Ambiguity Tolerance In Language Learning

The objective of this study was to investigate the relationship tolerance ambiguity and willingness to communicate among Iranian EFL learners. In this section, relevant studies were reviewed under these subheadings: ambiguity tolerance (AT), ambiguity tolerance and language learning, AT measurement scales, willingness to communication (WTC), WTC and language learning, effects of WTC on language learning, related empirical studies, and WTC and ambiguity tolerance.

2.2. Ambiguity Tolerance

Acquisition of a foreign language represents an intensively studied issue, its psychological foundation being based on the individual differences of various learners. The learning process depends on a series of factors: cognitive factors (language aptitude,

In the attempt to define tolerance of ambiguity as a cognitive factor there are double task; to interpret the meaning of ambiguity and to designate what tolerance is. The concept of ambiguity has been described in various terms throughout the literature. Early definitions of ambiguity regarded uncertainty in real life. In such definitions, ambiguity was described as caused by the nature of cues available in the context or stimulus given. McLain (1993), for example, defines ambiguity as not having sufficient information about a context. He believes that it is as one of the variables of individual differences or characteristics defined as perception of inadequate information to clearly understand stimuli which means range of reactions extending along a continuum from total agreement to total disagreement. He also defines it as ‘perceived insufficiency of information regarding a particular stimulus or context’ (p.183). He defined it as the perception of inadequate information arising from certain characteristics of a situation. In addition to, Norton (1975) described it as ‘too little, too much, or seemingly contradictory information’ (p.607). In a situation that demands

He also summarizes current definitions and concludes that ambiguity is marked by “novelty, complexity, insolubility and lack of structure” (p. 69). Ambiguous situation is, therefore, characterized by a lack of adequate cues, which results in insufficient reorganization or categorization by an individual (Budner, 1962). In addition to, he believes that ambiguous situations can be of three different types: new situations, complex situations, and contradictory situations. These are, respectively, where there are not sufficient or nonexistent cues, where there are too many cues, and where cues are not easy to distinguish. Norton (1975), further, summarizes causes of ambiguity as 1) multiple meanings, 2) vagueness, incompleteness, or fragmentation, 3) a probability, 4) unstructured, 5) lack of information, 6) uncertainty, 7) inconsistencies and contradictions, and 8) unclear. Naiman, Frohlich, Stern, and Todesco (1978) define ambiguous situation by "novelty, complexity, or insolubility, and further characterizes responses to such threatening situations by expressions of dislike, depression, attending to avoiding the situation, or by destructive behavior"