ࡱ> -/*+,)` 0Fbjbj P{{%^^^^^^^$bgggP h$.iv'jk"kkk}l}l}l$-h`u^J}l}lJJ^^kk9J`^k^kJ(^^$kj %jgO0 4$,P^:p}ldtz}l}l}l}l}l}lJJJJv'v'v'D@gv'v'v'g$^^^^^^^ Language Education and Willingness to Communicate: Croatian and American Comparisons Moira Kosti-Bobanovi, Ph.D. Full Professor Juraj Dobrila University of Pula, Croatia Foreign Language Department, Head mbobanov@unipu.hr David M. Currie, Ph.D. Professor of Economics Crummer Graduate School of Business Rollins College Winter Park, FL, USA dcurrie@rollins.edu Abstract The present paper therefore aims to explore willingness to communicate in foreign language of multilingual and monolingual university students taking into consideration effects of gender and culture. We used McCroskey and Richmonds (1987) Willingness to Communicate instrument to survey college students in the United States and Croatia. All of the respondents had learned or were learning at least one foreign language at university, and many students were multilingual. Our results do not support the assertion that female students and multilingual students are more willing to communicate in a foreign language. However, US students were more willing to communicate in all contexts and to all receivers. At the conclusion of the paper, we suggest techniques such as group exercises and real-world simulations, use of language learning strategies and student discussions that language trainers may use to create an environment that will improve students' WTC. Key words: foreign languages, willingness to communicate, college students, teaching techniques 1. Introduction For most people communication is simply talk; it is a natural event. The field of communication focuses on how people use messages to generate meanings within and across various contexts, cultures, channels, and media. When we communicate we transmit (by speech, signals, writing, or behaviour) information (thoughts and emotions) so that it is satisfactorily received and understood. Human beings do not exchange data we exchange information. Communication researchers refer to the process as sharing meaning and prefer to define communication as the management of messages for the purpose of creating meaning. (Neuliep, 2000: 86) However, the question is how much are we willing to communicate or learn other languages? English has emerged as lingua franca throughout the world. Managers from developing countries must be trained in English as well as in their home languages. On the other hand, the increased mobility of managers means that native English speakers must be trained in the language of the country in which they manage. Training in other languages requires the willingness to communicate (WTC) a barrier that frequently is difficult to overcome (Oz et al., 2015). McCroskey and Richmonds (1987) Willingness to Communicate scale advanced the construct of willingness to communicate to reference an individual's general personality orientation towards talking. While talking is central to interpersonal communication, people differ in the amount of talk in which they will choose to engage. Although willingness is seen as relatively constant across situations, situational variables may affect a person's willingness to communicate at a given time in a given context. Such things as how the person feels on a given day, previous communication with the other person, what that person looks like, or what might be gained or lost through communicating may have a major temporary impact on willingness. The presumed impact of culture on willingness to communicate would be expected to operate more at a trait than a situational level. Although cultural differences might be more apparent in some contexts than in others, it would be assumed that differences in an individual's day-to-day communication behaviours may be accounted for more by context than by cultural variations (Peal & Lambert, 1962; Spitzberg & Cupach, 1984; Lustig & Koester, 1993). Research indicates (Hofstede, 2001; Wiseman, 2001; Croucher et al., 2016;  HYPERLINK "https://www.google.hr/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=inauthor:%22Anna+Mystkowska-Wiertelak%22" Mystkowska-Wiertelak & Pawlak, 2017; Syed &  HYPERLINK "https://www.tandfonline.com/author/Kuzborska%2C+Irena" Kuzborska, 2018) that WTC depends on multiple factors, including communication anxiety and self-perceived communication competence, both of which are influenced by culture. Central to the generation of human communication theory is the recognition that there are many varieties of humans, all of which seek to understand the nature of humanity by observing the available humans in their immediate environment. The embodiment of such study is the resulting culture. To understand differences in communication orientations in different cultures, a large number of exogenous variables relating to cultural and societal differences should be taken into consideration, particularly the social system that links the individual to culture (Johnson & Tuttle, 1989). Europeans willingness to communicate or their likelihood to avoid oral interaction is less known. Our research is one of the few relating to multilingual students' WTC, and our research into gender and cultural differences is the only one involving an Eastern European country. The amount of talking in which a person engages depends, at least in part, on that person's cultural orientation. The purpose of this cross-cultural study was to examine possible cultural similarities or differences in willingness to communicate between people in the United States and Croatia, gender similarities or differences in willingness to communicate and similarities or differences in willingness to communicate between monolingual and bilingual students. The purpose of this research is to investigate whether students are more willing to communicate in foreign language according to cultural differences, the gender of the student and whether the student already speaks another foreign language. 2. Literature Review McCroskey & Richmond developed the Willingness to Communicate (WTC) scale in the mid-1980s to measure the respondents predisposition toward approaching or avoiding the initiation of communication (McCroskey, 1992). Since then, the scale has been used to measure communication in primary-language (L1) and second-language (L2) settings in a variety of cultures. An early investigation comparing L1 communication in two cultural settings was by Barraclough et al. (1988). In an investigation of WTC between students in the US and Australia, they found that American students were more willing to communicate than were Australian students, implying that it would not be possible to generalize US results across all cultures. They suggested that researchers conduct similar studies comparing other cultures in an effort to determine the extent to which it would be possible to generalize results obtained in the US. A subsequent article by McCroskey & Richmond (1990) summarizes studies comparing WTC in a variety of cultures. They show that US students are more willing to communicate than are students in Sweden, Australia and Micronesia. Again, the authors suggest that researchers study additional cultures to obtain a wider range of data for comparison. A year later, Sallinen-Kuparinen et al. (1991) reported that communication apprehension (a component of WTC) studies have been conducted in a variety of additional countries, including Peoples Republic of China, Korea, South Africa, India, Philippines, England and Germany. The authors chose Finland because its cultural stereotypes relating to WTC are almost completely opposite those of the US. Although the study continues reliance on L1 communication, the authors point out that gender and ethnicity may account for differences in WTC. McCroskey et al. (1985) conducted an early study into communication apprehension in second-language (L2) learning. They found that Japanese students were more apprehensive about communicating in both their native language and in English as a second language. This study measured only communication apprehension and did not use the WTC scale. By 2000, researchers were investigating both L2 acquisition and gender differences using the WTC scale. Baker & MacIntyre (2000) used WTC as one of the variables explaining whether immersion in the second language was important in L2 acquisition. The authors point out that knowing what makes one individual a more proficient communicator in the second language may be instrumental in developing environments that promote second language learning (p. 312). They also emphasize that foreign language learners should be provided with more frequent interactions in the foreign language so they are more inclined to integrate with the group. In their study, women were more willing to communicate than were men. As a step in their investigation of the relation between communication apprehension and L2 learning, MacIntyre, Baker, Clment & Donovan studied L2 learning in Canadian junior high school students. They found that WTC is higher in L1 than in L2 and that WTC is higher in girls than in boys. They did not address the issue of whether WTC differed between monolingual and multilingual students. A subsequent article by some of the same authors pointed out that frequent and pleasant contact with the L2 group increases students confidence in communicating (Clment et al., 2003). Thus, one of the ways to improve WTC is to provide students with opportunities to interact in the second language (Hamers & Blanc, 2000; Bialystok, 2001; Mehrgan, 2013). Kosti-Bobanovi & Ambrosi-Randi (2006) investigated the use of language learning strategies at different levels of education. Strategies can include observable techniques such as group discussions, as well as non-observable techniques such as internal thought processes. The choice of an appropriate strategy depends on the students motivation, ethnicity and learning style, among other variables. At the university level, the better students think of themselves as language learners, the more frequently they use cognitive (repeating, recombining, translating) and metacognitive (setting goals, seeking practice opportunities, organizing learning) strategies. They use compensation strategies less frequently. Therefore, techniques that facilitate cognitive and metacognitive strategies will be more effective in language education. Along this line, Peng (2007) argued that L2 learning is more effective if it involves authenticity, real-world simulation, and meaningful tasks (p. 34). The student must talk in order to learn, therefore WTC matters. Because frequent communication is important for L2 learning, teachers should provide classroom exercises that include group and pair work, multimedia technologies, and news reports and movie clips. Peng also found that WTC relates to personality and gender of Chinese students. In conclusion, previous research indicates that WTC will be higher in L1 than in L2 learning, that WTC frequently differs between cultures, and that females may be more willing to communicate than are males. Numerous studies have compared WTC in the US relative to other countries, although most of these studies have involved Asian and Western European countries; there has not been much previous research addressing WTC in foreign language in Eastern European countries. Furthermore, there has not been research into WTC when students already know another language. When teaching another language, teachers should provide opportunities for meaningful communication that enhance the students willingness to communicate. 3. Methods Data were collected via a background questionnaire and the WTC in foreign language survey. The background questionnaire recorded personal information such as years of study, age, gender, ethnicity, mother language, and knowledge of foreign languages. McCroskey & Richmonds WTC instrument acquired the results related to the intensity of motivation needed for this research. We set out to test the following three hypotheses: There are no cultural differences in willingness to communicate in foreign language There are no gender differences in willingness to communicate There are no differences in willingness to communicate between monolingual and multilingual students 3.1. Measures The instrument chosen for this study, the Willingness to Communicate scale of McCroskey & Richmond (1987), measures a person's willingness to initiate communication. Underlying the WTC construct is the assumption that it is a personality-based, trait-like predisposition that is relatively consistent across a wide variety of communication contexts and types of receivers (McCroskey & Richmond, 1989.). To tap context-based and receiver-based predispositions, four communication contexts (public speaking, talking in meetings, talking in small groups, and talking in dyads) and three types of receivers (strangers, acquaintances, and friends) are included in the measure. As a whole, the WTC scale is a 20-item instrument with 12 items composing the measure and 8 filler items. The face validity of the instrument is strong, and results of extensive research indicate the predictive validity of the instrument. Alpha reliability estimates for this instrument have ranged from .85 to well above .90 (McCroskey, 1992). Of the 20 items on the instrument, eight are used to distract attention from the scored items. The twelve remaining items generate a total score, 4 context-type scores, and 3 receiver-type scores. The sub-scores generate lower reliability estimates, but generally, high enough to be used in research studies. 3.2. Participants The research was carried out on 200 subjects: 100 students attending Rollins College in Winter Park, Florida, United States, and 100 students attending Juraj Dobrila University in Pula, Faculty of Economics and Tourism, Croatia. Participation was voluntary and took place during regular class time. Of the 200 participants, 125 (62.5 %) were females and 75 (37.5 %) males. The sample included 118 (59 %) multilingual students and 82 (41 %) monolingual students. Each participant was assigned to one of two groups: monolingual or multilingual. The criterion followed in assigning learners to the monolingual group was that both parents were native speakers of one native language and that the native language was the language of communication at home as well as the language of instruction in school. The criterion followed in assigning learners to the multilingual group was the knowledge of at least two languages provided that the student had learned the languages at home, or one language at home and another either in school, where it was offered as a minority language, or abroad. Unlike the study comparing Finland to the US because of cultural contrasts (Sallinen-Kuparinen et al., 1991), we compare Croatia to the US due to cultural similarities. Juraj Dobrila University is in Istria, one of Croatias major tourist areas. Because of Istrias history, many students are multilingual, speaking Croatian along with Italian, German, and/or English. Rollins College has a stated objective of globalizing its curriculum and student body, and Florida has many families of Spanish heritage; therefore, many students at Rollins are multilingual. Furthermore, Croatians share many personality traits that are at least outwardly similar to those of Americans they are gregarious, friendly, talkative, and welcoming. We thought that with these similarities of personality and language training, Croatia and the US would be worthwhile subjects for a WTC study. 3.3. Data analysis The questionnaire data were coded, computed, and analysed using SPSS for Windows (Statistical Package for Social Sciences). 4. Results and discussion A two-way analysis of variance was conducted to determine the relationship between Croatian (HR) and American (US) students in WTC for four communication contexts (public speaking, talking in meetings, talking in small groups, and talking in dyads) and three types of receivers (strangers, acquaintances, and friends). 4.1. Aspect of Culture Overall results and male/female results appear in Table 1 US students reported higher total WTC scores (F 2, 198 = 6.48; p <.001) than did Croatians (HR), and the result is statistically significant. Furthermore, US students were more willing to communicate in all contexts and to all receivers, although the difference was not significant when speaking one-on-one (dyads) to a friend or an acquaintance. The difference was especially noticeable when speaking to strangers. Croatians apparently are more hesitant to speak to strangers than are Americans, as one might suspect from previous research such as McCroskey & Richmond (1990) and Barraclough et al. (1998). It also is possible to compare results to norms established by McCroskey & Richmond. The norms, listed in the right column of Table 1, show values that are considered high and low willingness to communicate. Both US and Croatian students had low overall WTC relative to the norm, and Croatian students were much lower. Croatian students were lower than the norms in all contexts except speaking in public, and to all receivers except strangers. US students were lower in the same contexts but not in meetings, and to the same receivers. It is important to make one distinction between our results in Table 1 and results obtained by previous researchers concerning WTC in US students. Our results are based on surveys asking students about their willingness to communicate in a foreign language. Earlier research asked students about their willingness to communicate in their native language. We might expect that willingness to communicate in a foreign language will be lower than in a native language, and that indeed appears to be the case. The results for the US in Table 1 are lower than results reported in Barraclough, et al. (1985); these results are used by subsequent researchers when comparing the US to other countries. 4.2. Aspect of Gender Results in Table 1 also show that females are more willing to communicate than are males overall, in all contexts, and to all receivers. However, none of the results are statistically significant except when speaking to strangers. This result differs from that obtained by MacIntyre et al. (2002), who found that junior high school girls in Canada were more willing to communicate than were junior high school boys. The difference could be attributed to ages of students since ours were university students, or to culture since our students were from the US and Croatia rather than from Canada. As with culture, scores for both males and females were highest when speaking to friends and lowest when speaking to strangers. Scores also were higher when speaking in dyads or in small groups and lowest when speaking in meetings or in public. Both males and females were lower overall relative to norms. Males were lower in all contexts except public speaking and to all receivers except strangers. Females were lower in the same contexts except when speaking at meetings. Because results for females are not significantly different from results for males, we are unable to reject the hypothesis that there are no gender differences in WTC. The only exception is that there is a difference between genders when speaking with strangers. Table 1: Means and standard deviations for WTC culture and gender Measures US HR Male Female FNorms for WTC scoresTotal WTC51.00 (27.60)39.97 (22.41)42.48 (25.90)46.70 (25.28)16.48 2n.s. >82 High <52 Low Contexts:Public46.92 (31.68)36.82 (23.61)39.53 (28.02)42.53 (28.15)14.41 2n.s. >78 High <33 Low Meeting46.92 (29.94)34.30 (23.11)37.62 (27.60)41.83 (27.01)18.67 2n.s. >80 High <39 Low Group54.71 (29.42)43.61 (24.66)45.88 (28.32)50.53 (27.00)15.63 2n.s. >89 High <57 Low Dyad57.79 (29.30)51.89 (28.00)50.93 (30.68)56.87 (27.38)1n.s. 2n.s. >94 High <64 Low Receivers:Stranger36.96 (29.86)21.01 (19.31)26.23 (24.90)29.93 (26.72)118.83 24.07 >63 High <18 Low Acquaintance51.66 (29.70)43.49 (26.69)45.54 (29.37)48.37 (27.85)1n.s. 2n.s. >92 High <57 Low Friend63.95 (32.33)55.40 (27.50)55.28 (33.13)61.81 (28.18)1n.s. 2n.s. >99 High <71 Low  Note: 1 = Effect of culture 2 = Effect of gender 4.3. Aspect of Language Skills Table 2 shows results comparing monolingual and multilingual students. As we might suppose, multilingual students were more willing to communicate than were monolingual students in all contexts and to all receivers. However, none of the differences are statistically significant. Scores were highest when speaking to friends and acquaintances in dyads or small groups, and lowest when speaking to strangers, in meetings or in public. Relative to norms, both multilingual and monolingual students were lower than the norm in overall WTC. Multilingual and monolingual students were lower than the norm when speaking in groups or dyads; and when speaking to acquaintances or friends. This could be explained by both groups preferring to speak in their native tongues rather than in second or third languages. Because results for multilinguals are not significantly different from results for monolinguals, we are unable to reject the hypothesis that there are no language differences in WTC. Table 2: Means and standard deviations for monolingual and multilingual students Measures US HR Multilingual Monolingual FNorms for WTC scoresTotal WTC51.00 (27.60)39.97 (22.41)46.25 (23.62)43.58 (28.15)114.79 2n.s. >82 High <52 Low Contexts:Public46.92 (31.68)36.82 (23.61)41.68 (26.55)41.08 (30.30)111.05 2n.s. >78 High <33 Low Meeting46.92 (29.94)34.30 (23.11)40.72 (25.13)39.63 (30.22)117.83 2n.s. >80 High <39 Low Group54.71 (29.42)43.61 (24.66)50.95 (26.47)45.76 (28.85)112.10 2n.s. >89 High <57 Low Dyad57.79 (29.30)51.89 (28.00)55.98 (27.55)52.78 (30.40)13.86 2n.s. >94 High <64 Low Receivers:Stranger36.96 (29.86)21.01 (19.31)29.22 (23.62)27.61 (29.41)127.75 2 n.s. >63 High <18 Low Acquaintance51.66 (29.70)43.49 (26.69)48.20 (26.86)46.09 (30.57)16.96 2n.s. >92 High <57 Low Friend63.95 (32.33)55.40 (27.50)61.07 (29.77)57.03 (30.62)17.11 2n.s. >99 High <71 Low  Note: 1 = Effect of culture 2 = Effect of language Nowadays, it is very important to know how to communicate in a foreign language, especially in English (Oz, 2014). Our research reveals that Croatian students were less willing to communicate in another language compared to a sample of students from a US university. Previous researchers confirmed that US students were more willing to communicate than students from many other countries were, but this is the first study comparing US to Eastern European students. Learning a language requires a degree of self-confidence that may not be required of other disciplines, and creates a particular kind of anxiety related only to language situations (Latifn, 2015; Elaldi, 2016). Therefore, it is important to create an environment that will encourage students to communicate and help overcome the inherent anxiety. In this section, we suggest some teaching methods and learning strategies. According to Richards & Rodgers (1999), there are three principal views of language. First, the structural view treats language as a system of structurally related elements to code meaning (e.g. grammar). Second, the functional view sees language as a vehicle to express or accomplish a certain function, such as requesting something. Third, the interactive view sees language as a vehicle for the creation and maintenance of social relations, focusing on patterns of moves, acts, negotiation and interaction found in conversational exchanges. Much language instruction begins with grammar translation methods, focusing the student on proper language structure. The grammar translation method teaches students the basics of grammar and provides vocabulary with direct translations to memorize. The teaching of grammar consists of a process of training in the rules of a language, helping students correctly express their opinions, to understand the remarks addressed to them and to understand the texts they read. The goal is to give control and tools of the language to the student: vocabulary, grammar and orthography, reading, understanding and writing texts in various contexts (Nunan 1999). We suspect that although the structural approach lays the foundation for language understanding, it does little to build confidence that the student can communicate using the language. In fact, grammar can be taught and learned without speaking the language at all. The direct method operates on the idea that learning a second language should follow the same process used for learning the students own mother language, as this is the natural way humans learn any language. Students can learn a language through a series of experiences in the target language. The learner uses a new concept as often as possible after presentation, by thinking or by speaking. By practicing situations in another language, students gain confidence in their ability to communicate and their willingness to communicate increases (Richmond & McCroskey, 1989; McCroskey & Richmond 1990). The interactive view is perhaps the most comprehensive approach to language training, but also the most difficult to implement. Savignon (1997) states that social relations, movements, and interpersonal relations are best taught through immersion in another culture, which is possible only for a few language students. Language immersion in school contexts delivers academic content through the medium of a foreign language, providing support for L2 learning and first language maintenance. As in partial foreign language immersion, academic content is delivered through the medium of the immersion language for part of the school day, and through native language the rest of the school day. With these goals and constraints in mind, we offer these approaches and techniques for teachers of foreign language education: Motivate learning. Integrate more use of the target language in instruction; use dialogues, group exercises, discussions and real-world simulation. Use of the mother tongue by the teacher is permitted, but discouraged among and by the students. Balance structured teaching approaches that emphasize formal training with more open-ended, unstructured activities. Open-ended activity encourages students to work on their own paces. Teachers should include a variety of engaging tasks that all students in class can do with and without assistance of the instructor. Balance inductive and deductive presentation of course material. Deductive teaching begins with rules or principles and then proceeds toward consequences, while inductive teaching starts with observation and proceeds toward rules or principles. Teach grammar inductively. Generalize rules from the practice and experience with the target language. Foster dependence on mimicry, memorization of set phrases, over-learning and use language learning strategies Reinforce successful responses; take care to prevent learner errors. Use laboratories, tapes and visual aids. Consider culture as an important aspect of learning 5. Conclusion The realm of second language and foreign language learning endeavour to pave the ways for language learners mainly to communicate in the target language. Generally, language learners' tendency, which initiates the discourse and speaking skills in particular contexts with some individuals, defines the willingness to communicate levels of language learners. Results of the study suggest that willingness to communicate in a foreign language is lower for Croatians than for Americans. Culture and communicative competence in the target language clearly play a part in willingness to communicate, a result that has been confirmed by previous research. Although our results show that females are more willing to communicate in a foreign language than are males, the result is not statistically significant. We cannot reject the null hypothesis that there is no difference. Our results also show that multilingual students are more willing to communicate in a foreign language than are monolingual students. However, the result is not statistically significant. Again, we cannot reject the null hypothesis that there is no difference. 6. Reference 1. Baker, S.C., & MacIntyre P.D. (2000). The role of gender & immersion in communication & second language orientations. Language Learning, 50(2), 311-341. 2. Barraclough, R.A., Christophel, D.M., & McCroskey J.C. (1988). Willingness to communicate: A cross-cultural investigation. Communication Research Reports, 5(2), 187-192. 3. Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development. Language, literacy & cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 4. Clment, R., Baker S.C., & MacIntyre, P.D. (2003). Willingness to communicate in a second language: The effects of context, norms & personality. J. of Language and Social Psychology, 22(2), 190-209. 5. Croucher S., Rahmani D., Sakkinen K., & Hample D. (2016). Communication Apprehension, Self-Perceived Communication Competence, and Willingness to Communication in Singapore. Journal of Intercultural Communication 40, 1404-1634. 6. Elaldi ^. (2016). Foreign language anxiety of students studying English Language and Literature: A Sample from Turkey. Journal of Media and Communication Studies 11(6), 219-228. 7. Hamers, J. F., & Blanc, M.H.A. (2000). Bilinguality & Bilingualism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 8. Hofstede, G.H. (2001). Cultures Consequences. 2nd ed., Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. 9. Johnson, J. & Tuttle, F. (1989). Problems in intercultural research in M.K. Asante & W.B. Gudykunst (Eds.), Handbook of international & intercultural communication, Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 461-483. 10. Kosti-Bobanovi, M., & Ambrosi-Randi, N. (2006). Language learning strategies in different English as a foreign language education levels. Druatvena Istra~ivanja, 17(1/2), 281-299. 11. Latifn.A.A., (2015). A Study on English Language Anxiety among Adult Learners in Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM). Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 208, 223-232. 12. Lustig, M.W., & Koester, J. (1993). Intercultural Competence: Interpersonal Communication across Cultures. HarperCollins, New York, NY. 13. MacIntyre, P.D., Baker, S.C., Clment, R., & Donovan, LA. (2002). Sex & age effects on willingness to communicate, anxiety, perceived competence, and L2 motivation among junior high school French immersion students. Language Learning, 52(3), 537-564. 14. McCroskey, J.C. (1992). Reliability & validity of the Willingness to Communicate scale. Communication Quarterly, 40(1), 16-25. 15. McCroskey, J.C., & Richmond, V.P. (1989). Willingness to communicate & interpersonal communication. Paper presented at the West Virginia Symposium on Personality & Interpersonal Communication, Morgantown, WV 16. McCroskey, J.C., & Richmond, V.P. (1990). Willingness to communicate: Differing cultural perspectives. Southern Communication Journal, (56), 72-77. 17. McCroskey, J., & Richmond, V. (1987). Willingness to Communicate. In J.C. McCroskey, J., & Daly, J.A. (Eds.), Personality & Interpersonal Communication. Newbury Park, CA: Sage, 129-156. 18. McCroskey, J.C., Gudykunst, W.B., & Nishida, T. (1985). Communication apprehension among Japanese students in native and second language. Communication Research Reports, 2, 11-15. 19. Mehrgan, K. (2013). Willingness to communicate in second language acquisition: a case study from a socio-affective perspective. Journal of Comparative Literature and Culture (JCLC). Vol. 2, (4), 172-175. 20.  HYPERLINK "https://www.google.hr/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=inauthor:%22Anna+Mystkowska-Wiertelak%22" Mystkowska-Wiertelak, A., &  HYPERLINK "https://www.google.hr/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=inauthor:%22Miros%C5%82aw+Pawlak%22" Pawlak, M. (2017). Willingness to Communicate in Instructed Second Language Acquisition: Combining a Macro- and Micro-perspective. Multilingual Matters, 3 (2), 121129. 21. Neuliep, J.W. (2000). Intercultural communication: A contextual approach. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 78-95. 22. Nunan, D. (1999). Second language teaching and learning. Boston: Heinle & Heinle 23. Oz, H. (2014). Big Five personality traits and willingness to communicate among foreign language learners in Turkey. Social Behavior and Personality: An International Journal, 42(9), 1473-1482. 24. Oz, H., Demirezen, M., & Pourfeiz, J. (2015). Willingness to communicate of EFL learners in Turkish context. Journal of Learning and Individual Differences, 37, 269- 275. 25. Peal, E. & Lambert, W.E. (1962). The relation of bilingualism to intelligence. Psychological Monographs, (76), 1-23. 26. Peng, J.E. (2007). Willingness to communicate in an L2 and integrative motivation among college students in an intensive English language program in China. U. of Sydney Papers in TESOL, (2), 33-59. 27. Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (1999). Approaches & methods in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 28. Richmond, V.P., & McCroskey, J.C. (1989). Communication: Apprehension, Avoidance, and Effectiveness. 2nd edition. Scottsdale, AZ: Gorsuch Scarisbrick. 29. Sallinen-Kuparinen, A., McCroskey, J.C., & Richmond, V.P. (1991). Willingness to communicate, communication apprehension, introversion, and self-reported communication competence: Finnish and American comparisons. Communication Research Reports, 8, 55-64. 30. Savignon, S. J. (1997). Communicative competence: Theory and classroom practice. (2nd ed.), New York: McGraw-Hill 31. Nf   n o p w x ʾxl`TH5mH sH hNh15mH sH hNh+5mH sH h+ph+\mH sH h+ph+5mH sH h+ph+\mH sH h+ph+\mH sH h+ph+\mHsH h+ph+B*\mHphsH h+ph+5B*mHphsHh+ph+5mHsHh+ph+5mH sH hGn5mH sH hNh$+5CJ aJ mH sH hNh>5CJ aJ mH sH f \  5 E Z n o x y B S $dh`a$gdIE$  dha$gd}bdhgdMMgd+ $dha$gdMM $$dha$gdMMFFx y z B E a y z _ f ¶ښ~pbTbFhNhe6]mH sH hNhF6]mH sH hNhK 6]mH sH hNh}b6]mH sH hNhA6]mH sH hNhS6]mH sH hNh16]mH sH hNhf 6]mH sH hNhf 6mH sH hNh9t@6mH sH hNh Xa6mH sH hNh}b6mH sH hNhIE6mH sH hNhIE56mH sH   = > <=>HIZ\uguuYI9hNh>5CJaJmH sH hNh}-5CJaJmH sH hNhL p6]mH sH hNh#c 6]mH sH hNhkd6]mH sH hNh$6]mH sH  hNhkd56\]mH sH  hNh>56\]mH sH hNh q6]mH sH hNh>6]mH sH hNh16]mH sH hNh~6mH sH hNhF6mH sH hNhFmH sH S =>18/$  dha$gdIE$  dha$gdD?$  dha$gdMMdhgd}- $dha$gdMM$dh`a$gdMM[c19%&=]CEFGUWn˵˪˟~sh[sPPhNheSmH sH hNh!0JmH sH hNhHmH sH hNh!mH sH hNh>mH sH hNh3kmH sH hNh2 mH sH hNh- mH sH hNhamH sH hNh7mH sH hNhSmH sH hNh|mH sH hNh15mH sH hNh15CJaJmH sH hB5CJaJmH sH 892Rdn -CDEFԾԳzrg\gI%jhOhmYUmH nHsH tHhNhimH sH hNhg>mH sH h?mH sH hOmH sH hNh HmH sH hNhD?mH sH hD?mH sH hNh@mH sH h@mH sH h@h@mH sH hNh7mH sH hNheSmH sH hNhNomH sH hNh>mH sH hNh2 mH sH hNh mH sH F()/1ĵnnncXMBhNheSmH sH hNh>mH sH hNhNomH sH hNh&=~mH sH %jhNhr%UmH nHsH tHhNhimH nHsH tHhNhr%mH nHsH tHhNhr%mH sH hNhmYmH sH hNh} mH nHsH tHhNh} mH sH hNhmYmH nHsH tH%jhOhmYUmH nHsH tHhOhmYmH nHsH tH@Oln/0`gdx ԾԲo_hNh>5CJaJmH sH hNh5CJaJmH sH hNh}-5CJaJmH sH hNhIEmH sH hNh%7]mH sH hNh H]mH sH hNhIE]mH sH hNhCaImH sH hNhyimH sH hNh>mH sH hNh} mH sH hNheSmH sH hNhqDmH sH   {!#$'l(3+D.g2X4*7+7677788$hdh`ha$gdMMdhgd}- $dha$gdMM$dh`a$gd7$dh`a$gd$dh`a$gdMM $$$dha$gdMM $$dhgd}-  !!!%!%.%0%'''J-q-------.. .2.>.@.B.F.h.i3344445555ʿմթմ՞ՓxmbթթթթhNh HmH sH hNh} mH sH h+mH sH hMMhmH sH hmH sH hNh7DmH sH hNh5|mH sH hNh]-mH sH hNh mH sH hNh mH sH hNh!!mH sH hNh1'mH sH hNheSCJaJmH sH hNh1'5CJaJmH sH &556666*7+7.75767O7Q7]7j7n7r7v77777777777888ƶujuju_uujuThNh#X]mH sH hNh_nmmH sH hNh9mH sH hNhamH sH hNh]-mH sH hNh?mH sH hNh5CJaJmH sH hNh>5CJaJmH sH hNh}-5CJaJmH sH hNhVmH sH hNh HmH sH hNhf 6]mH sH hNhf mH sH hNh1'mH sH 818;8=8F8G8I8M8_8`888889 9!949S9r9999999999Ծ{peZNhNh}-5mH sH hNhNomH sH hNh_3mH sH hNh4>mH sH hNh_mH sH hNhf mH sH hNhf 6mH sH hNh2QmH sH hNhUmH sH hNhFmH sH hNh_nmmH sH hNhamH sH hNh?mH sH hNh} mH sH hNh#X]mH sH hNh mH sH 859s99999<??*?+?@iCEFFF$d^a$gd[$dh7$8$H$`a$gdMM$dh`a$gdMMdhgd}- $dha$gdMM$ & Fdha$gdMM9999 : :::: :-:6:A:J:L:Q:R:v:~::::::];h;<<<=======>ǼݰݗǗݗtihNhpmH sH hNhp\mH sH hNh$\mH sH hNh5|mH sH hNh'mH sH hNh'\]mH sH hNh'\mH sH hNh} mH sH hNh%DlmH sH hNh'U6mH sH hNhamH sH hNhNomH sH hNhNo5mH sH $> >R>U>>>>>????)?*?+?K?N?Y?????????????@@@Ь~shs]s]s]s]R]shNhr'mH sH hNhmH sH hNhjjmH sH hNhrmH sH hNh5|mH sH hNh';mH sH hNh'5mH sH hNh+*5mH sH hNh}-5mH sH hNh+*\mH sH hNh\mH sH hNh'mH sH hNh\mH sH hNh'\mH sH hNhB\mH sH  @U@W@w@@@@@@@9A;AmH sH hNhRmH sH hNhjmH sH hNhfmH sH hNhs3mH sH hNh^'mH sH hNhm mH sH FFgGhGiGjGGGHHHHwKMHPIP_P $dha$gdMM$$$dh`a$gdMM $$dhgd}-$dh`a$gdMM $dha$gdMMdhgd}- $dha$gde4$hd^ha$gd[mGtGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHII4I=ICIGIĹti^i^SH=hNh+r/mH sH hNhGv=mH sH hNh[QomH sH hNhxmH sH hNhs<mH sH hNh]DHmH sH hNh$+5mH sH hNh5mH sH hNh}-5mH sH hNh1tmH sH hNhmH sH hNhUmH sH hNh>mH sH hNh$+5CJaJmH sH hNhrn5CJaJmH sH hNh>5CJaJmH sH GIMINITI^I_IKWFWGWdh$&@#$/IfgdMMGWHWkd$$Ifl֞1 Nt ^@k t 6@644 lapFyt?HWNWTW\WbWjWpWxW~WWWWWWWWdh$&@#$/IfgdMMWWkd$$Ifl֞1 Nt ^@k t 6@644 lapFyt?WWWWWWWWWWWWWWXXdh$&@#$/IfgdMMXXkd$$Ifl֞1 Nt ^@k t 6@644 lapFyt?XXXXXXXXdh$&@#$/IfgdMMXXkd1$$Iflo֞1 Nt ^@k t 6@644 lapFyt?XX$X,X2X:X@XHXNXVX]XcXdXmXuXvXdh$&@#$/IfgdMMvXwXkd` $$Ifl֞1 Nt ^@k t 6@644 lapFyt?wXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXdh$&@#$/IfgdMMXXkd $$Ifl֞1 Nt ^@k t 6@644 lapFyt?XXXXXXY YYY!Y'Y(Y1Y9Y:Ydh$&@#$/IfgdMM:Y;Ykd $$Ifl֞1 Nt ^@k t 6@644 lapFyt?;Y_D_|_}______________` ` ` ``M`N`T`U`m`n`o`|`````````aaaa1a2a3a4a=a?aRaTaøhNh6,mH sH hNh4BH*mH sH hNh4BmH sH hNho1mH sH "hNh6,5CJ\aJmH sH hNh6,CJaJmH sH hNh6,CJH*aJmH sH ?^^^! dh$IfgdMMkdE$$IfTl֞ o "_ )_ t"644 lapFyt?T^^^^_____$_*_+_4_<_=_ dh$IfgdMM=_>_D_! dh$IfgdMMkde$$IfTl֞ o "_ )_ t"644 lapFyt?TD_J_R_X_`_f_n_t_|_______ dh$IfgdMM___! dh$IfgdMMkd$$IfTl֞ o "_ )_ t"644 lapFyt?T_______________ dh$IfgdMM__`! dh$IfgdMMkd$$IfTl֞ o "_ )_ t"644 lapFyt?T```` ` ` ` dh$IfgdMM ` `` dh$IfgdMMkd$$IfTlo֞ o "_ )_ t"644 lapFyt?T``#`)`1`7`?`E`M`T`[`\`e`m`n` dh$IfgdMMn`o`|`! dh$IfgdMMkd$$IfTl֞ o "_ )_ t"644 lapFyt?T|``````````````` dh$IfgdMM```! dh$IfgdMMkd $$IfTl֞ o "_ )_ t"644 lapFyt?T``````a aaaa a)a1a2a dh$IfgdMM2a3a4a! $dha$gdMMkd)$$IfTl֞ o "_ )_ t"644 lapFyt?T4aSakalamana?cdgjlo)p q^rSss)tnt$ & Fdh7$8$H$a$gdMM$hdh7$8$H$`ha$gdMM$dh`a$gdMM$dh7$8$H$`a$gdMM$dh7$8$H$a$gdMM $dha$gdMMTaUajakalamaaaaaaaaabbb b bbbbb>cSchcpccccccdd d ddddźxqjqahNh5@0J hNh5@ hNhB:hNhe4mH sH hNh5@mH sH hNh=4mH sH hNhlmH sH hNhgmH sH hNh XmH sH hNhBKmH sH hNhZ5mH sH hNhQ5mH sH hNhGmH sH hNh6,mH sH hNh4BH*mH sH &ddddddJhghllllllllo)pdssttttttt߾ԟԔyiYIhNh5CJaJmH sH hNhQ5CJaJmH sH hNh>5CJaJmH sH hNh}-5CJaJmH sH hNh46mH sH hNhRmH sH hNhg{\mH sH hNh;nmH sH hVkmH sH hNhVkmH sH hNhbmH sH hNhg{mH sH hNh} mH sH hNhBKmH sH hNh=4mH sH nttttttttCvHyIyJyWyXy $dha$gdMM $dha$gd! $$dha$gdMM$dh7$8$H$a$gd=$dh`a$gdMM$dh7$8$H$`a$gddhgd}-$dh7$8$H$a$gdMM$ & Fdh7$8$H$a$gdMM tu!uuuBvCv`vfvvvvvvvvvv w.wewww#x&xxxHyIyJyMyȽȲȽ{p`PhNh}-5CJaJmH sH hNh))E5CJaJmH sH hNh=mH sH hNhk|mH sH hNh1dmH sH hNh0:mH sH hNh;nmH sH hNhmH sH hNhmH sH hNh mH sH hNhQmH sH hNhQmH nHsH tHhNhdmH nHsH tHhNhmH nHsH tHMyVyWyXy[ygytyyyyyyyyyyzzz(z.zrzzzzzzzzźůwl`XPhmH sH hjBmH sH hNhx06mH sH hNhbmH sH hNh15mH sH hNh.6mH sH hNhQ/mH sH hNhFmH sH hNhjB6mH sH hNhjBmH sH hNhVmH sH hNh!*mH sH hNhjBCJaJmH sH hNh@h5CJaJmH sH hNhjB5CJaJmH sH Xyyz{{}~~O0hw$hdh^h`a$gd"$hdh^h`a$gd$hdh^h`a$gd"$dh^`a$gd"zzz{{{!{3{9{E{G{L{{{{{{{{{{||||&|(|4|6|>}}}}}ɾ{titititititaitVhNh5nHtHhNhO %6hNhO %nHtH hNhO %hNhO %mH sH hNhQ/mH sH hNhFmH sH hNhjB6mH sH hNh.6mH sH hNhVmH sH hNhjBmH sH hNh!*mH sH hNhmH sH hmH sH hMMh6]mH sH hMMhmH sH !}}P~|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~+ADMNORv,.08@ڸti^hNhQ/mH sH hNhFmH sH hNh<~L6mH sH hNhFQxmH sH hNh<~LmH sH hNhjB6mH sH hNhjBmH sH hNh5mH sH hNhmH sH hMMh6mH sH hMMhmH sH hmH sH h5hNhO %6 hNhO %hNhO %mH sH #@R~Mvw,2;?@JOmȽꧠuiuuhNhFQx6mH sH hNh5mH sH hNh56nHtHhNh"6nHtHhNhO %6 hNhO %hNhO %mH sH hNhQ/mH sH hNh mH sH hNhFmH sH hNhjB6mH sH hNh.6mH sH hNhjBmH sH hNhVmH sH )mhl{|ӅW\cjsÆ݆MƻưƥƒưƇƥƻưƇƥƥƻưƥƥƥhNh.6mH sH hNhFQxmH sH hno(mH sH hNhVmH sH hNh5mH sH hNhQ/mH sH hNhjBmH sH hNh mH sH hNhFmH sH hNhx06mH sH hNhjB6mH sH 3Mnpuvw{(78HLMňƈ͈̈ψЈ./567C^cƻƯƤƙxm_Q_hNh"KH$\nHtHhNhO %KH$\nHtHhNhO %nHtH hno(hO %hno(hO %nHtHjhno(hO %UnHtHhNhO %mH sH hNhx0mH sH hNh7D6mH sH hNh5mH sH hNh7DmH sH hNhnmH sH hNhjBmH sH hNhFmH sH hNhjB6]mH sH wHމMia{iDE||$hdh^h`a$gdD$hdh7$8$H$^h`a$gd"$hdh^h`a$gd"$,dh^,`a$gd",dh^,`gd"$hdh^h`a$gd"hdh^h`gd"͉̉Ή݉މ*DLMQZcTimxiYiN@NhNh<~L6]mH sH hNh<~LmH sH hNhjB6mH nHsH tHhNhjBmH nHsH tHhNhVmH nHsH tHhNh5mH nHsH tHhno(mH sH hNhjB6mH sH hNhjBmH sH hNh5mH sH hNhzmH sH hNh5nHtHhNhO %0JhNhO %0JhNhO %nHtHhNhO %6nHtHmߋ "4:q7STX\_`aetuĹ޹Ĺ޹qbSbhNhVmH nHsH tHhNhjBmH nHsH tHhNh5mH nHsH tHhNhFmH sH hNhQ/mH sH hNhx06mH sH hNhjB6mH sH hNhVmH sH hNhjBmH sH hNh5mH sH hNh%@mH nHsH tHhNh mH sH hNh%@6mH sH hNh%@mH sH G{Uvx}~ԏDDDD DźźufdYYhNh mH sH UhNh5mH nHsH tHhNhQ/mH sH hNhFmH sH hNh mH sH hNh.6mH sH hNhjB6]mH sH hNhVmH sH hNhjBmH sH hNh5mH sH hNhjBmH nHsH tHhNhFQx6mH nHsH tHhNhjB6mH nHsH tH"Spitzberg, B.H., & Cupach, W.R. (1984). Interpersonal Communication Competence. Sage, Beverly Hills, CA. 32. Syed H. &  HYPERLINK "https://www.tandfonline.com/author/Kuzborska%2C+Irena" Kuzborska I. (2018). Dynamics of factors underlying willingness to communicate in a second language.  HYPERLINK "https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rllj20/current" The Language Learning Journal DOI:  HYPERLINK "https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2018.1435709" 10.1080/09571736.2018.1435709 33. Wiseman, R.L. (2001). Intercultural communication competence. In W.B. Gudykunst & B. Mody, Handbook of International & Intercultural Communication, 2nd ed., Newbury Park, CA: Sage     PAGE  PAGE 4 D(DNDhDiDmDwDxDDDDDD"E#E_E`EEEEEEEEEEEF$F@FɺɺɺɬyyyncXhNh mH sH hNh5mH sH hDh5mH sH jhNhO %U hNhO %hNhO %6KH$nHtH$jhNhO %6KH$UnHtHhNhO %KH$\nHtHjhNhO %UnHtHhNhO %nHtHhNhO %mH sH hDmH sH hNhjB6]mH sH hNhjBmH sH @FDFwFzF|FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFź|xh+HhD0JmHnHu h+0Jjh+0JUh+jh+UhNh&5mH sH hNhO %mH sH hNhmYmH sH hNhmH sH hNhjBH*mH sH hNhjBmH sH hNhjB6mH sH hNhi6mH sH EFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF &`#$gd?gd{y $dha$gdMM $dha$gdV$hdh^h`a$gd $hdh^h`a$gd"FFF $dha$gdMMD 00&P 1hP/R :pkd|. A!"#$% A0&P 1hP/R :p?|. A!"#$% )$$If!vh5^5?55555j#v^#v?#v#v#v#v#vj:V l t 6@65^5@55555kpFyt?)$$If!vh5^5?55555j#v^#v?#v#v#v#v#vj:V l t 6@65^5@55555kpFyt?-$$If!vh5^5?55555j#v^#v?#v#v#v#v#vj:V l t 6@65^5@55555kpFyt?)$$If!vh5^5?55555j#v^#v?#v#v#v#v#vj:V l t 6@65^5@55555kpFyt?)$$If!vh5^5?55555j#v^#v?#v#v#v#v#vj:V l t 6@65^5@55555kpFyt?)$$If!vh5^5?55555j#v^#v?#v#v#v#v#vj:V l t 6@65^5@55555kpFyt?)$$If!vh5^5?55555j#v^#v?#v#v#v#v#vj:V l t 6@65^5@55555kpFyt?-$$If!vh5^5?55555j#v^#v?#v#v#v#v#vj:V lo t 6@65^5@55555kpFyt?)$$If!vh5^5?55555j#v^#v?#v#v#v#v#vj:V l t 6@65^5@55555kpFyt?)$$If!vh5^5?55555j#v^#v?#v#v#v#v#vj:V l t 6@65^5@55555kpFyt?)$$If!vh5^5?55555j#v^#v?#v#v#v#v#vj:V l t 6@65^5@55555kpFyt?$$If!vh5_555 5)5_5#v_#v#v#v #v)#v_#v:V l t"65_555 5)5_5pFyt?T$$If!vh5_555 5)5_5#v_#v#v#v #v)#v_#v:V l t"65_555 5)5_5pFyt?T"$$If!vh5_555 5)5_5#v_#v#v#v #v)#v_#v:V l t"65_555 5)5_5pFyt?T$$If!vh5_555 5)5_5#v_#v#v#v #v)#v_#v:V l t"65_555 5)5_5pFyt?T$$If!vh5_555 5)5_5#v_#v#v#v #v)#v_#v:V l t"65_555 5)5_5pFyt?T$$If!vh5_555 5)5_5#v_#v#v#v #v)#v_#v:V l t"65_555 5)5_5pFyt?T$$If!vh5_555 5)5_5#v_#v#v#v #v)#v_#v:V l t"65_555 5)5_5pFyt?T"$$If!vh5_555 5)5_5#v_#v#v#v #v)#v_#v:V lo t"65_555 5)5_5pFyt?T$$If!vh5_555 5)5_5#v_#v#v#v #v)#v_#v:V l t"65_555 5)5_5pFyt?T$$If!vh5_555 5)5_5#v_#v#v#v #v)#v_#v:V l t"65_555 5)5_5pFyt?T$$If!vh5_555 5)5_5#v_#v#v#v #v)#v_#v:V l t"65_555 5)5_5pFyt?TH@@@ 1NormalCJ_HaJmHsHtH ^@^ & Heading 1$<@&"5CJ KH OJPJQJ\^JaJ DA@D Default Paragraph FontRi@R 0 Table Normal4 l4a (k@( 0No List 4 @4 {yFooter !<O< {y Char CharCJaJmHsH.)@. {y Page NumberBO"B W List Paragraph1 ^m$6U@16 } Hyperlink >*B*ph*OA* ! highlightjORj [0List Paragraphd^m$CJOJPJQJaJmH sH TOaT & Char Char1&5CJ KH OJPJQJ\^JaJ tH Oq !*st.X@. !*@Emphasis6] P FP  | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |o X*2;BKsOqSmW?aiIou~/  Q   n3UVWu5EZnoxyBS=>1 8 / {l3""%g(X**-+-6-7-..5/s/////255*5+56i9;<<<<g=h=i=j===>>>>wACHFIF_F`FHIJKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKLLL L&L.L4LMFMGMHMNMTM\MbMjMpMxM~MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMNNNNNNNNNNNN$N,N2N:N@NHNNNVN]NcNdNmNuNvNwNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNO OOO!O'O(O1O9O:OUDUJURUXU`UfUnUtU|UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUVVVV V V V VVV#V)V1V7V?VEVMVTV[V\VeVmVnVoV|VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVW WWWW W)W1W2W3W4WSWkWlWmWnW?YZ]`be)f g^hSii)jnjjjjjjjjClHoIoJoWoXoopqqrssOtuuvwxxhyzzw{H|}M~~ia{bڅ2!Y2!Y2!2!2!2!2!2!2!2!2!2!2!2!2!2!2!2!2!2!{ 2!O 2!2!2!r r r r  r r ,r r O r  r O r r O r r r r "r r "r r "r q$r E(r E(r r q$r r r r "r r r r r r r r E(r r r r r r  r r O r r r r r r r r r r O r r r r q$r r q$r r r r  r O r { r O r BBBgBgBgBEBEBEBBBBBBBBBB  BgBgBEBEBBBBBBBBBBB BgBEBBBBB*BgBgBEBEBBBBBBBBBBB BgBgBEBEBBBBBBBBBBB BgBgBEBEBBBBBBBBBBB BgBgBEBEBBBBBBBBBBB BgBEBBBBBBBgBgBEBEBBBBBBBBBBB BgBgBEBEBBBBBBBBBBB BgBgBEBEBBBBBBBBBBB r r r r r r r r "r { r BBBBBBHBHBQBQBBB0  BBBBBHBHBQBQBBBB0B0B0B BBBHBQBB0BBBBBBHBHBQBQBBBB0B0B0B BBBBBHBHBQBQBBBB0B0B0B BBBBBHBHBQBQBBBB0B0B0B BBBBBHBHBQBQBBBB0B0B0B BBBHBQBB0BBBBBBBHBHBQBQBBBB0B0B0B BBBBBHBHBQBQBBBB0B0B0B BBBBBHBHBQBQBBBB0B0B0B r r r r r r r r r r !0r  r q$r r 6r 8r 6r b0r b0r -r -r -r r r r r r "r E(r r r r r { r { r r { r O r { r r r { r { r { r r O r r { r r { r { r { r { r r r { r { r r { r r r O r r r { r { r r r r r r 3UVWu5EZnoxyBS=>1 8 / {l3""%g(X**-+-6-7-..5/s/////255*5+56i9;<<<<g=h=i=j===>>>>wACHFIF_F`FHIJKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKLLL L&L.L4LMFMGMHMNMTM\MbMjMpMxM~MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMNNNNNNNNNNNN$N,N2N:N@NHNNNVN]NcNdNmNuNvNwNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNO OOO!O'O(O1O9O:O;OUDUJURUXU`UfUnUtU|UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUVVVV V V V VVV#V)V1V7V?VEVMVTV[V\VeVmVnVoV|VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVW WWWW W)W1W2W3W4WSWkWlWmWnW?YZ]`be)f g^hSii)jnjjjjjjjjClHoIoJoWoXoopqqrssOtuuvwxxhyzzw{H|}M~~ia{bڅ00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 0 0 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000 000 000 000 000 0 0 0 00 00 00 00 000 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 00 00 000 000 0 0 00 00 00 00 000 000 0 0 00 00 00 00 000 000 0 0 00 00 00 00 000 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 00 00 000 000 0 0 00 00 00 00 000 000 0 0 00 00 00 00 000 000 0 00000000000000 00 00 00 00 00 0 0 0 00 00 00 00 000 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 00 00 000 000 0 0 00 00 00 00 000 000 0 0 00 00 00 00 000 000 0 0 00 00 00 00 000 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 00 00 000 000 0 0 00 00 00 00 000 000 0 0 00 00 00 00 000 000 0 0000000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000ȑ0000Yȑ0000Yȑ0000Yȑ0000Y00000000Yȑ00 $$$$$$$$$'x F 589>@+DmGGIOSV;Y\^TadtMyz}@mMm D@FFHKLNOPQSTUWXYZ\]^`hyzS 8F_PUVVwVxVVVVVGWHWWWXXXXvXwXXX:Y;Y] ^k^v^|^^^^=_D____` ``n`|```2a4antXywEFFIMRV[_abcdefgijklmnopqrstuvwx{|}~FJE(L||||.}5}pXx~؅XXXXXXX  '!!8@0(  B S  ?>^4>^4>`4>`4>,a4>la4>a4>a4>,b4>lb4>b4>b4>,c4>lc4c<c4c<c4c<,d4 ld4>d4>d4>,e4>le4>e4c<e4c<,f4c<lf4c<f4c<f4c<,g4c<lg4c<g4c<g4c<,h4c<lh4c<h4c<h4 ,i4c<li4c<i4c<i4B \ C  c<,j4c<lj4c<j4c<j4c<,k4c<lk4c<k4c<k4c<,l4c<ll4c<l4c<l4 ,m4c<lm4c<m4c<m4c<zc<,zc<lzc<zc<zc<,zc<lzc<zc<zd<,zd<lzd<zd<zd<,zd<lzd<zd<z d<,z lz d<z d<z d<,z d<lzd<zd<zd<,zd<lz         \      \     d<z zd<,z d<lz z!d<z#d<,z lz$d<z&d<z , z'd<l z  z  z*d<,!z+d<l!z,d<!z.d<!z ,"z0d<l"z "z1d<"z2d<,#z3d<l#z #z | 6d<,$z7d<l$z9d<$z $z;d<,%z l%z>%z>%z>,&z >l&z!>49">t9#>9%>9 4:&>t:'>:(>:*>4: t:,>: :>4: t:>:1>:>4:2>t:3>:4>:5>4:6>t:"55=EERVXe e <NNaiww%%R+R+p5x5555555555699999:: :@:@:j:::5;5;<<<E1F1FGGHHHHjXjXpppqq qssss?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWYXZ[]\^_a`bdcegfhjiklnmopqrsutvwxyz{|}~!((<DDPTYY`m m IUUgr  % % %T+T+w55555555566699999::*:G:G:p:::<;<;<<<E3F3FGGHHHHlXlXppq qqqssssItMtMtuuuw w wJwOwOwxxcygygyyyzzzzz2~2~~~559CCÁ΁فف`dd\``j„„    !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123457689:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWYXZ[]\^_a`bdcegfhjiklnmopqrsutvwxyz{|}~ $urn:schemas:contactsSn(%urn:schemas:contacts middlename''urn:schemas:contacts GivenName9*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsState=*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceType=*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceNameB*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-region8*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCity9*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace pO'%$WJS%W ` -5(""$$"%2%5%C%2.;.60?0]1f1335599::mPmXooooo5p6pqpppppppqKqq%r&rrrrrsssssstt,t-t0tOtrtstuuNuOuuuuuvvvvvvwwOwx,xxxxxhyyyyz)z*zEzFzizkzzzzzL{w{{{{{0|||C}}}}}+~M~b~c~~~~~iBCp6 HIL{Ճ؃ !HIa˄Yمڅ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::uZnozoAwAKOSnWJoXopppqrrPssssstMvv|C}}},~c~I˄Yمڅ  X"y*H V 2  9:0".j9.iGkdB-0*mle{Lp :DDzlY^`CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(opp^p`CJOJQJo(@ @ ^@ `CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(^`CJOJQJo(PP^P`CJOJQJo(^`o(.^`.pLp^p`L.@ @ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PLP^P`L. ^`OJQJo(pp^p`OJQJ^Jo(o @ @ ^@ `OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(PP^P`OJQJ^Jo(o   ^ `OJQJo(^`.^`.pLp^p`L.@ @ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PLP^P`L.^`.^`.pLp^p`L.@ @ ^@ `.^`.L^`L.^`.^`.PLP^P`L. ^`OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o pp^p`OJQJo( @ @ ^@ `OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o PP^P`OJQJo(h^h`^Jo( h^h`56^Jo(.. 0^`056^Jo(... 0^`056^Jo(.... 8^8`56^Jo( ..... 8^8`56^Jo( ...... `^``56^Jo(.......  `^``56^Jo(........  ^`56^Jo(......... ^`OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o pp^p`OJQJo( @ @ ^@ `OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o PP^P`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(^`o(. pp^p`OJQJo( @ @ ^@ `OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o PP^P`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o pp^p`OJQJo( @ @ ^@ `OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(^`OJQJ^Jo(o PP^P`OJQJo( Dz{Lp2 iG0*mj9y*:0"kd ߤ                            @@ @ @zA=wayp:dnymUS[N:&FjV`hUHO.@zP `hG' jPB Uem Uv"~`h{`h2 v9Ujr'=waU[N:*2 v `h6<8PB GO.@`hcz^ke`h`hny6<82 v=wa\oMXaf07TUBe2 vf7  O.@~g!_I[kn"O.@ ,>#2 v`$2 v$[N:RA(`h5)=wavG)=wa/N*`hl)+Uc+`h(.[N:)s?1df]1)s?11d1O.@[22 v$|52 v$6[N:M6f[N:?q>jQ?=waO.@zIBq BU CU [D[N:7,G[N:AaJjJUK_I[kzaLoN[D5P6}iPUPO.@PhQm jQUhtR=wa{\Sf-> Td^KTUE3UUW2 vMX-> T$N[[N:+L\2 vD"~\2 vXP\=wad^PhQ2O_f]1ib=waund2 vUe[D5PfU5\g2 vgg`h5Xh\o`hhi[N:j_I[k2O_z^kG`k`h_nf\nz^kh+p2 vq~g!'?D?5@%@9t@$AZ~A4B ABjB2C\C7DD$DqD))E!`NY,YK i*}}A&9bj4 Z)UJ[[x0%7zb}$9%ai1QjjPer~_'n2|J#'FB $O#`i3sC$+e+mxdnz1F#:wm@S~-S F jrxXj'->&/ +/8uzI%B%;OzD?7@k"23fCb/75 "7B:$8Ky~ "3U!s3ELNHf7hV`edn"}bR>'.Ai>KrWsT%4>gswn zD HV[b Y[j15?1'F M]SGGHmUemq:^>BI\I\fLZOdx&=!'a"w< lq HI-+pfjv"mJBBaAW4s^'GgGOV|&';=BX)C{"$g3k!W~x$"%KKKKKKLLL L.LUDURU`UnU|UUUUUUUUUUUUVVVV V V V VV#V1V?VMV\VnVoV|VVVVVVVVVVVWW W2W3Ws*I 5@%%:%%p%&rsuv@.`@|@@@UnknownG:Ax Times New Roman5Symbol3& :Cx ArialC&,{ @Calibri Light7&@Calibri?5 :Cx Courier New;Wingdings Ah9Jqg+qgVqgrDrD!>4dSS CQHX)?'12ABSTRACTActivated UserMoira4         Oh+'0   @ L X dpx ABSTRACTActivated User Normal.dotMoira21Microsoft Office Word@b;@[t@e@r՜.+,D՜.+,L hp  http://sharingcentre.infoDS'  ABSTRACT TitleH 8@ _PID_HLINKSA*N.https://doi.org/10.1080/09571736.2018.1435709-8/https://www.tandfonline.com/toc/rllj20/currentAH 6https://www.tandfonline.com/author/Kuzborska%2C+IrenaF  Qhttps://www.google.hr/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=inauthor:%22Miros%C5%82aw+Pawlak%22Vhttps://www.google.hr/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=inauthor:%22Anna+Mystkowska-Wiertelak%22AH6https://www.tandfonline.com/author/Kuzborska%2C+IrenaVhttps://www.google.hr/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=inauthor:%22Anna+Mystkowska-Wiertelak%22  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !#$%&'().Root Entry Fp0Data I1Table)WordDocumentPSummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8"CompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q