Socio-Cognitive Functions of

L1 Collaborative Interaction in
the L2 Classroom
MARTA ANTN FREDERICK J. DICAMILLA
Department of Foreign Languages and Cultures Department of English
Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis
Indianapolis, IN 46202 Indianapolis, IN 46202
Email: manton@iupui.edu Email: fdicamil@iupui.edu

This article and the following response by Gordon Wells are republished from The
Canadian Modern Language Review, 54, 3, 1998, pp. 314353. They are published as part
of an article exchange between the MLJ and the CMLR. The articles for the exchange
were selected by the Editorial Board of each journal (the MLJ selected this article and
response from the CMLR and the CMLR selected the article it will publish from the
MLJ) according to 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 Videoconferencing as Access to
Spoken French by Celeste Kinginger (MLJ, 82,4, 1998, pp. 502513). 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 L1 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, L1
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).
Also, L1 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 L1 for the purpose of externalizing ones inner speech (Vygotsky, 1986) throughout the task
as a means of regulating ones 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 the L2 classroom. Looking at L1 use within the

theoretical framework of Vygotskian psycholin-
THIS PAPER EXAMINES THE SOCIAL AND guistics, the qualitative analysis of learners inter-
cognitive functions of L1 use in the collaborative action attempts to demonstrate that L1 is used as
speech of L2 learners engaged in a writing task in

Reprinted by permission of University of Toronto Press

The Modern Language Journal, 83, ii, (1999) Incorporated. Copyright The Canadian Modern Lan-
0026-7902/99/233247 $1.50/0 guage Review/La Revue canadienne des langues vivantes,
1999 The Modern Language Journal
54,3 (April/avril)
234
a powerful tool of semiotic mediation between
learners (at the interpsychological level) and
within individuals (at the intrapsychological
level).
Interpsychologically, the use of L1 enables
learners to work effectively in the zone of proxi-
mal development (ZPD) by providing scaffolded
help (Wood et al., 1976) 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) as a 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 to second language acquisition.
PREVIOUS STUDIES
The role of L1 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
system. Studies of learner interaction, however,
have not paid much attention to the use of L1.
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, which is
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, repeti-
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 interactionist 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 learners
speech as cognitive activity, a more refined psy-
cholinguistic understanding of what really goes
on in learners interaction is achieved (Brooks &
Donato, 1994; Donato & Lantolf, 1990). It is in
studies within the sociocultural tradition that the
use of L1 as an important semiotic tool is noted,
The Modern Language Journal 83 (1999)
especially among L2 learners 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-
ory and how they have been applied to investigat-
ing the use of L1 in second language acquisition.
SOCIOCULTURAL THEORY
According to Vygotsky (1981, p. 162),
[a]ny higher mental function necessarily goes
through an external stage in its development because
it is initially a social function . . . . Any higher mental
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 childs 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 childs 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 or in collaboration with more capable peers.
(Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86)
It is 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 ones behaviour
does not reside in immediate stimuli (a case of
being object-regulated) nor in another person (a
case of other-regulation) 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 individuals potential for
development in innumerable endeavours which
are realized through complex interactions with
others in ones culture and are mediated princi-
pally by language.
As children develop, they begin to use speech
to 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 childs behavior, already
partly incomprehensible to others, yet still overt
Marta Antn and Frederick J. DiCamilla
in form (Vygotsky, 1986, p. 138). 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, 1963). Research in
sociocultural theory has revealed certain impor-
tant properties of the externalized forms of ones
inner speech, which have come to be known as
private speech (of interest in the present study),
on the one hand, and private writing1 (DiCamilla,
1991; DiCamilla & Lantolf, 1994; John-Steiner,
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 ones mental 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
(1986, p. 139). The former has to do with what an
utterance is about and what is already in the mind
of the listener, and the latter is what is said about
the psychological subjecta distinction very simi-
lar to that made by Chafe (1976) between given
and new information (Wertsch, 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 interpsychological 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 latter domain,
for example, researchers have studied the con-
tent, elliptical form, syntactic structure, and
other formal linguistic properties (e.g., 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
(e.g., DiCamilla, 1991; DiCamilla & Lantolf, 1994;
Frawley & Lantolf, 1985; John-Steiner, 1987;
McCafferty, 1992, 1994; Pellegrini, 1981; Wertsch,
1979). With regard to the interpsychological
plane, that is, the collaborative interaction of in-
dividuals, 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 (see,
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-
ziszewska & Rogoff, 1991; Schinke-Llano, 1994;
Villamil & De Guerrero, 1996; Wertsch, Minick, &
Arns, 1984). In summary, throughout ones life,
language is used to regulate others and to regu-
late ourselves and serves as a psychological tool in
organizing functions (e.g., voluntary attention,
perception, planning, memory, conceptual
thought, evaluating) critical to mental activity.
The concept of scaffolding originates with the
work of Wood et al. (1976) and serves as a meta-
phor for the interaction between an expert and 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 learners 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-
skys 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. It
may result, eventually, in development of task compe-
tence by the learner at a pace that could far outstrip
his unassisted efforts. (p.90)
The scaffolded help that the expert provides to
the novice is characterized by six functions:
1. Recruitmentenlisting the learners inter-
est in the task,
2. Reduction in degrees of freedomsimplify-
ing the task,
3. Direction maintenancekeeping the
learner motivated and in pursuit of the goal,
4. Marking critical featureshighlighting cer-
tain relevant features and pointing out discrepan-
cies between what has been produced and the
ideal solution,
5. Frustration controlreducing stress and
frustration during problem solving, and
6. Demonstrationmodelling an idealized
form of the act to be performed by completing
the act or by explicating the learners 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-
nisms 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 Vygotskys theoretical
framework(p.170). That is, the use of language
(and other semiotic systems, e.g., gestures) is the
critical device for mediating cognitive develop-
ment. It is 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 speakers/experts view of a problem-solv-
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
same way. 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 learners ZPD must
not only achieve the functions of scaffolding but
also establish and maintain levels of intersubjec-
tivity without which scaffolding, and therefore
the learners 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 (e.g., factive verbs2), along
with non-verbal modelling. As Wertsch (1991, pp.
1213) 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 L1 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 that
their use of L1, a fairly obvious feature of their
interaction, plays a strategic cognitive role both
in scaffolding and in establishing intersubjectivity
and externalizing their inner speech as is neces-
sary to perform the task, achieve their goals, and
thus realize their levels of potential development.
Our study of the use of L1 from a sociocul-
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 (e.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 L1 in their
subjects interactions, native language use does
not pass without comment by researchers about
the range of functions it serves and its overall
importance to successful collaboration. So, for
example, Brooks and Donato (1994), in a study
of 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 L1 use constitutes a normal psycholinguis-
tic process that facilitates L2 production and al-
lows the learners both to initiate and sustain ver-
bal interaction with one another (p. 268, cf.
Donato & Lantolf, 1990). Similarly, De Guerrero
and Villamil (1994) and Villamil and DeGuer-
rero (1996) comment on the use of Spanish (the
L1 in this case) by their subjects in learning to
write in 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 L1, provid-
ing scaffolding (much of it in L1), and vocaliz-
ing private speech (in L1).3 The authors
conclude that for the majority of their students
the L1 was an essential tool for making meaning
of text, retrieving language from memory, ex-
ploring and expanding content, guiding their
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 L1
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 Antn 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.
3. Tell me about eating habits in the United
States, most popular food, restaurants, etc.
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 FUNCTIONS OF L1
L1 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 others 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 needs to be
done to solve specific problems, and explicate
and build on each others 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 L2 linguistic forms, making
sense of the form or meaning of a text and evalu-
ating a text in L2. Ultimately, our analysis shows
that L1 use provides, through collaborative dia-
logue, an opportunity for L2 acquisition to take
place.
The following two excerpts illustrate the key
role that L1 plays in accessing L2 forms. In the
first excerpt students are composing a text about
the eating habits of Americans.
237
1 G:
I dont know the word for snack. . . .
2 D:
Um. . . .
3 G:
Oh, so you just say in the afternoon?
4 D:
We we could . . . in the afternoon.
5 G:
So what time in the afternoon?
6 D:
Um. . . .
7 G:
Or do you want to just say in the afternoon?
8 D:
Lets say. . . .
9 G:
Por la tarde?
10 D:
Lets just do por . . . la tarde . . . .
11 G:
Por la tarde . . . comen . . . what do they eat?
12 D:
Um . . . frutas.
13 G:Comen frutas. . . .
14 D:
O. . . .
15 G:
O. . . .
16 D:
I dont know how to say uh . . . candy cor. . . .
17 G:
Um. . . .
18 D:
Um . . . I dont remember the word for snack,
either. . . .
19 G: Uh, frutas o . . . o . . . Ms azuca. . . .
20 D: That works for me because thats basically
what it is. . . .
In line 1 the students overtly address the prob-
lem of accessing the linguistic items needed to
express their idea. The problem is stated in the
assertion in 1 (I dont know the word for snack),
which serves the function of seeking a transla-
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 Gs internally generated dis-
covery of a solution 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 ordi-
narily snack on. G initiates the strategy by using
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 24. The assertion I dont know how to say
uh . . . candy corn (16) is answered by a hesita-
tion word (um) and silence. It seems that there
has been an unsuccessful search for a paraphrase,
which ends in recognized failure, expressed by
the assertion I dont remember the word for
238
snack, either. . . . However, in line 19, G offers an
alternative (ms azcar) or what amounts to an-
other use of the strategy used for the word for
snack: 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
azcar is acceptable (thats basically what it is).
In this exchange, utterances in L1 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 dont 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 learn-
ers, the text is created directly in L2. This is the
case in lines 1113. Although L1 is used in 11 to
request ideas for the content of the text, it is 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 L1
as a mediating device in the construction of col-
lective scaffolding (Donato, 1994) by which two
novices are able to provide scaffolded help to
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 start writing? We write the exact
same thing? All right . . . imagine were go-
ing on a trip to Mexico. Tell me what you
plan to do on this trip . . . all right . . . start it
off . . . Im horrible at starting things off. . . .
2 T: Lets say, how do you say, um . . . were gonna,
well arrive there?
3 R: Um, arrivar, I dont know, uh, why dont we
say. . . .
4 T: Cause we could say were gonna be, were
gonna get there at, and we can put it in, you
know, the date, and the time, and. . . .
5 R: All right, all right, all right . . . to arrive is, I
think, its like, arrivar?
6 T: Or how about leave, leave?
7 R: Thats despus, leave . . . is, um.
8 T: Why do we have to have the recorder on?
9 R: Cause she wants to record everything we say,
so watch it.
The Modern Language Journal 83 (1999)
10 T: Okay
11 R: So we could say, why dont we say, like, uh, T. .
..
12 T: We just learned, we just learned the word to
go, um.
13 R: Vamos?
14 T: No, the s word.
15 R: Uh, salgo . . . Salir . . . Yeah.
16 T: To go. . . . okay.
17 R: Okay, youre 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 (217). 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 off-task exchanges (810).
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 will
facilitate the resolution of the problem. In 13, R
presents a possible translation for to go
(vamos?), 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 that fol-
lows (you are right) acknowledges Ts role in
providing scaffolding for the production of the
lexical item.
The two members of the dyad have managed to
construct a dialogue that has been 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 Antn and Frederick J. DiCamilla
same level of proficiency, knowledge shifts be-
tween the members of the group as each member
of the group contributes different skills and areas
of expertise to the task.
L1 use also has a metalinguistic function when
students are trying to produce complex linguistic
forms or understand why they are using a particu-
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.
1 R: Um . . . How do you say lunch?
2 T: Almuer . . . almuer . . . zamos . . . we eat
lunch.
3 R: Oh . . . comemos . . . oh.
4 T: What do you want to say?
5 R: Almuerzos?
6 T: We eat lunch . . . almuer . . . zamos.
7 R: Its not . . . its a-l-m-u-r?
8 T: Yeah.
9 R: Now you dont change the zamos to er
though?
10 T: Right . . . its almuer . . . almuerzar.
11 R: How do you say almuerzo? A-l-m-u-e-r-z-o?
12 T: Yeah . . . thats I eat lunch.
13 R: How do you say we . . . almor . . . its almor-
zamos
14 T: Oh.
15 R: Its o to ue remember? So we keep it to the
o. Make sense?
16 T: OK. Youre so smart.
Once they access the correct lexical item (2),
students face the challenge of producing the cor-
rect verb form, which entails a great degree of
linguistic complexity because students have to
choose the appropriate verb ending and decide
what forms of the verb paradigm require a stem-
vowel change. In order to solve the problem of
how to say we eat lunch, students resort to two
mechanisms: one is repetition of the verb form
with variation (see DiCamilla & Antn, 1997),
through which the students gradually approxi-
mate to the correct verb form; the other mecha-
nism is the use of L1 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 L1 in subsequent lines (9 and 15) allow
him to produce the correct form (13) and overtly
state the grammatical rule (15): Its 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 seeking. T contributes the lexical item,
and R is able to contribute the appropriate in-
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 L1 as a cognitive
tool.
Learners also use L1 as a tool to evaluate and
understand the meaning of a text in L2. For in-
stance, in the episode below, the pair is attempt-
ing to produce the Spanish form for we eat
breakfast. We observe the use of L1 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, L1 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).
1 A: Hmmmmm . . . we eat breakfast . . . how do
we say?
2 S: Desayuno?
3 A: Yea, well, we . . .
4 S: We eat breakfast?
5 A: Desayunamos.
6 S: Desayunamos . . . we have breakfast.
To further illustrate the function of L1 as a tool
to evaluate the L2 text, consider the following
excerpt in which learners are writing about eat-
ing habits in the U.S.
1 S: Para . . . un . . . postre . . . es . . . popular . . .
comer . . . helado.
2 D: Now, what are you trying to say?
3 S: Um . . . for dessert its popular to eat ice
cream.
4 D: Is that what you said?
5 S: No. . . .
6 D: That was right, youre right. . . .
7 S: Para un postre.
8 D: For dessert.
9 S: Ummm hmmm . . . es popular. . . .
240
10 D: Its popular.
11 S: Comer el helado.
12 D: To eat ice cream.
13 S: Mmm hmmm.
14 D: Now, read it again?
15 S: Para un postre es popular comer el helado.
16 D: Okay, is that it?
In this exchange S produces the text directly in
L2 (1). In order to evaluate what S has produced,
D resorts to L1 in several forms. First, she asks
directly for the meaning of the text (2), which is
translated to L1 by S 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, S 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).
L1 and Intersubjectivity
In the collaborative activity of L2 learners, L1
serves not only cognitive functions, as illustrated
in the previous section, but social functions as
well. Use of L1 seems to 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
intersubjectivity is effectively achieved through
dialogue in L1.
The discussion of the first excerpt focuses on
the dual social and cognitive functions of English
modal verbs in the collaborative speech of L2
learners.
1 S: Um . . . en la ciudad . . . um . . . you want to
say Mexico City is a big city with lots of peo-
ple? Hay muchas personas?
2 D: Okay.
3 S: Or in Mexico City . . . lets just say Mexico
City is a big city with a lot of people, is that
okay?
4 D: Yeah.
5 S: I dont want to tell you what to say, I just
thought (laugh).
6 D: No, I dont know what else to say . . . theres
more I want to say, I just cant, we havent
learned it . . . la ciudad de Mexico . . . es or
est? Es. . . .
The Modern Language Journal 83 (1999)
7 S: You could say hay there are a lot of
people. . . .
8 D: I was going to say es muy grande. . . .
9 S: Thats, thats great.
10 D: Y hay . . . muchos personas . . . here, how
about this? Hay . . . hay ms personas, wait,
no, en la ciudad de Mexico, estn ms perso-
nas que Indianapolis . . . is that right?
11 S: I dont . . . say it again. . . .
12 D: Uh, en la ciudad de Mexico, estn ms perso-
nas uh, que . . . Indianapolis.
13 S: 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 you say . . . hay ms personas . . . en
la ciudad de Mexico que Indianapolis?
16 D: Thats what I thought. . . .
17 S: Is that, okay. . . .
18 D: Hay ms personas . . . okay, en la ciudad de
Mexico . . . que Indianapolis . . . what else?
Does ciudad have an accent?
19 S: It probably does, but I dont know where
(laugh).
20 D: Okay, what else?
In this excerpt, we see students using their L1
to perform the task. Use of L1 is necessary, of
course, but whats interesting is that the L1 is
used not only to generate content and to reflect
on material generated in L1 or L2, but also to
create a social and cognitive space, an intangible
workplace, in which the students are able to pro-
vide each 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, func-
tion and for their cognitive, specifically hypo-
thetical, function. This occurs 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-
ria of beneficial help in the ZPD that have been
identified in sociocultural theory (Aljaafreh &
Lantolf, 1994).4 To begin with, of course, he of-
fers help, but more than that he presents a solu-
tion marked for hypotheticality, that is, for its
possible value. In so doing, S gives the utterance
an illocutionary force akin to that of a question,
in that it is not an assertion, at least not a categori-
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 Antn 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
X is the case is to offer X for the listeners con-
sideration and thereby invite the listeners active
participation in the task. In the above excerpt,
D picks up on Ss suggestion in 10, but in the
same line returns to use estn. D uses estn
again in 12, when she says estn ms 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 ms personas in 15. Moreover,
this is presented in the form of the question. S
gets the desired result in Ds response in 18: hay
ms personas . . . okay. . . . By the strategic use
of the forms deployed in this intricate interac-
tion, S did more than solve a problem; he en-
gaged his partner in the solution in such a way
as to maintain their workplace, that is, the cog-
nitive and social space created by their common
motives and goals.
There are other L1 utterances in 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 again:
1 G:
I dont know the word for snack. . . .
2 D:
Um. . . .
3 G:
Oh, so you just say in the afternoon
4 D:
We we could . . . in the afternoon.
5 G:
So what time in the afternoon?
6 D:
Um. . . .
7 G:
Or do you want to just say in the afternoon.
8 D:
Lets say. . . .
9 G:
Por la tarde?
10 D:
Lets just do por . . . la tarde. . . .
11 G:
Por la tarde . . . comen . . . what do they eat?
12 D:
Um . . . frutas.
13 G:
Comen frutas. . . .
14 D:
O. . . .
15 G:
O. . . .
16 D:
I dont know how to say uh . . . candy cor. . . .
17 G:
Um. . . .
18 D:
Um . . . I dont remember the word for snack,
either. . . .
19 G: Uh, frutas o . . . o . . . Ms azuca. . . .
20 D: That works for me because thats basically
what it is. . . .
In this interaction students are trying to render
the equivalent of snack in Spanish. In line 3 G
241
suggests an alternative way to 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, it is 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 (811)
expresses the agreed decision to say simply in the
afternoon. This is done by using the utterance
lets 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 L1 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 of a fictitious trip to Mexico.
1 S: Does that mean we have to be in Mexico City?
Can it be anyplace in Mexico? It just says
Mexico.
2 D: Yeah, youre just going to Mexico. Do you
want to go to the city of Mexico?
3 S: Yeah. Lets . . . lets . . . thats good enough . . .
okay.
4 D: Okay.
5 S: (laugh) . . . Thats too easy.
6 D: Cheater.
7 S: Okay.
Here the students check with each other re-
garding the boundaries of the task by considering
limiting 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 The Modern Language Journal 83 (1999)
with each other in such a way as to foster agree- 9 S: It doesnt really matter.
ment about these sub-goals. After agreeing that 10 Z: Okay.
just saying that they went to Mexico City would be 11 S: What do you want to do?
too easy, the students decide to include a discus- 12 Z: Yeah, thats fine. Okay . . . um. . . .
sion of Guadalupe but find a way to make this
part of the task manageable, as we see in the (Later)
following discussion about the shrine of the vir-
gin of Guadalupe. 13 Z: All we need to say is . . . the stars of football,
and then name them . . . are. . . .
14 S: Okay.
1 S: Lets just say its, um, in the northern part of
15 Z: What is some? Some of the stars. Do you
the city. Do you want to say that?
know some?
2 D: Okay.
16 S: Okay. I dont know it.
3 S: Est. . . .
17 Z: I dont either . . . um. . . .
4 D: Est . . . en.
18 S: Algunos? I dont know what that is.
5 S: En el norte.
19 Z: I dont know . . . well, I dont know what
youre trying to say. Muy . . . what?
Once again we see that the L1 is used not solely 20 S: I was just going to say that some po . . . I
for the purpose of suggesting content for the wanted to say some popular players of foo,
composition but also for the purpose of limiting you know, American football are. . . .
the content, here by means of the word just, and 21 Z: Okay. We can say . . . um . . . we dont know
thereby controlling the task. Further, S explicitly some. . . . Can we say quien . . . popular . . .
checks with D by asking Do you want to say that? de . . . futbol son, and then we can. . . .
In other words, use of L1 makes it possible for S 22 S: Or we could say los jugadores populares
23 Z: Okay. De . . . do you want to do football first?
not only to propose what to say about the Shrine
24 S: Yeah.
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 (Later)
agrees with the situation defined in terms of this
sub-goal. Moves such as these help to establish 25 Z: You want to say some of the popular teams are.
...
and maintain intersubjectivity.
26 S: Okay . . . los equipos. . . .
In the following excerpt, we present data from 27 Z: Do we still have to say de ftbol? Did you say
the interaction of two students attempting to that?
write a composition about sports in the U.S. The 28 S: No. I didnt . . . son. . . .
portions of their interaction presented demon- 29 Z: Populares son . . . Dallas Cowboys . . . y . . .
strate the value of L1 in arriving at a shared un- how many do we want to name?
derstanding of the objects, events, goals, and sub- 30 S: Well just do two.
goals of the task as the students consider which 31 Z: Y. . . .
sports to write about, what to say about them, and 32 S: I dont know who else to put.
the order in which to discuss them. 33 Z: Who was in the bowl? I cant remember who
they played.
34 S: The Bills again.
1 Z: Ready? Were going. . . . 35 Z: Buffalo Bills.
2 S: Okay . . . um. . . . 36 S: I know, but what . . . well, lets just put
3 Z: Popular sports, ftbol y basketball, s You Buffalo Bills. Hows that?
want to talk about those two? 37 Z: Okay.
4 S: Okay. 38 S: Okay.
5 Z: Okay.

At the outset of the interaction, the students set

(Later)
the limits of their topic to specific popular sports:
ftbol y basketball, those two. Later, in 512,
5 S: Okay. Okay . . . um. . . . Would you say, like,
they not only agree on the content, a discussion
theres many stars?
of players being stars who are rich, but Z also (8)
6 Z: Mmmhmmm . . . There are many stars, and
they are very rich. questions the sequence of the information they
7 S: Oh, we can say the players are very rich. Los will write about the players: You want to say
jugadores son muy rico. theyre stars first and then. . . ? S says that it
8 Z: Okay. You want to say theyre stars first, and doesnt matter and then asks what Z wants to do.
then. . . . In this brief exchange each member of the dyad
Marta Antn 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 as it unfolds. Later in their interaction
(1324), the students agree on another sub-goal
of the task and its organization, that is, to name a
few popular players (1322) and to begin with
football, respectively. Finally, in 2538, the two
students use their L1 to establish another man-
ageable sub-goal of their task. Specifically, they
jointly decide to extend their discussion of sports
in the U.S. by including a discussion of popular
teams (2530) and apparently to limit the discus-
sion to just naming two teams: the Dallas Cowboys
(29) and Well, lets just put Buffalo Bills. Thus,
throughout the interaction the students use their
L1 to establish mutual agreement on the objects,
events, goals, and sub-goals that define their task;
that is, they use their L1 to establish and maintain
intersubjectivity.
INTRAPSYCHOLOGICAL FUNCTIONS OF
L1 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
tool to direct their own thinking in the face of a
cognitively difficult task.
1 S: Um . . . en la ciudad . . . um . . . you want to
say Mexico City is a big city with lots of peo-
ple? Hay muchas personas?
2 D: Okay.
3 S: Or in Mexico City . . . lets just say Mexico
City is a big city with a lot of people, is that
okay?
4 D: Yeah
5 S: I dont want to tell you what to say, I just
thought (laugh)
6 D: No, I dont know what else to say . . . theres
more I want to say, I just cant, we havent
learned it . . . la ciudad de Mexico . . . es or
est? Es. . . .
7 S: You could say hay there are a lot of
people. . . .
8 D: I was going to say es muy grande. . . .
9 S: Thats, thats great
10 D: Y hay . . . muchos personas . . . here, how
about this? Hay . . . hay ms personas, wait,
no, en la ciudad de Mexico, estn ms perso-
nas que Indianapolis . . . is that right?
11 S: I dont . . . say it again. . . .
243
12 D: Uh, en la ciudad de Mexico, estn ms perso-
nas uh, que . . . Indianapolis.
13 S: 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 you say . . . hay ms personas . . . en
la ciudad de Mexico que Indianapolis?
16 D: Thats what I thought. . . .
17 S: Is that, okay. . . .
18 D: Hay ms personas . . . okay, en la ciudad de
Mexico . . . que Indianapolis . . . what else?
Does ciudad have an accent?
19 S: It probably does, but I dont know where
(laugh)
20 D: Okay, what else?
In 6, D questions whether she should use es
or est. She immediately answers this question
herself, indicating that it was not, in fact, a ques-
tion posed to her partner but an instance of pri-
vate 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, S provides another possibility in a
suggestion which includes the modal could, fol-
lowed by the translation into L1 of what he just
said. What follows is a clarification of Ds inten-
tion and acceptance of the text by S (thats 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
(how about this?). Then D starts creating the
new sentence directly 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 go-
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 turns social again, and D
asks her partner to evaluate the sentence she has
just produced by uttering the question Is that
right? (10). S requests a repetition of the new
sentence (11), and in 13 S 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, S is in a position to conduct
an evaluation of the appropriateness of the new
sentence.
244
As we can see, private speech emerges in col-
laborative interaction in different forms. Some-
times the linguistic form is similar to the type of
utterance addressed to other learners, that is, it is
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 Ill 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 As remarks in
7, 9, and 15.
5 A: Um, bailamos, bailamos. . . .
6 S: Bailamos?
7 A: Mmm hmmm, no, okay, we can say after the, af-
ter. . . .
8 S: Whats after, despus?
9 A: Mmm hmmm, despus . . . after . . . we can say
after our walk, . . . so after, nuestro paseo, nuestro
paseo, after our walk . . . dancing. . . .
15 A: The . . . I dont know . . . um, I forget . . . so af-
ter our walk . . . lets just say . . . hmmm . . .
were going. . . .
Certain features of As discourse help identify
it as private speech. First, in 7, she responds with
the affirmative mmm hmmm to Ss question
concerning what she had said in 5. She follows
immediately with no, which doesnt make sense
as a response to Ss question (i.e., as social
speech), since she had indeed said bailamos and
has just responded in the affirmative regarding
that. From this we conclude that the utterance of
no helps A to externalize her own thoughts,
perhaps 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-
pressed, and indeed set aside by A as she next
utters okay, which likewise does not serve as a
response to S but as a kind of boundary marker,
in As 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 As 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
ones inner speech as a kind of questioning or
hypothesizing to oneself about how to perform
the task.5 Once externalized, these markers of
self-addressed questions often result in more as-
sertive expressions as material initially considered
for its potential place in a composition is incorpo-
rated into the students writing. Interestingly, we
observe something of that sort in As discourse.
That is, 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
self-addressed answer about how to join material
in the composition.
Another indication of the self-addressed, pri-
vate nature of As discourse is the use of the
definite article in her initial attempt to connect
the previous material in the text with the new
material 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 in-
formation as given, even when to do so appears
odd, is a sign of private speech or private writing.
Encoding information as given, by whatever
means, is not odd, of course, when ones 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 to S, it constitutes shared information.
Still, reference to this information as the walk
seems to encode the event from As 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 to the event from private
speech to social speech.
Finally, we interpret the use of specific forms
no, okay, can, the, and so in As 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 As
Marta Antn 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 two parts 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 func-
tions on the intrapsychological plane as well as on
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-
tivity 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 students native lan-
guage. Within a sociocultural perspective, we
have shown that use of L1 is beneficial for lan-
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 scaf-
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 to 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 prohibit the use of L1 in the classroom
situations we have described removes, in effect,
two powerful tools for learning: the L1 and effec-
tive collaboration, which depends, as our study
shows, on students freedom to deploy this criti-
cal psychological tool to meet the demands of the
task of learning a second language.
NOTES
1 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
game, regret is a factive verb which presupposes the
truth of its complement, that Fred missed the game.
Note that under question and denial the presupposition
that Fred missed the game still holds, as in Does John
regret that Fred missed the game? and John doesnt regret that
Fred missed the game, respectively.
3 A number of studies of second language learning
have investigated the use of private speech in the target
language in learners discourse (e.g., Appel, 1986;
Frawley & Lantolf, 1985; Lantolf & Frawley, 1984). For a
review of these studies, see McCafferty (1994).
4 Aljaafreh and Lantolf (1994, p. 468) argue that
effective help results from specific mechanisms. First,
help must be graduated, that is, provided in measures
determined by the novices 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 dialogic activity that unfolds between more
capable and less capable individuals.
5 Lyons (1977, pp. 799800) 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.), Vygotskian
approaches to second language research (pp. 157171).
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-
guage Journal, 78, 465483.
Appel, G. (1986). L1 and L2 narrative and expository dis-
course production: A Vygotskian analysis. Unpub-
246
lished doctoral dissertation, University of Dela-
ware, Newark.
Behrend, D.A., Rosengren, K.S., & Perlmutter, M.
(1992). The relation between private speech and
parental interactive style. In R.M. Diaz & L.E. Berk
(Eds.), Private speech: From social interaction to self-
regulation (pp. 85100). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Brooks, F.B., & Donato, R. (1994). Vygotskyan ap-
proaches to understanding foreign language
learner discourse during communicative tasks.
Hispania, 77, 262274.
Chafe, W.L. (1976). Givenness, contrastiveness, definite-
ness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In C.N. Li
(Ed.), Subject and topic (pp. 2755). New York: Aca-
demic Press.
De Guerrero, M.C., & Villamil, O.S. (1994). Social-cog-
nitive dimensions of interaction in L2 peer revi-
sion. Modern Language Journal, 78, 484496.
Diaz, R.M., & Berk, L.E. (Eds). (1992). Private speech:
From social interaction to self-regulation. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Diaz, R.M., Neal, C.J., & Vachio, A. (1991). Maternal
teaching in the zone of proximal development: A
comparison of low- and high-risk dyads. Merrill-
Palmer Quarterly, 37, 83108.
DiCamilla, F. (1991). Private speech and private writing: A
study of given/new information and modality in student
compositions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Delaware, Newark.
DiCamilla, F. J., & Antn, M. (1997). Repetition in the
collaborative discourse of L2 learners: A Vygot-
skian perspective. Canadian Modern Language Re-
view, 53, 609633.
DiCamilla, F.J., & Lantolf, J.P. (1994). The linguistic
analysis of private writing. Language Sciences, 16,
347369.
Donato, R. (1994). Collective scaffolding in second lan-
guage learning. In J.P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.),
Vygotskian approaches to second language research (pp.
3356). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Donato, R., & Lantolf, J.P. (1990). The dialogic origins
of L2 monitoring. Pragmatics and Language Learn-
ing, 1, 8397.
Frawley, W., & Lantolf, J.P. (1985). Second language
discourse: A Vygotskyan perspective. Applied Lin-
guistics, 6, 1944.
Fry, P.S. (1992). Assessment of private speech and inner
speech of older adults in relation to depression. In
R.M. Diaz & L.E. Berk (Eds.), Private speech: From
social interaction to self-regulation (pp. 267284).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gass, S., & Varonis, E. (1985). Task variation and nonna-
tive/nonnative negotiation of meaning. In S. Gass
& C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second language acqui-
sition (pp. 149161). Rowley, MA: Newbury House
Publishers.
Gass, S., & Varonis, E. (1986). Sex differences in
NNS/NNS interactions. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to
learn: Conversation in second language acquisition
The Modern Language Journal 83 (1999)
(pp. 327351). Rowley, MA: Newbury House Pub-
lishers.
John-Steiner, V. (1987). Notebooks of the mind: Exploration
of thinking. New York: Harper and Row.
John-Steiner, V. (1992). Private speech among adults. In
R.M. Diaz. & L.E. Berk (Eds.), Private speech: From
social interaction to self-regulation (pp. 285296).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kiparsky, P., & Kiparsky, C. (1970). Fact. In M. Bierwisch
& K. Heidolph (Eds.), Progress in linguistics (pp.
142173). The Hague: Mouton.
Lantolf, J.P., & Frawley, W. (1984). Second language
performance and Vygotskian psycholinguistics:
Implications for L2 instruction. In A. Manning, P.
Martin, & K. McCalla (Eds.), The tenth Lacus forum,
1983 (pp. 425440). Columbia, SC: Hornbeam.
Long, M. (1985). Input and second language acquisi-
tion theory. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input
in second language acquisition (pp. 377393).
Rowley, MA: Newbury House Publishers.
Long, M., & Porter, P. (1985). Group work, interlan-
guage talk, and second language acquisition.
TESOL Quarterly, 19(2), 207228.
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, 179188.
McCafferty, S. (1994). The use of private speech by adult
ESL learners at different levels of proficiency. In
J.P. Lantolf & G. Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian ap-
proaches to second language research (pp. 117134).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Ohta, A.S. (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, 93122.
Pellegrini, A.D. (1981). The development of pre-
schoolers private speech. Journal of Pragmatics, 5,
445458.
Pica, T. (1987). Second language acquisition, social in-
teraction, and the classroom. Applied Linguistics,
8(1), 321.
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it
reveal about second-language learning condi-
tions, processes and outcomes? Language Learning,
44, 493527.
Pica, T., & Doughty, C. (1985). Input and interaction in
the communicative language classroom: A com-
parison of teacher-fronted and group activities. In
S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second lan-
guage acquisition (pp. 115132). 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 (Ed.), Second language discourse:
A textbook of current research (pp. 4155). Norwood,
NJ: Ablex.
Platt, E., & Brooks, F.B. (1994). The acquisition-rich
environment revisited. Modern Language Journal,
78, 497511.
Marta Antn and Frederick J. DiCamilla
Porter, P. (1986). How learners talk to each other: Input
and interaction in task-centered discussions. In R.
Day (Ed.), Talking to learn: Conversation in second
language acquisition (pp. 200222). Rowley, MA:
Newbury House Publishers.
Radziszewska, B., & Rogoff, B. (1991). Childrens
guided participation in planning imaginary er-
rands with skilled adult or peer partners. Develop-
mental Psychology, 27, 381397.
Ringbom, H. (1987). The role of the first language in foreign
language learning. Philadelphia: Multilingual Mat-
ters Ltd.
Rommetveit, R. (1974). On message structure: A framework
for the study of language and communication. New
York: Wiley.
Rommetveit, R. (1979). On codes and dynamic residu-
als in human communication. In R. Rommetveit
& R.M. Blakar (Eds.), Studies of language, thought
and verbal communication (pp. 163175). London:
Academic Press.
Rommetveit, R. (1985). Language acquisition as increas-
ing linguistic structuring of experience and sym-
bolic behavior control. In J.V. Wertsch (Ed.), Cul-
ture, communication, and cognition (pp. 183204).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schinke-Llano, L. (1994). Linguistic accommodation
with LEP and LD children. In J.P. Lantolf & G.
Appel (Eds.), Vygotskian approaches to second lan-
guage research (pp. 5768). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Soskin, W.F., & John, V. (1963). The study of spontane-
ous talk. In G. Barber (Ed.), The stream of behavior:
Explorations of its structure and content (pp.
228281). New York: MIT Press.
Stone, C.A. (1993). What is missing in the metaphor of
scaffolding? In E. Forman, N. Minick, & C.A.
Stone (Eds.), Contexts for learning: Sociocultural dy-
namics in childrens development (pp. 169183). Ox-
ford/New York: Oxford University Press.
Swain, M. (1995). Collaborative dialogue: Its contribution to
second language learning. Plenary paper presented
at the Annual American Association of Applied
Linguistics 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, IL.
Varonis, E., & Gass, S. (1985). Non-native/non-native
conversations: A model for negotiation of mean-
ing. Applied Linguistics, 6(1), 7190.
Villamil, O., & 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, 5175.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of
higher psychological processes. M. Cole, V. John-
Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.). Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1979). Consciousness as a problem in the
psychology of behavior. Soviet Psychology, 17, 335.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1981). The genesis of higher mental
functions. In J.V. Wertsch (Ed. and Trans.), The
concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 144188).
Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1986). Thought and language. A. Kozulin
(Ed.). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Wertsch, J.V. (1979). The regulation of human action
and the given-new organization of private speech.
In G. Zivin (Ed.), The development of self-regulation
through private speech (pp. 7998). New York: Wiley.
Wertsch, J.V. (1980). The significance of dialogue in
Vygotskys account of social, egocentric, and inner
speech. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 5,
150162.
Wertsch, J.V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of
mind. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Wertsch, J.V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural
approach to mediated action. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press.
Wertsch, J.V., Minick, N., & Arns, F.J. (1984). The crea-
tion of context in joint problem-solving. In B. Ro-
goff & J. Lave (Eds.), Everyday cognition: Its develop-
ment in social context. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of
tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psy-
chology and Psychiatry, 17, 89100.
Zivin, G. (Ed.) (1979). The development of self-regulation
through private speech. New York: Wiley.

Questions about Subscriptions

Should you have any questions about your subscription, please contact: Blackwell Publishers, 350
Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, ATTN: Subscriber Services Coordinator, Tel: 800-835-6770.

Please direct manuscripts and editorial concerns to Sally Sieloff Magnan, Department of French &
Italian, 618 Van Hise, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706-1558.

Direct books and other material for review to Judith E. Liskin-Gasparro, Department of Spanish &
Portuguese, University of Iowa, 111 Phillips Hall, Iowa City, IA 52242-1409.