Vygotskyan Approaches to Understanding Foreign Language

APPLIED LINGUISTICS

Prepared by Karen L Smith

Vygotskyan Approaches to Understanding

Foreign Language Learner Discourse During

Communicative Tasks

Frank B. Brooks The Florida State University

Richard Donato University ofPittsburgk Astract: This article presents and analyzes speech data from secondary-level learners of Spanish who are engaged in a problem-solving speaking task commonly used in classrooms and in research. It applies a

Vygotskyan perspective to understand the nature of selected aspects of their speech activity, such as talk about the task, talk about the talk, and the use of English. The findings suggest that encoding-decoding perspectives, prevalent in much second language research on learner-to-learner speech activity, are inappropriate for

capturing and understanding what these learners are attempting to accomplish during their face-to-face activity. In other words, not all speech activity between classroom learners during classroom communicative tasks

is necessarily communicative in intent.

Key Words: discourse, speech activity, Vygotsky, classroom-based research, foreign language learning, language learning tasks, communication

Introduction of discourse negotiations language is made

comprehensible and is thus available for lin-

Drawing from information-processing guistic processing in the learner (Pica models of first language production (see 1987).

Crookes 1991, for a review of second lan- This conceptualization of human com- guage speech production research), second munication, often referred to as the "con- and foreign language learning research as- duit metaphor," according to Reddy (1979) sumes that student discourse is the result portrays the receiver's task as one of simple

of encoding, decoding, and modifying inter- "extraction" (288), thereby trivializing the nal representations of the new language. function of the reader or listener (308).

Verbal interaction is operationalized, as Pica Bickhhard, moreover, maintains that this

et al (1991:353) point out, as a series of sig- encoding-decoding view of communication

nal-response exchanges in which learners is logically incoherent and is an aponia (see attempt to understand the literal meaning Bickhard 1992 for a thorough discussion of of the utterances that the language forms the impossibility of encodingism). Accord-

and structures encode (our emphasis). ing to Bickhard (in press): Thus, analysis of target language interactions during communicative tasks is often encodings are stand-ins, and stand-ins require representation to be stood-in for.... Encodings are known corre- confined to uncovering the ways interlocu- spondences, and known correspondences require prior tons unwrap linguistic messages and knowledge of what the correspondences are with.... The achieve literal comprehension through re- point is that encodings only change the form of already existent representation. Encodings do not and cannot quests for clarification and comprehension account for the emergence of novel representations.... checking. Support for such analysis derives Clearly such emergence occurs, and, therefore, from second language acquisition theory, encodingism cannot suffice ... the origins problem and the incoherence problem are all versions of that basic which maintains that through these kinds ontological circularity in any strict encodingism.

HISPANIA (1994) 77,2: 262-274

VYGOT5KYAN APPROACHES TO UNDERSTANDING FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNER DISCOURSE 263

For Bickhard, then, the encoding-decoding over represented in the literature,.., have perspective fails to capture how utterances unduly influenced the second language re- interact with social realities, evoking trans- search agenda,... and have given us an in- formations of the social situation as well as complete picture of second language acqui- constituting them. At best, encoding and sition" (15). We would add that by acknowl- decoding reflect only the most ordinary and edging the impossibility of analyzing sec- instrumental aspects of language use, i.e., ond language discourse as simply encoding

message transmission and reception (see and decoding, we are in a position to extend

also Wertsch [1991: 67]). the study of second language interaction This article proposes that this dominant beyond simple message transmission and encoding-decoding view serves only to ob- comprehension and revisit learner verbal scure our investigations of what foreign lan- production during interaction with new guage learners are actually trying to questions and greater insight into the role achieve during verbal interaction in prob- of speaking as cognitive activity (Ahmed lem-solving tasks of the sort that are becom- 1988; Donato 1988). We contend that what ing more popular in today's second and for- is gained by reappraising the encoding ap- eign language classrooms (Pica, Kanagy, proach is a more refined psycholinguistic

and Falodun 1993) by limiting it to the lit- understanding of what learners are trying eral comprehension of each other's verbal to achieve during verbal interaction. Fur- output, and the building up of internal lin- then, this knowledge has an applied value. guistic representations. Nunan (1992) suc- To be sure, it can ultimately change foreign cinctly summarizes previous second lan- language teaching practice in a way that has

guage investigations of verbal interaction yet been achieved. Enabling teachers to when he states that in these studies the lan- understand better the verbal performance guage produced by learners is reduced to, of their students during communicative and reproduced as, a set of figures and num- tasks (e.g., why they may use their native bers that are manipulated in various ways. language during problem-solving tasks) can For example, it is common in second lan- unfasten the constraints on language use in guage studies of verbal interaction to esti- many second and foreign language class- mate the amount of negotiation of meaning rooms. that occurs under certain experimental conditions (e.g., information-gap tasks carried Vygotskyan Psycholinguistic Theory out in small group versus with the teacher) by counting the number of times the learn- Recently, a series of studies on the role ens use clarification requests such as "What of speaking in second language interactions do you mean by X?" Statistical analysis is have attempted to go beyond this encoding- then used to ascertain whether one condi- decoding perspective of second language

tion was more likely than the other to pro- interaction (e.g., Ahmed 1988; Diaz and

mote significantly more negotiation of Klingler 1991; Donato 1994; Lantolf and meaning. Appel 1994; McCaffertry 1992). These stud-

Nunan doubts the usefulness of such ies are theoretically motivated by the work studies because they have one great draw- of L. S. Vygotsky (1896-1934), a Soviet psy- back: they exclude the very thing that we chologist, semiotician, and pedagogue are most interested in, i. e., language itself whose ideas on the interrelations of think- and the activity of the learners. More spe- ing and speaking have laid the groundwork cifically, these studies fail to uncover how for a sociocultural theory of sign-mediated speaking is used as a strategic tool for human action. Vygotskyan psycholinguistic cognizing and constructing tasks, meaning, theory, in contrast to the encoding-decod-

and shared situational definitions. Nunan ing perspective, maintains that since think- goes further to argue that "such studies are ing is mediated by semiotic systems, nota- narrowly conceived and executed,.., are bly language, speaking is cognitive activity

264 HISPANIA 77 MAY 1994

(Vygotsky 1986). For Vygotsky, thinking versational participants (or how learners

and speaking are inherentiy linked. A brief work toward mutual comprehension of review is necessary, however, of a basic each other's encodings). AVygotskyan ap-

principle of Vygotskyan theory, the pnin- proach views speaking as the very instru-

ciple of semiotic mediation, prior to discus- ment that simultaneously constitutes and

sion of this principle in the light of second constructs learners' interactions in the tar- language interaction during problem-solv- get language with respect to the target lan-

ing tasks between third-year high school guage itself, the task as it is presented and

learners of Spanish. understood by the participants, the goals learners set for completing tasks, and their

Semiotic Mediation orientation to the task and to each other. In short, the focus of attention in aVygotskyan

For Vygotsky, linguistic signs are used analysis is on interpreting how speaking to organize, plan, and coordinate one's own creates a shared social reality and maintains

actions or the actions of others. As Wertsch that individuals speak to plan and carry out

and Toma (in press) point out, the use of task-relevant actions rather than encode

signs as a tool of thought does not simply and decode in order to speak (Donato facilitate mental actions that could have oth- 1994). As Frawley and Lantolf (1985) have erwise occurred in their absence. Rather, it argued, all forms of discourse during alters the entire flow and structure of men- speech activity are relevant and revelatory

tal functions just as a technical tool alters of the cognitive disposition of the partici- the process of labor (Vygotsky 1981). pants involved in the task. Thoughts and Thinking for Vygotsky involves, therefore, actions are forged in language.Using a both the persons and the mediational Vygotskyan framework, therefore, allows means they use, i. e., language. Rather than us to move second language learning into separate individuals from the semiotic sys- the realm of human ontogenetic develop- tems mediating their activity, as is implied ment.

in encoding-decoding perspectives of The following study shows how a speech production, both the individual and Vygotskyan analysis of second language the linguistic tools must be understood as verbal interaction can extend beyond the

an irreducible whole. Insisting upon the encoding-decoding framework of second inseparability of the individual from the language research by providing specific

semiotic systems mediating and constitut- examples from student production during

ing action can lead to more robust descrip -a two-way information-gap task that reveal

tions of the cognitive function of speaking the interrelatedness of speaking and think-

for conducting human activity. ing. These data serve as a backdrop for a

Vygotsky's notion of semiotic mediation discussion of the importance of under- therefore enables richer and more robust standing what learners are accomplishing

understandings of foreign language learn- through speaking during classroom tasks

ens in a classroom setting by focusing on and how the results of this study can re- what students are trying to achieve through spond to perplexing concerns about group

their verbal interactions during classroom interaction in the foreign language class- speaking tasks in the second language. This room. focus contrasts with encoding-decoding

perspectives that often attend to the linguis- The Study tic digressions from native speaker norms

(or how native speakers encode meanings The present study is a reanalysis of data and how error-ridden learner production taken from eight pairs of third-year high can be in comparison) or on verbal negotia- school learners of Spanish and utilized in an

tions whereby seemingly already existent earlier study (Brooks 1992)2 during which representations are converged upon by con- the students participated in a two-way infor-

VYGOTSKYAN APPROACHES TO UNDERSTANDING FOREIGN LANGUAGE LEARNER DISCOURSE 265

mation-gap type activity. The purpose of Data Analysis

selecting this activity type was to use one kind of experimental task common to the The intention in the present study is not

study of conversational negotiations (e.g., to analyze these interactions as has been

Doughty and Pica 1986; Gass and Varonis done previously (i.e., the codification and 1985; Pica and Doughty 1985, 1988; Varonis quantification of discourse patterns that, in and Gass 1986). The specific jig-saw task the end, remove us from the very material

diagrams are presented in figures la and of interest) but rather to investigate how

lb. During data collection, student pairs sat speaking during a two-way information-gap opposite each other but with a wooden bar- task collaboratively influences and builds a

nier between them. They were directed to shared social reality between the partici- work with one another in Spanish to find out pants. A Vygotskyan approach is useful in and draw in what the other had on his or her this respect because it redresses some of part of the diagram that was both similar to the limitations of studies such as the ones and different from the other's diagrams. summarized above by Nunan (1992) by pro- When finished, the partners (theoretically) viding a well-developed framework for un-

will each have drawn a representation of the derstanding the constitutive role of speak-

same diagram. (For further discussion, see ing for the creation of shared social worids Brooks and Niendorf 1993). The conversa- and intersubjective encounters (Rommetveit tions were both audio and video recorded. 1979). Procedures established by Green and For this study we look at three specific

Wallat (1981) for verbatim transcription of instrumental functions of speaking identi- the conversations were followed. Each tran- fled by Ahmed (1988) during dyadic prob- script was then explored and analyzed. lem-solving interactions: (1) speaking as

$103.g5

z

CA Z CANA

S

Figure IA


p -

OP

CAMA

$41015

Figure lB

ob'ctregdation, (2) speaking as shared orz I. Speaking as Object Regulation

en/a/ion, and (3) speaking asgoalformation. More specifically, speaking as ob/ect regu- In any verbal interaction, speakers must

la/ion refers to how speaking enables learn- relate not only to what is being said but the

ens to think about, make sense of, and con- activity of saying it as well. In other words,

trol the task itself (object) as it is presented in addition to issuing verbal propositions

to them. Speaking as shared orientation re- (sending messages) to an interlocutor,

fers to the ways that speaking structures speakers also engage in "metatalk."

experience by establishing a shared social Metatalk is talk by the participants about

reality and joint perspective on the task or, the task at hand and the discourse that con-

as Rommetveit (1979: 94) calls it, "states of stitutes the task. Metatalk, however, is fre-

intersubjectivity." Finally, speaking as goal quently discouraged in second-language

formation pertains to the way that learner classrooms as it can be considered non-rel-

discourse is pressed into service to con- evant and undesirable since most metatalk,

struct individual or cooperative goals or especially among novices, tends to occur in

plans during interaction (Jones and the LI.2 The following examples show how

Gerhard 1967). We believe that these me- metatalk is an important component of dis-

diating functions during speaking are cursive activity in both initiating and sus-

highly germane to the study of group inter- taming further discourse. In other words,

action during communicative tasks in for- metatalk serves to promote verbal interac-

eign language classrooms because they do tion and is one type of verbal metacoguition.

not neglect the learners as co-constructors and sense-makers of their own interactions Example A:

with respect to the task and to each other. S2 029 yo tengo anriba (he's referring to

Moreover, speaking and thinking are the roof of the house; he has full

closely linked and are seen

as

co-constitut-

drawing

of

house

on

his

diagram)

ing the total activity of the learners. 51 030 y debajo S2 031 yabajo


51 032 y abajo oh In this example, 51 not only realizes that he 033 yo has used a word in French (faire, line 093)

S2 034 de casa he eventually feels that progress in the task

51 035 yo tengo el abajo (she's referring is not going well at the moment and ex- to the bottom portion of the presses this realization overtly in line 101.

house on her diagram) Nevertheless, S2 is able to gain control for 036 solamente 51 and to continue with the task following

037 ah! solamente. That's a good word! line 102. These two learners are clearly S2 038 too bad I don't know what that working with one another to accomplish the means. problem-solving task as presented, which is

51 039 un bi- un palabra bien not an easy process for them, especially given that this was the first (and only!) op-

In Example A, it appears that these two portunity they had ever had in their three

students have stepped out of the interaction years of Spanish to participate in this kind

to comment on the words they are using of problem-solving task. Their frustration is while participating in the task. Si's surprise therefore normal but does not prevent them at knowing the word solamente (line 036) from completing the task quite well.

leads her to comment on its usefulness (line The importance of these examples of stu- 037). This statement can be classified as dent speech activity from two different dy- metatalk since 51 talks directly and explic- ads is to demonstrate that not all task talk

itly about her own self-generated speech. In is about the task or encoding and decoding

fact, she appears to be addressing no one messages, nor should it be, but often is other than herself. Note that she is not ask- about the talk itself. This observation is ing S2 if he understands the meaning of the critical in that it provides the conditions for word but is commenting on the word's use- learners to arrive at a common language for fulness in controlling the task. S2 responds establishing intersubjectivity (Rommetveit by signaling to 51 that even if the word is 1979). Indeed, throughout the eight differ- unpalabra bien (line 039) he is overtiy un- ent recorded conversations there are many aware of its meaning and explicitly ex- separate instances of metatalk that oc- presses his non-comprehension in line 038. curred and appeared to serve as a means of

Another example of speaking as object extending discourse in new directions and regulation (metatalk) is provided below in sustaining verbal interaction (e.g., "that's Example B. Here, we observe two learners not a Spanish word," "I like that word/we coming to terms with the task itself and the have to use that one," "I know what you're

language they use to construct it: talking about," "Hey, what's the verb for that?," "I don't know what that means").

Example B: What is also interesting is that this 51 092 oh un momento metatalk occurred in English, a situation

093 el semicirculafaire um routinely observed in foreign language set-

094 no not faire that's French tings during small group work, especially

(general laughter) from among lower proficiency level learn- 095 um el semicircula derecha de el ens, though it also has been found to occur

um de el [bot6m] among intermediate level learners in a uni- 096 which way does it face? versity setting as well (Donato and Brooks 097 down, right? 1994). Why this occurs, more importantly, is

S2 098 arriba explained by Vygotskyan theory. Metatalk is

51 099 arniba? essentially metacognition "out loud."

S2 100 si Metacognition in his theory is semiotically 51 101 oh, we're all screwed up! constructed, primarily through language.

S2 102 okay hold it That these statements should be explicitly

103 um no dere- no arniba made in the students' native language,


moreover, is not at all surprizing. The ex- tents of the activity to a partner. The follow-

amples above, which could have been dis- ing example demonstrates how discourse is

carded from some analyses (because pro- used to construct joint orientation to the

duction was not in L2), in fact serve to en- two-way information-gap task.

able the learners to establish control of the

discourse and the task by explicitiy com- Example C

menting on their linguistic tools used in its 51 166 I like that word we have to use construction. What is more important, that one

these learners are able to continue their 167 argh!

interactions after having commented on 168 qud tienes? their own and their interlocutor's language. S2 169 no We are not suggesting that the use of the 51 170 no tienes? Li during L2 interactions is to be encour- S2 171 (no response) aged necessarily but rather that it is a nor- 51 172 enada? mal psycholinguistic process that facilitates S2 173 hold it hold it L2 production and allows the learners both 51 174 uno dos tres

to initiate and sustain verbal interaction S2 175 si en el en el with one another (Donato and Lantolf 176 uno dos tres

1990). In short, verbal thinking mediates one's relationship with the new language 51 suddenly changes the direction of the

and with language itself (in this case, the discussion; she has figured out a way to

learners' Li) and is quite necessary and establish reference points on diagrams, natural. Moreover, it is characteristic of for- which will serve to facilitate completing the eign language learner discourse, especially task.

for tasks with which they are not yet famil-

ian. 51 177 -oye oye oye! (said excitedly)

S2 178 nono

II. Speaking as Shared Orientation 51

179

no

no

no

look!

180 -veo veo veo! (said excitedly)

Orientation refers to how individuals 181 um niimero uh de

approach a given task and the steps they 182 uno dos tres cuatro cinco seis

take in achieving the goals they have set for siete ocho nueve diez themselves. Closely related to the discourse 183 like that of speakers about task-related talk, orienta- S2 184 what?

tional talk serves to focus joint attention on 51 185 de izquierda de a derecha, si?

the problem to be solved and relates to how 186 yo comprende? ataskwilibe carried out AsTalyzina (1981) S2 187 izquierda la derecha? (=what do points out, the actions taken to orient one- you mean by that?) self to a task are highly idiosyncratic and 51 188 okay

can be defined only in reference to the in- S2 189 hold on

dividuals involved and not on the basis of externally defined and imposed task re- S2 202 no undenstando quinements. This is an important point to 51 203 no comprende? emphasize, especially for the conduct of 204 -si! classroom small-group tasks, since often it S2 205 no comprende

is assumed that these activities will be ap- 206 (incomprehensible)

proached in the same way by all students. 51 207 el abajo y um y izquierda (Here, Discourse serves to orient oneself and oth- el abajo means arniba)

ens and is therefore verbal thinking about S2 208 (no response)

the construction of the activity. It is not 51 209 jsi? merely the sending of the propositional con- 82 210 huh?


211 si rather than on displaying what they know

51 212 el abajo y izquierda about the contents of the pictures they are describing. In other words, they initially

S2 250 ha! ha! speak in order to act rather than act in or-

51 251 in the whole thing den to speak (Donato 1988). More specifi- S2 252 (?) your boxes cally, they talk in order to set up problem-

253 okay okay okay solving (i.e., establishing procedures for 51 254 si, yo doing task) rather than problem-solving as

255 tu tienes? an opportunity to practice speaking. Al- S2 256 en en ha! en though compliance with the task was a re- Si 257 in the whole "shlamolia"! [said in quirement of the experimental session, en-

a tone indicating frustration] gagement in the task does not come about S2 258 I know what you're talking about until after several attempts to establish the

okay okay okay okay students' own procedures for achieving their task-related goals. This will later prove

51 265 veinte [boksez] critical to understanding the nature of class-

S2 266 okay room tasks and the role of speaking in car- Si 267 si? rying them out. S2 268 uno dos tres cuatro cinco seis Looking more closely at Example C,

siete ocho nueve diez early in the interaction Si orients herself to 51 269 yes ah veinte a procedure for completion of the task. This

S2 270 yes si procedure involves numbering the boxes

51 271 ntmmero nhmero es ntmmero ese on her diagram from left to right and from de izquierda de derecha top to bottom, from one to twenty-four. She

272 niimero exclaims enthusiastically in lines 177 -Oye, S2 273 oh! oye, oye! and 180 -veo, veo, veo!These two 51 274 you can say [boks] ntmmero tres lines, said in Spanish and replete with affec-

S2 275 okay tive force, indicate that she has arrived at

Si 276 and that way we know what we're an understanding for herself of how to solve

talking about the task. Her actions now take on a new sig-

nificance. She orients her partner to a simi-

51 308 [boks] niimero qud? lan understanding, which takes a number of S2 309 uh ntimero diez y siete (drawing additional turns. S2, however, is not a pas-

attention to box #17) sive partner but rather is an active co-con- structor of the orientation. He regulates the

Like metatalk, discourse that orients par- interaction to a large extent by signaling his ticipants to how the problem-solving task non-comprehension, as seen in lines 184,

can be accomplished is a metacognitive 187,202, and 205. That he eventually comes

strategy. In the beginning of the example to the same orientation as Si is revealed above, we see how Si suddenly under- finally at the conclusion of Example C when stands the task for herself in a moment of he explicitly states in line 258 I understand

excitement, which is reflected in the volume what you are talking about. Later, Si's stra- and tone of her voice. She then is able to tegic orientation to the task is appropriated

guide S2 to a joint focus on the procedures by S2 when he too begins referencing spe-

for task completion. In Rommetveit's (1979) cific boxes in the diagram with a number terms, Si and S2 achieve intersubjectivity that they both had agreed upon, as seen in since they both come to define task proce- line 309: uh nzimero diezy siete. Thus, S2

dunes in the same way. What is important demonstrates that he has indeed estab-

about this interaction is that much of the lished intersubjectivity with Si by using her

initial interactive work between Si and S2 numbering strategy six more times during is focussed on knowing how to do the task the remainder of the task.


Another example of orientational talk III. Speaking as Goal Formation

appears below. Speaking as goal formation, although

Example D closely related to the principles of speaking

S2 051 wait I got one okay as object regulation and orientation to task, 052 dos arriba de cuatno cien represents another distinctive aspect of 51 053 dos arriba semiotic mediation. When individuals are

054 oui si [said in a whisper: corrects faced with a task they sometimes need to

self] speak in order to externalize the goal or

S2 055 es un [semaisirkila] end-result of their activity. Even though

51 056 (incomprehensible) teachers (and researchers) often provide 057 um task goals, as is illustrated in Example E

058 derecha de ese [semaisinkla] below, there are moments where confusion

cerca [rising intonation="got still exists for the learners that needs to be that?"] resolved. S2 059 uh huh Example E (R=Researcher): 51 060 es un [line] um c'est un um R 001 LIKE WE DID LAST WEEK,

061 umbrella YOUYE GOT THE PIECES AND PARTS

062 umc'estun [line] avecconuhel OF ONE DRAWING, OKAY? SO, YOU

[jay] [referring to shape of HAVE ONE HALF

AND

YOU

HAVE

THE

handle of umbrella] OTHERHALEWHATYOU NEED TO DO

S2 063 hold it hold it IN SPANISH, JUST KEEP IT IN SPANISH

064 semicircula [indicates that he AS MUCH AS YOU CAN, PREFERABLY needs to return to a previously es- IN SPANISH, OKAY, TRY TO FIND OUT

tablished reference point, the WHAT THE OTHER ONE HAS SO THAT

semicircle] YOU CAN COMPLETE OR FILL IN WHAT

51 065 avec YOU'RE MISSING, OKAY? YOU GET

S2 066 um jy uno a denecha? THAT INFORMATION FROM THE

51 067 no um the semicircle that you just OTHER ONE, OKAY? SO JUST KEEP iT IN

gave me, alright? SPANISH.

S2 068 uh huh 51 002 can we start now? 51 069 it's an umbrella R 003 YES

S2 070 no (researcher leaves the room and

071 okay closes the door)

072 no derecho no anriba 51 004 okay uh

005 (incomprehensible whisper)

In this example, Si and S2 are trying to lo- 006 you go ahead Jamar

date the figure of the umbrella in the dia- S2 007 Din- waityo tengo dinero en abajo

gram. Because Si does not know the word izquierda

in Spanish for umbrelia, he uses the English 008 wait wait word (line 061). S2, however, is not sure of 009 am I supposed to tell you and you

its exact placement

in

the

diagram

and

be-

write

stuff

on

your

paper?

gins to reorient Si (line 067 and again in 51 010 yeah, that's what he said to do we

lines 071 and 072). This reorientation to the make a picture

location of the umbrella actually continues S2 012 okay

for many more turns. What in fact has hap- 013 um tengo dinero en bajo izquienda

pened is that S2 realizes that Si is confused 51 014 es uno uh numeno and thus takes personal control of the task S2 015 cuatno diez dot uno cinco

for the

time

being

by

reorienting

him

to

the

51

016

nepita

diagram until they eventually resolve the S2 017 cuatno diez uno cinco

dilemma. 51 018 si


S2 019 did you write down what I said? sense of their actions.

51 020 si What occurs here is that S2 felt com- pelled to interrupt his own talk (line 009)

We can see in this interaction that the re- and to reacquaint for himself what the pur- searcher explained the procedures for task pose of the activity was (line 110). In so completion to these students. In fact, the doing, he took control of the activity to re- students were oriented to the task goals the orient himself to the task goal. Once again, day before the taping was conducted to ad- 51 and S2 achieve intersubjectivity or a quaint them with the recording room and sharing of purpose and focus for the task. the two-way information-gap activity. The Once this intersubjectivity has been estab- students even had the opportunity to per- hished (line 012) through the externahiza- form briefly a similar kind of task in English tion of their own goals, S2 and 51 are abbe to become familiarized with what they were once again to construct the activity in Span- expected to accomplish during the taping ish (line 013). sessions. All of the other seven student dy- ads displayed familiarization with the goals Conclusion of the task except for this particular group of students. Because the researcher pro- From the analysis of this study we offer vided the task goals to the students, little if the following points concerning the contri- any goal formation talk is evident in the to- bution of Vygotskyan psycholinguistic tab sample. theory to research in foreign language

Nevertheless, in the case of this one learner discourse. First, the preceeding dyad, S2 needed to reformulate the task examples indicate that when learners inter- goals (line 009) in order to establish for him- act verbally during a task, they do more self the "mental image of the object" than simply encode and decode messages (Lomov 1982, cited in Ahmed 1988: 223) . about the topic at hand. The discourse of Moreover, S2 asked 51 if he indeed wrote the interactions highlighted from this study down the number that he had provided (line shows that learners indeed attempt to con- 019), thus reassuring himself that they both trol the problem-solving task actively by were following the researcher's instruc- constructing it verbally and orienting them- tions. It must be remembered that all events selves to the language and task demands as and activities are organized according to they understand them. The importance of goals and that meaning and purpose hold a this insight is that what might appear on the central place in the definition of activities or surface as non-relevant task talk is in fact events (Rogoff 1990). More importantly, it mediating the participants' control over the is only when the purposes of the partici- language and procedures of the task, each pants in events or activities are understood other, and ultimately the self. This control that their actions make sense. Their actions is what Vygotsky (1986) refers to as rega- occur in the service of accomplishing some- lation and is one of the major features of thing that is understandable. In order for it human cognitive development within his to be understandable, it is sometimes nec- theory. The discourse seen in the above essary to externalize through speech, or examples demonstrates therefore the im- semiotically mediate, those goals so that possibility of discussing L2 performance they become clear and are comprehensible, apart from cognition (e.g., planning, moni- which often times results in initial goals toring, etc.) as is often done in second lan- becoming altered (Ahmed 1988). However, guage acquisition research (e.g., Pica et al despite the externally imposed goal of "de- 1991). Further, this cognition is semiotically scribe the picture by communicating with constructed and can be observed directly each other," the learners in Example E still during verbal interactions. needed to state for themselves the end re- Second, these data have implications for sult of this experience in order to make thinking about and constructing tasks given


to foreign language learners in classes or of the task to the learners themselves and during experiments. In the case of class- allowing them multiple opportunities to room small-group activities, most instruc- engage in analogous problem-solving tasks tors would probably agree that students can result in moving beyond mere compli- could fall along a continuum from non-coin- ance to greater levels of engagement and pliance to engagement with the task, as self-directed learning (Brooks and shown in figure 2. Niendorf 1993; Donato 1988; Donato and

Figure 2 non-comphiance< >comphiance< >engagement

Brooks 1994; Donato and Lantolf 1990). More specifically, simply coercing students Meaningful task-based instruction is de- to comply with a task does not necessarily rived in large part, therefore, from the ex- guarantee that they will become engaged tent to which learners are permitted to in- with it or, to put it in other terms, construct fuse activities with their own goals and pro- it and connect to it and to each other as cedures. As Thomson (1992) points out, meaningful activity. For meaningful interac- tasks should be more concerned with the tion to occur requires that learners be given ways that learners interact with the lan- the opportunity to structure tasks and to es- guage than the outcome of the language tabhish goals as they feel necessary in order use. Tasks therefore draw their authentic- to move from mere compliance to engage- ity and meaningfulness from learners who ment, as is seen in the examples above (see believe that what they are doing is real, is also Donato 1994). We observed that when under their own control, and is worth pur- allowed to structure the procedures of the suing. activity and discuss the language of the task Third, if learners are allowed to partici- and its goals, even in English, these learn- pate in successive, analogous problem-solv- ers were able to orient themselves jointiy, ing tasks that they can jointly construct, thus allowing them to regulate themselves learners can continue to become learning during the problem-solving activity. There- environments for one another (Brooks and fore, those who have recentiy introduced Niendorf 1993). The learners can, thus, the notion of task-based foreign language carry over task-relevant information from learning need to consider that tasks can not one context to another as a scaffold to sup- be externally defined or classified on the port the performance of new task compo- basis of specific external task features (e.g., nents (Rogoff 1990; Rogoff and Gardner Long and Crookes 1992; Nunan 1989; Pica, 1984). In making new information compat- Kanagy, and Falodun 1993) despite our best ible with the learners' current knowledge efforts to do so. Rather, tasks are in fact and skills, learners can guide and orient one internally constructed through the mo- another to successively more complex ment-to-moment verbal interactions of the problems. Thus, students can continuously learners during actual task performance. draw upon previous knowledge about prior As Coughlan and Duff argue, "a linguistic tasks, bringing about continued cognitive event never duplicates a past one, and can growth and adroitness at solving new com- never be truly replicated in the future. For munication dilemmas. these reasons, we must be careful when we Finally, Vygotskyan approaches to for- assume that 'task' is indeed a constant in eign language learner discourse shed light our measurements: while the task or blue- upon important small-group processes that print may be the same, the activity it gener- up until now have gone unnoticed or worse, ates will be unique." Ceding greater control ignored. Language learning activity must


be viewed as cognitive activity and not ticular set of actions and, at the same time, determines merely the rehearsal and eventual acquisi- the type of actions selected to achieve this goal. tion of linguistic forms, as is prevalent in the early version of this article was presented at Annual Meeting of the American Association of such classroom activities as "conversation Teachers of Spanish and Portuguese, Canctin,

cards" (Kinginger, 1989), communication Mexico, August, 1992. The authors thank David simulations (Brooks 1989, 1990), and role- Paulson, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, play activities (Ahmed 1988 and Donato Douglas Hartman, University of Pittsburgh, and Rob- 1988). These activities, and by extension all ert Robison, Columbus (Ohio) City Schools, for their classroom activities, can only become effec- comments and suggestions. tive if learners are allowed to take control * WORKS CITED over them for themselves and have opportunities to grow into them. For Vygotsky, Ahmed, Mohammed. 1988. "Speaking as Cognitive communication focuses less on the transfer Reguhation:AStudy of Li and L2 Dyadic Problem Solving Activity." Diss. U of Delaware. of information and more on how, through Bickhard, M. in press. "The Import of Fodor's speaking, individuals maintain their mdi- Anticonstructivist Arguments." Epistemological viduality and create a shared social world Foandations a/Mathematical Experience. Ed. L. during communicative activity. As the Steffe. New York: Springer-Verlag. _________ 1992. "How Does Environment Affect the present analysis has shown, it is not only the Person?" Children's Development Within Social contents of the lesson or the communicative Contexts: Metatheoretical, Theoretical, andMethod- task that is paramount, but engagement ological Issues. Eds. L. T. Winegar and J. Valsiner. with and control of communicative interac- Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum. 63-92.

tions that will ultimately benefit the foreign Brooks, Frank B. 1992. "Spanish III Learners Talking

both in the classroom and to One Another Through a Jig Saw Task." Cana- language learner, dian Modern Language Review 48: 696-717.

in the real world.4 _________- 1990. "Foreign Language Learning: A Social Interaction Perspective." SecondLanguage

* NOTES Acquisition-Foreign Language Learning. Eds. Bill VanPatten and James F. Lee. Chevedon, UK: Mul-

1The purpose of the Brooks 1992 study was to in- tilingual Matters. 153-69. vestigate the interaction patterns of third-year high _________. 1989. "Patterns of Instruction and Stu- school foreign language learners of Spanish as they dent Participation in Small-Group, Learner-to- participated in an information-gap task to see if they Learner Speaking Opportunities in a Spanish

exhibited similar interaction patterns as reported by Conversation Course at the College Level: A Social studies with adult ESLhearners conducted by Pica and Interaction Perspective." Diss. The Ohio State U.

Doughty (1985), Schwartz (1980), and Varonis and Brooks, Frank B., and Kari Niendorf. 1993. "Promot-

Gass (1986) among others. The present study, then, ing Communicative Competence Through Task- is a re-analysis of Brooks' data from a Vygotskyan Based Speech Activity." Dimension 92-98. Ed.

perspective. Robert M. Terry. Valdosta, GA: Southern Confer-

2As supervisors of student teachers, we have heard ence on Language Teaching. 43-67. teachers on many occasions express frustration when Coughhan, Peter, and Patricia Duff. 1994. "Same Task,

hearing their students speaking in English during Different Activities: Analysis of an SLATask from

speaking tasks. In many cases, the teachers went to an Activity Theory Perspective." Vygotskyan Ap- the different student groups to remind them to speak proaches to Second Language Research. Eds. J. Spanish or French. One teacher also revealed that she Lantoif and G. Appel. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. rarely if ever used these kinds of group problem-solv- Crookes, Graham. 1991. "Second Language Speech ing tasks because the students, she felt, spoke too Production Research: A Methodologically On-

much in English. It is also interesting to note that the ented Review." Studies in SecondLanguageAcqui- researcher even told the learners in the present study sition 13: 113-32. to speak only in Spanish as best as they could, though Diaz, Rafael, and C. Klingler. 1991. 'Toward an Ex-

English was used on a number of occasions during planatory Model of the Interaction of Bilingualism data collection. and Cognitive Development." Language Processing

>Within Activity Theory (Wertsch 1981) the "ob- in Bilingual Children. Ed. Ellen Biahystok. Cam- ject" of each activity, orgoal, can take two forms. First, bridge: Cambridge UP. 167-92. it may be the present, concrete object to which par- de Guerrero, Maria 1990. 'The Nature of Inner Speech ticular actions are aimed. Second, the object may be in Mental Rehearsal of a Second Language." Diss. represented as an idealized image. In both cases, the U of Puerto Rico. object represents the desired outcome (goal) of a par- Donato, Richard. 1994. "Collective Scaffolding in Sec-


ond Language Learning." I5'gotskyan Approaches municative Language Classroom: A Comparison of to Second Language Acquisition. Eds. James Teacher-Fronted and Group Activities." Input in Lantohf and Gabriele Appel. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. SecondLanguageAcquisition. Eds. Susan Gass and

________ 1988. "Beyond Group: A Psycholinguistic Carolyn Madden. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Rationale for Collective Activity in Second Lan- 115-32. guage Learning." Diss. U of Delaware. Pica, Teresa, etal. 1991. "Language LearningThrough Donato, Richard, and Frank B. Brooks. 1994. "Look- Interaction: What Role Does Gender Play?" Stud- ing Across Collaborative Tasks: Capturing L2 Dis- ies in SecondLanguageAcquisiton 13: 343-76. course Development." Paper, AAAL Conference, Pica, Teresa, Ruth Kanagy, and John Falodun. 1993. Baltimore, MD. "Choosing and Using Communication Tasks for Donato, Richard, and James Lantolf. 1990. 'The Dia- Second Language Instruction and Research."

logic Origins of L2 Monitoring." Pragmatics and Tasks andLanguage Learning: Integrating Theoy

Language Learning Vol 1. Eds. L. F. Bouton and and Practice. Eds. Graham Crookes and Susan B. Kachru. U of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. Gass. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters. Doughty, Catherine, and Teresa Pica. 1986. "'Informa- Reddy, Michael J. 1979. 'The Conduit Metaphor: A tion Gap' Tasks: Do They Facilitate Second Lan- Case of Frame Conflict in Our Language About guage Acquisition?" TESOL Quan'erly2O: 305-325. Language." Metaphor and Thought. Ed. Andrew Frawley, William and James Lantolf. 1985. "Second Ortony. Cambridge, MA Cambridge UP. 284-324.

Language Discourse: AVygotskyan Perspective." Rogoff, Barbara. 1990. Apprenticesh: in Thinking. AppliedLinguistics 6: 143-59. New York: Oxford UP.

Gass, Susan, and Evangeline Varonis. 1985. "Task Rogoff, Barbara, and William Gardner. 1984. "Adult Variation and Nonnative-Nonnative Negotiation of Guidance of Cognitive Development." Evetyday Meaning." Input in Second LanguageAcquisition. Cognition: Its Development in Social Context. Eds.

Eds. Susan Gass and Carolyn Madden. Rowley, Barbara Rogoff and Jean Lave. Cambridge, MA: MA: Newbury House. 149-61. Harvard UP. 95-116.

Green, Judith, and Cynthia Wallat. 1981. "Mapping Rommetveit, Ragnar. 1979. "On the Architecture of Instructional Conversations-A Sociolinguistic Intersubjectivity." Studies of Language, Thought,

Ethnography."EthnographyandLanguageinEdu- and Verbal Communication. Eds. Ragnar

cational Settings. Eds. Judith Green and Cynthia Rommetveit and RolvBhakar. NewYork: Academic

Wallat. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 161-205. Press. 93-107. Jones, E., and H. Gerhard. 1967. Foundations ofSocial Schwartz, Joan. 1980. 'The Negotiation of Meaning:

Psychology. New York: Wiley. Repair in Conversation

Between

Second

Language

Kinginger, Celeste. 1989. 'Task Variation and Class- Learners of English." DiscoureAnalysis in Second

room Learner Discourse." Diss. U of Illinois at Language Research. Ed. Diane Larsen-Freeman.

Urbana-Champaign. Rowley, MA: Newbury House. 138-53.

Lantolf, James, and Gabriela Appeb, eds. 1994. Talyzina, N. 1981.The Psychology ofLearning: Theories

Vygotskyan Approaches to Second Language Re- ofLearning and Programmed

Instruction.

Moscow,

search. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Progress Press.

Long, Michael, and Graham Crookes. 1992. 'Three Thomson, C. 1992. "Learner-Centered Tasks in the Approaches to Task-Based Syllabus Design." Foreign Language Classroom." ForeignLanguage TESOL Quatterly 26: 27-56. Annals 25: 523-31.

Long, Michael, and Partricia Porter. 1985. "Group Varonis, Evangehine, and Susan Gass. 1986. "Non-na- Work, Interhanguage Talk, and Second Language tive/Non-native Conversations: A Model for Nego- Acquisition." TESOL Quan'erly 19: 207-28. tiation of Meaning." AppliedLinguistics 6: 71-90.

McCafferty, Steve. 1992. 'The Use of Private Speech by Vygotsky, Lev. 1986. Thought and Language. Cam- Adult Second Language Learners: A Cross-Cultural bridge, MA: MIT Press. Study." Modern Languagejournal76: 177-89. ________. 1981. 'The Instrumental Method of Psy-

Nunan, David. 1992. "Sociocultural Aspects of Second chobogy." The ConceptofActivityin Soviet Psychol- Language Acquisition." Cross Currents 19: 13-24. ogy. Ed. James Wertsch. Armonk, NY: E.

________ 1989. Designing Tasks for the Communi- Sharp.134-43. cative Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. Wertsch, James.

1991.

Voices

oftheMind:A

Sociocul-

Pica, Teresa. 1987. "Second Language Acquisition, tural ApP roach to MediatedAction. Cambridge, Social Interaction, and the Classroom." Applied MA: Harvard UP.

Linguistics 8: 3-21. _________. 1981. 'The Concept of Activity in Soviet

Pica, Teresa, and Catherine Doughty. 1988. "Varia- Psychology: An Introduction." The Concept ofAc- tions in Classroom Interaction as a Function of tivity in Soviet Psychology. Ed. James Wertsch

Participation Pattern and Task." SecondLanguage Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharp. 3-36. Discoursv: A Textbook of Current Research. Ed. J. Wertsch, James, and Chikako Toma. in press. "Dis- Fine. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 41-55. course and Learning in the Classroom: A Sociocul-

_________ 1986. "Input and Interaction in the Coin- tural Approach." Constructivism in Education. Ed. L. Steffe. Hillsdahe, NJ: Earlbaum.

Documents

Vygotskyan Approaches to Understanding Foreign Language