Читать книгу New Perspectives on Older Language Learners - Miriam Neigert - Страница 31

The interplay of ideal and ought selves described in self-determination theory – the degree of internalisation on a continuum of external control and internal regulation – has also been the focus of the self-discrepancy theory introduced by Higgins (1987), however, with the inclusion of the actual self.1 Higgins (1987: 320f.) refers to ideal, ought, and actual self as domains of the self. He adds to this dimension a second cognitive dimension: standpoints on the self (own and other).

Standpoints on the Self	Domains on the Self
Actual	Ideal	Ought
Own	actual/own	ideal/own	ought/own
Other	actual/other	ideal/other	ought/other
	Self-Concept	Self-Guides

Table 3.1

Self-State Representations (after Higgins 1987)

The domains of actual, ideal, and ought combined with the standpoints of own/other create six different types of “self-state representations” (p. 321; see table 3.1): actual/own, actual/other, ideal/own, ideal/other, ought/own, and ought/other (see also Taylor 2011). He points out that both types, actual/other and particularly actual/own, constitute a person’s self-concept, whereas the other four types (ideal/own, ideal/other, ought/own, and ought/other) can be regarded as self-guides. Similarly, Dörnyei – as a foundation for his L2 Motivational Self-System (L2MSS) – has described ideal and ought-to L2 selves as future self-guides in order to highlight this particular temporal facet of the construct.

As with possible selves, it is also important to note that self-guides – i.e. the existence or degree of manifestation of ought and ideal self-guides in a person’s self-system – differ between individuals: “[P]eople differ to which self-guide they are especially motivated to meet” (Higgins 1987: 321). In other words, one person has more ought self-guides than another person, who only or mainly has ideal self-guides. Higgins’ self-discrepancy theory is essentially concerned with the discrepancy of self-concept and self-guides and the emotional problems this discrepancy may have on the individual: “[W]e are motivated to reach a condition where our self-concept matches our personally relevant self-guides” (p. 321). Higgins (1987: 336) investigated and validated two types of emotional problems caused by discrepancies between self-concept/ideal self-guides (leading to dejection-related emotions) and self-concept/ought self-guides (leading to agitation-related emotions) in his study.

How then can the self-discrepancy theory be applied to young-old language learners? If we believe what this theory postulates – the discrepancies and their emotional effects, respectively – we can assume that a young-old learner who evaluates or realizes today that he or she has not met his or her ideal L2 self he or she hoped for five years ago, might develop a feeling of disappointment or sadness. If he or she perceives in hindsight that his or her self-concept and ought L2 self-guides (i.e. the perception of not meeting the expectations of his or her teacher, partner, children or grandchildren etc.) do not match, he or she might end up with a feeling of fear or tension (Higgins 1987: 336). As we will see in the analysis of the interviews in chapter 6, however, resilience and ageing (see also chapter 2) may influence this interplay of self-guides (Brandstädter & Greve 1994). The degree of self-discrepancy between self-concept and these two types of self-guides also has an impact on his or her future motivation and performance when learning a foreign language. But if we do not view self-discrepancy or self-guides from a present perspective into the past, as in this example, but rather as powerful and future-directed motivational tools, it is worthwhile considering Dörnyei’s L2MSS at this point, and with it, the role of self-concept in SLA research.