Introduction

Cognitive motivation has long been a pivotal construct in understanding how and why individuals engage in tasks, particularly those that demand intense cognitive effort (Dember, 1974; Weiner, 1974, 1976; Dweck and Leggett, 1988; Blumenfeld, Kempler, and Krajcik, 2005; Schunk and Usher, 2012; Schunk and DiBenedetto, 2020). Broadly defined, cognitive motivation refers to the internal drive to engage in goal-directed mental activity, an impetus that directs attention, sustains cognitive effort, and facilitates learning and problem-solving (Beswick, 2017). This drive is shaped by psychological factors such as interests, values, beliefs, and goals, which collectively generate a sense of volition (Yee and Braver, 2018; Wang et al., 2024b). While various theoretical frameworks have contributed to this understanding, they converge in highlighting cognitive motivation as a dynamic interaction between an individual’s mental processes and their perceived task value and expectations of success (Bandura and Cervone, 1986; Wang and Wang, 2024).

Although traditionally viewed as domain-general, cognitive motivation is increasingly recognised as context-sensitive, with its expression varying across specific domains based on task demands and situational factors (Cacioppo and Petty, 1982). In the domain of foreign language learning, motivation is shaped not only by individual interests but also by the unique cognitive, social, and cultural challenges of acquiring a new language (Dai and Wang, 2024; Wang and Xue, 2024). Unlike static knowledge acquisition, language learning requires mastery of grammar and vocabulary, communicative fluency, and meaning-making across diverse modalities (Oxford and Shearin, 1994; Tremblay and Gardner, 1995; Manolopoulou-Sergi, 2004; Panther, 2021). These processes demand sustained effort, strategic planning, and self-regulation (Evans and Green, 2006; Dörnyei, 1998; Nakata, 2006; Wang et al., 2024a), often intensified by the learner’s desire to connect with target-language communities (Ehrman and Oxford, 1995). These features underscore the need to investigate cognitive motivation as a domain-specific construct in language learning.

Despite a growing body of research on language learning motivation, few studies have examined cognitive motivation as a distinct construct in multilingual learning contexts, particularly across formal education and professional language use. Much of the literature focuses on broader socio-affective frameworks, leaving a gap in understanding how cognitive motivation is shaped by multilingual experiences. While multilingualism can be measured through various lenses, including proficiency, usage frequency, and typological distance, this study adopts the number of languages learned and used in university as a pragmatic proxy for multilingual experience. This approach is consistent with prior empirical studies (e.g., Calafato, 2023; Thompson and Erdil-Moody, 2016), and aligns with the aim of the current study, i.e., to examine motivational patterns across groups with differing language learning histories.

To address these gaps, the present study provides a domain-specific examination of cognitive motivation in foreign language learning and its subsequent use in professional settings. Using a questionnaire-based approach that combines closed- and open-ended items, the study explores how motivational patterns differ across six sub-domains of language engagement and how they are influenced by degrees of multilingualism. The findings are expected to inform both theoretical models of motivation and pedagogical strategies for sustaining cognitive engagement in multilingual contexts.

Literature review

Cognitive motivation has long been recognised as a central construct in understanding how individuals engage with complex tasks requiring sustained mental effort (Dweck and Leggett, 1988; Schunk and DiBenedetto, 2020). Within general psychology, cognitive motivation is understood as the internal drive to allocate cognitive resources to task completion and problem-solving, shaped by beliefs about task value, self-efficacy, and anticipated outcomes (Dember, 1974; Weiner, 1974, 1976; Bandura and Cervone, 1986). However, motivation is not entirely domain-general. As Cacioppo and Petty (1982) argue, its manifestations are often shaped by task characteristics, context, and the learner’s prior experience. In educational settings, particularly those involving high cognitive load and long-term learning goals, motivation is intricately tied to learners’ strategic thinking, effort regulation, and persistence (Schunk and Usher 2012; Blumenfeld et al., 2005; Beswick, 2017; Yee and Braver 2018).

In the domain of language learning, motivation has received extensive attention, yet much of this work has focused on affective, social, or identity-related dimensions (Oxford and Shearin, 1994; Tremblay and Gardner, 1995; Manolopoulou-Sergi, 2004; Ehrman and Oxford, 1995). Language learning, however, is also a domain of significant cognitive challenge, requiring sustained engagement with unfamiliar grammatical systems, abstract rules, and large amounts of novel input (Evans and Green, 2006). Recent studies have acknowledged the cognitive dimension of language learning motivation, particularly the learner’s ability to monitor progress, deploy metacognitive strategies, and persevere through difficulty (Panther, 2021; Wang et al., 2024a). These perspectives suggest the need to examine motivation through a cognitive lens when studying language learners, especially in light of the self-regulatory and effort-intensive demands of foreign language acquisition (Dörnyei, 1998; Nakata, 2006).

Parallel to this, a growing body of research has explored how multilingualism influences learners’ motivation. Multilingual individuals are not simply learners of additional languages; they often possess different cognitive orientations and learning trajectories compared to monolinguals or early bilinguals. Cenoz (2013) has argued for more refined definitions of multilingualism, distinguishing among additive and subtractive, or sequential and simultaneous multilingualism, all of which shape learner identity, engagement, and motivation differently. Theoretical models such as Cook’s (1991) concept of multicompetence and Jessner’s (2008) Dynamic Model of Multilingualism further support the idea that multilingual learners exhibit distinct cognitive and motivational profiles due to their cumulative language experiences. Empirical studies also indicate that multilingualism plays a complex, sometimes contradictory, role in motivation. For instance, Calafato (2023) found that while multilingual learners often report high motivation, such motivation is contingent upon contextual variables such as self-efficacy and learning strategies. Similarly, Henry (2023) highlighted the dynamic and context-sensitive nature of multilingual learners’ persistence, showing that multilingualism alone does not ensure sustained motivation. Other studies have shown that how multilingualism is operationalised (e.g., by number of languages, proficiency, usage frequency, or typological distance) can yield different implications for language learning outcomes (Thompson and Erdil-Moody, 2016; Calafato, 2025). These findings suggest that motivational outcomes among multilinguals are not uniform, and call for clarity and consistency in defining multilingualism when examining its relationship with motivation.

As can be seen, these bodies of literature highlight the value of investigating cognitive motivation as a distinct and domain-sensitive construct within foreign language learning, while also accounting for the moderating influence of multilingualism. Existing theoretical and empirical work offers a strong foundation for doing so, yet gaps remain in synthesising cognitive perspectives with multilingual frameworks, particularly in understanding how cognitive motivation develops and manifests across different multilingual learner profiles. To further explore this gap, the present study focuses on two critical dimensions of variation in learners’ cognitive motivation: the context of language engagement, which distinguishes between formal learning (e.g., structured university instruction) and practical use (e.g., language application in professional or workplace settings) (Oxford and Shearin, 1994; Tremblay and Gardner, 1995; Manolopoulou-Sergi, 2004; Panther, 2021; Evans and Green, 2006), and the degree of multilingualism, operationalised in this study as the number of foreign languages learners have studied and used, which may reflect varying degrees of metacognitive strategy use, language learning autonomy, and motivational resilience (Dörnyei, 1998; Nakata, 2006; Wang et al., 2024a). The distinction between learning and use is grounded in the recognition that the cognitive demands and motivational dynamics of language learning differ across contexts. Formal learning tends to be curriculum-driven and scaffolded by institutional support, often requiring sustained attention to rules, accuracy, and performance in controlled environments. In contrast, practical language use typically involves more situated and purpose-driven communication, where learners must apply their knowledge flexibly and adaptively to real-world demands. Prior studies have shown that learners’ motivational orientations may shift as they transition from the structured challenges of formal education to the dynamic and socially embedded challenges of professional language use (Evans and Green, 2006; Panther, 2021), warranting a comparative analysis of these two settings. The second dimension, degree of multilingualism reflects a pragmatic yet meaningful proxy for examining variation in motivational profiles. Although other approaches to defining multilingualism exist, such as those based on proficiency or typology, prior research suggests that even basic multilingual experience can significantly shape learners’ use of metacognitive strategies, their level of autonomy, and their motivational persistence (Dörnyei, 1998; Nakata, 2006; Wang et al., 2024a). As learners acquire additional languages, they often develop a broader repertoire of learning strategies and a heightened awareness of their own learning processes, both of which are closely tied to cognitive motivation. Moreover, multilingual learners may draw on their previous experiences to manage learning challenges more effectively, displaying greater confidence and resilience. By focusing on the number of languages learned, this study aims to capture a key aspect of multilingual experience that is both conceptually grounded and empirically supported. Although this operationalisation may not fully account for nuances such as proficiency or usage frequency, it provides a pragmatic basis for comparative analysis across learner profiles. In doing so, the present study brings together two under-examined strands in the literature, i.e., cognitive motivation and multilingualism, and explores how motivation is differentially sustained across formal learning and real-world use. This dual focus not only addresses gaps in domain-specific motivational research but also responds to calls for more integrated approaches to understanding how multilingual trajectories shape learners’ engagement with cognitively demanding tasks. Accordingly, the study is guided by the following research questions:

  1. 1.

    To what extent does the degree of multilingualism influence foreign language learners’ cognitive motivation across different domains of language engagement?

  2. 2.

    How does cognitive motivation differ between formal education and professional language use among learners with varying degrees of multilingualism?

Methodology

Design

Given the exploratory nature of the study, which aims to investigate the complex relationship between formal language education, practical language use, levels of multilingualism, and cognitive motivation, the researchers adopted a questionnaire survey approach. This approach was chosen over an experimental design due to its suitability for capturing a wide range of subjective experiences and perspectives from language learners. Questionnaire surveys allow for the collection of quantitative data, which can be analysed statistically to identify patterns and relationships, while also incorporating qualitative elements that capture participants’ own voices and experiences.

Within this design, two independent variables were examined for their potential influence on learners’ cognitive motivation: modes of language engagement and degrees of multilingualism. Modes of language engagement were operationalised as two levels, i.e., formal learning, referring to structured instruction (e.g., classroom or online coursework), and practical use, referring to authentic language use in real-world settings such as professional communication. Degrees of multilingualism were categorised into three groups: learners who had studied and used one, two, or three or more foreign languages. This categorisation was intended to capture a range of multilingual experiences and facilitate comparisons of motivational patterns across groups. Overall, this design allows for a comprehensive exploration of the research question by considering a range of factors that may influence foreign language learners’ cognitive motivation. Through the questionnaire survey approach, the study aims to gather rich and diverse data that will facilitate a more detailed understanding of the complex relationship between formal language education, practical language use, levels of multilingualism, and cognitive motivation.

Instrument

Due to the absence of existing instruments that systematically operationalise cognitive motivation in the context of foreign language learning, this study drew on both prior research and exploratory qualitative insights to inform the development of a context-sensitive questionnaire. Specifically, six individuals who had studied two or three foreign languages at university and later applied these languages in professional overseas work settings were interviewed. These exploratory interviews were not intended as a standalone qualitative study but were conducted to complement the theoretical framing by eliciting illustrative, real-world accounts of how cognitive motivation may manifest during both language learning and subsequent use. Drawing on these interviews, alongside existing literature on motivation, language learning strategies, and multilingual development, the researchers identified six sub-domains of foreign language engagement that span two stages: learning and use. These sub-domains include formal language learning, learning the culture in university, and creating conditions that promote self-directed learning (learning stage), as well as language learning after graduation, language learning while using the language at work, and learning the culture at work (use stage). These sub-domains formed the conceptual foundation for constructing the questionnaire instrument, which was designed to capture learners’ cognitive motivation in relation to both formal and professional contexts of language engagement. By integrating insights from both theoretical literature and lived experiences, the instrument aimed to reflect the complex and layered nature of multilingual learners’ motivation. However, it is important to note that the six sub-domains identified may not constitute an exhaustive list due to the nature of qualitative data elicitation. The instrument developed based on this categorisation should therefore not be viewed as a complete representation of the construct of cognitive motivation in the context of foreign language learning. Instead, it should only be seen as a tool to explore potential or possible relationships between the facets being examined. As such, future research may reveal additional sub-domains or refine the existing ones, providing a more comprehensive understanding of this complex construct.

The questionnaire instrument, developed for this study, comprises two main sections to capture both quantitative and qualitative data on participants’ cognitive motivation in language engagement. The first section includes five-point scale items assessing cognitive motivation across six sub-domains, which reflect various aspects of language learning and use:

  • Formal Language Learning: This involves structured language acquisition within educational settings, focusing on skills like grammar, vocabulary, and fluency.

  • Cultural Learning in University: This encompasses understanding the cultural nuances of the target language, integrating elements such as history and societal values.

  • Creating Self-Directed Learning Conditions: This highlights learners’ efforts to establish personalised study environments and participate in autonomous learning activities.

  • Post-Graduation Language Learning: This refers to continued language acquisition beyond formal education, including informal contexts like media consumption.

  • Workplace Language Use: This involves language application in professional settings, including vocabulary adaptation and context-specific communication.

  • Cultural Adaptation at Work: This focuses on navigating cultural norms and practices in professional environments, enhancing effective cross-cultural communication.

The second section of the questionnaire invites participants to reflect on and compare their language engagement in professional settings versus university experiences. This qualitative element provides richer insights into how cognitive motivation evolves from academic to real-world applications. The open-ended responses were intended to serve an illustrative role, providing context and texture to support the interpretation of quantitative findings, rather than to generate independent themes through a robust qualitative process. The complete questionnaire survey can be found in the Appendix.

Based on the responses of 190 respondents, the researchers conducted a reliability test to assess the internal consistency of items across six sub-domains. The Cronbach’s alpha scores, indicating the level of reliability, are as follows: Sub-domain 1 (Items 1–4); 0.740; Sub-domain 2 (Items 5-7): 0.836; Sub-domain 3 (Items 8-10): 0.705; Sub-domain 4 (Items 11–13): 0.749; Sub-domain 5 (Items 14–17): 0.713; Sub-domain 6 (Items 18–21): 0.819. All sub-domains demonstrate acceptable to excellent internal consistency, suggesting that the items within each are reliable measures of their respective constructs.

Participants

In recruiting participants for this study, the researchers adhered to strict selection criteria to ensure the relevance and homogeneity of the sample. The primary principle was to identify individuals who had received formal instruction in at least one foreign language during their university education and who were actively using that language (or languages) in their professional lives post-graduation. This approach allowed the researchers to focus on a population with a solid foundation in language learning and a practical understanding of language use in real-world work settings. Specifically, participants were recruited through purposive sampling, targeting individuals who had graduated from foreign language majors. The questionnaire link was initially distributed to these graduates, who were then encouraged to forward the link to former classmates and colleagues fitting the study’s criteria. This approach aimed to reach a representative sample of individuals actively engaged in foreign language use, both academically and professionally.

A total of 190 Chinese participants met our criteria and were included in the study. Of these, 33 individuals had learned one foreign language during their university studies, exclusively English in all cases. A more significant group of 121 participants had acquired proficiency in two foreign languages, demonstrating a broader range of linguistic skills. Finally, 36 highly multilingual participants had mastered three or more foreign languages, reflecting a particularly impressive level of language learning and adaptability. Languages other than English included Arabic, Bulgarian, Czech, Danish, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Kazakh, Korean, Latvian, Polish, Portuguese, Sinhalese, Spanish, and Swedish. This diverse yet focused sample provided a rich perspective on the topic under investigation.

Before commencing the questionnaire survey, all participants were required to provide formal consent to their participation in the study. This consent process ensured that each individual understood the nature and purpose of the research, as well as their rights as participants. Furthermore, the study underwent rigorous ethical review and was approved by the ethical review committee of the corresponding author’s institution.

Data collection

Data for this study were collected through an online questionnaire survey hosted on the Wenjuanxing platform (www.wjx.cn), a widely used survey tool in China that enables efficient distribution and response collection. The online format facilitated accessibility, allowing participants to complete the survey at their convenience, which increased the likelihood of participation. Wenjuanxing’s user-friendly interface also enabled the research team to monitor response rates and data integrity in real time, ensuring that the collection process remained smooth and secure.

To reach a relevant and representative sample, the research team employed a purposive sampling strategy. Colleagues within the researchers’ professional networks, especially those with connections to alumni from foreign language programmes, played a key role in distributing the survey link to target participants. These colleagues were encouraged to share the survey with graduates of foreign language majors, as well as to forward the link to former classmates and colleagues who also fit the study’s criteria. This network-based distribution approach was instrumental in obtaining responses from a diverse range of language-major graduates across China, enhancing the study’s generalisability.

Data analysis

The data analysis involved both quantitative and qualitative approaches to examine cognitive motivation across various contexts of language engagement. For the quantitative data, mean scores were calculated for each of the six sub-domains by averaging the scores of their corresponding items. To assess the internal consistency of these items within each sub-domain, Cronbach’s alpha was calculated, yielding reliability scores ranging from acceptable to excellent (e.g., Sub-domain 1: 0.740; Sub-domain 2: 0.836). This analysis confirmed that the items in each sub-domain were reliable measures of their respective constructs. Subsequently, an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to compare cognitive motivation across the six sub-domains, with a focus on identifying any significant differences between the two stages of language engagement (formal learning and practical use). Repeated-measures ANOVA was selected because each participant provided responses across multiple sub-domains, allowing for within-subject comparisons of cognitive motivation. Specifically, the impact of varying levels of multilingualism (i.e., one, two, or three or more foreign languages learned) was then analysed to assess whether multilingualism influenced cognitive motivation differently across sub-domains. Repeated-measures ANOVA examined the within-group effect of the sub-domains and the between-group effect of multilingualism, as well as any interaction effects between sub-domain and multilingualism. Post-hoc tests further explored these findings, revealing significant differences in motivation levels among multilingual groups for specific sub-domains.

Qualitative data from responses to the open-ended question were analysed using thematic analysis, following Braun and Clarke’s (2021) six-phase approach. A total of 153 (out of 190) participants responded to the open-ended question in the survey, providing valuable qualitative data to complement the quantitative results. First, all responses were reviewed and coded to identify recurring themes and patterns related to language engagement in academic versus professional settings. Themes were then reviewed, refined, and organised to provide insights into how participants perceived and experienced shifts in their cognitive motivation across different contexts. This analysis added depth to the quantitative findings, explaining why certain multilingual groups reported distinct levels of motivation in academic versus professional contexts and highlighting contextual factors influencing these patterns.

Results

This section presents a comprehensive analysis of the data collected through the questionnaire survey. It begins with a detailed examination of the descriptive statistics for the six sub-domains, providing an overview of the participants’ responses and their distribution. Following this, the section explores the effects of different modes of language engagement and levels of multilingualism on cognitive motivation, utilising statistical tests to identify significant relationships and trends. Finally, a thematic analysis of the qualitative data is conducted, offering a richer understanding of the underlying reasons and experiences that shape participants’ attitudes and motivations towards foreign language learning.

Descriptive statistics of the six sub-domains

Below in Table 1, the mean scores and standard deviations for each of the six sub-domains are displayed, with descriptive statistics provided both overall and segregated by varying levels of multilingualism, specifically categorising participants based on whether they learned one foreign language, two languages, or three or more languages.

Table 1 Mean scores and standard deviations for the six sub-domains.

The descriptive statistics presented in Table 1 indicate variations in the mean scores across the six sub-domains depending on the number of languages learned. For instance, participants who had learned and used three or more languages reported the highest mean score in Sub-domain 2 (learning the culture in university, M = 4.30), while those with only one language reported lower scores in most sub-domains overall, particularly in Sub-domain 4 (language learning after graduation, M = 3.65) and Sub-domain 6 (learning the culture at work, M = 3.59). Participants with two languages showed the highest mean score in Sub-domain 3 (creating learning conditions for self-directed learning, M = 4.10) and Sub-domain 5 (language learning while using the language at work, M = 4.12), though differences across groups in these sub-domains were relatively small. These patterns suggest that participants with higher degrees of multilingualism may experience stronger cognitive motivation in culturally-oriented sub-domains, particularly during their university studies.

Effects of modes of language engagement and levels of multilingualism

The first ANOVA (repeated measures) conducted in this study aims to broadly investigate the influence of two key factors on participants’ cognitive motivation. The six sub-domains, which represent two distinct modes of language engagement, were considered as a within-group factor to examine the variation in responses among participants within each group. On the other hand, the level of multilingualism, taken as a between-group factor, was employed to assess the differences in cognitive motivation across groups with varying degrees of language proficiency. This analysis seeks to determine whether these two factors, individually or in combination, significantly impact participants’ cognitive motivation. The results reveal significant findings regarding the impact of the division of sub-domains and the level of multilingualism on participants’ cognitive motivation. Specifically, the main effect of the division of sub-domains is statistically significant (F = 8.184, df = 5, p < 0.001, η² = 0.183). This indicates that the way the sub-domains are divided meaningfully contributes to variations in cognitive motivation. Furthermore, the main effect of the level of multilingualism is also significant (F = 6.073, df = 2, p = 0.003, η² = 0.061). This suggests that different levels of multilingualism have a notable influence on cognitive motivation. Participants with higher levels of multilingualism may demonstrate distinct patterns of cognitive motivation compared to those with lower levels. Importantly, the interaction between the division of sub-domains and the level of multilingualism is also significant (F = 3.507, df = 10, p < 0.001, η² = 0.087). This interaction effect suggests that the influence of the sub-domains on cognitive motivation is not uniform across different levels of multilingualism. In other words, the way individuals engage with language (as represented by the sub-domains) may differ depending on their proficiency in multiple languages, resulting in varied levels of cognitive motivation. Overall, these results highlight the complex interplay between language engagement modes, represented by the sub-domains, and multilingualism in shaping individuals’ cognitive motivation.

In light of the significant findings from the initial ANOVA, it is evident that both the division of sub-domains and the level of multilingualism play crucial roles in influencing participants’ cognitive motivation. However, to gain a more nuanced understanding of the specific contributions of these two factors, additional rounds of ANOVA need to be conducted. First, a detailed analysis of each of the three groups of multilingualism levels was done to further understand their unique contributions to cognitive motivation. Table 2 below presents the results from three separate ANOVAs (repeated measures) that were conducted to examine the influence of the sub-domain division on cognitive motivation within each distinct group of multilingualism levels.

Table 2 Effects of sub-domain division for each group of multilingualism levels.

The results presented here indicate that the level of multilingualism has a significant impact on cognitive motivation, but the effects vary depending on the number of foreign languages learned and used. For individuals who learned and used only one language, the ANOVA result suggests a marginal effect with a medium effect size. This means that the division of sub-domains may have some influence on cognitive motivation in this group, but the evidence is not overwhelmingly strong. In the case of individuals who learned and used two languages, the effect is not statistically significant and the effect size is small. This suggests that the sub-domain division does not have a substantial impact on cognitive motivation for this group. However, for individuals who learned and used three or more languages, the result is highly significant with a large effect size. This indicates that the division of sub-domains has a considerable influence on cognitive motivation in this group. The large effect size also suggests that this finding is robust and unlikely to be due to chance. The accompanying effect sizes reinforce the practical relevance of these results, indicating that the observed differences are not only statistically significant but also meaningful in magnitude.

Given the significant and substantial effect observed in the group of individuals who learned and used three or more languages, it is necessary to conduct a post-hoc analysis, which will allow us to further explore the nature of this effect by comparing the means of the different sub-domains within this group. The post-hoc analysis reveals several significant differences in cognitive motivation across the various sub-domains. Within the stage of formal learning, Sub-domain 2 (learning the culture in university) significantly outscored Sub-domain 1 (formal language learning) (p = 0.011). This suggests that for multilingual individuals engaged in formal education, cultural learning in an academic setting is a stronger motivator than pure language acquisition. This could be because cultural learning offers a richer and more contextualised understanding of the language, making it more relevant and cognitively engaging for learners. Moving to the stage of practical use, Sub-domain 5 (language learning while using the language in work settings) significantly outscored both Sub-domain 4 (language learning after graduation) (p = 0.022) and Sub-domain 6 (learning the culture at work) (p = 0.000). This indicates that for multilinguals in the workforce, learning a language while actively using it in professional contexts is a more powerful motivator than either post-graduation language learning or workplace cultural learning. The practical application and immediacy of language use in work settings likely contribute to this heightened motivation. Across both stages, several sub-domains emerged as consistently stronger motivators than others. Sub-domains 1, 2, and 3 (all related to formal learning) significantly outscored Sub-domain 6 (learning the culture at work), with p values of 0.000, 0.000, and 0.012 respectively. This suggests that for multilingual individuals, formal learning experiences, particularly those related to language and culture, are more cognitively motivating than workplace cultural learning. Additionally, Sub-domains 1 and 2 significantly outscored Sub-domain 4 (p = 0.026 and p = 0.003 respectively), indicating that formal learning experiences are also more motivating than post-graduation language learning. In summary, the post-hoc analysis reveals that for multilingual individuals who learned and used three or more languages, different stages and contexts of learning have varying impacts on cognitive motivation. Formal learning experiences, particularly those related to culture and language, emerge as strong cognitive motivators across both stages. However, within the stage of practical use, learning a language while actively using it in work settings is the strongest cognitive motivator.

Second, a detailed analysis of each of the six sub-domains was done to further understand their unique contributions to cognitive motivation. Table 3 below presents the results from six separate ANOVAs that were conducted to examine the influence of the level of multilingualism on cognitive motivation within each distinct sub-domain.

Table 3 Effects of level of multilingualism for each sub-domain.

Table 3 presents the results of six separate ANOVAs conducted to investigate the influence of level of multilingualism on cognitive motivation within each of the six sub-domains. Of the six sub-domains analysed, three did not show a statistically significant effect of multilingualism on cognitive motivation, which are Sub-domain 1 (formal language learning), Sub-domain 3 (creating learning conditions that promote self-directed learning), and Sub-domain 5 (language learning while using the language in work settings). On the other hand, the remaining three sub-domains did show a statistically significant effect of multilingualism on cognitive motivation: Sub-domain 2 (learning the culture in university) with a small to moderate effect size, Sub-domain 4 (language learning after graduation) with a moderate effect size, and Sub-domain 6 (learning the culture at work) with a moderate to large effect size. In summary, while the level of multilingualism did not have a significant impact on cognitive motivation in three of the sub-domains, it did significantly influence cognitive motivation in the other three, with varying degrees of effect sizes. These effect sizes suggest that the practical influence of multilingualism ranged from limited to meaningful, particularly in areas where cultural engagement played a central role.

Post-hoc analysis results show that for Sub-domain 2, three or more languages significantly outscored two languages (p = 0.014). This suggests that individuals who learned three or more languages have a higher level of cognitive motivation when it comes to learning the culture in a university setting compared to those who learned only two languages. For Sub-domain 4 (language learning after graduation), two languages significantly outscored both one language (p = 0.039) and three or more languages (p = 0.019). That is to say, individuals who learned and used two languages appear to have a higher level of cognitive motivation for language learning after graduation compared to those who learned and used only one language or three or more languages. For Sub-domain 6 (learning the culture at work), two languages significantly outscored both one language (p = 0.004) and three or more languages (p = 0.000). Similar to Sub-domain 4, individuals who learned and used two languages demonstrate a significantly higher level of cognitive motivation for learning the culture at work compared to those who learned and used only one language or three or more languages. These post-hoc analysis results suggest that the number of languages learned and used by an individual can have a significant impact on their level of cognitive motivation in specific sub-domains. While learning and using three or more languages appears to be beneficial in some contexts (e.g., learning the culture in university), learning and using two languages seems to be optimal in others (e.g., language learning after graduation and learning the culture at work).

To summarise, the findings suggest that university students who learn three or more foreign languages may experience a boost in cognitive motivation initially. However, this heightened motivation appears to wane more rapidly compared to those who learn two foreign languages. Interestingly, learners of two foreign languages tend to maintain their cognitive motivation more consistently in professional settings.

Thematic analysis of the qualitative data

The thematic analysis of the qualitative data collected via the open-ended question in the questionnaire survey served as a valuable complement to the quantitative findings. Specifically, this qualitative analysis aimed to delve deeper into the reasons behind the observed trends regarding cognitive motivation in language learning. In particular, the thematic analysis of the qualitative data sought to explore why learning three or more foreign languages in university may initially promote cognitive motivation, yet such motivation declines more quickly, as well as why learners of two foreign languages tend to sustain their cognitive motivation at work. Through a careful examination of the participants’ responses, we gained a richer understanding of the complex interplay between language learning, cognitive motivation, and the varying contextual factors that shape these experiences. The two authors independently coded the open-ended responses and subsequently discussed discrepancies to reach consensus on the final themes. While no intercoder reliability statistics were calculated, the collaborative discussion process ensured agreement on thematic interpretation and consistency in coding.

In the preceding subsection of quantitative analysis, we observed a notable trend among participants who learned and utilised three or more foreign languages. Specifically, these individuals exhibited higher cognitive motivation in Sub-domain 2, which pertained to learning the culture in university. This elevated motivation was evident in their active engagement with cultural materials and their expressed interest in broadening their cultural horizons through language learning. However, our qualitative data suggests that the causality behind this trend may not be straightforward. Rather than learning three or more languages being the direct cause of their higher cognitive motivation, it appears that their pre-existing higher cognitive motivation may have been the driving force behind their decision to engage in the learning of multiple foreign languages. This is exemplified in the extract from one participant who stated, “I wanted to learn more about different cultures, so I chose to study additional languages.” This extract underscores the point that individuals with a strong desire to understand and engage with diverse cultures are more likely to pursue multi-language learning as a means of achieving this goal. In other words, their cognitive motivation preceded and perhaps even influenced their language learning choices, rather than the other way around. This finding highlights the importance of considering individual differences in cognitive motivation when exploring the relationships between language learning and cultural engagement.

To explore why learners of two foreign languages tended to sustain their cognitive motivation at work, we must adopt a comparative approach. By analysing the qualitative data across the three groups – those who learned and used one foreign language, two languages, and three or more – we can gain insights into the factors that contribute to the maintenance or decline of cognitive motivation from the learning environment to the workplace. Below are three extracts from three participants of different levels of multilingualism:

One-language participant: “Studying is one thing, but using [the language] is another. They’re not quite the same.”

Two-languages participant: “I need to continue studying diligently to maintain a good level of proficiency in both English and German.”

Three-or-more-languages participant: “I didn’t learn [the languages] to a very advanced level, so it’s difficult to maintain any sort of proficiency in all of them.”

The one-language participant seems to suggest a disconnect between the academic study of a language and its practical application. They may view language learning as a separate activity from using the language in real-world scenarios, which could indicate a potential challenge in transferring their language skills to the workplace. The two-languages individual expresses a strong commitment to maintaining their language skills through ongoing study. They recognise the importance of keeping their proficiency high in order to be effective in a multilingual work environment. This suggests that they have a strong cognitive motivation to continue learning and applying their language skills. The three-or-more-languages participant acknowledges limitations in their initial language learning, which they perceive as a barrier to maintaining proficiency in multiple languages. They may feel overwhelmed or discouraged by the challenge of keeping up with multiple languages, which could negatively impact their cognitive motivation in the workplace. As can be seen, the views expressed by these three participants differ significantly in terms of their perceived challenges and motivations for maintaining language skills in the workplace. The one-language participant seems to struggle with the transition from academic learning to practical application, which could hinder their ability to sustain cognitive motivation in a work environment where language use is essential. The two-languages participant, on the other hand, demonstrates a clear commitment to ongoing language learning and maintenance of proficiency, indicating a strong cognitive motivation to perform well in a multilingual setting. Finally, the three-or-more-languages participant expresses frustration with their initial level of language learning and a sense of being overwhelmed by the task of maintaining proficiency in multiple languages, which could negatively affect their cognitive motivation at work.

Discussion

This study examined how cognitive motivation varies across two key dimensions of foreign language engagement, i.e., formal education and practical use, while also considering learners’ degrees of multilingualism. The findings provide important insights into how motivation is shaped by learning context and multilingual experience, contributing to more detailed understandings of foreign language motivation beyond broad socio-affective frameworks. First, the results confirm that the stage and context of language engagement significantly influence cognitive motivation. In particular, participants across all groups reported consistently high motivation in sub-domains that involve structured learning and cultural understanding. Sub-domain 2 (learning the culture in university) and Sub-domain 6 (learning the culture at work) showed notable differences across multilingualism levels, suggesting that cultural engagement is a key site where multilingual experience may amplify motivation. These findings align with prior work showing that multilingual learners often exhibit stronger engagement in cognitively demanding, culturally embedded tasks (Nakata, 2006; Wang et al., 2024a). Conversely, sub-domains such as formal language learning (Sub-domain 1) and workplace language use (Sub-domain 5) were less sensitive to multilingualism, suggesting that the influence of multilingual experience is not uniform across all task types.

Second, the study highlights the complex relationship between multilingualism and motivation. Participants who had learned and used three or more languages demonstrated high motivation in certain areas but also showed greater variability across sub-domains. In contrast, those with two languages maintained more stable motivation, particularly in work-related contexts. These findings suggest a possible threshold effect, whereby the cognitive and logistical demands of managing multiple languages may begin to offset motivational gains (Panther, 2021; Evans and Green, 2006). For example, learners of three or more languages showed a high mean score in Sub-domain 2 but a lower score in Sub-domain 6, indicating that while multilingual experience may initially support deep cognitive engagement, sustaining such motivation over time and across contexts may be challenging. This could reflect the effects of cognitive overload or diminished returns in motivational energy as learners attempt to maintain proficiency and active use across multiple linguistic systems.

While multilingualism is often associated with metacognitive benefits and increased resilience (Dörnyei, 1998; Nakata, 2006), our findings suggest these benefits may be domain- and context-dependent. Importantly, the relationship between multilingualism and motivation was strongest in sub-domains involving cultural learning, suggesting that the richness of prior language and cultural exposure may enhance learners’ drive to engage with new sociocultural systems. However, the motivational advantage does not appear to extend consistently to procedural or instrumental aspects of language learning, such as mastering grammar or applying language in routine professional tasks.

This study also underscores the motivational role of real-world language use. Although formal learning settings were associated with high motivation, likely due to their structured feedback and clear progression (Dörnyei, 1998; Ehrman and Oxford, 1995), the most pronounced motivation among multilingual learners was observed in practical, culturally embedded uses of language. These results highlight that for many learners, especially those with higher multilingual experience, language use becomes most meaningful when situated in socially relevant, professional contexts.

In light of these findings, two broader implications emerge. First, the assumption that “more languages” always leads to “more motivation” must be reconsidered. While multilingualism is undoubtedly beneficial in many ways, there may be cognitive and motivational limits to how many languages an individual can maintain actively and meaningfully. Future research should explore this threshold more explicitly and examine how cognitive resources are distributed across languages at different stages of learning and use. Second, the transition from classroom language learning to real-world application remains a critical yet under-explored phase. Learners with two or more languages appeared to draw on their previous learning experiences to manage this transition effectively, but the motivational demands of this shift were not uniformly sustained, particularly for those managing three or more languages. This calls for more pedagogical attention to preparing learners for context-switching and integrating authentic, purpose-driven tasks into formal instruction.

Finally, this study reinforces the value of approaching cognitive motivation as a domain-sensitive construct rather than a stable learner trait (Cacioppo and Petty, 1982; Panther, 2021). Motivation does not simply vary across individuals; it shifts according to learning goals, task structures, and the learner’s broader linguistic history. This refined understanding has implications not only for language instruction but also for curriculum design and policy. Educators should consider how learning environments can be structured to accommodate different learner profiles, particularly those navigating the cognitive and motivational complexities of multilingualism.

Several limitations of the study should be noted. First, while this study identified and examined six contextually grounded sub-domains, they may not have fully captured the breadth and complexity of cognitive motivation across all foreign language learning experiences. The sub-domains were developed based on a limited set of exploratory interviews, which, while informative, may have reflected context-specific patterns tied to the participants’ university and overseas work experiences. As a result, other motivational dimensions relevant to different learning settings, such as heritage language use or informal community learning, may have been overlooked. This suggests the need for broader and more varied qualitative input in future research to refine and expand the current framework. Second, the degree of multilingualism was operationalised solely based on the number of foreign languages studied and used. This approach, while practical and consistent with the study’s design, does not account for other important variables such as language proficiency, frequency of use, or typological distance between languages, all of which may shape motivational experiences in important ways. Third, the study did not control for the specific languages studied by participants. Given the variation in language difficulty and perceived utility (e.g., English versus Sinhalese), future research may benefit from incorporating such factors to refine our understanding of how different language characteristics interact with learners’ cognitive motivation. Fourth, the qualitative component of the study which was based on open-ended responses was limited in both depth and analytical rigour. While these responses were intended to provide supplementary insight, they were not subjected to a full thematic analysis, and no inter-coder reliability was established. Future research may consider incorporating more robust qualitative methods to generate richer, theory-building accounts of cognitive motivation.

Conclusions

In this study, we compared the cognitive motivations of foreign language learners during their educational journey and subsequent professional careers. Our primary objective was to investigate how the level of multilingualism, as reflected by the number of languages studied in university, shapes their motivation in both academic and professional environments. Through a comprehensive questionnaire survey, which gathered both quantitative and qualitative insights, we found that the mode of language engagement – whether it be formal education or practical application in the workplace – and the level of multilingualism have significant bearing on individuals’ cognitive motivation to learn and use languages. Multilinguals’ motivation fluctuates depending on the learning stage and context; practical application emerges as the most potent driver. The influence of multilingualism on cognitive motivation is multifaceted and varies from person to person, hinting at the presence of additional influencing factors. Notably, learners of two languages tend to exhibit more consistent cognitive motivation compared to those learning three or more, which could be attributed to a more manageable learning load and perceived relevance.

Based on the findings of this study, several practical implications emerge for language education, especially in multilingual contexts. First, language programmes should be designed to reflect the interplay between formal instruction and real-world use, ensuring that curricula integrate both structured learning and meaningful, context-rich applications. Embedding opportunities for cultural engagement and authentic communication, both in and beyond the classroom, can help sustain learners’ cognitive motivation across stages of language use. Second, individual learner profiles must be taken into account. Those with limited multilingual experience may benefit from scaffolded opportunities to transfer classroom learning into practical contexts, while learners with more extensive language backgrounds may require more cognitively challenging tasks to remain engaged. Finally, the study prompts reflection on the assumption that more languages always equate to stronger motivation. Instead, a more balanced approach that considers cognitive load and learner capacity may help ensure long-term motivation and success. By incorporating these insights into curriculum design, teaching strategies, and language policy, educators can better support learners’ diverse trajectories and sustain motivation across multilingual learning pathways.