The Modern Lanquage Journal Vol. 83, No. 2, Summer, 1999 Socio-Cognitive Func.. The Modern Language Journal JOURNAL ARTICLE Socio-Cognitive Functions of L1 @ Collaborative Interaction in the L' Classroom Marta Anton and Frederick J. Dicamilla The Modern Language Journal Vol. 83, No. 2 (Summer, 1999), pp. 233-247 Published by: Wiley on behalf of the National Federation of Modern Language Teachers Associations Stable URL: http://www,jstor.org/stable/330338 Page Count: 15Socio-Cognitive Functions of L1 Collaborative Interaction in the L2 Classroom MARTA ANTON Department of Foreign Languages and Cultures Indiana University: Purdue University at Indianapolis Indianapolis, IN 46202 Email: manton @iupui.edu FREDERICK J. DICAMILLA Department of English Indiana UniversityPurdue University at Indianapolis Indianapolis, IN 46202 Email: ficamil@iupui.ed This article and the following response by Gordon Wells are republished from The Canadian Modern Language Review, 54, 3, 1998, pp. 814-3: They are published as part of an article exchange between the MLJand the CMLR. The articles for the exchange were selected by the Editorial Board of each journal (the MJ sclected this article and response from the CMLRand the CMLR selected the article it will publish from the MLJ) according (o the following criteria: articles of particular relevance to interna- tional readers, especially those in the U.S, and Canada; and articles that are likely to provoke scholarly discussion among readers of the journal of their republication. The MLJ article to appear in the CMLR, 55,4, 1999, is “Videoconierencing as Access to Spoken French” by Geleste Kinginger (MLJ, 82,4, 1998, pp. 502-513), The Editors of both journals hope their readers will find this sharing of scholarship to be interesting and beneficial, This paper studies the use of LI in the collaborative interaction of adult learners of Spanish who are native speakers of English. Viewed as a psychological tool that mediates human mental activity on the external (interpsychological) and the internal (intrapsychological) planes, LI use is found to serve a critical function in students’ attempts to mutually define various elements of their task, that is, to establish and maintain intersubjectivity (Rommetveit, 1985) Ako, LI is shown to be an indispensable device for students in providing each other with scaffolded help (Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976). Finally, this study provides evidence of the use of Ll for the purpose of externalizing one’s inner speech (Vygotsky, 1986) throughout the task as a means of regulating one’s own mental activity. The analysis of student interaction pre- sented here not only highlights these critical functions of L1 in the second language learning process, but attempts to show how various communicative moves and linguistic forms achieve these functions, INTRODUCTION THIS PAPER EXAMINES THE SOCIAL AND. cognitive functions of L1 use in the collaborative speech of L2 learners engaged in awriting task in The Modern Language Journal. 83. ii, (1999) 0026-7902/99/283-247 $1.50/0 ©1999 The Modern Language journal the L2 classroom. Looking at LI use within the theoretical framework of Vygotskian psycholin- guistics, the qualitative analysis of learners’ inte action atiempts to demonstrate that L.1 is used as Reprinted by permission of University of Toronto Press Incorporaeed. Copyright © he Canadian Modern Lan: fquage Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes, 54,3 (April/aveil)234 a powerful tool of semiotic mediation between earners (at the interpsychological level) and within individuals (at the intrapsychological level) Interpsychologically, the use of LI enables learners to work effectively in the zone of proxi- mal development (ZPD) by providing scaffolded help (Wood et al., 1975) to each other and by ‘enabling them to construct a shared perspective ‘of the task, that is, to achieve intersubjectivity (Rommetveit, 1985). Intrapsychologically, L1 emerges in collaborative activity in the form of private speech (Vygotsky, 1986) asa cognitive tool in problem resolution, The results of this study provide further evidence that dialogic exchanges in collaborative tasks are important as an activity favourable (o second language acquisition, PREVIOUS STUDIES The role of LI in L2 learning has been widely studied as a source of language transfer or cross- linguistic influence (see Ringbom, 1987) of the native linguistic system on the target language Si system. Studies of learner interaction, however, have not paid much atention to the use of LI Most recent studies in SLA and FLA that are based on interactionist theories of L2 acquisition view collaborative talk as an opportunity to pro- vide comprehensible input in the L2, w assumed to facilitate acquisition (Gass & Varonis, 1985, 1986; Long, 1985; Long & Porter, 1985: Pica, 1987, 1994; Pica & Doughty, 1985, 1988; Porter, 1986; Varonis & Gass, 1985). The focus of these studies has been on the analysis of how L2 input is negotiated by learners and, thus, made comprehensible through the use of conversa tional devices such as clarification requests, com prehension checks, confirmation checks, repet tion, and so on While these studies recognize the importance of collaborative interaction in SLA, their focus on negotiation of L2 input provides an incomplete picture of learners’ interaction in an L2 class room setting. The interaetionist view has been challenged by researchers working within the framework of sociocultural theory. In this line of research, the objective of studying learners’ inter- action is to uncover how learners use speaking, activity as a cognitive tool. By looking at learn speech as cognitive activity, a more refined psy: cholinguistic understanding of what really gocs on in learners interaction is achieved (Brooks & Donato, 1994; Donato & Lantolf, 1990). It is in studies within the sociocultural tradition that the use of Las an important semiotic tool is noted, The Modern Language Journal 83 (1999) especially among L2 leamers with the same L1 background and a low level of proficiency in the second language. What follows is a brief discus- sion of the central principles of sociocultural the- oryand how they have been applied to investigat- ing the use of L1 in second language acqu SOCIOCULTURAL THEORY Accor 1g to Vygotsky (1981, p. 162), falny higher mental function necessarily goes through an external stage in its evelopment because itis initially a social fanction .... Any higher menal function was external because it was social at some point before becoming an internal, truly mental function, In the earliest stage of life the development of higher psychological functions appears on the social plane, that is, in collaboration with adult caregivers or other knowledgeable members of the child’s culture. The transfer of functions from the social (or interpsychological) domain to the cognitive (or intrapsychological) plane occurs within the zone of proximal development (ZPD), which is defined as the difference between the child’s developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the higher level of potential development as de- termined through problem solving under adult guid- ance of in collaboration with more capable peers, (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86) Itis within the ZPD that cognitive development occurs, not only during this early stage but throughout life. We become self-regulated through collaboration with others in our culture, In self-regulation, the control of one’s behaviour does not reside in immediate stimuli (a case of being objectregulated) nor in another person (a case of otherregulation) but rather in an inter- nally self-generated cognitive plan. Not a perma- nent level of development, self-regulation is rela- tive to specific tasks and is best characterized as the attainment of an individual's potential for development in innumerable endeavours which are realized through complex interactions with others in one’s culture and are mediated princi- pally by language As children develop, they begin to use speech (0 attempt to regulate their own learning, pro- cesses; that is, social speech develops into what Vygotsky referred to as egocentric speech, speech for oneself, ‘on its way inward, intimately tied up with the ordering of the child’s behavior, already parily incomprehensible to others, yet still overtMarta Antin and Frederick J. DiCamilla in form’ (Vygotsky, 1986, p. 1588), With time ego- centric speech goes underground, becoming in- ner speech, which in turn is externalized in the performance of cognitively difficult tasks, not only by children (cf. Diaz & Berk, 1992: Zivin, 1979) but by adults as well (cf. Fry, 1992; John- Steiner, 1992: Soskin & John, 1958). Research in, sociocultural theory has revealed certain impor tant properties of the externalized forms of one's inner speech, which have come to be known as Private speech (of interest in the present study), on the one hand, and private writing! (DiCamilla, 1991; DiCamilla & Lantolf, 1994; JohnSteiner, 1987) on the other. To begin, private speech is social in its genesis and may therefore be social or communicative in its appearance, but it is never- theless psychological in function. That is, it is speech directed to the self for the purpose of directing and organizing one’s menial activity, Second, private speech is often more abbreviated than social speech, lacking what Vygotsky re- ferred to as a “psychological subject’ while con- taining numerous ‘psychological predicates’ (1985, p. 189), The former has to do with whatan utterance is about and what is already in the mind Of the listener, and the latter is what is said about the psychological subject—a distinction very simi- lar to that made by Chafe (1976) between given and new information (Werisch, 1979) One of the chief areas of inquiry in sociocultu- ral theory has concerned the question of how language serves to mediate human activity both ‘on the interpyychological plane, in the form of social speech (and/or writing), and on the in- trapsychological plane, in the form of private speech (and/or writing). In the later domain, for example, researchers have studied the con- tent, elliptical form, syntactic structure, and other formal linguistic properties (eg. tense, as pect, modality, reference) of speech and writing directed to oneself for the purpose of planning for and guiding oneself through a variety of tasks (c-g., DiCamilla, 1991; DiCamilla & Lantolf, 1994; Frawley & Lantolf, 1985; John-Steiner, 1987; McCafierty, 1992, 1994; Pellegrini, 198]; Wertsch, 1979). With regard to the interpsychological plane, that is, the collaborative interaction of in- iduals, researchers have investigated how the language of expert, or otherwise more knowl edgeable, peers and of learners best serves the goal of moving the learner through his or her ZPD to the point where the learner becomes self regulated in the performance of some task (sec, for example, Ahmed, 1994; Aljaafreh & Lantolf, 1994; Behrend, Rosengren, & Perlmutter, 1992; De Guerrero & Villamil, 1994; Diaz, Neal, & 235 Vachio, 1991; Donato, 1994; Ohta, 1995; Rad viszewska & Rogoff, 1991; Schinke-Llano, 1994; Villamil & De Guerrero, 1996; Wertsch, Minick, & ‘Ars, 1984), In summary, throughout one’s life, language is used to regulate others and to regu- late ourselves and servesas a psychological tool in organizing functions (e.g., voluntary attention, perception, planning, memory, conceptual thought, evahuating) critical to mental activity The concept of scaffolding originates with the work of Wood et al. (1976) and serves asa meta- phor for the interaction between an expertand a novice engaged in a problem-solving task. Ac. cording to Wood et al., scaffolding involves the expert taking control of those portions of a task that are beyond the leamer’s current level of competence, thus allowing the learner to focus on the elements within his or her range of ability (p.90). Importantly, and in accord with Vygot- sky's view of the zone of proximal development, Wood et al. add that the process can potentially achieve much more for the learner than an assisted completion of the task. TL ‘may result, eventually in development of task compe- tence by the learner ata pace that could far outstrip his unassisted effores. (p90) ‘The scaffolded help that the expert provides to the novice is characterized by six functions: 1. Recruitment—enlisting the learner's inter- est in the task, 2. Reduction in degrees of freedom—simplify ing the task, 3. Direction maintenance—keeping the learner morivated and in pursuit of the goal, 4, Marking critical features—highlighting cer- tain relevant features and pointing out discrepan- cies between what has been produced and the ideal solution, 5. Frustration control—reducing stress and. frustration during problem solving, and 6. Demonstration—modelling an idealized form of the act to be performed by completing the act or by explicating the learner's partial so- lution (Wood et al. 1976, p. 98). As Stone (1993, p. 170) points out, ‘A persisting limitation of the metaphor of scaffolding relates to the specification of the communicative mecha- isms involved in the adult-child interaction con- stituting the scaffolding.” Further, Stone empha- sizes, and we would agree, that “[t]hese mechanisms are crucial to Vygotsky's theoretical framework'(p.170). That is, the use of language (and other semiotic systems, eg, gestures) is the critical device for mediating cognitive develop- ment. Itis within the ZPD that scaffolding occurs,236 or that semiotically mediated interactions lead to development. Stone goes on to discuss various ways of analyzing scaffolding as semiotic interac tions. Among other things, he discusses the role of utterances which ‘presuppose some as yet unpro- vided information,” (p. 171) which is what Rom metveit (1974, 1979) refers to as ‘prolepsis.’ Such utterances challenge a listener /learner to partake of the speaker's/expert’s view of a problemsoh ing situation, that is, to construct with the expert a shared perspective or what Rommetveit (1985) calls “intersubjectivity.” According to Wertsch (1985, p. 59), intersubjectivity is achieved when ‘interlocutors share some aspect of their situation definitions,” that is, when individuals working in collaboration define the objects (both concrete and abstract), events, and goals of a task in the sameway. Moreover, the ‘overlap” in definitions of situations that constitute intersubjectivity may oc- cur at many different levels, thus creating various levels of intersubjectivity (Wertsch, p. 159). In this view, the communication that ultimately, leads to development within a learner's ZPD must not only achieve the functions of scaffolding but also establish and maintain levels of intersubjec- tivity without which scaffolding, and therefore the learner's development, may be precluded. Thus, Stone argues that the semiotics of scaffold- ing (and, we would add, those of intersubjectivity and of private speech within the ZPD) are com plex and that a full understanding of these intri- cate interactions requires the analysis of such communicative moves as prolepsis and of other more purely linguistic devices such as the use of words which, in themselves, presuppose informa- tion in a discourse (eg, factive verbs), along with non-verbal modelling. As Wertsch (1991, pp. 12-13) argues, ‘to understand human mental ac- tion one must understand the semiotic devices used to mediate such action.’ In this paper we hope to provide insight into how various features of the L.] used by our subjects play a strategic role as the subjects jointly attempt to perform their assigned tasks. Specifically, by analyzing our sub- jects’ communicative moves, we demonstrate tha their use of LI, a fairly obvious feature of thei interaction, plays a strategic cognitive role both in scaffolding and in establishing intersubjectivity and externalizing their inner speech as is neces sary 10 perform the task, achieve their goals, and thus realize their levels of potential development. Our study of the use of [1 from a sociocuk tural perspective is not the first within this theo- retical approach to second language learning. Other studies of students’ collaborative interac tions have analyzed discourse that occurs in their ‘The Modern Language Journal 83 (1999) subjects’ native languages (¢.g., Brooks & Do- nato, 1994; De Guerrero & Villamil, 1994; Donato, 1994; Donato & Lantolf, 1990; Platt & Brooks, 1994; Swain, 1995; Villamil & De Guer- rero, 1996). Although none of the studies we have reviewed focuses on the role of LI in their subjects’ interactions, native language use does not pass without comment by researchers abo the range of functions it serves and its overall importance to successful collaboration. So, for example, Brooks and Donato (1994), in a study English-speaking students of Spanish engaged in a problem-solving task, observe, among other things, that their subjects need to use their na- tive language to deploy ‘metatalk . . . talk by the participants about the task at hand and the discourse that constitutes the task’ (p. 266) and that LI use constitutes ‘a normal psycholinguis tic process that facilitates L2 production and ak lows the learners both to initiate and sustain ver- bal interaction with one another’ (p. 268, ct Donato & Lantolf, 1990). Similarly, De Guerrero and Villamil (1994) and Villamil and DeGuer- Tero (1996) comment on the use of Spanish (the LI in this ease) by their subjects in learning to English, In fact, in their wide-ranging study of peer revision, Villamil and De Guerrero list five ‘mediating strategies’ of student collabo- rators, three of which are using the Ll, provide ing scaffolding (much of it in L1), and vocaliz- ing private speech (in LI). The authors conclude that for the majority of their students “the LI wasan essential tool for making meaning of text, retrieving language from memory, ex: ploring and expanding content, guiding the action through the task, and maintaining dia logue’ (p. 60). Our study builds on these studies by taking as its focus of attention the use of Li in student collaboration within the zone of proximal development as a critical psychological tool deployed for the three important functions noted above the construction of scaffolded help, the establishment of intersubjectivity, and the use of private speech. THE STUDY The Subjects ‘The source of data for this study is the collabo- rative talk of five dyads of students completing a writing task in a foreign language class. The ten subjects in the study were adult learners of Span- ish enrolled in a six-week intensive Spanish class at the beginner level, The class met daily for a period of three hours. The students were all na-‘Marta Antén and Frederick J. DiCamilla tive speakers of English with little or no previous experience with Spanish. Four of the five pairs were cross-gender. The composition of the dyads remained the same for all three collaborative tasks. ‘The Task The writing tasks were informative in nature, as opposed to, say, the production of narratives or persuasive essays. The writing prompts were the following: 1. Imagine that you and your classmate are going on a trip to Mexico. Tell me about what you plan to do on this trip. 2. Tell me about popular sports and players in your country and your favorite sports. 8. Tell me about eating habits in the United States, most popular food, restaurants, ete. ‘The Method Audio recordings of the three collaborative ses sions were conducted in a language laboratory, and audiotapes were transcribed verbatim, The purpose of analyzing these transcriptions was to study the nature of the collaborative process and the strategies used by subjects in collaboration. INTERPSYCHOLOGICAL FUNCTIO! LL and Scaffolding In the analysis of learners’ collaborative speech, L1 is deployed to provide scaffolded help in the ZPD. By means of the L1 the students enlist and maintain each other's interest in the task throughout its performance, develop strategies for making the task manageable, maintain their focus on the goal of the task, foreground impor- tant elements of the task, discuss what needsto be done to solve specific problems, and explicate and build on each other's partial solutions to specific problems throughout the task. In what follows, we will illustrate how the use of L1 medi- ates the activity of learners when they are en- gaged in accessing 12 linguistic forms, making sense of the form or meaning of a text and evalu. ating a text in L2. Ultimately, our analysis shows that LI use provides, through collaborative dia- logue, an opportunity for L2 acquisition to take place. The following two excerpts illustrate the key role that LI plays in accessing L2 forms. In the first excerpt students are composing a text about the eating habits of Americans. 237 : I don’t know the word for snack, Oh, so you just say ‘in the afternoon’? D: G: D: We we could . .. in the afternoon. G: So what time in the afternoon? 6 D: Um. 7G: Or do you want to just say in the afternoon? 8 D: Let’ssay: 9 G: Por la tarde? 10D: Ler’sjust do "por .. la tarde ....' 11 G: Por la tarde ...comen . .. what do they eat? 12 D: Um... frutas. 18 G: Comen frutas lt D0. Ib GO... 16D: I don’t know how to say uh . . .candy cor 17 G:Um, 18 D: Um I don’tremember the word for snack, either. 19 G: Uh, fray. ..0., Mas azuca. 20 D: Thatworks for me because that's basically what it is In line 1 the students overtly address the prob- Jem of accessing the linguistic items needed to express their idea, The problem is stated in the assertion in 1 (‘I don'tknow the word for snack’), which serves the function of seeking a tansla- tion. The other learner expresses her inability to help with the hesitation form (‘um’) followed by a long pause (2). The exclamation ‘Oh’ in 3 is the externalization of G's internally generated dis covery of a sohution to the problem, which is revealed in the subsequent discourse to be the construction of the event of snacking. That is, minus the lexical item, the students will perform a kind of componential analysis of ‘snack’ by lo- cating the event of eating at a time of day other than customary meal times and by generating vocabulary for the types of foods one would o1 narily snack on. G initiates the strategy by 1% two forms, in particular, which mark his utterance as a proposal: first, the form ‘so,” which indicates that G has come to some conclusion; second, the form ‘just,’ which carries the implication that say ing ‘in the afternoon’ will suffice to mark the eating event as something other than breakfast, lunch, or dinner, namely, as a snack. In line 16, a problem is encountered that leads students to reflect on language. What we find is an interaction pattern similar to the exchanges in lines 2-4. The assertion ‘I don’t know how to say uh .. . candy corn” (16) is answered by a hesita- tion word (‘um’) and silence. Tt seems that there has been an unsuccessful search for a paraphrase, which ends in recognized failure, expressed by the assertion “I don't remember the word for238 snack, either..." However, in line 19, G offers an alternative (mas azticar) or what amounts to an- other use of the strategy used for the word for a componential analysis of ‘candy,’ in this case a very literal componential analysis, since sugar is normally the key ingredient of candy. Again the strategy is accepted by D in 20 ("that works for me’) with an explanation of why ‘aziicar" is acceptable (‘that’s basically what itis’), In this exchange, utterances in L.1 mediate the cognitive processes that learners use in problem- solving tasks, specifically, to reflect on the content and the form of the text, For instance, utterances such as ‘I don't know the word for. ...” indicate that the learners are searching for translations of words and expressions. These utterances trigger a semantic analysis and related lexical search, a communicative and cognitive strategy that leads the learners to jointly access the L2 forms that are available to them and are sufficient for the task. Interestingly, when the composition of the text represents less of a cognitive challenge for learm- cers, the text is created directly in L2. This is he case in lines 11-13, Although Li is used in 11 to request ideas for the content of the text, itis clear that rendering the form “they eat fruit’ is not problematic for these students; thus text is cre ated directly in L2. ‘The following excerpt illustrates the use of L.1 as a mediating device in the construction of cok lective scaffolding (Donato, 1994) by which two novices are able to provide scaffolded help 0 each other through interaction. By using L1] these learners provide mutual help to each other that will lead to the solution of the problem: in this particular case, to access a linguistic item, the Spanish equivalent of ‘to arrive.” 1 R: Do we just stare writing? We write the exact same thing? Allright ... imagine we're go- ing on a tip to Mexico, Tell me what you plan to do on this trip... .all right... start it off. . .'m horrible at starting things off. 2 T: Let’ say, how do you say, um... we're gonna, we'll arrive there? 3. Re Um, arrivar, I don’t know, uh, why don’t we 4. T: ‘Cause we could say we're gonna be, we're gonna get there at, and we can putit in, you We, andl the time, and. 5 Rs Allright, all sight, allright ... to arrive is, 1 think, i's i g Fr 3 R: That's después, leave .. «is, um. Why do we have co have the recorder on? R: ‘Cause she wants to record everything we say, so wateh it. a The Modern Language Journal 83 (1999) 10 T: Okay TI R: So we could say, why don’t we say, like, uh, T. 12. T: We just learned, we just learned the word to g0.um. 13 R: Vamos? 14 T: No, the 's' word. 15 R: Ub, salgo...Salir... Yeah, 16 T: Togo... .okay. 17 R: Okay, you're right, um, The learners are engaged in the creation of the first sentence of their text, a composition about a fictitious trip to Mexico. Of particular interest are the utterances in which the learners are develop- ing the form of the verb ‘to leave’ (2-17). The original intention of these learners is to use the Spanish equivalent of the verb ‘to arrive’ (2). But when the search for the appropriate linguistic form is unsuccessful, T offers an alternative: ‘how about leave?” (6). The production of this verb form is interrupted by offtask exchanges (8-10). When the learners return to the task, T makes an utterance that serves as a kind of cognitive prompt ("We just learned the word to go"). This utterance triggers a search for a particular lin- {guistic item that was available to the learners in a particular context, the previous class meeting, and by bringing that to the attention of the part ner, sets in motion collective scaffolding that wi facilitate the resolution of the problem. In 13, R presents a possible translation for ‘to go’ Cvamos?’), which is overtly rejected by his part ner (‘no’), who, in turn, adds another piece of the scaffolding (‘the °s" word’), This seems to be just enough help for R to produce the correct vocabulary item (‘salgo .. . salir’), immediately realizing that the search has been successful, as is evident by his uttering ‘yeah’ in the same turn (15). T corroborates the success of the search in 16 ("to go .... okay’). R restates acceptance of the new item in 17 (‘okay’), The assertion chat fol lows (‘you are right’) acknowledges T's role in providing scaffolding for the production of the lexical item, ‘The two members of the dyad have managed to construct a dialogue that hasbeen effective in the construction of collective scaffolding, that is, a complex interaction in which no individual mem ber was able to produce the vocabulary item but each contributed the right amount of help to the other in the collective production of the appro- priate Linguistic form. As it has been observed in other studies of learner interaction (Donato, 1994; De Guerrero & Villamil, 1996; Ohta, 1995), in collaborative activity between learners at theMarta Antén and Frederick J. DiCamilla same level of proficiency, knowledge shifts. be- tween the members of the group aseach member of the group contributes different skills and areas of expertise to the task. LI use also has a metalinguistic function when students are trying to produce complex linguistic forms or understand why they are using parti lar linguistic form (cf. Brooks & Donato, 1994; Donato, 1994; Swain & Lapkin, 1996). For in- stance, in the following exchange, students are engaged in rendering the Spanish form for ‘we eat lunch.” Um... How do: Almuer Junch. Oh... .comemos... oh What do you want to say? Almuerzos? We eat lunch . .. almuer Ies not. it’s alms? out say ‘Ianch"? almuer ... zamos.. . 4 we eat = Famos, Yeah FaRSPae don’t change the “zamos' to “er” i’salmuer, ..almuerrar, : How do you say ‘almuerzo? Menaverr-0 Yeah ... that’s ‘Teat lunch.” How do you say we... almor 14 1: Oh 15. R: It's‘0" to ‘ue’ remember? So we keep itto the ‘0. Make sense? 16 T: OK. You're so smart zaps Once they access the correct lexical item (2), students face the challenge of producing the cor- reet verb form, which enuils a great degree of linguistic complexity because students have 10 choose the appropriate verb ending and decide what forms of the verb paradigm require a stem- vowel change. In order to sohe the problem of how to say “we eat lunch,” students resort 10 two mechanisins: one is repetition of the verb form with variation (see Di & Antén, 1997), through which the students gradually approxi mate to the correct verb form; the other mecha- nism is the use of LI for metalanguage. R initiates this episode by starting a lexical search (1). T provides the lexical item (2 and 6), but the verb inflection is incorrect. R rejects the form (7) but is unable to provide the correct form yet. Repeti- tion of alternative forms of this verb and metalan- guage in LL in subsequent lines (9 and 15) allow him to produce the correct form (13) and overtly state the grammatical rule (15): “It’s “o” to “ue” remember? So we keep it to the “o,” explicitly invoking his conscious knowledge of a grammati 239 cal process by which the first person plural of the verb paradigm is exempt from undergoing the stem-vowel change that affects other forms of the paradigm (‘o' to ‘ue’), The two learners in this dyad collaboratively construct the scaffolding that will enable them to produce the L2 form they are secking. T contributes the lexical item, and R is able to contribute the appropriate flected form only after engaging in effective dia- logic activity with the other member of the dyad. It seems difficult to imagine how these learners would have been able to produce the Spanish form without the mediation of LI as a cognitive tol. Learners also use LI asa tool 10 evaluate and understand the meaning of a text in L2. For it stance, in the episode below, the pair is attempt- ing to produce the Spanish form for ‘we eat breakfast.’ We observe the use of Ll in line 1 to, elicit the Spanish form, which is provided by S in 2. The Spanish form ‘desayuno’ is evaluated in 3 by A, who accepts the lexical item by uttering ‘yea’ but indicates that there is a problem and that the problem lies in the failure to produce the appropriate inflected verb form (‘well, we . «')- When the correct form is produced in 5, S uses L1 to make sense of the meaning of the L2 form. In fact, Li is necessary for S at this point to distinguish between the Spanish form produced by A (‘desayunamos,’ we have breakfast) and the form he had initially set out to produce in 2 (we eat breakfast, ‘comemos el desayuno") 1A: Hmmmmm ...we eat breakfast... how do S: Desayuno? A: Yea, well, we St We eat breakfast? A: Desayunamos. Si Desayunamos ‘we have breakfast, To further illustrate the function of L1 asa tool to evaluate the L2 text, consider the following excerpt in which learners are writing about eat- ing habits in the U.S. 1S: Para... un... postre ... es... popular comer... helado. 2D: Now, what are you trying to say? 3S: Um... fordesert it's popular to eat ice cream. 4 Ds Isthat what you said? 5 8: No. 6 Ds That was right, you're right 7S: Para un postre. 8D: For dessert. 9S: Ummm hmmm... es popular.10D: t's popula Comer el helado. To eat ice crear Minn aan. Now, read it again? S: Para un postre es popular comer el helado. Okay, is that ie exchange S produces the text dircetly ‘order to evaluate what S has produced, D resorts to LI in several forms. First, she asks directly for the meaning of the text (2), which is translated to L.| by $ in 3. Then D requests that S evaluate the text that he has produced (4) and evaluates the text herself in 6 (‘that was right, you are right). In line 7, $ starts to break down the text for D. D translates the portions of the text read by S (lines 8, 10, and 12), and in the act of translation D makes sense for herself of the L2 forms presented. Once she has made meaning of each individual portion of the text, D requests that the Spanish sentence be read to her again (14) for a global evaluation, which she offers in 16 (‘Okay’) LI and Intersubjectivity In the collaborative activity of L2 learners, LI serves not only cognitive functions, as illustrated. in the previous section, but social functions as well. Use of 1 seemsto be necessary, at least with low L2 proficiency learners, to construct a social space that will facilitate the completion of the task by enabling learners to achieve intersubjec- tivity, that is,a shared perspective on the task. The analysis of the following excerpts illustrates how imtersubjectivity is effectively achieved through dialogue in LI. The discussion of the first excerpt focuses on the dual social and cognitive functions of English modal verbs in the collaborative speech of 12 learners. Uns. en la ciudad «um say Mexico City isa big city with los of peo- ple? Hay muchas personas? 2D: Okay, 3S: Orin Mexico City ler’s just say Mexico City isa big city with a lot of people, is that okay? D: Yeah, 5S: Idon'twant to tell you what to-say, I just thought (ugh). 6D: No, don’t know what else to say... there's more T want to say, I just can't, we haven't learned it... la ciudad de Mexico esti? Es, The Modern Language Journal 83 (1999) 7S: You could say ‘thay’ there are a lot of people. D: Twas going to say es muy grande, 9S: That's, that's great. D: Yhay . .. muchos personas... . here, how about this? Hay... hay més personas, wait, no, en la ciudad de Mexico, estin mas perso- nas que Indianapolis IS: Tdon’t. . say itagain. 12 Dr Uh, en Ia eittdad de Mexico, estin mae perso: nas wh. que ... Indianapolis. 13S; You want to say there are a lot of people from Indianapolis 14 D: There are more people in Mexico City than Indianapolis... 15 S: So, would yo hhay mas personas ...en la ciudad de Mexico que Indianapolis: 16D; That's what I thought... 17 S Isdhat, okay. 18D: Hay mis personas... okay, en la ciudad de Mexico... que Indianapolis... what else? Does ciudad have an accent? 19 S: It probably does, but I don’t know where augh). 20D: Okay, what else? is that i In this excerpt, we see students using their LI to perform the task. Use of LI is necessary, of course, but what's interesting is that the LI is used not only to generate content and to reflect on material generated in LI or L2, but also to create a social and cognitive space, an intangible workplace, in which the students are able to pro- vide cach other with help throughout the task The subtle meanings and functions of a variety of forms have pragmatic purposes that cross be- tween the social and cognitive domains, as would be expected within the Vygotskian framework, So, for example, we see forms deployed simulta- neously for their social, specifically polite, fune- tion and for their cognitive, specifically hypo- thetical, function. This oceurs in 7, when S uses ‘could’ to propose a possible solution to the prob- lem of how to say ‘there are,’ namely the Spanish form ‘hay.’ By using ‘could’ S fulfils certain crite- ia of beneficial help in the ZPD that have been identified in sociocultural theory (Aljaafreh & Lantolf, 1994).* To begin with, of course, he of fers help, but more than that he presents a sol tion marked for hypotheticality, that is, for its posible value. In so doing, S gives the utterance an illocutionary force akin to that of a question, in that itis not an assertion, at least not a categor* cal assertion Questions, in turn, are forms which have been observed to mark beneficial interaction between mothers and their children engaged in puzzle- solving tasks (Wertsch, 1980). By asking quesMarta Antin and Frederick J. DiCamilla tions, or by marking utterances for their hypo- thetical stance with forms like ‘could,’ inter locutors operate on the cognitive plane with ideas and on the social plane with polite forms designed to actively engage another in solving a problem. Note that to suggest or to propose that is the case is (0 offer X for the listener's con- sideration and thereby invite the listener’s active Participation in the task. In the above excerpt, D picks up on S's suggestion in 10, but in the same line returns to use ‘estén.’ D uses ‘estin’ again in 12, when she says ‘estan mas personas.” Once again, rather than simply assert what the correct verb is, S deploys a form, ‘would,’ which marks a proposition simultaneously for its hypo- thetical status and as a polite suggestion: ‘would you say... hay mas personas’ in 15, Moreover, this is presented in the form of the question. S gets the desired result in D's response in 18: "hay mas personas. . . okay. .. ." By the strategic use of the forms deployed in this intricate interac- tion, $ did more than solve a problem; he e gaged his partner in the solution in such a way as to maintain their workphice, that is, the cog nitive and social space created by their common. motives and goals. There are other L1 utterancesin the collabora. tive speech of L2 learners which serve social pur- poses in negotiating a good cooperative atmos phere in which to carry out the task. Let us consider the following excerpt ag 1G: Idon't know the word for smack. 2 D: Um, 3G: Oh, so you just say in the afternoon’ 4D: We we could .. in the afternoon. 5G: Sowhat time in the afternoon? 6 D: Um. 7G: Or do you want to just say in the afternoon, 8D: Ler'ssay. 9G: Por la tarde? Tatarde...." what do they eat? 10 Ds Let's just do ‘por 11 G: Por latarde, .. comen 12 D: Um... frutas, 18 G: Comen frutas. 14D: 0. 15 GO... 16D: don't know how to say uh... . candy cor. 17 G: Um, 18 D: Um... don't remember the word for snack, either Uh, frutaso ....0... Mas amuca. D: That works for me because that's basically whatit is. In this interaction studentsare trying to render the equivalent of ‘snack’ in Spanish. In line 3 G 241 suggests an alternative way (0 express the idea they are trying to communicate. Acceptance of this alternative form is signalled in 4 through the use of a modal (‘could’) that denotes possibility and a certain measure of indecision. G responds with the use of a decision marker (‘so") which indicates that the decision to use ‘in the after- noon’ has been agreed upon by both members of the dyad and that, therefore, itis time to move on by deciding what time in the afternoon. The hesi tation form ‘um’ followed by silence (6) is inter- preted here as not accepting the suggestion to include a specific time, a clue that seems to be picked up by G in 7 when he offers the alternative of not including a time by asking ‘or do you want to just say in the afternoon?" What follows (8-11) expresses the agreed decision to say simply “in the afternoon.’ This is done by using the utterance ‘let's say,’ which implies a considerable degree of assertion and inclusion, Repetition of the phrase ‘por la tarde’ in 12 concludes this sub-event, and new material begins to be added to the text (comen’). G uses an interrogative in this case with the purpose of inviting peer collaboration (‘what do they eat"), Other uses of the L1 helped the subjects in our study to create and maintain intersubjectivity by providing them with the tools to control the task, specifically to limit intermediate goals through- out the task, thereby making the task manage- able. Also, the use of LI enabled students to con- tinually check with each other in defining and limiting the task as it unfolded, To illustrate these functions, consider the following protocol in which students begin the task of writing a descrip- tion ofa fictitious trip to Mexico. LS: Does that mean we have to be in Mexico City? Can it be anyplace in Mexico? It just says Mexico. D: Yeah, you're just going to Mexico, Do you want to go to the city of Mexico? 3S Yeah. Let's... let's... that'sgood enough .. okyy, D: Olay S: (laugh) D: Cheater S Olay. That's 100 easy Here the students check with each other re- garding the boundaries of the task by considering ing the topic to just Mexico City. The simple question “Do you want. . .?” is used throughout their collaboration to simultaneously make sug- gestions about sub-goals of the task (as opposed to, say, making suggestions about the content or Spanish form of the composition) and consult242 with each other in such a way as to foster agree- ment about these sub-goals. After agreeing that just saying that they went to Mexico City would be “too easy,’ the students decide (0 include a discus- sion of Guadalupe but find a way to make this part of the task manageable, as we see in the following discussion about the shrine of the vir- gin of Guadalupe. 1S: Let's just say its, um, in the northern partof the city. Do you want to say thar? 2 D: Okay. 3S Esa. 4D: Esti... en. S: Enel nore. ‘Once again we see that the L1 is used not solely for the purpose of suggesting content for the composition but also for the purpose of limiting the content, here by means of the word ‘just,’ and thereby controlling the task. Further, $ explicitly checks with D by asking “Do you want to say that?" In other words, use of LI makes it possible for S not only to propose what to say about the Shrine to the Virgin of Guadalupe but also to propose a sub-goal of the overall task, that is, to say only this, about the shrine, and then to make sure that D agrees with the situation defined in terms of this sub-goal. Moves such as these help to establish and maintain intersubjectivity. In the following excerpt, we present data from the interaction of wo students attempting to write a composition about sports in the U.S. The portions of their interaction presented demon- strate the value of L1 in arriving at a shared un- derstanding of the objects, events, goals, and sub- goals of the task as the students consider which sports to write about, what to say about them, and. the order in which to discuss them. Z: Ready? We're going... Okay ...um, Z: Popular sports, futhol y basketball, si” You ‘want to talk about those two? 1 2 3 (Later) 5S: Okyy. Olay... um... Would you say like, there’s many stars? 6 Z Mmmhmmm ... There are many stars, ant they are very rich. 7S: Oh, we can say the players are very rich. Los Jugadores son muy rico. 8) Z: Olay. You want to say they're stars first, and then, The Modern Language Journal 83 (1999) 9S; It doesn’t really matter. 10 Z: Okay LL S: What do you want to do? 12 2: Yeah, that's fine. Okay... ut, (Later) 13. Z: All we need to say is... the stary of football, and then name them... are. 14 S: Okay. 15 Z: What is ‘some"? ‘Some’ of the stars. Do you know ‘some’ 16 S: Okay. TF don't know it 17 Z: Tdon'ceither . .. um. 18 S: Algunos? | don’t know what that is. 19 Z: Idon't know.. .. well, [don’t know what you're trying to say, Muy... what? 20 S: I was just going to say that some po... wanted tosay some popular players of foo, you know, American football are, QL Z Okay. We can say. um... we don’e know some... .Can we say quien ... popular de... futbol son, and then we can, 22 S: Or we could say los jugadores populares 23 Z: Okay. De ,.. do you want to do football first? 24 S: Yeah. (Later) 25 Z: You want 1o say some of the popular teams are. S: Okay... 10s equipos.. . Z: Do we still have to say cle fitbol? Did you say that’ S: No. I didn't... .son... Z: Popularesson .. . Dallas Cowboys ...¥ + how many do we want to name? S: We'll ust do two. You I don’t know who else to put. Who was in the bowl? I can’t remember who they played. The Bills again, Buffalo 1 know, but what... well, let's just put Buffalo Bills. How's that? %: Okay. S: Okay. Se S8 exes neN Bas eee a7 38 At the outset of the interaction, the students set the limits of their topic (o specific popular sports: “fiithol y basketball,’ ‘those two.’ Later, in 5-12, they not only agree on the content, a discussion of players being stars who are rich, but Z also (8) questions the sequence of the information they will write about the players: “You want to say they're stars first and the doesn’t matier and then asks what Z wanes (0 do, In this brief exchange each member of the dyad ». ? S says that itMarta Anton and Frederick J. DiCamilla checks with the other not so much for the sake of enhancing the text they are producing as for the sake of maintaining their shared perspective of the task ay it unfolds, Later in their interaction (13-24), the students agree on another sub-goal of the task and its organization, that is, to name a few popular players (13-22) and to begin with football, respectively. Finally, in 25-38, the two students use their 1.1 to establish another man- ageable subgoal of their task. Specifically, they jointly decide to extend their discussion of sports in the U.S. by including a discussion of popular teams (25-80) and apparently to limit the discus ion to just naming two teams: the Dallas Cowboys (29) and ‘Well, let's just put Buffalo Bills.” Thus, throughout the interaction the students use their 11 to establish mutual agreement on the objects, events, goals, and sub-goals that define their task; that is, they use their LI to establish and maintain intersubjectivity. INTRAPSYCHOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS OF LI USE Private Speech Language functioning on the intrapsychologi- cal plane is often externalized as private speech, which, because it has its genesis in social speech, is dialogic in nature (Vygotsky, 1979). In the ex- cerpt that follows, learners engaged in collabora: tive dialogue are shown to use private speech as a tol to direct their own thinking in the face of a cognitively difficult task. 1S: Um... enta ciudad... um... you wantto say Mexico City isa big city with lots of peo- ple? Hay muchas personas? 2 Dr Okay. 3S: Orin Mexico City... let's ust say Mexico Gity isa big city with a lot of people, is that okay? 4D: Yeah 5 S: I don’t want to tell you what to say, I just thought (laugh) © D:No, don’t know what else tosay.... there's more F want to say I just can't, we haven't earned it. . la ciudad de Mexico ... es or esti? Es, 7S: You could say “hay” there are a lot of people. Dr Lwas going to say es S: That's, thar's great 10D. Yhay... muchos personas... here, how about this? Hay .. . hay mas personas, wait, no, en la ciudad de Mexico, estan in ras que Indianapolis... is that right? Idon't.. .say it again... ns: 23, 12. D: Uh, en la ciudad de Mexico, estin mis perso- nas uh, que... . Indianapolis. 13S: You want to say there are a lot of people from Indianapolis? 14. D:Thereare more people in Mexico City than Indianapolis. 15S: So, would you say... hay més personas. . en la ciudad de Mexico que Indianapolis? 16D: That's what I thought 17S: Is that, okay 18D: Hay mas personas... okay, en la ciudad de Mexico . .. que Indianapolis... what else? Does ciudad have an accent? t probably does, but { don't know where (laugh) 20D: Okay, what else? 19 In 6, D questions whether she should use ‘es? “esti.” She immediately answers this question herself, indicating that it was not, in faet, a ques- tion posed to her partner but an instance of pri- vale speech in which she presented herself with ‘two options and, by vocalizing the question, was able to provide the correct response. In the fol lowing line, $ provides another possibility in a suggestion which includes the modal ‘could,’ fol- lowed by the transiation into LI of what he just, said, What follows is a clarification of D's inten- tion and acceptance of the text by § (‘that’s great’ in 9). In the following line, D continues to de- velop text in L2, but develops their original idea into a slightly different one. The moment at which D thinks of the new sentence is marked by a halt in the sentence she was creating (hay muchos personas, .. ..) and the word ‘here’ fol- lowed by a request to consider the new possibility Chow about this), Then D starts creating the new sentence direcily in L2 (10). The words "wait, no! in the middle of the new sentence seem to be addressed to herself, not to her partner. These words indicate self-evaluation of what has been produced so far and a decision to change word order in the sentence. Uttering these words re- flects the cognitive processing the learner is gor ing through; they are another instance of private speech or talk that regulates thinking at the in- trapsychological plane. When the whole sentence has been produced, talk (urns social again, and D asks her partner to evaluate the sentence she has just produced by uttering the question ‘Is that right?" (10). $ requests a repetition of the new sentence (11), and in 13S translates the sentence and asks D if what he understands is what she meant, In 14, D translates her sentence. Once the content in L1 is clear, $ isin a position to conduct an evaluation of the appropriateness of the new sentence. or244 As we can see, private speech emerges in cok laborative interaction in different forms. Some- times the linguistic form is similar to the type of utterance addressed to other learners, that is, itis communicative in appearance. For instance, the question with options in 6 can only be identified as private speech because of the fact that it is immediately answered by the same person who posed the question. In other instances, private speech takes a more elliptical form; since the meaning is addressed to oneself, the thought does not need to be overtly stated (‘no in 10 may be interpreted as ‘I'll start the sentence in a dif ferent way’) To further illustrate the emergence of private speech in collaborative talk, let us consider the language in the following excerpt. The italicized portions represent, we believe, the private speech of one of the subjects, specifically A’s remarks in 7,9, and 15. 5 A: Um, bailamos, bailamos. 6 S: Bailamos? 7 A: Minm hmmm, no, okay, we can say afer the, af 8 S: Whar's‘after’ después? 9A: Mmm hmmm, despues... after... we cen say afer our walk, ... s0 afte, nuestro paseo, nuesere paseo, ofter ur walk... dancing. . 15 A: The... [don’tknow .... um, [forget .. 50 af ter nar walk... et’sjust say... bmn we're going. .- Certain features of A’s discourse help identify itas private speech. First, in 7, she responds with the affirmative “mmm hmmin’ to S's question concerning what she had said in 5. She follows immediately with ‘no,’ which doesn’t make sense as a response to S's question (ie., as social speech), since she had indeed said “bailamos’ and has just responded in the affirmative regarding that. From this we conchide that the utterance of ‘no’ helps A to extemalize her own thoughts, pethaps having to do with the use of the form ‘bailamos.” The private nature of her use of the negative is further evidenced by the fact that its scope, whatever it is, remains covert, unex: presed, and indeed set aside by A as she next utters ‘okay,’ which likewise does not serve as a response to $ but as a kind of boundary marker, in A’s thinking, between specific tasks. That is, with the utterance of ‘okay’ A begins the task of creating a connection between the preceding ma- terial, which was about their taking a walk, and the new material under consideration about go- ing dancing. ‘Another feature of A's discourse which is evi ‘The Modern Language Journal 83 (1999) dence that it contains private speech is the use of the modal verb ‘can’ in 7 and 9, when she consid- ers how to create a bridge between the previous material and the new material, DiCamilla and Lantolf (1994) report on the pervasive use of modal forms in the compositions of novice writ ers (English speakers writing in English) and ar- gue that they serve as a means of externalizing ‘one’s inner speech as a kind of questioning or hypothesizing to oneself about how ( perform the task? Once externalized, these markers of selfaddressed questions often result in more as sertive expressions as material initially considered for its potential place in a composition is incorpo- rated into the student's writing, Interestingly, we ‘observe something of that sort in A’s discourse. Thatis, the form ‘can’ appears twice as she exter- nalizes what she is thinking of saying, but it disap- pears as she seemingly decides to accept what she has proposed in her private speech when she says “so, after, nuestro paseo, nuestro paseo, after our walk...” (9). Together the forms ‘can’ and ‘so" mark the passage from self-addressed question to selfaddressed answer about how to join material in the composition. Another indication of the selfaddressed, pri- vate nature of A’s discourse is the use of the definite article in her initial attempt to connect the previous material in the text with the new naterial when she says ‘after the” (7). The use of the definite article often serves to encode infor. mation as given information, and as Wertsch (1979) has argued and DiCamilla and Lantolf (1994) have demonstrated, the encoding of ir formation as given, even when to do so appears ‘odd, is a sign of private speech or private writing. neoding information as given, by whatever means, is not odd, of course, when one’s dis course is directed to oneself. Here it seems clear that A is referring to ‘the walk,’ and, since it was previously written about and is thus not new in formation (o S, it constitutes shared information. Still, reference to this information as “the walk’ seems to encode the event from A's own internal perspective, not a shared perspective, and thus serves to externalize for her own sake what she is thinking in the form of private speech. Evidence for this is seen in her subsequent reference to our walk’ (9) as her thoughts unfold and she trans forms the way she refers (o the event from private speech to social speech. Finally, we interpret the use of specific forms ~ ‘no,’ “okay,” ‘can,’ ‘the,’ and *so" - in A's discourse as evidence that A is externalizing her inner speech as private speech; hence, we argue that the repetition occurring here is also part of A’sMarta Antén and Frederick J. DiCamilla private speech. She repeats her own utterances as she alone undertakes the task of creating a simple brief phrase that will tie wo paris of the text together: ‘We can say after the, after... after we can say after our walk, so after, nuestro paseo, nuestro paseo, after our walk. .so after our walk. * Thus, L1 use in collaborative speech fune- tions on the intrapsychological plane as well ason, the interpsychological plane. CONCLUSION The results of studies reported by Swain (1995) indicate that ‘collaborative dialogue about lan- guage form in the context of meaning based task is one source of second language learning by individuals’ (p. 26). Vygotskian psycholinguistics is a suitable framework to study collaborative ac ty in the language classroom because it is based on the premise that higher cognitive devel- opment originates in social interaction. It is, therefore, imperative for SLA research to explore the nature of learner interaction and the mecha- nisms to which learners resort when engaged in collaborative tasks. In this paper we have at- tempted to shed light on the use of one of these mechanisms: the use of the student's native lan- guage. Within a sociocultural: perspectis have shown that use of LI is benef guage learning, since it acts as a critical psycho- logical tool that enables learners to construct ef fective collaborative dialogue in the completion of meaning-based language tasks by performing three important functions: construction of seaf- folded help, establishment of intersubjectivity, and use of private speech. Under a sociocultural analysis, the use of L1 in collaborative interaction emerges not merely as a device to generate con- tent and to reflect on the material produced but, more importantly, as a means (0 create a social and cognitive space in which learners are able to provide each other and themselves with help throughout the task. From a pedagogical standpoint, this study pro- Vides greater insight into the important role of L1 in group activities in the language classroom, which might be of interest to language teachers and might lead some to modify current tenden- cies to completely avoid L1 use in student inter- action. Such tendencies undoubtedly rest on the view that language is the container for our thoughts, a device separate from our thoughts. Thus, the stifling of the former is not seen as affecting the latter, From the perspective of so- ciocultural theory, however, language and thought are bound together; language is the prin- 245, cipal semiotic system that mediates our thinking, both within individuals and between individuals. Thus, to probibit the use of L1 in the classroom situations we have described removes, in effect, two powerful tools for learning: the LI and effec- tive collaboration, which depends, as our study shows, on students’ freedom to deploy this criti cal psychological tool to mect the demands of the task of learning a second language. NOTES | John-Steiner (1992, p. 286) uses the term ‘inner speech writing.” 2 Factive verbs are verbs that presuppose the truth of their syntactic complements (Kiparsky & Kiparsky, 1970). For example, in John regrets that Fred missed the _gane, “regret” is a factive verb which presupposes the truth of its complement, ‘that Fred mised the game Note that under question and denial the presupposition that Fred missed the game still holds, as in Does John reget that Fred missed the game? and John doesn’t rgret that Fred missed the game, respectively 3A number of studies of second language learning, have investigated the use of private speech in the target language in learners’ discourse (eg. Appel, 1986: Frawley & Lantolf, 1985; Lantolf & Frawley, 1984), For a review of these studies, see McCafferty (1994) + Aljuafreh and Lantolf (1994, p. 468) argue that effective help results ftom specific mechanisms. First help must be ‘graduated,’ that is, provided in measures “determined by the novice's response patterns to the help.’ Second, help must be ‘contingent,’ that is, of fered ‘only when it is needed. and withdrawn as soon as the novice shows signs of self'control and ability to func- tion independently’ Finally, at the core of the entire process is ‘dialogie activity that unfolds beoween more Capable and less capable individuals.” * Lyons (1977, pp. 799-800) observes that the illocu- tionary force of epistemically modalized utterances is ‘similar to that of questions’ that is, they are not acts of telling. REFERENCES, Ahmed, M.K. (1994). Speaking as cognitive regulation: A Vygotskian perspective on dialogic communica tion. In J.P, Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vigotskian ‘approaches to second language evarch (pp. 157-171). Norwood, Nj: Ablex Aljaafreh, A. & Lantolf. J. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Lan: quae Journal, 78, 465-488, Appel, G. (1986). LT and 12 narrative and expository dis- course production: A” Vygotskian analysis, Unpube246 lished doctoral dissertation, University of Dela ware, Newark. Behrend, D.A., Rosengren, KS. & Perlmutter, M. (1992), The relation between private speech and parental interactive style. In RM, Diaz & LE. Berk (Eas.), Private speech: From social interaction to self ‘regulation (pp. 85-100). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, Brooks, FB. & Donato, R. (1994), Vygotskyan ap- proaches to understanding foreign language learner discoune during communicative tasks. Hispania, 77, 262-274 Chafe, W.L. (1976), Givenness, contrastiveness, definite- ness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In GN, Li (Ed), Subject and topic (pp. 27-55). New York: Aca- demic Press De Guerrero, M.C,, & Villamil, O.S. (1994). Socialcog- nitive dimensions of interaction in L2 peer revi sion. Modern Language Journal, 78, 84-196, Diaz, RM., & Berk, LE, (Eds). (1992). Private speech: From social interaction to seifreguiation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erfbaum. Diaz, RM., Neal, C.J, & Vachio, A. (1991), Maternal teaching in the zone of proximal development: A companson of low- and high-risk dyads. Memill- Palmer Quarterly, 37, 83-108. DiCamilla, F. (1991). Private spech and private writing: A study ofgiven/new information and modatity in student compositions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Delaware, Newark, F J. & Anton, M. (1997). Repetition in the collaborative discourse of L2 learners: A Vygot- skian perspective. Canadian Modern Language Re view, 53, 609-633, DiCamilla, FI., & Lantolf, J.P. (1994). The linguistic analysis of private writing, Language Sciences, 16, 347-369. Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second lan- guage learning. In J.P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vpgotskian approaches to second language research (pp. 33-56). Norwood, NJ: AbIEX. Donato, R., & Lantolf, LP. (1990). The dialogic origins of L2 monitoring. Pragmatics and Language Learn- ing, 1, 88-97 Frawley, W,, & Lantolf, J. (1985), Second language discourse: A Vygotikyan perspective. Applied Lin- guistcs, 6, 1944 Fry, PS. (1992), Assessment of private speech and inner speech of older adults in relation to depression. In. RM. Diaz & LE. Berk (Eds.), Private speech: From social interaction to selfregulation (pp. 267-284) Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, Gass, §..& Varonis, E, (1985). Task variation and nonna tive /nonnative negotiation of meaning. In 8, Gass & C. Madden (Fas.), Input in second language acqui- sition (pp. 149-161). Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers. Gass, S. & Varonis, E. (1986). Sex differences in NNS/NNS interactions, In R, Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Comversation in seand language acquisition The Modern Language Journal 83 (1999) (pp. 327-851). Rowley, MA: Newbury House Pub- lishers. John Steiner, V. (1987). Notebooks ofthe mind: Exploration of thinking. New York: Harper and Row. John Steiner, V. (1992), Private speech among aduls. In RM. iar & LE. Berk (Bds.), Private speech: From social interaction Wo selfregulation (pp. 285-296), Hilledale, Nf: Lawrence Erlbaum Kiparsky, P, & Kiparsky,C. (1970), Fact. In M. Bierwiscl & K. Heidolph (Eds.), Progress in linguistics (pp. 142-173), ‘The Hague: Mouton, Lamtolf, J.P, & Frawley, W. (1984), Second language performance and Vygotskian psycholingusstics: Implications for L2 instruction. In A. Manning, P. Martin, & K. McCalla (Eds.), The tenth Lacus forum, 1983 (pp. 425-440). Columbia, SC: Hornbeam. Long, M, (1985). Input and second language acquisi- tion theory. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acqusition (pp. 377-393). Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers Long. M., & Porter, P. (1985). Group work, interlan- ‘guage tlk, and second language acquisition, TESOL Quarterly, 12), 207-228. Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics (Vol. 2). Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press. McCafferty, S. (1992). The use of private speech by adult second language learners: A cross-cultural study. Modern Language journal, 76, 179-188. McCafferty, S, (1994). The use of private speech by adult ESL learners at different levels of proficiency. In JP. Lantolf & G, Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian ap proaches to second language research (pp. 117-134). Norwood, Nf: Ablex. ‘Ohta, AS. (1995). Applying sociocultural theory to an analysis of learner discourse: Learner-learner col- laborative interaction in the zone of proximal de- velopment. Issues in Applied Linguistics, 6, 93-122. Pellegrini, AD. (1981), The development ot pre- schoolers’ private speech. Journal of Pragmatics, 5, 445-458. Pica, T. (1987), Second language acquisition, social in- teraction, and the classroom. Appl Linguistics, gq), $21 Pica, T, (1994), Research on negotiation: What does it reveal about second-language learning condi- tions, processes and outcomes? Language Learning, #4, 493-827, Pica, T,, & Doughty, C, (1985). Input and interaction in the communicative language classroom: A com- parison of teacherfronted and group activities. In 8. Gass & ©. Madden (Eds). inprut in second lan wage acquisition (pp. 115-132). Rowley, MA: New: bury House Publishers. Pica, T., & Doughty, C. (1988). Variations in classroom interaction as a function of participation pattern ‘and task. In J. Fine (Ee), Second language discourse: A textbook of current research (pp. 41-35). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Platt, E., & Brooks, FB, (1994). The ‘acquisitionsich environment’ revisited. Modern Language Journal, 78, 497-511Marta Antén and Frederick J. DiCamilla Porter, P. (1986). How learners talk tocach other: Input and interaction in task-centered discussions. In R Day (A.), Taiking to learn: Conversation in second language acquisition (pp. 200-222), Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers. Radzisewska, B. & Rogoff, B. (1991). Children's guided participation in planning imaginary er ands with skilled adult or peer partners. Develop mental Psychology, 27, 381-397. Ringbom, H. (1987). The role ofthe first language in forign language learning, Philadelphia: Multilingual Mac ters Lid, Rommetveit, R. (1974). On message structure: A framavork for the study of language and communication. New York: Wiley. Rommetvcit, R, (1979), On codes and dynamic resid als in human communication, In R, Rommewveit 4 RM. Blakar (Eid), Saudies of language, thought and verbal communication (pp. 163-175). London: Academic Press Rommerveit, R. (1985). Language acquisitions increas ing linguistic structuring of experience and sym- bolic behavior control. In J.V. Wertsch (Ed.), Cub ture, communication, and cognation (pp. 183-204) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Schinke Llano, L. (1994). Linguistie accommodation with LEP and LD children. In JP. Lantolf & G Appel (Eds.), Vygotshian approaches to second lane uage research (pp. 57-68). Norwood, Nf: Ablex. Soskin, WE, & John, V. (1963). The study of spontane- ous talk, Tn G, Barber (Ed), The sircam of tear Explorations of its structure and cantent (pp. 228.281), New York: MIT Press. Stone. CA. (1998). What is missing in the metaphor of scaffolding? In E. Forman, N. Minick, & Stone (Eds), Contexts for learning: Sociocultural dy- namics n children’s development (pp. 169-183). Ox- fore New York: Oxtordl University Press. Swain, M. (1995). Collabvrative dialogue: Is contribution to second language learning, Plenary paper presented at the Annual American Asociation of Applied Linguisties Conference, Long Beach, CA. Swain, M,, & Lapkin, S. (1996), Focus on form through ‘collaborative dialogue: Exploring task effects. Paper 247 presented at the Annual American Association of Applied Linguistics Conference, Chicago, II Varonis, E., & Gass, S. (1985). Non-native/non-native conversations: A model for negotiation of mean ing. Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 71-90. Villamil ©., & De Guerrero, M. (1996). Peer revision in the L2 classroom: Social-cognitive activities, medi- ating strategies. and aspects of social behavior, Journal of Second Language Writing, 5, 51-75 Vygoisky, LS. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological process, M. Cole, V. John Steiner, S. eribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.). Cam: bridge, MA: Harvard University Press ‘Vygotsky, L.S. (1979). Consciousness as a problem in the psychology of behavior. Souet Paycholog, 17, 3-3. Vygorsky, LS. (1981). The genesis of higher mental functions, In J.V. Wertseh (Ed. and Trans), The concept of activity in Soviet prychudogy (pp. 144-188). Armonk, NY: ME. Sharpe. Vygotsky, LS. (1986). Thought and lenguage A. Korulin (EiL.). Cambridge: MIT Press. Werich, JV. (1979). The regulation of human action and the given-new organization of private speech. In G. Livin (Ed.), The development of sdforgulation ‘rough private speech (pp. 79-98). New York: Wiley Wertich, JV. (1980), The significance of dialogue in ‘Vygouky’s account of social, egocentric, and inner speech, Contemporary Educational Prychologs, 5. 150-162. Wertich, J.V. (1985). Vgotsky and the socal formation of ‘mind. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Werssch, JV. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocutturat approach to medinted action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Wertch, JV, Minick, N., & Arns. FJ, (1984). The crew tion of context in joint problem-solving. In B. Ro- golf & J. Lave (Eds.), Everyday cognition: ls devel- ment in social context. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press Wood, D., Bruner, JS, & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Jourual of Child Py chalogy and Prychiatry, 17, 88-100. Zivin, G. (Ed) (1979), The development of sefragulation ‘Uiriagh private speech. New York: Wiley. Questions about Subscriptions Should you have any questions about your scription, please contact: Blackwell ‘ublishers, 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, ATTN: Subscriber Services Coordinator, Tel: 800-885-6770. Please direct manuscripts and editorial concerns to Sally Si Kalian, 618 Van Hise, University of Wisconsin, Madison, W loft Magnan, Department of French & 706-1558, Direct books and other material for review to Judith E, Liskin-Gasparro, Department of Spanish & Portuguese, University of Lowa, 111 Phillips Hall, Towa City, IA 52242-1409.