Language learning can be very emotional, as anyone who has ever tried to learn or use another language (L2) will attest. The range of emotionsFootnote 1 varies widely in both type and intensity, from the thrill of successfully articulating yourself, for example, to the anxiety of navigating a high-stakes encounter in an L2. It is not surprising, therefore, that there is a longstanding tradition of research on emotion in the context of L2 learning (e.g., Horwitz et al., Reference Horwitz, Horwitz and Cope1986). In fact, more than 40 years ago, Scovel (Reference Scovel1978)Footnote 2 reviewed the accumulated evidence on the role of just one emotion: Anxiety.
In the decades since Scovel's (Reference Scovel1978) review, interest in anxiety and other emotions has expanded and advanced in many respects. Evidence of such advances can be observed quite prominently in any one of the many reviews that have sought to synthesize and/or catalyze different facets of this domain. Horwitz's (Reference Horwitz2010) timeline provided a particularly useful vantage on the theoretical and empirical trajectory of work on anxiety in the context of L2 learning (For more cumulative and quantitatively oriented angles on this body of work, see Botes et al., Reference Botes, Dewaele and Greiff2020; Teimouri et al., 2019Footnote *; Zhang, Reference Zhang2019). In one respect, the timeline we present in this paper picks up where Horwitz left off; each entry appears after 2010.
That we have chosen such an abbreviated span of time to focus on speaks to the accelerated nature of activities of late in this domain. However, we have also taken on a scope that is broader than that of Horwitz (Reference Horwitz2010), focusing not only on anxiety but also on the full spectrumFootnote 3 of emotions investigated in relation to L2 development. This choice should likewise be taken as telling in terms of where this domain has been headed and the recent trajectory we seek to chronicle in this paper.Footnote 4
One such direction—perhaps the most visible in this timeline—has been the introduction and expansion into what is widely known as ‘positive psychology’ (e.g., Budzińska & Majchrzak, Reference Budzińska and Majchrzak2021; Gkonou et al., Reference Gkonou, Tatzl and Mercer2016; MacIntyre & Gregersen, 2012*; MacIntyre et al., Reference MacIntyre, Gregersen and Mercer2016, Reference MacIntyre, Gregersen and Mercer2019; Wang et al., Reference Wang, Derakhshan and Zhang2021). The embracing of positive psychology within applied linguistics represents not only a shift from the otherwise almost exclusive interest in anxiety, viewed by some as the ‘fraternal twin of depression’—that is, a generally negative emotion. The current era has also undergone a massive expansion in the range of emotions under investigation. These include joy, love, and pride among many others. We should also note that the expansion of theoretical and conceptual territory, though largely positive, has also seen the introduction of less pleasant—at least for some—emotions as well such as shame, guilt, and boredom. Entries in our timeline that indicate a particular or novel focus on theory, whether empirical or purely conceptual in nature, are marked with Th; PP will be used for those that include one or more constructs associated with positive psychology.
Accompanying and complementary to the field's expansion in the realm of theory and the introduction of many new constructs is an increased interest in the methodological issues. In many ways, this development is reflective of a broader move taking place throughout applied linguistics (see Gass et al., Reference Gass, Loewen and Plonsky2021; Marsden & Plonsky, Reference Marsden, Plonsky, Gudmestad and Edmonds2018; Plonsky, Reference Plonsky, Mohebbi and Coombe2021). However, a number of advances particular to the domain of emotion and individual differences can also be observed. One such change is an acute interest in developing new scales and in assessing the psychometric properties thereof. Although some early works did concern themselves with different facets of validity (e.g., Daly & Miller, Reference Daly and Miller1975) and measurement quality more generally, the field has taken great strides in recent years as exhibited, for example, in the use of several more advanced quantitative techniques that often involve latent variable modeling such as structural equation modeling (SEM). Greater sophistication is not always necessary and carries with it a number of potential drawbacks such as interpretability. However, considering the largely latent (not directly observable) nature of emotional variables and the quantitative approach undertaken by most studies in this domain, we view this move as a sign of progress. At the same time, as demonstrated quite compellingly in Sudina's (Reference Sudina, Vernon, Foster, del Villano, Hernandez, Beck and Plonsky2021) methodological synthesis, there is still a lot of room for improvement in terms of methods, measurement, and transparency/reporting in this domain. Entries in our timeline that exemplify or illustrate advances in methods and measurement are marked with MM.
In a similar but distinct vein, emotion researchers have also begun to engage with open science practices such as making their data and/or instruments publicly available. Simple steps such as these facilitate re-analysis, replication, and researcher training. They can also help build trust in study-level inferences (Marsden & Plonsky, Reference Marsden, Plonsky, Gudmestad and Edmonds2018). We recognize examples of individual and collective efforts to practice open science by marking them with OS in the timeline below.
In addition to theoretical and methodological advances, research on emotion has ventured into new territory on at least two other fronts. The first concerns the role of emotion or, seen from another point of view, the goal of the research on emotion. Research in this domain has historically examined emotion in relation to or as a predictor/correlate of L2 achievement or some aspect of performance. A number of recent studies, however, have begun to employ experimental manipulations to induce learner emotions and/or to shed light on the effects of emotion on learning. Evidence in this line of inquiry, though tentative, appears promising in its ability to contribute to theoretical as well as more practical realms.Footnote 5 Furthermore, looking toward a future of greater exploration of emotional-causal relations, MacIntyre et al. (Reference MacIntyre, Gregersen and Mercer2019) remind us that the effects of interest may lie beyond the linguistic domain—touching social/interpersonal relations, for example—and even beyond the learners themselves. Entries in our timeline with interventionist designs, goals, or immediate implications for practice are marked with Pr.Footnote 6
Another new frontier for research on emotion pertains to the contexts and populations of interest in this domain. Amidst recent and ongoing concerns about restricted sampling practices in applied linguistics (e.g., Andringa & Godfroid, Reference Andringa and Godfroid2020; Plonsky, Reference Plonsky, Loewen and Sato2017), we would like to highlight the fact that a number of studies in the last decade have pushed the contextual and demographic boundaries of research on emotion and language learning. Such studies, exploring emotion in a wide range of target languages, settings (e.g., study abroad, technology-mediated environments), and populations (e.g., heritage learners; Xiao & Wong, Reference Xiao and Wong2014) are marked in our timeline with an S/C (for sample/context).
Looking across the entries in this timeline, we are struck by how far the field has come. The range of tools, designs, and constructs under investigation has advanced and specialized in nuanced and impressive ways. At the same time, however, we are utterly confident in the dynamism inherent to this body of work and the researchers that are part of it.
Luke Plonsky (Ph.D., Michigan State) is Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics at Northern Arizona University. His work, focusing primarily on SLA and research methods, has appeared in over 90 articles, book chapters, and books. Luke is Associate Editor of SSLA, Managing Editor of Foreign Language Annals, Co-Editor of De Gruyter Mouton's Series on Language Acquisition, and Co-Director of IRIS.
Ekaterina Sudina is a Ph.D. candidate in the Applied Linguistics program at Northern Arizona University. Her research interests include individual differences in second language acquisition, the psychology of language learning and teaching, and quantitative research methods.
Yasser Teimouri (Ph.D., Georgetown University) is Assistant Professor in Applied Linguistics in the Department of Foreign Language Education at Boğaziçi University. His main areas of interest include psychology of language learning and teaching, research methodology, and task-based language learning and teaching.
