Applying the Theory of Planned Behaviour to Account for Students’ Choice of a Target Accent (Part 2)

Krzysztof Przygoński

Abstrakt

Bearing in mind the importance of attitude in sociolinguistic research and its huge theoretical potential for accounting for various language behaviours, it is surprising to see numerous misconceptions concerning this construct and its conceptualization as well as criticism as to its role in predicting and explaining speech behaviour (cf., for instance, Cargile, Giles 1997: 195; Edwards 1999: 109; Ladegaard 2000: 229–230; Garrett 2001: 630; Soukup 2012; Taylor, Marsden 2014). The author claims that attitude research can still prove very insightful and helpful in sociolinguistic theory building, but to do so, one needs to reconceptualize attitude along the reasoned action approach on the foundations of which the theory of planned behaviour rests. The theory posits that attitude is one of the three general predictors having a sufficient explanatory and predictive power in the case of most human behaviours. The major goal of the present article  is to report on a study attempting to apply the theory of planned behaviour to explain why students of English being given an alternative to choose either an English or American accent as a target model to learn opt for one and not the other. The second goal of the article is to discuss the role of language attitudes in determining students’ decisions. Part 2 of the article elaborates on the main study as well as includes a brief discussion followed by suggestions for further research. 

Słowa kluczowe: theory of planned behaviour, language attitudes, attitude-behaviour relations, target pronunciation model
References

Ajzen I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 50: 179211.

Ajzen I. 2002. Constructing a theory of planned behavior questionnaire: Conceptual and methodological considerations.
[
http://www.people.umass.edu-/aizen/pdf/tpb.measurement.pdf ].

Cargile A.C., Giles H. 1997. Understanding language attitudes: Exploring listener affect and identity. – Language and Communication 17.3: 195217.

Edwards J. 1999. Refining our understanding of language attitudes. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 18.1: 101110.

Garrett P. 2001. Language attitudes and sociolinguistics. Journal of Sociolinguistics 5.4: 626631.

Ladegaard H.J. 2000. Language attitudes and sociolinguistic behavior: Exploring attitude-behavior relations in language. Journal of Sociolinguistics 4.2: 214233.

Przygoński K. 2012. Sociolinguistic aspects of the functioning of English in post-1989 Poland. Frankfurt am Main.

Przygoński K. 2016. Political transformation as a trigger for a sociolinguistic resolution in post-socialist Poland: English and its rising power. – Sloboda M., Laihonen P., Zabrodskaja A. (eds.). Sociolinguistic transition in former eastern bloc countries. Two decades after the regime change. Frankfurt am Main: 115139.

Soukup B. 2012. Current issues in the social psychological study of language attitudes:Constructionism, context, and the attitude-behavior link. Language and Linguistics Compass 6.4: 212224.

Taylor F., Marsden E.J. 2014. Perceptions, attitudes, and choosing to study foreign languages in England: An experimental intervention. The Modern Language Journal 98.4: 902920.

Czasopismo ukazuje się w sposób ciągły on-line.
Pierwotną i jedyną formą czasopisma jest wersja elektroniczna.