Vygotsky’s Socio-Cultural Theory in Terms of Application to Second Language Acquisition

Reilly_Vygotsky’s Socio-Cultural Theory in SLA

1

Vygotsky’s Socio-Cultural Theory

in Terms of Application to SLA

Natalia Reilly

Copyright © Natalia Reilly, 2012


2

Introduction

The application of Vygotsky’s Socio-Cultural Theory to second language acquisition

helps L2 learners bring their proficiency in a second language closer to the level of their first

language. The application of this particular theory is helpful for several reasons.

First, the theory takes into consideration the external as well as internal stages of human

cognitive development. So, the theory provides the opportunity for the research of the social

aspects of communication as well as mental functions of cognition, and therefore, for obtaining

varied results for further development of SLA theory (Anton & DiCamilla, 1999; Brooks &

Donato, 1994; Evensen, 2007; Lantolf, 2006; Nassaji, 2006; Zuengler & Miller, 2006).

Second, one of the main Vygotsky’s concepts – the zone of proximal development (ZPD)

– provides the explanations of the conditions (socio-cultural and cognitive) which are necessary

for the processes of human learning. The conditions for the further learning consist of already

existing knowledge, the social interaction with the more knowledgeable ones, and the

transformation of the external processes into internal (cognitive) processes and functions (Anton

et al., 1999; Brooks & Donato, 1994; Kinginger, 2002; Lantolf, 2006; Nassaji & Cumming,

2000; Ohta, 1995, 2005).

Consequently, within the contours of the mentioned two concepts of the Vygoskian

theory (the existence of social and cognitive elements in the processes of SLA and the concept of

the zone of proximate development), the following three issues can be emphasized.

The first issue is a variety of schemes for interpretation and, therefore, for a broad range

of applications of the concept of the zone of proximal development in second language

acquisition research. The variety of applications may lie, for example, in the phenomenon that

the conservative as well as progressive educators while acclaiming the matter of the ZPD,


3

provide different interpretations of its meaning (Kinginger, 2002; Nassaji & Swain, 2000), or in

the researches of the ZPD in L2 learner-written material collaboration (Appel & Lantolf, 1994;

McCafferty, 1994; Ohta, 2005), or in the researches concerning the development of higher

potential level of SLA in the ZPD in creative writing (Tin, 2011).

The second issue considers private speech, or self-talk, – socially originated, verbalized,

but internal speech. Although dialogic in nature, private speech changes its function: it is used by

L2 learners to organize, plan, direct or evaluate the problem solving process while encountering

a difficult task. The issue is important because this evolution of speech – from social to self-

directed to internalized – exemplifies the path of higher mental functions including second

language acquisition (Anton et al., 1999; Lantolf, 2006a, 2006b, 1994; McCafferty, 1994, 1992;

Schinke-Llano, 1993; Tarone & Swain, 1995).

The third issue is the functions of L1 in the process of L2 acquisition. Because both

languages – L1 and L2 – are the tools of second language acquisition in the process of L2

internalization, which is the move from the imitation to private and inner speech, and to the

capacity of purposeful and autonomous self-regulated expression in L2, the issue of the functions

of L1 is important (Anton et el., 1999; Brooks & Donato, 1994; Brooks, Donato & McGlone,

1997; Lantolf, 2006; McCafferty, 1992, 1994; Tin, 2011). The studies reveal the role of L1 in

SLA and the connections between the emerging second language private speech and the cultural

heritage of the first language.

Thus, the following is the analysis of the main concepts of Vygotsky’s Socio-Cultural

Theory and its entailed issues. The analysis focuses on the possibilities of the development of the

SLA theory for the purpose of minimizing the gap between learners’ proficiencies in their first

and second languages.


4

Main Concepts of Vygotsky’s Theory in Application to SLA

Social and Cognitive Processes of SLA

Second language acquisition involves two kinds of processes – social and cognitive. The

Vygotsky’s socio-cultural theory gives the opportunity to synthesize the two processes and to

provide the most complete view on the development of L2. As it is mentioned in the works of

Brooks and Donato (1994), Lantolf (2006, 1994), Nassaji (2006), Thorne (2005), Zuengler and

Miller (2006), Vygotsky focused on the connections between people and the sociocultural

context in which they act and interact in shared experiences thus obtaining knew knowledge.

According to Vygotsky, social interaction plays a fundamental role in the process of cognitive

development, yet, social and cognitive processes are inseparable: “Every function in the child’s

cultural development appears twice: first, on the social level, and later, on the individual level;

first, between people (interpsychological) and then inside the child (intrapsychological)” (As

cited in Thorne, 2005, p. 395).

The notions of interpsychological and intrapsychological processes in SLA can be traced

in more researches, such as those conducted by Anton and DiCamilla (1999), and Brooks and

Donato (1994, 1997). Thus, Anton in her research concerning the socio-cognitive functions of L1

in the collaborative interaction of adult learners of Spanish in the L2 classroom, has interpreted

the functions of L1 in two ways: in interpsychological terms – as the construction of scaffodled

help and the establishment of intersubjectivity, and in intrapsychological terms – as the use of

private speech. The other researchers, Brooks and Donato, having analyzed speech data from

adolescent learners of Spanish who were engaged in a problem-solving speaking task, have

considered that if interaction lacks intrapsychological elements, the learning does not occur,


5

in small-group processes, language learning activity must be viewed as cognitive activity

and not merely the rehearsal and eventual acquisition of linguistic forms … it is not only

the communicative activity or contents of the lesson that is paramount, but engagement

with and control of communicative interactions that will ultimately benefit the foreign

language learner (Brooks et el., 1994, pp. 272, 273).

In 1997 Brooks and Donato continued their research of the role of sociocultural and cognitive

processes in SLA. They studied student discourse of three pairs of third-semester intermediate-

level learners of Spanish at the university level. The students had to speak in the target language

to accomplish a given task of discussing the variety of problems, such as difficulties with

vocabulary or how to rehearse target language forms. The research confirmed the previous

conclusion that if the purpose and function of learner language are not clearly understood, the

collaboration doesn’t lead to learning, that mere collaboration is not enough, and that the most

important part in second language learning is “how forms of collaboration and social interaction

unite the development of second-language orality with an individual’s cognitive functioning”

(Brooks et el., 1997, p. 534).

Moreover, Lantolf (2006a, 2006b, 1994) has stated that social and cognitive processes

(mediation and internalization) are two central constructions in Vygotsky’s theory in terms of

application to the development of SLA theory, “I concentrate on two areas that I believe are

particularly important, especially with regard to future research: L2 mediation and the

internalization of L2s” (2006a, p. 68). This theme of the further development of the SLA theory

by applying the Vygotskyan apparent dualism between social interaction and cognitive,

neurological characteristics of second language learning are continued by recent researches.

Evensen (2007) has suggested that more considerate and less confrontational understanding of


6

social and cognitive aspects of Vygotsky’s theory may help to shed new light on the theory of

second language acquisition,

I have sought to demonstrate the radical possibility – that a socially oriented, multi-plane

framework may be useful for understanding even cognitive or neurological aspects of

learning. Vygotsky’s dictum that learning and development moves from intermental to

intramental seems to imply exactly such a possibility… The inner logic of a mediational

system is appropriated by learners, but once appropriated, its inner logic will affect its

‘users’ in return. Cognitive structures … may be qualitatively restructured or transformed

as such mediated processes continue (p. 348).

So, learning occurs only when the social interaction undergoes the transformation from

external processes into internal (cognitive) processes and functions.

This synthesis of sociocultural and cognitive aspects in the Vygotskian approach to the process

of second language acquisition contributes to the development of the SLA theory by the means

of overcoming the conflicting debates concerning cognitive and social understandings of

learning. As Zuengler (2006) pointed out, “development doesn’t proceed as the unfolding of

inborn capacities, but as the transformation of innate capacities once they intertwine with

socioculturally constructed mediational means” (pp.38,39). This can prove that cognitive and

sociocultural perspectives are not two parallel SLA worlds, but the reflection of two essential

elements of learning.

Zone of Proximal Development

One of the main concepts of Vygotsky’s theory is the Zone of Proximal Development

(ZPD). According to Vygotsky, the ZPD is


7

the difference between the child’s developmental level as determined by independent

problem solving and the higher level of potential development as determined through

problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers (As

cited in Ohta, 1995).

So, the ZPD is the zone where learning occurs. As it has been pointed out in the previous

unit concerning social and cognitive processes in second language acquisition, learning occurs

only when the external processes of social interaction with the more knowledgeable ones are

transformed into internal (cognitive) processes and functions. This transformation takes place in

the zone of proximal development, “The transfer of functions from the social (or

interpsychological) domain to the cognitive (or intrapsychological) plane occurs within the zone

of proximal development (ZPD)” (Anton et el., 1999). It means that the concept of the ZPD

explains the conditions of the processes of human learning.

For this reason, many researchers in the field of Vygotskian approach to SLA are

focusing on the zone of proximal development (Anton et al., 1999; Brooks & Donato, 1994;

Kinginger, 2002; Lantolf, 2006; Nassaji & Cumming, 2000; Ohta, 1995, 2005). Thus, Ohta,

(1995) analyzed students’ learning and progressing by means of collaborative interaction within

the ZPD. Ohta, while conducting a qualitative research of a combined – teacher leading and peer

pair work – interaction with two Japanese intermediate-level learners, conceptualized the ZPD

for SLA purposes by defining it as

the difference between the L2 learner’s developmental level as determined by

independent language use, and the higher level of potential development as determined

by how language is used in collaboration with a more capable interlocutor (p. 96).


8

Within the zone of proximal development the improvement of L2 occurs by means of

scaffolding which is “the concept … [that] originates with the work of Wood et al. (1976) and

serves as a metaphor for the interaction between an expert and a novice engaged in a problem-

solving task” (Anton et al., 1999, p. 235). Ohta especially emphasized the importance of learner-

learner communicative interaction in the process of scaffolding. Ohta stated “examining learner

interaction in the ZPD provides a richer view of L2 development, allowing the researcher to

examine what learners are able to do with language and how language development occurs” (p.

97).

One of the important features of the occurring development of L2 highlighted by Ohta

was the fact that “in learner-learner interaction … the learners contribute [not only their

established knowledge, but also] their individual differences in matures and maturing skills” (p.

97), and as a result, “the more advanced learner can also benefit from interaction with a learner

less proficient in the L2 as learner strengths are collaboratively joined” (p. 93). The concept of

collaboratively joined efforts of two or more learners and its importance in second language

acquisition was also pointed out by Anton et al. as intersubjectivity (1999).

The application of the zone of proximal development to SLA research also helps reveal

new features of the ZPD concept. According to Nassaji and Cummings (2000), the study of

teacher-student interaction via dialogue journals written over ten months elucidated “some of the

salient qualities of the ZPD that they mutually constructed in this context over time” (Nassaji et

al., 2000). The cooperative correspondence took place between a six year Farsi speaker at the

beginner level of learning English and his Canadian teacher. In the process, ninety-five

exchanges in interactive were analyzed. The longitude of the research and the contrastive

interaction between a much more knowledgeable one (a teacher) and a complete novice (a six


9

year old beginner) allowed to bring to light two salient characteristics of the ZPD: “ (a) sustained

intersubjectivity and (b) complementary, asymmetric scaffolding” (p. 103).

Furthermore, the application of the ZPD in its dialectical aspect allows to analyze

language learning holistically by perceiving integrally unified, interactive phenomenon of

language. As Nassaji and Cummings (2000) in the same study point out, “Vygotsky claimed that

learning is formed through the ZPD, which creates ‘a dialectic unity of learning-and-

development’” (p. 97) where “the culturally mediated interaction among people in the zone of

proximate development is internalized, becoming a new function of the individual” (p. 98). This

brings the language acquisition to the pragmatic level, and vice versa – dialectically speaking,

the counter process is going on, in which “sociolingustically oriented theories have traced how

the language varieties that adults develop in a second language acquisition arise from pragmatic

functions people try to fulfill while communicating” (p. 96). In the relation to the results of this

particular study, the authors emphasized that

This dialogue journal writing set a long-term context for the student and teacher to

communicate routinely through written English … in which both participants reciprocally

shared common knowledge, purposes and tools of communication, evidently

understanding and appreciating them. … A sociocultural perspective highlights teaching

and learning in conjunction and close-up, looking to fundamental characteristics of the

ZPD as a set of interactive processes wherein learning occurs because teaching facilitates

it … instead of fragmenting [language] essential interconnectedness … for example, by

treating language as a system of elements divorced from their social functions and

context (pp. 114, 115).


10

The dialectic aspect of the ZPD was also emphasized in studies of such authors as Nassaji

and Swain (2000), and Kinginger (2002). According to Kinginger, the dialectical

interpretation of the ZDP

hints at the possibility of recovering the unity within a dialectic synthesis … through

recognition of the notion that language-in-use constitutes and object of reflection, raising

students awareness to all levels: metalinguistic, metadiscursive, metapragmatic,

metacultural (p. 257).

The comparative researches continue to support the general idea of applicability of the

ZPD concept to second language learning theory. Thus, Nassaji and Swain (2000) in their

qualitative and quantitative study of two Korean students’ English compositional writings

compared help provided within the ZPD with random help. The ZPD student was provided with

help to be moved gradually to the needed level “using prompts through the Regulatory Scale

developed by Aljaafreh and Lantolf (1994)” (Nassaji et el., 2012). At the same time, the non-

ZPD student was provided with random help in the form of prompts without regarding her ZPD.

As the research has proved, “help provided within the ZPD was more effective than help

provided randomly” (Nassaji et el., 2012).

Therefore, these results continue to prove the research reliability of the ZPD approach

and show the perspectives of the further development of the theory of SLA by applying to the

study the concept of the zone of proximate development.

Some Entailed Aspects of Vygotsky’s Theory in Application to SLA

Variety of Interpretations and Applications of the ZPD

The interpretation of the research materials obtained in the studies of the zone of

proximate development often depends on the researcher’s theoretical academic domain as it is


11

mentioned by such researchers as Kinginger (2002) and Nissaji and Swain (2000). Thus,

according to Kinginger, the representatives of both – the conservative and progressive domains

of SLA studies acclaim the matter of the ZPD, yet they provide different interpretations of its

meaning. In the interpretation of conservative scholars “interactions where students participate in

reaching the instructor’s goal are identified as ‘scaffolding’, as constructing the ZPD … where

students comply with their instructor’s directives in producing sentences that are maximally

correct” (pp. 254, 255). Nevertheless, the important aspect of ZPD is missing here – it is the

social activity of students. In the pseudo-ZPD studies students “are invited to participate and

even to share the floor; but they are not authorized to question what they are accomplishing and

why” (p.255). Usually conservative educators uncritically linked the ZPD “to Krashen’s Monitor

Model in order to reinforce a conservative ‘skills’ based practice … [where] the ZPD serves to

represent the diffusion of participant roles within canonical classroom discourse (e.g. Gifford and

Mullaney, 1999)” (Kinginger, 2002, p. 257). On the other hand, progressive educators “suggest a

prospective understanding of language learning, even though they limit the scope of this

understanding to the specific case of the negotiation of linguistic structures” (p. 257). This

approach to ZPD through prospective understanding was also considered by Nassaji and Swain,

2000, who, after Wells, 1998, interpret the ZPD “not as a fixed trait of the learner but as an

emergent and open-ended one that unfolds through interaction and expands the potential for

learning by providing opportunities which were not anticipated in the first place” (Nassaji and

Swain, p. 36).

One more interpretation of the ZPD occurs with the introduction of a written text as a

communicator. The mainstream research in terms of the ZPD is conducted in peer-peer or

teacher-pupil collaborative interaction, yet the ZPD as a space where second language learning


12

can take place is not limited by these collaborations only. In her later study, Ohta (2005)

assumed that learning within the ZPD occurs also in interaction with a written source, “The ZPD

is a key developmental space for language learning acquisition. As learners bump up against

their own limitations and are assisted to move beyond them with the help of teacher, peer, or

written source, development follows” (p. 513). How the processes of interaction and scaffolded

help occur via communication with a written source can be partly explained by the post-modern

notion (Appel & Lantolf, 1994) that the meaning of the text is created by the reader at certain

level of the reader’s competence; then the created meaning affects the reader’s comprehension;

then, in its turn, the emerged comprehension creates a next in turn meaning at the higher level of

the reader’s competence, and the dialectical process of the mutual meaning-comprehension

influence will go on, “One of the consequences of the post-modernist movement … is the

recognition of the possibility that meaning does not reside in texts per se, but is created through

some type of reader-text interaction” (p. 449). Therefore, here we have one more example of

Vygotsky’s dialectical (versus linear) approach to the psychological development, emphasized

by McCafferty (1994), when “development is a complex dialectical process characterized by …

metamorphosis or qualitative transformation of one form into another, intertwining of external

and internal factors” (Vygotsky, 1978, as cited in McCafferty, 1994).

The other connection of the ZPD with a written source is the interpretation of the

emergence of more complex L2 in creative writing tasks with high formal constraints (acrostics)

in comparison with those of looser formal constraints (similes) (Tin, 2010). The study was

conducted over 2 weeks with 23 non-native 18-22 year-old English speakers from a university in

Indonesia who wrote a number of poems in pairs and individually; students’ discussions in pairs

were audio taped and analyzed. As Tin has pointed out, the creative writing tasks mean the play


13

with the language; yet only the play where the rules are strictly defined creates the ZPD and

provides the scaffolding that brings students to the higher level of potential development.

Acrostic (poem w/formal constrains) Simile (free style poem)

Joy

Jar of amazing feeling

Overcoming sadness

You should get it (p. 222)

Our friend is like an orange

She always freshes us

She is stubborn when unripe

But wiser when ripe (p. 229)

The more complex L2 (the poem on the left) emerges because the formal constraints

require students “to develop new compositional strategies and syntactic structures, combining

known familiar utterances in unfamiliar ways in order to construct new meaning” (p. 231). So,

according to Tin, only the play with acrostics gives students the Vygotskian opportunity to

perform “a head taller than they are” (Vygotsky, 1978 as cited in Tin, 2010, p. 232).

Private Speech

Private speech is one of the most important socio-cognitive functions within the zone of

proximal development. Private speech is a self-talk. It is socially originated, verbalized, but

internal speech dialogic in nature (Anton et al., 1999; Appel & Lantolf, 1994; Lantolf, 2006a,

2006b, 1994; McCafferty, 1994, 1992). Although socially originated and dialogic, private speech

changes its function: it is used by a L2 learner to organize, plan, direct or evaluate the problem

solving while encountering a difficult task. According to Anton and DiCamilla (1999), “private

speech is social in its genesis and may therefore be social or communicative in its appearance,

but it nevertheless psychological in function. That is, it is speech directed to the self for the

purpose of directing and organizing one’s mental activity” (p. 235). This statement is rooted in

Vygotsky’s belief that


14

with the acquisition of language, children gain access to the most powerful of “mental

tools,” that they use language to transform the cognitive functions appropriated through

interpersonal experience into intrapersonal functions. In children … this transformation is

greatly facilitated through the use of speech for the self, or private speech (As cited in

McCafferty, 1994).

In application to SLA theory, the issue of private speech helps understand how private

speech mediates second language learning. In the study of the nature of private speech and its

role in the mental activity in the process of recalling and comprehending written texts, Appel and

Lantolf (1994) showed “how speaking, especially in the form of private speech …, not only

mediates the subjects’ attempts to report on what they understand from the text, but also how it

serves as the process through which they come to comprehend the text” (Appel & Lantolf, 1994,

p.439). The researches also proved the nature of private speech to be social.

In this study there were 28 participants – all young adults: 14 native speakers of English

and 14 advanced English speakers from a German university. The subjects were given two texts

– one narrative (a typical children’s fairy tale) and one expository (about propagation of coffee

plants). The subjects were instructed to read the texts carefully and recall them in a while orally

being alone in the room; no time restrictions were imposed. The responses were tape recorded

and analyzed. I was expected that the oral responses would be “marked by a high frequency of

metacomments, or what we refer to as private speech” (Appel et al., 1994, p. 439). The

metacomments in forms of macrostructures – “the gist of the text for the reader” (p. 443) showed

that the more difficult the task was and the less proficient the speakers were, the more

macrostructures in increasing variability were produced. Concerning the nature of private speech

Appel and Lantolf (1994) concluded,


15

private speech, as a way of mediating mental activity, … is rooted in communicative

speech. In our view all of this means that people can construct meaning from a text … by

conversing with others, with the self in presence of others, or, as in the case of our

subjects, with the self in the presence of no one other than the self. All of these activities

are at their core, social (p. 449).

The process of the use of private speech by second language learners was also studied

cross-culturally (McCafferty, 1992). The study revealed psychological idiosyncrasy in the

manner of using private speech by the L2 learners from the different countries. In this study the

“central idea” (McCafferty, p. 181) of Vygotskian theory that cultural-historical background

impacts cognitive development was set as a research question to investigate it in terms of private

speech. The study considered “the influence of cultural background to see how adult second

language learners of English from two different cultural backgrounds (Asian [15] and Hispanic

[15] [all ESL college students]) attempt to gain self-regulation in a communicative task in their

L2” (p. 181). The subjects were asked to construct a narrative based on a story as portrayed

through a series of six pictures. The results showed that the Hispanic subjects were using far

more different kinds of utterances of private speech than the Asians (Hispanics – 61-16, Asians –

4-7). The differences in the use of private speech by ESL learners from two different cultural

contexts, also showed, according to McCafferty, that “the L2 learners’ use of private speech …

would seem to indicate the degree to which individual autonomy is valued within cultures” (p.

188).

Functions of L1 in SLA

The functions of L1 in second language acquisition closely related to the notion of private

speech: L1 is one of the tools of second language acquisition in the process of L2 internalization.


16

In this process learners help themselves by producing private speech in L1 or L2 to obtain the

capacity of purposeful and autonomous self-regulated expression in L2 (Anton et el., 1999;

Brooks, Donato & McGlone, 1997; Lantolf, 2006; Tin, 2011). So, the question of how second

language learners’ communication in L1 and L2 affects their second language acquisition is an

important issue in the theory of SLA. There are several opinions concerning the use and the role

of L1 in the second language learning process.

Some researchers, such as Anton and DiCamilla (1999), emphasize the beneficial

functions of L1 in general, while others (Brooks & Donato, 1994; Brooks, Donato & McGlone,

1997; Lantolf, 2006; McCafferty, 1992, 1994; Tin, 2011) emphasize the transitional role of L1,

considering its beneficial role mainly at the early stages of SLA.

Thus, in their research, Anton and DiCamilla (1999) studied the interaction of five pairs

of the beginner Spanish learners (all – young adults, native speakers of English) in their L1 for

solving L2 writing tasks. Three sessions of the intense course of Spanish were recorded and

analyzed. The results showed that the functions “of L1 in the second language learning process

are beneficial since it acts as a critical psychological tool that enables L2 learners to construct

effective collaborative dialogue in the completion of meaning-based language task” (p. 245).

Moreover, when analyzing the results of the experiment, the authors marked out two types of L1

functions – interpsychological (construction of scaffolded help and establishment of

itersubjectivity) and intrapsychological (use of private speech).

The variations of the use of L1 in two different writing tasks are revealed in the research

concerning writing acrostics (structured poems) and similes (freestyle poems) (Tin, 2011). This

study has been described here in the unit Private Speech. Tin called the finding “unplanned

insight … offering a new way of regarding the use of the L1 vs. the L2 in collaborative writing


17

tasks” (p. 231). First, the author mentions the results of the previous studies conducted by Swain

and Lapkin (2000), where, according to Tin, “pair writing stimulates collaborative dialogue in

the L1 and creation of text in the target language (Tin, 2011, p. 231). In her research Tin has

proved the different usages of L1 and L2 in the two different tasks while analyzing private

speech. The author has come to the following conclusion, “In acrostics, conceptual systems are

activated through the L2 directly. … However, in similes, concepts are first retrieved in the L1

then translated into the L2” (p. 232). So, in acrostics, “the formal constraints … allow students to

conceptually mediate L2 directly, strengthening the link between L2 lexicon and conceptual

representation” (p. 232), while in similes, “L1 becomes a communicative strategy and a

cognitive tool to access L2 forms that are available” (p. 232).

The most of the researchers (Brooks, Donato & McGlone, 1997; Lantolf, 2006;

McCafferty, 1992, 1994) point out the transitional role of dialogic L1 in helping L2 learners

overcome the beginner stage of communicative interaction in L1 and move to the stage of pure

L2 interaction. First of all, the researchers recognized that communication in L1 at the early

stages of learning is not the evidence that students are off-task, or sabotage the activity, or unable

to work in small groups. In this experiment, native speakers of English learning Spanish

(university students of intermediate level) were specifically instructed to speak in L2 only while

performing L2 tasks (jig-saw activity with pictures). In spite of this, the subjects involved private

speech in both L1 and L2 when they encountered difficulties. According to the authors, “The

implication of these findings is that learners can gain self-regulation if provided multiple

opportunities to collaborate” (Brooks, Donato & McGlone, 1997, p. 532). The authors stated

that, at least initially, “in the attempts to regulate their participation in collaborative tasks, …

they [L2 learners] can carry out the tasks in the native language,” because “systematic


18

opportunities for collaboration with the target language may eventually enable individuals to

perform cognitively demanding tasks in the target language” (p. 534). From the Vygotskian

perspective “all forms of collaboration and social interaction unite the development of second-

language orality with an individual’s cognitive functioning” (p. 534), and L1 is considered to be

one of these collaborative forms of socio-cultural interaction. Thus, L1 becomes a cognitive tool

as well as a communicative strategy to “access L2 forms that are available” (Anton et el., 1999,

p. 238).

Conclusion

Vygotsky’s socio-cultural theory in terms of second language acquisition considers the

main features of the SLA processes. According to the theory, human development goes through

the following stages: mediation – communication through words, gestures, facial expressions,

imitation, and internalization/appropriation – the creative use of language with the help of private

speech (Anton & DiCamilla, 1999; Brooks & Donato, 1994; Evensen, 2007; Lantolf, 2006;

Nassaji, 2006; Nassaji & Cumming, 2000; Ohta, 1995, 2005; Zuengler & Miller, 2006). Thus,

the theory considers the connections between the socio-cultural aspects and cognitive linguistic.

Moreover, the Vygotskian approach takes into consideration the necessary conditions of the

processes of SLA. The conditions of second language acquisition are considered in terms of the

zone of proximate development and consist of already existing knowledge, the social interaction,

and the transformation of the external processes into cognitive ones (Anton et al., 1999; Brooks

& Donato, 1994; Kinginger, 2002; Lantolf, 2006; Nassaji & Cumming, 2000; Ohta, 1995, 2005).

Within the contours of the socio-cultural/cognitive processes and conditions more issues

are considered. Such as private speech that mediates and regulates mental functions in complex

cognitive tasks as well as facilitates the internalization of mental functions. As a result, second


19

language learners become self-regulated in the process of private speech turning into inner

speech (Anton et al., 1999; Appel & Lantolf, 1994; Lantolf, 2006a, 2006b, 1994; McCafferty,

1994, 1992).

Also, in connection with private speech, the role of L1 in acquisition of the target

language is considered. According to Vygotsky, the higher cognitive development originates in

social interaction by means of psychological and communicative tools. Because the native

language (L1) is one of the critical tools in bringing already existing knowledge to the social

interaction and in transforming the external processes into cognitive functions, the role of L1 in

second language acquisition is beneficial in solving meaning-based language tasks (Anton et el.,

1999; Brooks, Donato & McGlone, 1997; Lantolf, 2006; Tin, 2011).

Finally, Vygotskian theory creates perspectives for future research in the field of the

theory of SLA. Some aspects that remain to be established are: the connections between the

socio-cultural processes and cognitive linguistic ones in terms of the zone of proximate

development and private speech, the further theoretical explanation of scaffolding through the

concept of regulation, the transmission of cultural knowledge as socially based bringing second

language acquisition to the pragmatic level (Anton et al., 1999; Lantolf, 2006a, 2006b, 1994;

McCafferty, 1994, 1992; Nassaji and Swain, 2000; Schinke-Llano, 1993; Ohta, 1995, 2000;

Tarone & Swain, 1995)


20

References

Anton, M., & Dicamilla, F. J. (1999). Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in

the L2 classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 83(2), 233-247. Retrieved from

Appel, G., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Speaking as mediation: A study of L1 and L2 text recall tasks.

The Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 437-452.

Brooks, F. B., & Donato, R. (1994). Vygotskyan approaches to understanding foreign language

learner discourse during communicative tasks. Hispania, 77(2), pp. 262-274.

Brooks, F. B., Donato, R., & McGlonem, J. V. (1997). When are they going to say ?it? right?

understanding learner talk during pair-work activity. Foreign Language Annals, 30(4), 524-

541. doi:10.1111/j.1944-9720.1997.tb00860.x

Donato, R., & Mccormick, D. (1994). A sociocultural perspective on language learning

strategies: The role of mediation. Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 453.

Evensen, L. S. (2007). 'With a little help from my friends'? theory of learning in applied

linguistics and SLA. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(3), 333-353.

Frawley, W., & Lantolf, J. P. (1985; 1985). Second language discourse: A vygotskyan

perspective. Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 19-44.

Kinginger, C. (2002). Defining the zone of proximal development in US foreign language

education. Applied Linguistics, 23(2), 240-261.


21

Lantolf, J. P. (2006). Sociocultural theory and L2: State of the art. Studies in Second Language

Acquisition, 28(1), 67-109.

Lantolf, J. P. (2006). Language emergence: Implications for applied linguistics-A sociocultural

perspective. Applied Linguistics, 27(4), 717-728.

McCafferty, S. G. (1994). Adult second language learners' use of private speech: A review of

studies. The Modern Language Journal, 78(4), 421-436.

McCafferty, S. G. (1992). The use of private speech by adult second language learners: A cross-

cultural study. The Modern Language Journal, 76(2), 179-189.

McCafferty, S. G., Roebuck, R. F., & Wayland, R. P. (2001). Activity theory and the incidental

learning of second-language vocabulary. Language Awareness, 10(4), 289-294.

Nassaji, H., & Cumming, A. (2000). What’s in a ZPD? A case study of a young ESL student and

teacher interacting through dialogue journals. Language Teaching Research, 4(2), 95-121.

Nassaji, H. (2006). [Vygotsky's and A. A. leontiev's semiotics and psycholinguistics]. Modern

Language Journal, 90(1), 133-134.

Nassaji, H., & Swain, M. (2000). A vygotskian perspective on corrective feedback in L2: The

effect of random versus negotiated help on the learning of english articles Taylor & Francis

Ltd.

Ohta, A. S. (2005). Interlanguage pragmatics in the zone of proximal development. System,

33(3), 503-517. doi:10.1016/j.system.2005.06.001


22

Ohta, A. S. (1995; 1995). Applying sociocultural theory to an analysis of learner discourse:

Learner-learner collaborative interaction in the zone of proximal development. Issues in

Applied Linguistics, 6(2), 93-121.

Schinke-Llano, L. (1993). On the value of a vygotskian framework for SLA theory and research.

Language Learning, 43(1), 121-129.

Thorne, S. L. (2005). Epistemology, politics, and ethics in sociocultural theory. The Modern

Language Journal, 89(3), 393-409.

Tin, T. B. (2011). Language creativity and co-emergence of form and meaning in creative

writing tasks. Applied Linguistics (Oxford), 32(2), 215-235.

Zuengler, J., & Miller, E. R. (2006). Cognitive and sociocultural perspectives: Two parallel SLA

worlds? TESOL Quarterly, 40(1), 35-58.

Education

Vygotsky’s Socio-Cultural Theory in Terms of Application to Second Language Acquisition