bolton, Nelson and ProshinaBolton, 2019), this Element inevitably touches upon linguistic conceptions and terminologies that have given rise to fundamental controversy. This section clarifies the terminology used here.

1.8 Section Summary

In a context where one language, by virtue of its global status, has the power to influence the LEP of all other languages, it is timely to consider what rationales for language learning might offer solutions to the challenge of English dominance. The historical excursus served to underline the ephemeral nature of lingua franca, and the advantages of preparedness for global linguistic changes. This section also outlined commonalities between anglophones and non-anglophones regarding the effect of Global English: as the learning of English is prioritised over that of learning LOTE – by learners themselves and/or by LEPs. There are also signs that the learning of LOTE is becoming increasingly elite, especially in anglophone and increasingly in non-anglophone contexts. In anglophone contexts, neither the ‘English is enough’ fallacy (Reference MartinMartin, 2010) nor elitism in LOTE learning (Reference Muradás-TaylorMuradás-Taylor, 2023) show signs of fading. These trends seem to support de Reference de Swaan, Sternberg and Ben-RafaelSwaan’s (2001b) thesis that learners are mostly interested in learning high-status languages. Meanwhile, multilinguality, including in language classrooms, is growing globally, often due to mass migration. As a result, education systems and formal language education are increasingly diverging from the lived realities of multilingualism today (Reference Lo Bianco and AroninLo Bianco & Aronin, 2020: 40).

A rethinking of rationales for language study can help address this gap. Helping learners appreciate a wide range of reasons for language study is as important as language instruction itself and can help learners appreciate the value of learning a variety of languages. Thus, rationales can do more than offer a (necessary) justification for the space accorded to languages in the curriculum and learners’ overcrowded timetables. The question Why teach or learn languages? supersedes operational questions such as How? At what age? and To what level? These can only be addressed meaningfully once the first is answered. Too often, however, neoliberal approaches to education drive language education policymakers to address questions of how before why.

A crucial consideration in rationalising language learning for the twenty-first century is if English can somehow be ‘blamed’ for current language learning uptake trends. The next section offers a critical debate on this issue.

2.1 Relating Global English to the Decline in LOTE Learning

The answer to the question of whether Global English is responsible for a decline in LOTE learning depends to a large extent on the degree of partisanship or neutrality afforded to the English language, as both a lingua franca and a favourite FL for learners. The positioning of English (e.g. as a commodity, a threat, a neutral affordance) influences stakeholders’ view of the relative merit of learning English and shapes LEP. Declared LEPs might favour English explicitly, for example by increasing the compulsory element of English L2 in the curriculum or, implicitly or even inadvertently, by liberalising choices in the learning of L2s (Reference PhilipsonPhillipson, 2017b).

Similarly, the stance someone takes towards the phenomenon of Global English shapes how they explain the language learning crises in anglophone contexts. For some, the crisis is taken as evidence of xenophobia, native-speakerism and a chauvinistic and imperialistic stance towards English. This explanation, plausible at first glance, becomes problematic when looking more closely at who ‘decides’ to learn languages – or not. Who has elected to deprioritise language learning in anglophone education systems? Do learners actively ‘decide’ not to learn a LOTE and, if so, why? In the UK’s education systems, for instance, a range of systemic disincentives prevent students from continuing with FL study beyond the compulsory phase (Reference LanversLanvers, 2018b), with some forced to discontinue their study (Reference ClaytonClayton, 2022). Thus, the ‘choice’ to study a FL is often conditioned by forces outside the remit of the students themselves. There are also few signs that English L1 speakers harbour more chauvinistic attitudes towards their first language than any other L1 speakers might do towards theirs: all speakers show the tendency to prefer their own language (Reference GarretGarret, 2010). In sum, there is little evidence to support the claim of ‘English exceptionalism’, in the sense that English L1 speakers are more averse to language learning per se than other L1 speakers.

There is, however, evidence that, like other L1 speakers, English L1 speakers often show a preference for their native variety, rather than a variety emerging out of ELF use  (Reference Subtirelu and LindemannSubtirelu & Lindemann, 2016), a fact that often contributes to miscommunication between L1 and L2 users of English (Reference HazelHazel, 2016). As argued in Section 1, monolingualism tends to equip L1 English speakers poorly for ELF communication. To date, the few empirical studies investigating the issue suggest that many anglophones are aware of these communicative limitations (Reference Cruickshank, Black, Chen, Tsung and WrightCruickshank et al., 2020; Reference LanversLanvers, 2012).

In sum, both the notion of English L1 speaker ‘advantage’ and the notion of English as the killer language of LOTE need revisiting. To scrutinise both notions further, three models of global language constellations will be presented. Many such models exist (e.g. Reference KachruKachru, 2006). The three models presented here have been chosen for heuristic purposes: the models offer maximally contrastive answers to the questions of whether, and how, Global English might be bringing changes to the learning of English, on the one hand, and of LOTE, on the other. They are:

• Linguistic imperialism

• Global language system

• Dominant language constellations

The models frame Global English, respectively, as inherently hegemonic, inherently utilitarian or as part of a dynamic unitary system. Each model is examined from the perspective of the language learner: learners of English and learners of LOTE (including English L1 learners), asking how these learners are positioned within these models in the context of Global English; are they beneficiaries or losers? Thus, this section discussed the level of agency the different models might ascribe to language learners themselves.

2.2 Linguistic Imperialism

For some linguists (Reference PennycookPennycook, 1994; Reference PhillipsonPhillipson, 2003), English has long ceased to be, and never will be, a neutral lingua franca. In Phillipson’s view, standards of English, access to language learning and status hierarchies of different Englishes remain intrinsically linked to, and representative of, socio- and geopolitical inequalities. While others (e.g. Reference HultgrenHultgren, 2020) consider today’s ubiquity of English as a sign of the language’s equalising potential, if not its de facto equalising quality, Reference PhillipsonPhillipson (1992: 47) sees English dominance as safeguarded by the ‘establishment and continuous reconstruction of structural and cultural inequalities between English and other languages’. Any form of linguistic imperialism is viewed as a form of linguicism, defined as ‘ideologies, structures and practices which are used to legitimate, effectuate, regulate and reproduce an unequal division of power and resources (both material and immaterial) between groups which are defined on the basis of language (Reference Phillipson and Skutnabb-KangasPhillipson & Skutnabb-Kangas, 1996: 667).

Reference PhillipsonPhillipson (2003) asserts that linguicism perpetuates and reinforces existing social inequality. In this view, discourses that frame English as neutral (lingua nullius – nobody’s language), as espoused by the British Council or some American politicians, contribute to linguicism and mask the vested interests of dominant powers in its proliferation.

2.3 Global Language System

The economic linguists Reference de SwaanDe Swaan (2002), Reference Grin and ArzozGrin (2008) and Reference CalvetCalvet (2006) have proposed a hierarchical global language system. In this system, only about 100 of the world’s several thousand languages are positioned as central; these are spoken by 95 per cent of the global population. Furthermore, some twelve languages (e.g. Russian, German, French, Arabic, Hindi, Spanish) achieve the status of supercentrality, reaching significance beyond national boundaries, and only one language, English, achieves hypercentral status, as a global lingua franca. Viewing language as a hyper-collective economic good, the model furthermore states that language learning mostly occurs in a centripetal direction, with most learners interested in learning languages of higher centrality than the ones they already possess as (part of) their first language(s). As a consequence, the only hypercentral language becomes the most desirable to learn. The model is a perfect example of self-reinforcement of hierarchies: any existing popularity is likely to propel a language into further popularity, and vice versa (Reference de Swaande Swaan, 2002: 5).

The model includes a mechanism for calculating the economic status of a given language in the form of its Q value (Reference de Swaande Swaan, 1993). To do so, the overall number of speakers of a language and the number of multilinguals among them are needed: the Q value of any language is calculated by multiplying the prevalence of a language (number of speakers) by its centrality (number of multilingual speakers). It thus would be in the language learner’s interest to invest time and effort into languages with a high Q value. If individuals have a choice between a higher- or lower-status language (as measured by Q value), for instance when an author needs to decide which language to publish in, economic and expediency arguments usually favour the higher-status language, while ethical and cultural arguments, such as countering hegemony and preserving diversity in cultures, might favour a lower-status language. In multilingual societies and communication systems, centrality rather than prevalence of a language will dictate which language carries a higher Q value and is likely to function as the more expedient lingua franca. Furthermore, linguistic inertia (Reference de Swaande Swaan, 2002: 18) is often responsible for a time lag between changes in political constellations and shifts in the status of various languages, including the popularity of learning a specific language, but, in many cases, power dynamics between languages ultimately align with those of the political world. The model thus predicts a continual dynamic rivalry between languages, each vying to improve its position:

Meanwhile, L1 speakers of a high-status language such as English are framed as ‘relieved’ of the burden of language learning, often without much awareness of this privilege (‘an enviable blessing is bestowed upon them by the sheer accident of their mother tongue’, Reference de Swaande Swaan 1998: 43).

As for the issue of linguistic imperialism, de Swaan positions this rather more ethical question outside the remit of linguistics, and counters, similarly to Canagarajah, that most choices for or against a given language are determined bottom-up, by speakers themselves. For de Swaan, then, language preferences of individuals should not be subject to ethical considerations of linguistic human rights, and top-down LEPs, for the most part, try to address the preferences of most learners at most times.

2.4 Dominant Language Constellations

Reference Aronin and O’LaoireAronin (2006) first proposed the concept of DLC to refer to a ‘person’s most expedient languages, functioning as an entire unit and enabling an individual to meet all his/her needs in a multilingual environment’ (Reference Aronin, Vetter and JessnerAronin, 2019: 21). Dominant language constellations accentuate speakers’ fluctuating rather than static language use. How, then, do individual DLC relate to global language constellations? The interdependence between an individual and their multilingual environment shapes individual DLC, which in term shapes those at the meso and macro levels. Societal and individual language changes emerge as a result of a dynamic interplay at the micro, meso and macro level. For instance, the twenty-first century global rise in multilingualism (Reference Aronin and SingletonAronin & Singleton, 2008) can be partly explained by globalisation but also by increasing diversity and complexity in personal lives. Reference Aronin, Vetter and JessnerAronin (2019) observes that in Europe as elsewhere, most immigrants are trilingual, speaking their L1, their community language and English. A key difference to the two models discussed earlier is that languages are not conceptualised as static, monolithic and separate. Instead, a plurilithic view of languages, conceptualising each language without fixed boundaries, allows us to see that not only do all language competencies cumulatively form an individual’s language repertoire but also all competencies interact in a multidirectional manner. Recent insights into cross-linguistic interaction in language learning from cognitive linguistics either support the thesis of one common underlying proficiency across all language competencies (Reference CumminsCummins, 2021) or go so far as to propose a fully unitary cognitive system across all languages (Reference WeiWei, 2018).

Meanwhile, in LEP and educational practice, monolithic paradigms of languages, at times accompanied by nation-state ideologies, still dominate (Reference Lo Bianco and AroninLo Bianco & Aronin, 2020). Bilingual education programmes, if present at all, are often conceptualised with reference to historical rather than contemporary bilingualism, offering few concessions to the cultural and linguistic diversities found in modern classrooms. Dominant language constellations, by contrast, adopt a plurilithic paradigm of language use and learning: in any plurilingual, no language system operates independently from others. As a result, multilingualism is not framed as a potential threat to social cohesion, nor is multilingual education necessarily seen as the most important tool to increase social cohesion (Reference Newby, Matzer and PenzNewby et al., 2009).

In DLC, the dynamics of the language constellation follow the principles of dynamics systems theory: the interaction of different languages and different language constellations is in constant flux, at the micro, meso and macro levels. In this complex interaction of many individual and societal DLC, different languages may take marginalised or central positions at different times and in different places, influenced by both internal and external factors (Reference Lo Bianco and AroninLo Bianco & Arorin, 2020). No one DLC, however multilingual, would offer an optimal stable solution for all communication contexts. Rapidly changing multilingual practices are well evidenced in the communications of users of English as a lingua franca (Reference House, Kortmann and van der AuweraHouse, 2011), who use their entire language repertoire effectively to communicate.

In sum, the DLC model conceptualises all language skills as assets, and none as a threat, while acknowledging that monolingualism limits one’s language repertoires. Currently, and not always by choice, English L1 speakers in English lingua franca communications often have the poorest language repertoire (Reference Lanvers, Cunningham and Hall (eds.)Lanvers et al., 2021).

The preceding models of language systems give different answers to the question as to whether L1 speakers of English are advantaged. The global language system (de Swaan) and linguistic imperialism (Phillipson) models position anglophones as net gainers of the Global English phenomenon (Reference HultgrenHultgren, 2020), for two reasons: on the one hand, their inner circle (Reference Kachru and KachruKachru, 1992, Reference Kachru2006) varieties of English tend to be perceived as more prestigious, desirable and normative, and, on the other, anglophones are framed as being relieved of the ‘burden of language learning’ (Reference Van Parijsvan Parijs, 2020). In light of the fact that English is also shaped by L2, not L1 speakers (Reference WeiWei, 2020), and of the increasing evidence of the social, cognitive and educational advantages of multilingualism (Reference BakBak, 2016), both claims need to be re-examined.

Unlike the two other models, DLC offers a more nuanced answer to the question Are English L1 speakers advantaged? The answer depends on the circumstances of the speakers: are they sensitive to the needs of those using English as a lingua franca? Do they have opportunities to learn and practise other languages, and, if so, is LOTE learning facilitated? Dominant language constellations have an equally nuanced reply to the question of whether language constellations are mostly shaped by top-down or bottom-up forces. DLC sees both declared and practised policy as arising in the intersection of broader sociopolitical and local, regional and personal interests. Language education policy, whether of the official, declared kind or the practised kind, is a locus not only where vested interests in languages manifest themselves but also, equally, where change (for better or worse) can be enacted. Socially responsible LEP, then, should embrace these opportunities and add social and educational justice to its concerns about linguistic justice (Jenkins, 2020). Research agendas for DLC linguists interested in language education include the following: Is access to language education fair and equitable? Does LEP address existing linguistic inequalities? Does LEP address the linguistic needs of the (plurilingual) learner and the multilingual society they live in? How does LEP ensure equitable distribution of language education resources? The emphasis on social engagement and responsibility positions the DLC linguist at the intersection of research agendas in applied linguistics and education: social justice in education and linguistic justice. This Element consequently adopts DLC as the framework for studying global language constellations, and language learning within these.

2.5 Section Summary

This section debated if Global English can be described as a ‘killer’ of LOTE learning. At first glance, global patterns of language learning, described in Section 1, seem to support this thesis, as do some conceptualisations of global language systems. Although Phillipson and De Swaan differ greatly as to the relative merit of Global English, the authors’ utilitarian models of language broadly align with materialist and instrumental rationales of language learning: either the system of linguistic hegemony compels the learner to focus on some language(s) at the expense of others (Phillipson), or the Q value seduces the learner to do the same (De Swaan). In both models, the aim of maintaining diversity and equity in language learning would thus be an uphill struggle. Overtly utilitarian conceptualisations of language, and of rationales for language learning, do indeed open the door to the English as a ‘killer language’ argument. Such narrow rationales are often propagated within educational systems themselves, leaving both learners and educators vulnerable to accepting and reproducing them (Reference GrahamLanvers & Graham, 2022).

Moving away from a purely utilitarian understanding of language learning, DLC offers a different solution. Conceptualising all language knowledge as a repertoire, whereby learning any language is an opportunity to enrich one’s overall linguistic repertoire, languages act not in competition but in cooperation. To date, however, most language policies generally, and LEP especially, are still a long way from adopting such paradigms.

The next section discusses rationales for language learning and asks How can we best justify language learning in the age of Global English? The first subsection revisits a range of commonly cited rationales for language learning, asking how they might stand up to the Global English challenge. The section then presents a new matrix of rationales for language learning, which aligns with the plurilithic paradigm derived from DLC and conceptualises such rationales not as oppositional but rather as complementary to one another.

3.1 Introduction

Historically, the main purpose of rationales for language study has been to justify the place of FL in the curriculum. Legitimising language education (and thus justifying public investment) in any education system is bound by the fundamental functions of all education: 

1. (1) to create human capital for the nation’s economy,

2. (2) to promote equality and cohesion,

3. (3) provide citizens with a sense of identity (Reference ByramByram, 2008a).

All three legitimisations have implications for LEP, curricula design and language pedagogy. By formulating justifications for language learning, a political entity also formulates a position on the collective identity they aspire to, and their national and international outlook. In other words, the significance of rationales in the development of LEP and curricula cannot be overstated.

Academics have asked that ‘rationales for studying languages should be collected and classified’ (Reference Kelly and JonesKelly & Jones, 2003: 35) to guide policymakers and pedagogues in their language policy planning. Hitherto, classifications of rationales tended to be presented listwise, or following a dichotomous classification, for instance of enrichment versus functional rationales (Reference HawkinsHawkins, 2005; Reference Mitchell, Sarangi and van LeeuwenMitchell, 2003). This Element answers the call for a ‘classification of rationales’ with the intention to serve not only policymakers and pedagogues but also learners themselves. The matrix of interconnected rationales presented here not only does better justice to the interdependence of rationales but also offers a robust foundation to motivate learners holistically for language study, and thus provides an answer to the challenges of language learning in the shadow of a (currently) dominant lingua franca.

The section is structured as follows: Section 3.2 gives a brief overview of rationales for language learning to date. It concludes by calling for a holistic conceptualisation of rationales for language study. Section 3.3 proposes a dynamic matrix of rationales, conceptualised according to two questions: Who benefits from language learning? and What is the nature of the benefit? The matrix proposes two continuum dimensions: on the level of beneficiary of L2 learning, a dimension ranging from the individual to society, and on the level of nature of benefit, a continuum ranging from material to non-material benefits. Section 3.4, then, in a novel departure, discusses how rationales might link to learner motivation. For this purpose, a widely used learner motivation theory, which has already been brought to bear on language learning research, self determination theory (SDT), serves to provide a theoretical underpinning.

3.2 Rationales for Language Learning to Date

Historically, most formal language learning, a prerogative of the elite, tended to serve a wide range of cultural and humanistic purposes, rather than provide any utilitarian benefit. The beginning of the twentieth century saw the emergence of a broad distinction between utilitarian and educational purposes for language study (Reference HawkinsHawkins, 2005), with educational rationales subsuming a range of arguments under one umbrella, sometimes labelled ‘intrinsic’, ‘cultural’ or ‘enrichment’. The basic utilitarian–educational distinction was often accompanied by the tacit assumption that enrichment purposes were somewhat more laudable, and also more achievable within educational contexts, in contrast to instrumental and vocational arguments. On the one hand, pedagogues might query if educational systems are sufficiently equipped to deliver language skills of the standards needed for professional practical purposes (Reference HawkinsHawkins, 2005), or if such practical purposes of L2 study are sufficiently significant to warrant any comprehensive teaching at school level. On the other hand, academics especially have tended to view utilitarian rationales with some scepticism (Reference HawkinsHawkins, 2005), fearing this would truncate the wider merits of language study.

The utilitarian/non-utilitarian polarisation of rationales has furnished a breeding ground for debates regarding the educational value of L2 learning. The early 2000s saw this debate intensified, especially in the UK and the US: a time of significant political and educational change in both contexts. There was an increased urgency to address the looming question of the purposes of LOTE study in the context of Global English, and the position any LOTE might have in the curriculum.

Utilitarian rationales were used, in the main, to justify formal and compulsory language learning (Reference Mitchell, Sarangi and van LeeuwenMitchell, 2003). Notwithstanding this, within educational contexts, many attempts to encourage amotivated and directionless students rely on instrumental and material arguments, along with educational incentivisation (Reference LanversLanvers, 2017a; Reference Lanvers2018b). However, recent evidence, especially coming from language learners with English L1, suggests that such arguments alone tend to achieve little in terms of changing learner attitude and motivation (Reference GrahamLanvers & Graham, 2022; Reference UshiodaUshioda, 2017). Such arguments may even be counterproductive: by encouraging learners to develop a utilitarian understanding of the purpose of language study, students may counter that ‘English is enough’ after all, and struggle to develop different and more holistic orientations (Reference CoffeyCoffey, 2018; Reference Lanvers, Rivers and KotzmannLanvers, 2017b).

The twenty-first century has brought new evidence on the benefits of language learning (Reference KramschKramsch, 2005, Reference Kramsch2014). Educators are resorting to a more comprehensive range of answers regarding the purpose and benefits of studying any language (Reference Gallagher-BrettGallagher-Brett, 2004), including many arguments that do not necessarily favour the study of any particular language, and are thus applicable to a wide range of LOTE. The challenge for conceptualising rationales for language learning in the twenty-first century, then, lies not so much in defending LOTE learning per se, but in responding to the challenging language learning context created by Global English. Currently, a common answer to this challenge is to associate the dominant lingua franca learning with utilitarian rationales, and LOTE with ‘other’ rationales – an unhelpful association that the matrix presented in this section aims to correct. The next section offers a brief historic overview of language learning rationales, with a special focus on rationales in the context of Global English.

Reference Mitchell, Sarangi and van LeeuwenMitchell (2003: 9f) was among the first to differentiate more finely between different enrichment-type rationales (language as intellectual discipline, as vehicle of high culture, as means for personal self-development, for exploring alternative cultures), designed to broaden our understanding of those purposes hitherto labelled ‘educational’. Nonetheless, in the UK, debates on LEP during the early 2000s remained shaped by the binary thinking of instrumental/vocational versus educational rationales. Politically, this debate marked a controversial move by the English government, in 2004, to make language study optional beyond age fourteen in England. Some argued that poor learning outcomes overall do not provide a sufficiently strong base for language teaching for any utilitarian purposes, and compulsory language education should therefore be discontinued (Reference WilliamsWilliams, 2001). Others argued that vocational orientations narrow learners’ views on language study, and that most schools were not, in any case, equipped to deliver high quality vocational language skills (Reference Lawes and FieldLawes, 2000). Seeking a compromise, Reference HawkinsHawkins (2005), rather than favouring one rationale over the other, proposed a stage-based pedagogical model, permitting students to experience both, while moving progressively towards utilitarian purposes.

The 2000s also saw an increasing focus on language education for the purpose of social cohesion and integration. Like other academics, Reference PachlerPachler (2002) and Reference Mitchell, Sarangi and van LeeuwenMitchell (2003) called for language learning to be better linked to citizenship and pluricultural education, in order to foster social cohesion in our increasingly multilingual and culturally diverse communities – a call that has since been echoed multiple times (Reference Newby, Matzer and PenzNewby et al., 2009) and generally receives less criticism than either of the instrumental or educational range of arguments. However, concerns over its execution in practice, and its feasibility within formal educational settings more generally, are frequently expressed. Reference WilliamsWilliams (2001: 47), for instance, remarked that in most classrooms, the aim of global citizenship in language education tends to amount to ‘symbolic virtue signalling’.

More overtly political rationales, such as national and international cohesion, diplomacy and security (e.g. Reference Mitchell, Sarangi and van LeeuwenMitchell, 2003; LLAS, n.d.), also came to the fore in the 2000s. In the US, politicisation of language education was fuelled by the events of 9/11. Reference KramschKramsch (2005) described the increasing demand by the US government for speakers with advanced levels of language proficiency to serve the needs of national security, specifically intelligence and military purposes. Increasingly, so Kramsch, language is seen as possessing an exchange value, with LEP and language pedagogy needing to adapt to a fast-changing world.

The LEP of the European Union has been characterised by its political engagement ever since its conception, strongly focusing on citizenship education, social cohesion and intercultural communication skills (Reference Newby, Matzer and PenzNewby et al., 2009). ‘Multilingualism is part and parcel of both European identity/citizenship and the learning society’ (European Commission, 1995: 47).

Finally, a still more overtly political anchoring still can be found in the notion of a ‘patriotic’ rationale, expressed here with exemplary clarity by a group of Russian academics:

Here, justifications for language study are politicised somewhat differently to Western LEP documents (e.g. of the EU) in (at least) two respects: patriotism, in the sense used by Reference Larina, Sukhanova, Kodirov, Kuchinskaya and BorisovaLarina and colleagues (2020), that is, of the individual serving the interests of the nation, is superimposed on other rationales. Secondly, L2 learning is not to serve the rapprochement to foreign cultures but to appreciate foreign cultures ‘through the prism of knowledge formed in the process of mastering the native culture’. This stands in stark contrast to rationales for language learning explicitly aiming to foster an international outlook and international posture (Reference UshiodaUshioda, 2017), as, for instance, the European LEP (EU fact sheet on the European Union: Language Policy).

Section 4 returns to the notions of ‘patriotism’ and ‘international posture’, but this time from the perspective of student motivation. For now, the discussion of political rationales for language learning concludes with the remark that they can be more or less overt and explicit, in both Western and non-Western contexts.

In sum, since the 2000s, the social and political dimensions of rationales of language learning have received increasing emphasis. Within the EU, development of LEP is strongly supported by the Council of Europe, with its two branches, the Language Policy Division and the European Centre for Modern Languages, offering guidelines and pedagogical and policy support (for details of policies and publications, see Reference Extra, Yagmur, Extra and YagmurExtra & Yagmur, 2012). Rationalising language education with reference to sociopolitical cohesion rests on the assumptions of a strong link between language and culture, and the proposition that appreciation of diversity, international posture and cross-cultural communicative skills can be mediated via language learning. There is, by now, a large body of literature on the topic of language teaching for the purposes of international integration and social cohesion (Reference BreidbachBreidbach, 2003), in contrast to work on the notion of language teaching for national cohesion and patriotism.

3.3 Critique of Rationales for Language Learning to Date

Having sketched out how rationales for language learning developed from ‘enrichment type’ only – towards a more binary ‘instrumental–educational’ conceptualisation, and finally a more refined contemporary vision including sociopolitical dimensions – we can now address the question of how rationales might respond to the challenges of Global English. The challenges in developing a system of rationales able to withstand the ‘lure’ of Global English, are threefold.

3.4 A Twenty-First Century Matrix for Language Learning Rationales

The questions Why learn languages? and Why make students learn languages? can be interpreted in (at least) two different ways: What kinds of benefits does it bring (nature of benefit)? and Who exactly benefits (beneficiary)? Both questions have been addressed in a variety of ways in different conceptualisations of rationales (see Section 3.2) but have not been encapsulated in this format before. Taking the two dimensions beneficiary and nature of benefit, the range of rationales can be conceptualised on a two-axis matrix, rather than, as common hitherto, as dichotomous. Both dimensions are conceptualised not as binary but as continua. The following presents a novel matrix of rationales, suitable for and beyond the age of Global English, which spans, on one level, material and non-material and, on the other, societal and individual benefits. This matrix design emphasises

• the interdependence of different benefits for language learning

• the sociopolitical dimension of language learning

• the shortcomings of utilitarian rationales alone

and aims to help language education policymakers and educators to both design and communicate rationales to key stakeholders.

This section presents these two dimensions as part of one unified matrix for rationales for language learning. Figure 1 shows this matrix, with, on the Y axis, the dimension of beneficiary, and on the X axis, nature of benefits.

Figure 1 Matrix: holistic rationales for language teaching.

The matrix serves heuristic purposes: it is designed to help policymakers and educators to consider the widest possible range of rationales for language learning before deciding on their own emphasis. It offers a framework in which different LEPs can situate the rationales suitable for their specific contexts. In other words, the matrix offers a sufficient level of abstraction to situate the full range of existing rationales.

The matrix does not suggest a hierarchy of rationales, nor does it ineluctably lead to suggestions regarding target languages, target learners or target competence levels. The matrix is designed to equip key stakeholders with the means to better formulate policies answering to the challenges of language learning in the context of Global English, and to communicate these to all concerned. Section 3.4.1 expands on the dimensions beneficiary and nature of benefit, and the four corners emerging from this matrix.

3.5 From Rationales to Motivation

This section discusses how and if rationales might be translatable into motivational arguments and incentives for learners. The observation that rationales tend to be poorly expressed and communicated to learners constitutes only one (smaller) problem in this context. Even if rationales were devised and communicated in a convincing way to learners, the issue remains that these rationales were selected for learners, not by them. Learner motivation, and the conditions under which learners may become motivated, are very complex social psychological phenomena (Reference LanversLanvers, 2017a; Reference Ushioda, Mercer, Ryan and WilliamsUshioda, 2012). Motivational influences span from the macro level of learner experiences, such as societal attitudes to language learning, to the micro level, such as liking a particular teacher or the class atmosphere.

For a systematic analysis of overlaps between rationales and motivational dimensions, a conceptual model of language learner motivation is needed. Self determination theory, a motivational theory widely applied to the language learning context, serves this purpose. It is preferred over other well-known theories in language learning motivation because (1) its extrinsic–intrinsic continuum echoes the material–non-material dimension of the matrix presented here, and (2) as a general psychological motivational theory, it lends itself to applicability across a wide range of language learning contexts.

3.6 Section Summary

Hitherto, the full range of language learning rationales had not been conceptualised in any single model. The matrix of rationales presented here is structured around the two dimensions beneficiary and nature of benefit and highlights the continuum nature of all dimensions. The matrix spans the widest possible range of rationales for language study, is applicable to many learner contexts and underscores the sociopolitical dimension in all formal state LEP planning.

Although the full range of rationales remains – theoretically – available to most learners, the context of Global English has made it harder for LEP planners and learners to engage with all rationales. In the presence of a dominant lingua franca, LEP makers may feel obliged to take a stance vis-à-vis Global English. One unhelpful consequence of this is to associate certain rationales with certain target languages (e.g. material rationales for English, ‘personal enrichment’ for Italian). It is hoped that the matrix presented here will help to overcome such associations.

Today’s language learning contexts, however, are shaped by such perceptions, which results in learners of LOTE and English starting on an unequal footing. Already in 2005, Hawkins remarked:

Such considerations help us move away from a culture of blame when discussing the anglophone’s ‘indisposition’ to learn languages (Reference Lanvers and ColemanLanvers & Coleman, 2017). Academics in anglophone countries have been calling for a ‘new rationale for language learning in an English-speaking society’ (Reference Dearing and KingDearing & King, 2007: 17) for some time. However, to date, anglophone countries have largely failed to formulate a coherent case for the non-material range of rationales, both on a personal level (Reference Coffey, Wingate, Coffey and WingateCoffey & Wingate, 2017) and for societal benefit (Byram, 2008). Nonetheless, the ‘soft skills’ benefiting communities and societies, such as international communicative competence, are receiving increasing attention, as observed by Reference JakubiakJakubiak (2020: 214).

Be that as it may, however, these remain somewhat overlooked in anglophone contexts.

The social turn in language learning (Reference BlockBlock, 2003) has widened the path for a socially embedded understanding of learner motivation (Reference Ushioda, Mercer, Ryan and WilliamsUshioda, 2012) and facilitated a perception of language learning motivation at the level of group characteristics rather than the individual. For instance, a special issue of the Modern Language Journal (Reference Ushioda and DörnyeiUshioda & Dörnyei, 2017) addressed motivational characteristics and challenges for learners of LOTE, while Reference Lanvers, Cunningham and Hall (eds.)Lanvers et al. (2021) discussed motivational challenges for learners with English L1 learners.

So long as we conceptualise language learning motivation as a fluid, dynamic and social phenomenon (Reference DörnyeiDörnyei, 2019), we also embrace the notion that we can influence it. Using rationales to influence motivation is a lesser trodden path than simply focusing on classroom interaction. Nonetheless, precedents do exist.

Section 4, then, offers a discussion of motivation and rationales for different learner groups, asking What do we know about motivational characteristics of specific learner groups? and Which rationales might speak most to which learner groups? For this exercise, learner groups are defined by their relation to Global English (LOTE learner, learner with English L1 etc.). The dual purpose of this exercise is (1) to examine how vulnerable different learner groups and different motivational orientations might be to the ‘English is enough’ fallacy; and (2) to identify motivational pathways based on rationales for each learner group.

4.1 Introduction

In the context of formal, and often compulsory, language education, all motivation is welcome. The aim of this section is to discuss how rationales might be put into the service of learner motivation for different learner groups. Generic recommendations on how to motivate learners are likely to be ineffectual: any recommendations given here can only be as specific as our current knowledge of motivational characteristics at the group level.

Trying to motivate learners is one of the most effective pathways pedagogues have at their disposal to influence learning outcomes. It is thus hardly surprising that the – by now, substantial – literature on how to incentivise language learners focuses on language teaching methods and materials, teacher interaction, classroom atmosphere and similar situational variables. There is, by now, a large body of evidence on motivational teaching strategies, spearheaded by Reference Dörnyei and CsizérDörnyei and Csizér (1998), which gives teachers helpful advice on how to enhance the classroom atmosphere, respond to learner needs, avoid boredom and so on. Broadly speaking, this literature focuses on teacher-initiated activity and psychological support to address learner needs. Some of these approaches have been proven effective in quasi-experimental intervention design studies (for a review, see Reference GrahamLanvers & Graham, 2022).

This section is organised in the following way. Section 4.2 informs about the methodology applied for this review. Sections 4.3–4.6  present our knowledge on language motivation to date and discuss how motivation might be improved, following SDT principles. This is done by learner group, depending on their relation to English, in the following way: 4.3 discusses learners of English, 4.4 learners of LOTE, 4.5 learners of LOTE with English L1, and 4.6 the amotivated learner. Section 4.7 summarises the section.

4.2 Methodological Consideration

There is by now considerable evidence of what might motivate learners, especially in the classroom (Reference Lamb, Csizér, Henry and RyanLamb, 2019). Interventions to increase learner engagement tend to rely on influencing emotional, affective and behavioural dimensions of the learning process itself, such as improving learning strategies. By comparison, the motivational pathway of engaging learners openly in the why (learn languages) debate is used to a lesser extent, but it is not entirely novel. Past intervention studies aiming to increase language learner motivation have used an array of cognitive approaches, highlighting both material (Reference Taylor and MarsdenTaylor & Marsden, 2014) and non-material rationales (Reference Forbes, Evans and FisherForbes et al., 2021; Reference LanversLanvers, 2020; Reference Lanvers, Hultgren and GaytonLanvers et al., 2019) to increase motivation. Large-scale interventions applied in UK educational contexts, such as Language Horizons and Routes into Languages (see Reference GrahamLanvers & Graham, 2022), also rely to varying degrees on such argumentative pathways.

The motivational pathways proposed here are envisioned somewhat differently, in several respects. The first observation is that motivational profiles of learners, as well as pathways to influence motivation, are conceptualised in terms of the learner’s relation to English. Secondly, the enormous challenge of describing the motivational characteristics of learner groups on a global scale necessitates a motivational framework that is broad and comprehensive enough to conceptualise learner motivation in a large variety of contexts. For this reason, SDT, a general psychological motivational theory, is applied here. Thirdly, and in line with the core principles of SDT as a motivational framework, the motivational activities described here should not be categorised as following cognitive, social or emotive pathways, but rather as avenues that holistically address the core human needs of autonomy, relatedness and competence – these needs have both cognitive and emotional dimensions.

In SLA research, the person-centred turn in language learning has led to an increased emphasis on the role of emotion in language learning (Reference Dewaele, MacIntyre, MacIntyre, Gregersen and MercerDewaele & MacIntyre, 2016). Emotions in language learning not only are important for the immediate learner environment (Reference MacIntyre, Ross, Clément, Lamb, Csizér, Henry and RyanMacIntyre et al., 2019): they also form sociocultural and cognitive attitudes that can provide motivation for language learning (Reference GardnerGardner, 2010). For the same reasons, this Element refrains from a clear dichotomisation of ‘conscious’ and ‘unconscious’ motivation in language learners (Reference Al-HoorieAl-Hoorie, 2016a, Reference Al-Hoorie2016b). When adopting a holistic framework of learner motivation that gives equal emphasis to social, emotional and cognitive dimensions (Reference MacIntyre, Ross, Clément, Lamb, Csizér, Henry and RyanMacIntyre et al., 2019), initiatives to manipulate motivation should be conceptualised holistically. Discussing rational arguments for language learning with students may seem to favour cognitive engagement, but students themselves engage with such arguments in any way they wish – that is, holistically.

The literature overviews in Sections 4.3 to 4.6 are based on empirical studies undertaken in (mainly secondary) school contexts published in peer review outlets over the last three decades. The work available to cite invariably leads to biases, as there are far fewer empirical studies from the Global South, and studies on LOTE motivation, than learners from the Global North and learners of English. Furthermore, much literature on motivation may provide policymakers and practitioners with much-needed guidance as to how to incentivise learners, but empirical testing on such incentivisations also remains relatively scant. Such language learning motivational literature also has a tendency to overlook a decisive factor in language learning, namely the relation the learner has to English (L1? L2?). As argued throughout this Element, to a considerable extent, today’s challenges of motivating learners present themselves differently depending on where English fits into the learning context. Dörnyei and Ushioda argue that

For this reason, this section presents language learners’ motivational profiles in terms of learners’ relation to English. This socially grounded understanding of L2 motivation is

Sections 4.3 to 4.6 each provide a summary of the evidence on motivational makeup and motivational challenges for each learner group, followed by suggestions as to how rationales for language education might be translated into motivational pedagogy, for each of these learner groups in turn.

4.3 Learners of English

4.3.1 Dominant Motivational Characteristics

For many learners, ‘English is not just a subject on the school curriculum but a passport to personal advancement’ (Reference Lamb, Csizér, Henry and RyanLamb et al., 2019: 3). Many learners feel compelled to learn the ‘language that appears to have become a cog in the neoliberal wheel in the service of the global marketplace, capitalism, consumption, and national and global security’ (Reference DuffDuff, 2017: 604). For some time now, the personal material benefits and opportunities associated with learning English have been heralded as a key argument in favour of English, more so in the Global South than the Global North (Reference CanagarajahCanagarajah, 1999). Given the unquestionable status of English, rationales in the ‘material personal’ corner of the matrix remain the most persuasive for the learner of English.

The key observation, however, concerns the overall high motivation among many learners, covering a wide range of motivational dimensions. Reviews on the topic (Reference Al-HoorieAl-Hoorie, 2018; Reference UshiodaUshioda, 2017) confirm that learners of English are not merely motivated by extrinsic rewards: both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation score highly in many learners of English. There is also evidence that learners of English who may start with a more extrinsic orientation gradually broaden their motivation to encompass a more holistic spectrum (Reference Lamb, Csizér, Henry and RyanLamb et al., 2019), and that a motivational drop, often observed in LOTE learners, is not as marked (Reference Lamb, Csizér, Henry and RyanLamb et al., 2019). A possible reason for these phenomena is that, in addition to any material benefits, English can facilitate access to modern culture, social media, international travel and so on. From a pedagogical perspective, such a wide spread of motivational orientations is likely to stabilise learner behaviour and to protect the learner at times when motivation dips (Reference Kim and KimKim & Kim, 2021). Summarising the evidence on motivational makeup for this learner group, Figure 2 ranks the relative salience of different motivational orientations from 1 to 4, with the darkest background shade representing the strongest for this group.

Figure 2 Motivation in learners of English.

In sum, it is pleasing to see a wide spectrum of motivational orientations among many learners of English, but it leaves us with two questions: why learn any other language? Do learners engage with any societal benefits for learning English? The discussion that follows, then, asks not how rationales might be used to intensify motivation for English per se, but rather how these might be used to further motivation for LOTE and increase appreciation of the social benefits driving from the acquisition of language skills.

4.4 Learners of LOTE

4.4.1 Dominant Motivational Characteristics

If Global English features as neither L1 nor L2, that is, where a LOTE L1 speaker is learning a LOTE, the nature of the motivational make-up for learning depends even more on the precise situatedness of the learner context than for learners of English (Reference Zheng, Lu and RenZhen et al., 2019). The combination of language constellations is endless. Pedagogues who might have hoped that the absence of English offers LOTE learners opportunities to develop motivational profiles unaffected by Global English will be disappointed. Many learn English as their first L2, an experience bound to influence the LOTE learner. For better or for worse, past experiences of learning English shape attitudes, motivation and expectations in their LOTE learning (Reference HenryHenry, 2010), and LOTE motivation often suffers, regardless of whether English is learned simultaneously or consecutively (Reference HenryHenry, 2012). Studies by Henry in particular (Reference Henry and ApelgrenHenry & Apelgren, 2008) demonstrate how English as first L2 can add to disillusionment regarding learners’ expectations of the ultimate proficiency they might achieve in their LOTE, a negative motivational dimension often growing as long as the student studies the LOTE formally at school. This is one of several ways in which English can have a negative impact on LOTE motivation (Reference Mendoza and PhungMendoza & Phung, 2019), an unsurprising observation given the emphasis on English in most education systems (Reference DuffDuff, 2017).

Figure 3 ranks the motivational orientations of LOTE learners from 1 to 3 (material motivations sharing bottom place), with more salient rationales again in deeper shading.

Figure 3 Motivation in LOTE learners.

The first observation is represented by the lack of deep shading: overall LOTE learners face more motivational challenges than those of English. Conceptually at least, non-material individual rationales are relatively neutral as to the L2: they could help motivate the learning of LOTE. The evidence, however, is that many students themselves do not share this view: when comparing intrinsic ranges of motivation in those learning a LOTE and English simultaneously, they often show higher intrinsic motivation for English than for LOTE (Reference Sugita McEown, Sawaki and HaradaSugita et al., 2017). Hence, this motivation orientation is labelled the most important in Figure 3. As non-material personal orientations in learners of LOTE are beginning to be better understood (Reference Lanvers, Cunningham and Hall (eds.)Lanvers et al., 2021; Reference Ushioda and DörnyeiUshioda & Dörnyei, 2017), evidence suggests that the competition with English remains a threat to LOTE motivation.

On the question of whether those learning more than one LOTE simultaneously have different motivational profiles for each target language or not, the jury is still out, with some studies suggesting that students may develop discrete motivational ‘selves’ (Reference DuffDuff, 2017: 599) for different target languages (Reference Liu and Oga-BaldwinLiu & Oga-Baldwin, 2022) or interrelated ones (Reference HenryHenry, 2017; Reference HuangHuang, 2019). To date, most studies seem to suggest that motivational make-up is different for different L2s (Reference NakamuraNakamura, 2019), but studies comparing motivation between those learning LOTE and English simultaneously tend to report higher material motivation for English than for LOTE (Reference HuangHuang, 2019).

Furthermore, there is evidence that in Asian (unlike in Western) contexts, material and non-material orientations may be similar for both LOTE and English (Reference Huang, Hsu and ChenHuang et al., 2015; Reference Kong, Han and KimKong et al., 2018). Recent studies (e.g. Reference Zheng, Lu and RenZheng et al., 2019) also suggest that intrinsically motivated students of several languages have a more ‘multilingual’ identity, while more extrinsically motivated learners favour English alone. Generally, however, cross-linguistic research on motivational profiles is an emerging research field (Reference NakamuraNakamura, 2019). Concerning the question of whether LOTE learners might be incentivised by a wider range societal benefits deriving from language learning, we observe again a lack of empirical studies.

In sum, learners perceive the material benefits of learning LOTE to be lower than for English (Reference HuangHuang, 2019; Reference HenryHenry, 2010): they are labelled as least important in Figure 3. Prior experience of learning English often has a detrimental motivational effect on LOTE learning. These results come with the caveat that most evidence on motivation for LOTE learning stems from learners of the large European languages and Chinese. Findings suggest a need to differentiate between European and Asian studies, in that Asian students often show themselves to be equally strongly intrinsically and extrinsically motivated, and for the educated elite especially, extrinsic motivation can be very strong. On the other hand, European studies (e.g. Reference Henry and CliffordsonHenry & Cliffordson, 2013) tend to report more gender differences than those investigating motivation among Asian students, with Western girls tending to report stronger intrinsic orientations than boys (Reference Mendoza and PhungMenzoda & Phung, 2019).

Finally, Reference Dörnyei and Al‐HoorieDörnyei and Al‐Hoorie (2017) summarise characteristics of LOTE learner motivation as having great resilience, and a great sense of relatedness to the target language community, often accompanied by very specific personal motivation. This profile does indeed describe a specific LOTE learner type: that of the highly motivated LOTE learner, including the rebellious learner, which I discuss next. Unfortunately, however, many LOTE learners start from a low motivational base. The most salient feature of the LOTE learner motivational profile is poorer motivation compared to that for learning English.

4.5 Learners of LOTE with English L1

4.5.1 Dominant Motivational Characteristics

Undertaking the same exercise of testing the vulnerability of rationales for this learner group to the attraction of English, a picture emerges whereby most rationales ‘suffer’ somewhat from English dominance. Figure 4 shows, again using shading and numbering by relative importance, how the motivational make-up looks for a LOTE learner who already speaks English as (one of their) L1s, according to current evidence on learner attitudes and motivation: non-material motivation outranks material.

Figure 4 Motivation in LOTE learners with English L1.

Figure 4 shows even less shading (i.e. overall lower motivation) than in Figure 3. For learners who already know English, motivation is vulnerable to the ‘English is enough’ fallacy often found in anglophone countries. Anglophones face a greater initial motivational hurdle, and anglophones who are motivated tend to make a greater motivational investment than others. It would follow that such learners need to rely on high amounts of intrinsic motivation. This is borne out by evidence. Comparative analysis confirms that anglophones opting for the same L2 as non-anglophones (e.g. Brits and French both learning German) show higher motivation (Reference BartramBartram, 2006). In a further defence of anglophones’ attitudes towards language learning, it is important to concede that chauvinistic attitudes towards one’s first language are not a preserve of anglophones (Reference PrattPratt, 2012), but such attitudes are easily fuelled by the Global English phenomenon (Reference Lanvers, Cunningham and Hall (eds.)Lanvers et al., 2021).

Emphasising material benefits to anglophones learning LOTE may appear superficially attractive, presumably a reason why it is employed in motivational incentivisation in the UK in particular (Reference LanversLanvers, 2017a). The concerns around using these arguments are not their weakness per se, but the danger that any emphasis on the material benefits of language learning could lead learners to favour English even more. If we suggest to learners that this is the main reason for language learning, they may indeed conclude that the one language offering the greatest practical functionality in many situations might suffice. In this manner, material rationales may exacerbate rather than solve motivational problems for anglophone learners (Reference GrahamGraham, 2022).

Concerning the large range of personal non-material benefits (such as cognitive, cultural, emotional), these remain – conceptually at least – untouched by the presence of a dominant lingua franca and are suitable for a wide range of LOTE, although a learner may of course decide to immerse herself into a particular language due to a perceived cultural affinity with the target community (Reference StolteStolte, 2015). The issue here is that such arguments seem harder to communicate to learners, and that any LOTE offered to learners would need its own unique rationale. How, then, to choose between French and Italian on the grounds of cultural enrichment or cognitive challenge? For the English L1 learner, the sense of overwhelming choice among L2s can be intimidating or lead to inertia. In some cases, specific non-utilitarian arguments may favour a particular target language, such as Latin for cultural enrichment, a typologically very different language for a high cognitive challenge (e.g. Chinese) and so on. Nonetheless, from the perspective of the anglophone learner, enrichment-type arguments alone seem to harbour an element of arbitrariness in the L2 choice.

This differs when considering societal non-material benefits: specific LOTE can address specific societal needs, such as learning a community language to improve social cohesion and social justice (Reference Busse, Cenoz, Dalmann and RoggeBusse et al., 2020), a language of the neighbouring country to improve binational relations, or heritage language to preserve the culture of the community (Reference Hélot, Frijns, Gorp and SierensHélot et al., 2018). We now have a considerable body of literature on beneficial effects of community language teaching for schools and their neighbourhood (ECML, n.d.). Such arguments offer anglophones living in multilingual communitiesFootnote ² the opportunity to engage with the immediate benefits (rather than deferred benefits, e.g. studying for a professional advancement) of language study. These arguments remain unaffected by Global English and lend themselves especially well to be used for anglophones who show little interest in language learning. To date, however, these arguments have received little attention in anglophone contexts (Reference OsbornOsborn, 2006).

Finally, more than for any other learner group, the literature on motivation in anglophone language learners reports stark differences along sociodemographic variables, in that girls and learners from advantaged societal backgrounds report significantly higher motivation (Reference CoffeyCoffey, 2018; Reference Lanvers, Rivers and KotzmannLanvers, 2017b; Reference Williams, Burden and LanversWilliams et al., 2002).

4.6 The Amotivated Learner

4.7 Section Summary

This section discussed motivational profiles in different learner groups. Learners of English currently demonstrate both the widest range and most intense motivation of all learner groups. Among learners of LOTE, those with English L1 especially, motivational challenges related to Global English are evident. Here, using material arguments to foster motivation for LOTE holds the danger of encountering the ‘English is enough’ fallacy. Lanvers and Reference GrahamGraham (2022: 227) remark that 

Furthermore, material rationales for enhancing motivation must be embedded in the specificity of the learner situation (for a specific target language and/or a specific purpose). However, even learners aware of the instrumental benefits of LOTE do not necessarily show higher motivation as a result (Reference Michel, Vidon, de Graaff and LowieMichel et al., 2021).

The section then discussed how and if arguments for language teaching might be utilised to foster motivation, aiming for a pedagogy where ‘holistic language learning rationales [are used] to motivate a wide range of learners for a wide range of languages’ (Reference Csizér and DörnyeiCsizér & Dörnyei, 2005: 30). This exercise led, in all cases, to an emphasis on non-material benefits. Raising awareness of these lends itself to motivating a wide range of learners and holds no danger of being counterproductive – unlike material rationales. Overall, such benefits remain poorly formulated and communicated in educational practice – a lacuna this Element addresses.

5.1 Lessons from Past Lingua Francas

To date, Englishisation in education systems continues apace. Even LEP explicitly espousing diversity in FL education often falls at the hurdle of Global English  (Current Issues in Language Planning, 2022; Reference LanversLanvers, 2024; Reference MeyerMeyer, 2011), as students ‘vote with their feet’ to learn English in preference to LOTE. Historically, different languages have occupied the position of dominant lingua franca (Reference Krzyżanowski and WodakKrzyzanowski & Wodak, 2011), but the question is if the consideration that English might one day suffer the fate of past lingua francas might impress learners sufficiently to diversify towards LOTE. Reference OstlerOstler (2010) predicts that technology will not only revolutionise language learning but also ‘dethrone’ English from its current position as the most desirable L2, superseded by languages such as Chinese, Spanish and Portuguese. For those interested in diversifying language learning, an optimistic outlook. The problem remains that the status English has reached today differs from past lingua franca in key respects: its reach is truly global, and the digital revolution has lowered barriers (both physical and monetary) to learning this language like no lingua franca before. Caution would thus dictate that we should not overly rely on historic patterns of organic language growth and demise to predict the future of (learning) English.

5.2 Outlook

If hope to diversify language learning towards LOTE thus falls back to LEP, more is needed than top-down declared policy prescribing increased uptake of LOTE. Some researchers, such as Reference BreidbachBreidbach (2003: 89), have proposed LEPs that seek to combine the – de facto – preference for English with a plurilingual approach to education:

This pragmatic compromise contains an Achilles heel, however. Sections 2 and 3 have cited ample evidence of official LEPs failing simply because students prefer to learn English over LOTE. Does ‘counterbalancing the gravitational force’ of English by giving this dominant language a mediator role not ‘put the wolf among the sheep’? What guarantees that learners will show any more interest in LOTE than is currently the case?

In a dynamic understanding of LEP (Section 1), practised LEP is co-constructed by many stakeholders: learners, school management, teachers and the wider community. Ensuring their commitment to LEP aims and objectives is vital to narrow the gap between declared and practised policy. Non-compliance with declared LEP can take many forms. In its simplest form, a learner and/or their parents may decide not to follow their school’s recommendations for language study, causing schools not to reach the targets set for FL engagement (Reference Parrish and LanversParrish & Lanvers, 2019). In England, academies and free schools – now the majority of secondary schools – are not obliged to follow the National Curriculum and are thus exempt from the obligation to teach FLs, if they wish. At its most overt, resistance to declared policy can take the form of a legal challenge (Spiegel, 2016). In other words, declared LEP can only succeed in diversifying learning towards LOTE if it takes key stakeholders on board. This Element has consistently argued that formulating and communicating holistic rationales for language learning, a task of declared policy, is necessary to narrow gaps between practised and declared LEP. First and foremost, these rationales should be communicated to learners themselves, as key stakeholders.

The next challenge, then, is to make the rationales relevant, meaningful and attractive to learners and their social environment. In other words, the rationales favoured by any LEP should speak to learner needs, as described by SDT (Section 4). This final, somewhat visionary section explains how holistic rationales can speak to learner needs. I recall that personal material rationales serve the learner’s social, professional and material advancement (e.g. professional skills use, educational advancement, social capital), while personal non-material rationales (e.g. cognitive benefits, cultural enrichment, travel) serve advancements that cannot (easily) be monetised. Both rationales advance individuals, and both answer learners’ individual needs for feeling competent (e.g. learning a language for the intellectual challenge, getting good grades for educational advancement) and feeling autonomous (e.g. becoming financially independent, choosing if and which language to learn). Furthermore, relatedness may also be satisfied if the learner has any intrinsic interests in or personal affinity to the target culture and community. Turning to societal benefits of language learning, the most salient basic human need addressed here is that to have meaningful relations with others. Furthermore, the sense that one makes a useful contribution to society can also satisfy the need for competence. Figure 5 illustrates the overlaps between rationales and basic human needs.

Figure 5 Situating rationales for language learning in SDT motivation.

Figure 5, then, offers a vision of how to align holistic rationales for language learning with learner needs. The vision cannot bear fruit if rationales and the way they benefit individuals and society are not communicated and discussed with learners. In a holistic language learning pedagogy, learner needs and rationales for language need to coexist in harmony: alone, neither can hope to counter the ‘stampede towards English’.