According to Robinson (2017), mindset is defined as an emotional factor that signifies attitudes about their flexibility of astuteness, talents, or capabilities to perform skills. Yeager and Dweck (2012) also mentioned that mindsets are considered the fundamental suppositions individuals make about their characteristics. Regarding the educational contexts, Mercer (2012) states that foreign language mindset “reflects the extent to which a person believes that language learning ability is dependent on some immutable, innate talent or is the result of controllable factors such as effort and conscious hard work.” (p. 22). Dweck (2008) highlighted the importance of learners’ mindsets, and she claimed that mindsets form the consecutive accounts that happen in learners’ minds. She maintained that mindsets influence learners’ understanding. She maintained that individuals’ mindsets differ according to their theories about the flexibility or stability of their traits. In other words, one can interpret that his trait is dynamic or that it is stable, which she denotes this category as growth mindset and fixed mindset, correspondingly. Lou and Noels (2016) argued that learners with growth mindset regard their capability as flexible which can develop through diligence and operational approaches, whereas learners with fixed mindset think that their learning capacity is inborn, and it cannot be developed through experiencing in educational contexts. Moreover, they also argued that learners’ language learning mindsets regulate their assumptions about general language intelligence, age sensitivity in language learning and foreign language aptitude. They mentioned that the beliefs about general language intelligence and foreign language aptitude encompass learners’ assumptions about their native and foreign language capabilities, namely, whether their native and foreign language capabilities are static or dynamic. They maintained that sensitivity in language learning focuses on the critical period theory among students. The new categorizations of mindset afford a new viewpoint for examining learner’ opinions about language learning and, therefore, has drawn the attention of investigators in educational contexts (Sadeghi et al., 2020; Janudom, 2021; Yao et al., 2021). Although the prevalent opinions about the normal, inborn aptitude for language learning have been widely discussed (Mercer and Ryan, 2010), there are moderately few studies on language learning mindsets in applied linguistics. Lou and Noels (2020) found out that language mindset is significantly correlated with EFL learners’ academic achievements. Papi et al. (2019) also found out that learners’ communication apprehension is significantly correlated with their language learning mindsets. Haimovitz and Dweck (2017) argued that learners’ mindsets are affected by their rapport with instructors. Ciaccio (2019) found out that learners’ growth mindsets significantly predict their self-efficacy. He argued that students with a growth mindset believe that their negative functions in language tasks are due to their lack of determination. He also argued that learners with growth mindset try hard to do their responsibilities efficaciously. Mrazek et al. (2018), in their study, revealed that learners with a growth mindset are inclined to self-regulate their thoughts and affections. In addition, they found out that learners’ understandings of effort influence their self-regulation. Zhao et al. (2021) study revealed that learner academic engagement is significantly correlated with learner mindset. They also mentioned that stress mediates the correlation between learning engagement and growth mindset. Marlow (2021), in his study, argued that learners can decrease foreign language anxiety by transforming their fixed mindsets into growth mindsets. They argued that learners with stable mindsets have higher levels of foreign language anxiety and lower levels of performance in language learning. Zarrinabadi et al. (2021a) also found out that learners’ language mindset is significantly correlated with their communicative competence and their willingness to communicate. Zarrinabadi et al. (2021b) revealed that learners with growth mindsets are more likely to choose effective learning strategies to help foster their capability. Lou et al. (2017) also argued that language learners’ mindsets are significantly correlated with their internal motivations for language learning. They argued that language learners with learning objectives are inclined to be motivated, as they like the learning process.

Motivation is a widely studied issue in foreign language learning investigations. It guides various learning behaviors in numerous educational environments (Boo et al., 2015). Csizér and Dörnyei (2005) pointed out that “motivation is a concept that explains why people behave as they do rather than how successful their behavior will be” (p. 20). Dörnyei and Ushioda (2011) regard motivation as a component of enjoyment, and they mentioned that motivation “moves a person to make certain choices, to engage in action, to expend effort and persist in action” (p. 3). However, Dörnyei (2001) stated that there is an indirect relationship between academic motivation and language learning achievements since other variables such as linguistic skills, and linguistic backgrounds affect learners’ proficiency in foreign language contexts. However, he mentioned that some external negative factors like school and classroom contexts have demotivated them. Dörnyei (2005) argued that foreign language motivation indicates a multifaceted psychological notion that drives a learner to learn a second or foreign language. Alrabai and Moskovsky (2016) showed that motivation, autonomy, viewpoint, anxiety, and self-esteem are critical in L2 learning proficiency. They stated that academic motivation has the highest predictability power over other factors in language learning proficiency. Crookes and Schmidt (1991) highlighted the importance of regarding four motivational components of Keller (1983) educational orientation theory, including (a) interest, (b) relevance, (c) expectancy, and (d) satisfaction. They maintained that these components of motivation should be taken into account by instructors when they are trying the appreciate learners’ learning motivation since these components may affect learners’ language learning (Crookes and Schmidt, 1991).

The integrative and instrumental motivations have been specified as two leading components of L2 learning motivation (Fan and Feng, 2012; Carrió-Pastor and Mestre, 2014; Quan, 2014). Motivation is a blend of internal and external forces that urges learners to focus on the learning process (Gardner, 2010). Learners’ integrative motivation refers to their willingness to integrate themselves into a spoken language society. Moreover, learners’ positive viewpoints toward the teaching-learning context determine integrative and academic achievement (Khodadad and Kaur, 2016). Pavelescu (2019) found out that learners’ integrative motivation is affected by teachers’ motivation, encouragement, and support. Moreover, Cocca and Cocca (2019) found out that integrative motivation is positively correlated with language learning achievement by encouraging learners to use language effectively, and it is also related to learners’ culture. Liu (2021) stated that second language learning is significantly affected by integrative rather than instrumental correlation. He argued that motivated learners attempt to find chances to develop their language skills.

Instead, Gardner and Lambert (1972) (p. 150) pointed out that “instrumental orientation is considered a desire to gain social recognition or economic advantages through knowledge of a foreign language.” Cheng et al. (2014) asserted that higher instrumental motivation lowers test scores. Lukmani (1972) study showed that Indian EFL learners’ instrumental motivation can significantly correlate with language proficiency scores. Sallang and Ling (2019) found a relationship between providing constructive feedback to students and instrumental motivation in language learning as it develops learners’ motivation in performing tasks. Safotso and Tompte (2018) study revealed that learners with high levels of instrumental motivation are more interested in communicative approach in language learning.

Overall, Gardner (2001) asserted that some factors such as positive attitudes toward learning context, instrumental, and integrative-oriented motivations significantly affect learners’ attention, and the desire to regulate learners’ endeavors in language learning. Khalid (2016) found out that instrumental and integrative motivation in language learning is associated with learners’ socioeconomic position. He also asserted that attitudes toward language learning can be affected by these orientations. Sediqifar and Khaleghizadeh (2016) study revealed that learners’ integrative motivation is positively correlated with their academic achievement. Nevertheless, their study did not improve the significant correlation between learners’ instrumental motivation and language learning achievements.

The relationship between EFL learners’ language mindset and grit has been studied in a few investigations. Yeager and Dweck (2012), in a study, revealed that language mindset and grit are correlated with each other, and they have a significant effect on learners’ success in educational contexts. They argued that learners’ growth mindsets develop their persistency and resilience facing educational impediments. Murphy and Dweck (2015) stated that a growth mindset can contribute learners to form their perceptions of effort, and to display their well-being when one confronts disruptions and problems. Moreover, they argued that persistence and flexibility engendered by a growth mindset are the components of academic achievement. Lee and Jang (2018) found a positive significant correlation between grit, hope, growth mindset, and self-directed learning. They also found out that hope can act as a mediator in the correlation between growth mindset and grit. Wang et al. (2018), in a study, stated that grit and growth mindset are significantly correlated with each other. They argued that these two constructs are linked to cognitive-behavioral control regions. They mentioned that grit is related to the link between areas associated with upcoming rewards, while growth mindset is related to areas like error monitoring. Bahník and Vranka (2017) found no significant correlations between growth mindset, grit, and academic achievement. Bazelais et al. (2018) also mentioned that mindset and grit are not significantly correlated with academic achievement. They argued that learners’ grand point average is extensively determined as a significant component in academic achievement, and learners’ grit and mindsets overlap with their grand point average. Sigmundsson et al. (2020) found a gender effect on the relationship between mindset growth and grit. Kannangara et al. (2018) also mentioned that learners with higher levels of grittiness had significantly higher levels of resilience and self-control, and they tend to have a growth mindset. Moreover, Kench et al. (2016) examined the correlation between grit and mindset among children and adolescents, and they found out that their growth mindsets are significantly correlated with their grittiness. Duckworth (2016) also argued that learners with a growth mindset have persistence and commitments to reach their objectives. They argued that growth mindset is considered a helpful construct that advances learners’ grittiness. Khajavy et al. (2020) found out that a growth mindset is significantly correlated with perseverance as an element of grit. Based on neuroscience, Myers et al.’s (2016) study also revealed that a growth mindset mediates the correlation between grit and brain structures.

Cross (2014) described grit as an ability to tolerate difficulties though preserving the wish for long-term purposes. Duckworth et al. (2007) also pointed out that grit includes “working strenuously toward challenges, maintaining effort and interest over years despite failure, adversity, and plateaus in progress” (p. 1088). They categorized this higher-order concept into two components: steadiness in interests and persistence in effort despite difficulties. Karlen et al. (2019) also highlighted these components in Grit Scale to measure grit construct.

Motivation, contrary to grit as a barely transformed idea, has been considered as a dynamic concept in educational contexts (Waninge et al., 2014). Some studies have been done on the relationship between grit and motivation. Ryan and Deci (2000), in a study, revealed that learners with higher levels of intrinsic motivation have higher levels of perseverance in their academic performance, and they argued that grit reflects the amount of learners’ energy in the promotion of one’s academic growth with improving their intrinsic motivation. Duckworth et al. (2007) also stated that grit, perseverance, and achievement are closely associated with each other, and learners with higher levels of grittiness tend to be motivated, determined, and successful in the educational contexts. Gyamfi and Lai (2020) argued that grit has a significant relationship with motivation along with resilience, hardness, and self-efficacy. Their study implicated that teachers can offer some approaches to foster learners’ grit and perseverance, and improve their motivation and interest in EFL classrooms to achieve new goals. Yang (2021) found out that enjoyment, as an umbrella term for motivation, is significantly correlated with learners’ grit and well-being. They argued that gritty learners perform enthusiastically at complex tasks and through this, they enjoy their academic achievements. They also justified their study using Macintyre and Gregersen (2012) broad-and-build theory. According to this theory, positive contexts with higher levels of motivation in educational classes make learners demonstrate more grittiness. Changlek and Palanukulwong (2015) revealed that also grit is negatively correlated with communication apprehension, and positively correlated with internal motivation. Steinmayr et al. (2018) study used expectancy-value theory to investigate the relationship between grit and motivational elements, and they found that learners’ grit significantly predicts their motivation, engagement, and personality. Karlen et al. (2019), in their study, pinpointed the significant role of learners’ perseverance and consistency of interest in intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. They argued that grittier learners try to find the importance and objective of a task, and to enhance their intrinsic motivation. Katherine et al. (2014) argued that learners’ grit significantly predicts their individual differences as learners’ persistence stems from their motivations. Werner et al. (2018) found a significant correlation between grit and self-regulatory traits, including persistency and consistency among EFL learners. They maintained that internal motivation accelerates learners’ persistence in performing tasks. They argued that the motivational awareness that grit produces is significant for improvement in academic performance. Bozgün and Akın-Kösterelioğlu (2021) also found out that academic grit and well-being mediate the relationship between social-emotional growth and motivation in language skills. Giordano (2019) found a correlation between grit and intrinsic motivation. He found out that the grit and intrinsic motivation are one-dimensional constructs. Duckworth and Eskreis-Winkler (2013) found out that grit is negatively correlated with anxiety, and positively correlated with willingness to communicate and motivation. Teimouri et al. (2020) studied the learners’ grit and numerous motivational, and language-related constructs. They found out that learners’ enjoyment, attention, willingness to communicate, and linguistic proficiency are significantly affected by their grit. Their study also showed that learners’ communication apprehension and grit are negatively correlated with each other.