UW-Madison ILL Lending (GZM) 728 State Street / Madison, WI 53706 *G2M,YUS,AFU,EYR IUP,UUS,082,SF BZSV Patron: Journal he Routledge handbook Of sociocultural theory and second language development / Volume: Issue: = MonthvYear: 2018-01-01 Pages: - = anticte author: “5 Attticle Title: M, De Guerrero, Maria C. Private and inner speech in [2 learning: The impact of vygotskyan sociocuttural 3 theory © — Ocic Number: 1018032559 e ILL # - 204529055 SS AMICK Location: mem Call #: P51 REGS 2018 Request Date: 20200923 MaxCost: 80.001FM Billing Category: Shipping Address: Interlibrary Loan Dept Penn State University Libraries 127 Paterno Library, Curtin Rd. University Park, Pennsylvania 16802-1808 United States Borrowing Notes: Billing Notes: IFM preferred, invoice accepted; SHARES, SHARES recip articles, BTA, PALC! Copyright Compliance: US_CCL ODYSSEY This material may be protected by copyright law (Title 17 U.S. Code).10 Private and Inner Speech in L2 Learning The Impact of Vygotskyan Sociocultural Theory Maria C. M. de Guerrero Introduction ‘One of the areas of second language (L2) research in which Vygotskyan sociocultural theory (SCT) has proved to have greatest “heuristic value” (Kezulin, 1986, p. lvi) has been that of private and inner speech. Evidence from the early days of Western SCT-inspired L2 research (Frawley & Lantolf, 1985; Lantolf & Frawley, 1984) shows that private and inner speech have been, from the start, Vygotskyan core concepts worthy of investigation from an L2 per- spective. In this paper, T asess the impact of Vygotskyan SCT on private and inner speech phenomena in L2 researeb, After briefly considering Vygotsky's treatment of private and inner speech in relation to additional language learning, I survey the major research findings ‘on private/inner speech occurrence in L2, foreign language (FL), and bilingual/multilingual learning. Particular attention is paid to advances—and gaps—in the exploration of the role of private/inner speech in L2 learning and the development of the capacity to think verbelly jn a language other than the first (L1). Lastly, I point out areas in need of further research, Vygotsky on Private/Inner Speech and Language Learning Private and inner speech are exceptionally important notions in Vygotsky's (1978, 1986) theories. Vygotsky himself, however, didnot explicitly relat his discussion of private and inner speech tothe learning of other languages. As Kozulin (1986) observes, although the problem of inte and itapersonalcommuniation was a the forffont of Vygotsky's theory, be did not have time to develop his ideas on “the typology ofthe overt and inner dialogues in which culture acquires is psychologically individualized form (Kozulin, 1986, p. x«xvi tales added). This lack of specificity in Vygotsky's theories oo the development of privateinner speech from an additional language perspective did not mean, however, 2 lack of interest in FL learning and multilingualism. Vygotsky (1986, 1997) indeed addressed these issues at considerable length, and some inferences can be made about what he may have thought about developing prvatefiner speech in an L2. In particular bis framing ofthe Aiseussion ofthe differences and reciprocal influences between learning te native language 152Private and Inner Speech in L2 Learning ‘and learning an FL suggests a special concern withthe nature ofthe semantic component of verbal thought resulting ftom the acquisition of another language. In this respec, itis clear that Vygotsky saw the development of the semantic aspects of an FL, particularly when learned by children asa school subject ina deliberate and conscious fashion, as a process of transferring already-acquired meanings in the L1 to the L2. He also recognized, however, thatthe question of multilingualism and its possible (postive or negative) effects on mental and speech development was still not completely and satisfactorily resolved at his time and hhad to be looked at in all its complexity by further research (1997, p. 257). Vygotsky may have been binting atthe need for research to explore the inner speech of an individual in the context of multingualism, as be put it, “the need ... to descend from the surface... . and to penetrate deeply, to take into account internal structures ofthe processes that are directly involved in speech development of the child” (p. 257). The question of multilingualism, Vygotsky concluded, had to deeply address the influence of speech development on the whole intellectual, emotional, and character development of the child (pp. 258-259), thus ‘opening the door for future studies exploring the fall impact of additional language learning om individual development. The possibility of extending Vygotsky’s generic views on private/inner speech to more specific L2, b- and multilingual situations bas triggered—to date—a substantial amount of research, to be appraised subsequently. Underlying this research, there are certain recurrent key questions of interest: Can human beings internalize a language other than the L1 to the Point of making it an addtional or primary mediator of inner speech? How does acquisition of an L2 affect the nature of private and inner speech? Do private speech and inner speech in the L2 have the same functions and structure as in the L1? To what extent does the private/ inner speech of L2 leamers or speakers rely on the L1, and what role does this L1 play? Does development of verbal thought in the L2 follow the same intemalization sequence (rom social, to egocentric, to nner speech) asin the L1? What is the impact of internalizing an 2 to the point of inner speech on an individual's sense of self—intellect, emotions, and personality included—as Vygotsky suggested? The ensuing overview provides a measure of the extent to which many of the above concems have been dealt with in the last 30 (or so) years of SCT-inspired L2 research. Thirty Years of Research on L2-Private Speech Private Speech as Self-Regulation The first Vygotskyan-informed Western studies on private speech among L2 leamers approached it as a mind-regulatory phenomenon whore speech i used externally (verbalized ‘ut loud) for self-regulatory purposes (to control mental activity and guide action). Two early studies centered on the private speech of adult L2 learners engaged in cognitive-verbal tasks Frawley & Lantolf, 1985; Lantolf & Frawley, 1984). The studies exposed peculiar formal features in the private speech of L2 learners trying to gain control over challenging narrative production tasks in the L2. Early on, interest was also expressed about the self-regulatory function of private speech among bilingual children in studies which focused on the extent of private speech, code-switching, and language dominance (see, for example, Amodeo & Cardenas, 1983; Diaz, Padilla, & Weathersby, 1991). Following these early studies, consid- erable subsequent SCT-based research helped document and characterize the private speech phenomenon as a self-regulatory mechanism, incidentally or deliberately elicited, in natural and artificial setings, among both young and adult L2 leamers and bilinguals engaged in 183Marla C. M. de Guerrero pasticular task situations, for example, oral text recall (Appel & Lantolf, 1994), performing classroom assignments (Broner & Tarone, 2001), problem solving (Anani Sarab & Gordani, 2015; Centeno-Cortés & Jiménez-Jiménez, 2004; Jiménez-Jiménez, 2013), collaborative ‘writing (DiCamilla & Ant6n, 2004), picture narration (MeCatfferty, 1992, 1994), and play- ing language-focused games (Smith, 2007; Sonmez, 2011). In general, studies unequivocally showed that L2 and FL learners and speakers, children as well as adults, sometimes exter- nalize thei thinking processes through private speech when solving challenging intellectual tasks that demand use of the L2. Interestingly, SCT research has also been able to dem- onstrate that L2 leamers seifregulate not only through orally extermalized private speech ‘but also through written private notes (DiCamilla & Lantolf, 1994; Lee, 2008; Roebuck, 2000; Yoshida, 2009), drawings (Lee, 2008), and gestures (Lee, 2008; McCatferty, 2004; Steinbach-Kohler & Thome, 2011). Another important line of research has focused on the functions of self-regulatory private speech among L2 leamers. Four distinct functions are generally recognized: cognitive (to plan and guide actions), metacognitive (to monitor or denote awareness of one's cognitive processes), affective (to express emotions), and social (to orient and denote awareness of ‘others in collaborative discourse) (McCafferty, 1994; Yoshida, 2009). Itis noted that private speech utterances aze usually multifunctional; for example, the utterance “That's not right” whispered by a student in reference to using an incorrect word form during collaborative pair-work (DiCamilla & Ant6n, 2004, p. 51) serves not only a metacognitive but also a social function, a it expresses both self-awareness of an error and orients the other towards farther corrective dyadic action. With respect to the dual intra- and intermental function of private speech in social discourse (DiCamilla & Antén, 2004; Wells, 1998), several recent 2 studies have pursued the social role of self-regulatory L2 private speech in interactive situations (Smith, 2007; Sénmez, 2011; Steinbach-Kobler & Thome, 2011; Yoshida, 2009), Learning-Focused Private Speech and Internatization In regard to private speech and self-regulation, Frawley and Lantolf (1986) pointed out that, ‘Vygotskyan theory, all private speech—and not just some forms—is self-regulatory, ic., private speech is always a means to control one’s own mental activity. One distinctive form of self-regulatory private speech that L2 learners have consistently exhibited is that of “learning-focused private speech” (Lantolf & Thome, 2006, p. 184), that is, speech that eamers address to themselves to regulate their own learning of the L2. Because this form of 2 private speech sometimes involves behaviors that may lead to the internalization of new L2 features, it has been referred to as the “internalizing” function (Lantolf & Yiétiez, 2003) of L2 private speech. Outstanding evidence of L2 leaming.focused private speech was seen in Saville-Troike's (1988) seminal study of the strategies employed in learning English, the language of the school context, by small children of Chinese, Japanese, and Korean LI backgrounds. Among their private speech strategies were selective or close repetition of others" utterances, employment of words or phrases heard previously, experimentation ‘with meaning and manipulation of form (grammatical, morphological, and phonological), creative construction of new linguistic forms (sometimes combining the L1 with the L2), and rehearsal of language prior to actual production. As Saville-Troike (1988) suggests, the children’s private speech strategies may have contributed to acquisition of the L2 although ‘no claim to internalization in the long term was made due to the short time the children remained in the L2 context (pp. 586, 588). However, the data on manipulation of form in particular can be interpreted, according to Saville-Troike, as belonging to the highest level 154Private and Inner Speech in L2 Learning on the Vygotskyan developmental hierarchy of self-regulatory private speech, with levels ranging (low to high) from rehearsal, to experimentation, to creativity (p. 587). The view of L2 private speech as an 2 learning/intemalizing mechanistn has been con- solidated throughout numerous studies involving children and adolescents (Broner & Tarone, 2001; de Courcy, 2003; Smith, 2007; Wang & Hyun, 2009; Yi, 2010) as well as adults (Abadikhah & Khorshidi, 2013; Borer, 2007; Centeno-Cortés, 2003; Lantolf, 1997; Lantolf & Yétez, 2003; Ohta, 2601; Stafford, 2013; Yoshida, 2009). The studies have repeatedly shown leamers engaging in behaviors that may lead to appropriation and learning of the L2, such as immediate and delayed repetition (bth verbatim and modified), vicarious response and participation, experimentation with meaning and language forms, meaning-focused translation, rehearsal for memorization or future production, and displays of metalinguis- tic awareness. When placed on the Vygotskyan “rehearsal-experimentation-creativity” hierarchy of self-regulatory private speech (Saville-Troike, 1988), these behaviors may be indicative of development towards internalization of the L2, as they provide learners with the opportunity not ony to reinforce existing knowledge but also appropriate new elements of the 12 (lexical, grammatical, and semantic) and engage in transformative imitation, a crucial mechanism, in Vygotskyan theory, for intemalization and developmental progress (vypoisky, 1986). In the following sample, GeGe, a preschooler of Chinese-L1 background in an English- speaking school, provides sn example of delayed, creative imitation in private speech as he recalls and recites to himself the children’s rhyme “Five Little Hot Dogs”: GeGe: One little bang. One little dog bang. (One went bang, One bang bang. (Chen, 1987, pp. 114-115) Specific Language Use in Private Speech ‘Another crucial issue where years of SCT-grounded research have been illuminating is that of language-specific use in private speech by L2 leamers and bilinguals, particularly on the extent and role of the L as cognitive mediator. Reviews of studies (Guerrero, 2005; Guerrero, in press) reveal thet, whereas in monolinguals the L1 constitutes the sole instru- ment of self: mediation, among individuals who are inthe process of learning or have become more or les proficient in another language, externalized private speech emerges in varying degrees of L2 use relative to the L1. Variation in L1 reliance ranges from zero presence of the LI (e.g, Clark, 2005; Smith, 2007) or small amounts (e.g., Sénmez, 2011; Yi, 2010; Yoshida, 2009) to moderate or substantial use (e.g, Abadikhah & Khorshidi, 2013; Jiménez. Jiménez, 2015; Stafford, 2013; Steinbach-Kobler & Thorne, 2011; Wang & Hyun, 2009). In actuality, the issue of language-specific use in private speech, ie, the extent to which Li or L2 is used, reflects a very complex configuration of interelated variables: L2 profi- ciency and L1 or L2 dominance; type, level of difficulty, and language(s) of task; function of private speech; situational context of use; and presence and language background of interlocutors or potential hearers, to name some of the most salient. The research shows that, although proficiency in the L2 is important, it is definitely not the sole determinant ofits use as the predominant medium for private speech. In a study by Centeno-Cortés and Jiménez-Jiménez (2004), for example, use of Spanish (the L2) for private speech 155Maria C. M. de Guerrero increased with proficiency; however, although the advanced learners were able to perform ‘most of their reasoning in Spanish while solving challenging intellectual problems, they still switched to English (the L1) when the task became too difficult. In Jiménez-Jiménez (2015), it was language dominance (degree of daily use or confidence in using a language), rather than proficiency, that appeared to determine the language medium for private use. While task difficulty or language dominance may influence use of a particular language in private speech, context of language use may also be a factor (Clark, 2005). At any rate, when used in private speech during challenging cognitive task, the L1 serves a variety of task-regulatory purposes: selfencouragement and release of emotions, planning and evalu ation, searching for words, translating, and meaning-making. In shor, the L1 appears to be used strategically in private speech by L2 learners or bilinguals as a readily available and ‘convenient cogaitive resource. Private Speech and the Internalization Process ‘A Vygotskyan approach to private speech in the L2 would ideally call for research show- ing the genesis of L2 development (Lantolf & Thome, 2006) as a process involving the progressive privatization or intellectualization (Guerrero, 2009) of L2 social speech as it ‘morphs into inner speech. A crucial question is thus what role extemalized private speech in the L2 plays in this movement toward complete covertness. An immediate concer that arises in answering this question i that not all learners appear to engage in outwardly vocal- ized private speech (Centeno-Cortés, 2003; Saville-Troike, 1988) and some engage in it only minimally (Clark, 2005; Ohta, 2001). In Saville-Troike’s (1988) study, whereas some children underwent a “silent” period which was nonetheless very vocal privately, other children—more other- than inner-directed, according to the researcher—produced no audi- ble signs of selftalk. For various reasons, not the least avoiding behavior that might be considered socially inappropriate, some learners, particularly adults, may prefer to engage in subvocal, rather than vocal, verbalizations of the L2, imperceptible to others. Within his step-like schema of the internalization process, Gal’perin (1967) has referred to the stage of ordinary speech without volume as the phase of “external speech to oneself” (p. 30). This stage, in his view, constitutes the first form of “action in the mind” in an extemal-to-internal process which culminates with inner speech. A study showing use of external speech to ‘oneself in the L2 without the volume as a progressive intellectualization process was con- ducted by Guerrero (2004). In the study, based on diary data, beginning leamers of English reported experiencing a variety of concealed behaviors in an attempt to learm the L2: inward reproduction of language being heard or read, spontaneous or deliberate recall of language heard or read previously, mental preparation of future language production, imagining con- versations in the L2, and silent verbalization of private thoughts, From the available research evidence, it might be concluded then that private speech in the L2 has indeed a key role in the process of L2 intellectualization as a transitional stage between social communicative speech and internal psychological speech; however, not all learners will experience it in the same way, with its materialization as externalized speech shifting both within and across individuals from audible to inaudible articulation. In the study of L2 private/inner speech from a genetic Vygotskyan perspective, most studies—as has been shown—have adopted a microgenetic approach, that is, document- ing short-term development based on the direct observation of private speech at particular points in time, changes which ultimately are presumed to bear on L2 ontogenesis (devel- ‘opment over the lifespan). Not many studies on L2 private/inner speech have adopted a 156Private and Inner Speech in L2 Learning long-term approach to ontogenetic development through longitudinal data showing move- ‘ment from social to inner speech across the lifespan. Ohta (2001) and Centeno-Cortés (2003), for example, both documented private speech occurrence among L2 college learners over a relatively long period of time (roughly an academic year), being able to show con- nections between private speech production and L2 internalization, from which a transition to inner speech might be inferred. Longitudinal data on the ontogenetic transition from social to inner speech among 12 leamers can also be found in case studies of early L2/ bilingual acquisition (see, for example, Chen, 1987; Leopold, 1949; Saville-Troike, 1988). More recently, Yi (2010) was able to show developmental progression from subvocalpri- vate speech to silent inner speech in the L2 over the course of a year among three Korean preschoolers learning English in a US school. ‘These findings suggest that Vygotsky's (1986) general hypothesis that vocalized pri- vate speech emerges in early childhood, peaks right before school age, and fades off inthe school years as it tums into inner speech might be extended to L2 acquisition, just as it has been demonstrated in LI leaming (Alareon-Rubio, Sanchez-Medina, & Prito-Garcia, 2014; Damianova, Lucas, & Sullivan, 2012; San Martin, Boada, & Feigenbaum, 2011). At least, this might be the case in early bilingual acquisition ofan L2. In recent review of studies on private speech among bilinguals, Sawyer (2016) concludes: “Taken as a whole, the studies tentatively suggest that bilingual private speech follows a similar developmental trajectory to the private speech of monolinguals” (. 493) Thirty Years of Research on Inner Speech and L2 Learning Within an SCT-L2 framework, the exploration of inner speech development has followed: ‘on the whole and justifiably so—Vygotsky’s experimental-genetic method, which claims that higher forms of mental development must be studied in their formation, through their observable, ontogenetially earlier external manifestations. Thus, most L2 studies have focused on private speech, the developmental precursor of inner speech. A problem which this approach has generated is that the study of L2 private speech, as extensive as it has been in the last 30 years, has for the most part centered on private speech as an object of research in itself, wth few studies seeking evidence of internalization (as discussed above) and making grounded inferences (as a Vygotskyan approach would call for) as tothe status ‘of L2 inner speech, the final phase in the developmental progression. Some methodologi- cal alternatives to the genetic method, however, have been able to throw some light on L2 inner speech (fora critical evaluation of methodologies in private/inner speech research, see Guerrero, 2008, in press) Research on the Inner Speech of L2 Learners and Users Using experimental methodology, Ushakova (1994) and colleagues studied the inner speech ‘mechanisms involved in vocabulary acquisition of an artificial language. Their findings led Ushakova to conclude that inner speech is strongly influenced by L1 semantics and that L2 acquisition is basically a process of incorporating new semantic structures into a preformed system of the L1, « conclusion which is consistent with Vygotsky’ (1986) belief tat when learning an FL at schoo! people “use word meanings that are already well developed in the native language, and only translate them" (p. 159). Several methodological features, how- ver, limit the applicability and generalizability of Ushakova’s conclusions (and Vygotsky's belief) to language learning situations where the L2 is eared through translation, at very 157Maria C. M. de Guerrero initial stages of acquisition, and in the absence of intense contextualized language exposure and socialization. Despite its limitations (see critique in Guerrero, 2005, p. 66), Ushakova’s research nonetbeless raises an important question on the nature of inner speech in 2 acquisi- tion, namely, whether the semantic/conceptual foundation of inner speech is static and fixed ‘on the architecture laid out by the L1, or it is susceptible to change on the basis of an L2. Empirical evidence on the issue of semantic and conceptual reorganization at the level of inner speech as a result of L2 acquisition, bilingualism, or multilingualism is provided in a number of studies. Based on self-report data obtained through interviews with adult L2 and FL leamers, Tohn-Steiner (1985) concluded, “the relationship of language to thougbt is not one of static connections; it changes with the shifting lines of development of the two languages” (p. 357). The intricate ways in which advanced L2 or FL learners, bilinguals, and _multlinguals are capable of restructuring their L1 conceptual and semantic foundations bas been thoroughly investigated by Pavienko (1999, 2005). ‘The process of developing a dual system of meanings as a basis for inner speech is a complex one, often entailing profound changes in self-identity and conceptualizing the ‘world. This was the focus of Pavlenko and Lantotf’s (2000) research (extended in Pavlenko, 2014), based on data inthe form of autobiographical naratives from late bilinguals who had managed to develop very high levels of 12. competence and had become in most aspects, indistinguishable from native speakers. Pavienko and Lantolf’s analysis revealed a long and conflicted process of self-reconstruction on the basis of a new language for these bilingual’ bicultural individuals. As the researchers explain, the process usually involves, initially, a series of losses related to the Li: losing one’s linguistic identity, the inner voice, and the ability to access a conceptual store shaped by personal “senses” (as Vygotsky would call, them) of words in the L1. Gradually, as the L2 becomes the dominant medium for naming things and experiences and communicating in the new linguistic environment, the individual undergoes a phase of self-reconstruction through the L2 as the new medium for thinking Changes in inner speech also take place at the level of internal autobiographical memory, as demonstrated in Larsen, Schrauf, Fromholt, and Rubin (2002). Using questionnaire and key-word methodology, the researchers found consecutive bilingual immigrants to operate on the basis of two different but co-existing sets of memory representations, one shaped by 1L1 culture and semantics and another one by L2 culture and semantics. ‘Working on an SCT assumption that internalization of an L2 might entail development of an intemal plane of thinking mediated by the L2, Guerrero (1994, 1999) pursued the ‘vestigation of L2 inner speech from a proficiency point of view to observe effects ou L2 inner speech development. The studies, based on questionnaires and interviews, focused on the rehearsal function of inner speech, ie., covert language behavior for purposes of prac- ticing the language, memorizing, planning and monitoring speech proctction, playing with language, imagining dialogues or self-talking, and the like. The combined studies found that as L2 proficiency increased (from low to highly advanced), so did the frequency of L2 inner speech. The frequency of certain functions, however, fluctuated. Whereas mental rehearsal for memory storage/tetrieval, planning, and monitoring decreased with proficiency, the use ‘of L2 inner speech for creating imaginary dialogues with oneself and others increased, Variables Involved in L2 Inner Speech Use Proficiency seems to be an important variable affecting the frequency and functions of L2 ‘nner speech (see also Schrauf, 2009). Other factors, however, appear to be highly influential 158Private and inner Speech in L2 Learning in the development and utilization ofthe L2 as a tool for thought. Recent studies conducted ‘by Dewaele (2009, 2015), Ewert (2010), and GabryS-Barker (2014) have explored the vari- ables that affect development and frequency of use of an additional language (LX) in inner speech among multilinguals, Data for Dewaele’s research came from questions in the bilin- gualism and emotions questionnaire (BEQ, Dewaele & Pavlenko, 2001-2003) on the silent ‘use of language for mental calculations, forming sentences, and expressing feelings to one~ self. Responses from a total of 1,579 multilinguals representing 77 different Ls and up to four additional languages revealed an overall preference for the L.1 for inner speech in all three functions. Preferred LI use, however, did not mean exclusive use (see similar results in Ewert, 2010, and Gabry$-Barker, 2014). L2s, for example, were used “frequently” or “all the time” by more than half of the participants for inner speech sentences and by more than a third for mental calculations. LXs learned later in life were used decreasingly less for these cognitive functions. The strongest predictor of language of choice for inner speech was frequency of use in everyday interactions. Other variables that appeared to predict whether an L2 or L3 would become the medium for inner speech were age of onset of acquisition, proficiency, socialization inthe language, size of network of interactants, context of acquisi- tion, and number of leamed languages. Studies indicate that shifts in the language of inner speech may take place not only throughout the lifetime but also as code-switching at any given moment (Ewert, 2010; Gabry$-Barker, 2014). According to Ewert, internal code-switching among multilinguals responds to a variety of reasons, for instance, not knowing (or finding) tbe right word or ‘expression in any of the languages, seeking for precision in meaning, and making inner ‘communication easier and faster. The following participant self-report captures the language shifts that may occur ina competent multlingual’s mind: 1 often think in English [L2]. For instance, when writing this text itis easier to think in English than in Polish [L1}. I switch languages when thinking very often. Ithappens that I start my thought in English and finish it in Polish, or the other way round, (Gabrys-Barker, 2014, p. 197) Inner Speech in the Performance of L2 Verbal Tasks Lastly, @ few noteworthy SCT-grounded studies have focused on the inner speech that ‘occurs during performance of verbal tasks that involve use of the L2 (reading, transla- tioa, writing). An early study by Sokolov (1972) and colleagues investigated the nature of inner speech during the reading of FL texts. Based on think-aloud protocols and psychophysiological techniques (e.g. interference with speech articulation and electro- ‘myography), the experiments revealed the instrumental role of inner speech processes in comprehending FL texts, such as selecting meaningful units, retaining information, and making semantic generalizations. Another study (GabryS-Barker, 2006), also using think-alouds, examined the inner speech of trilinguals engaged in translation tasks. Very complex patterns of activation of all three languages were found depending on the lan- ‘guages used in input (text to be translated) and output (verbalized translation). Finally, the studies by Huh (2002) and Maha. and Jobn-Steiner (2013), based respectively on think-aloud and dialogue journal methodologies, looked into the inner speech processes of L2 writers, highlighting the interactions that occur between L1 and L2 in making ‘meaning during the composing process. 159Maria C. M, de Guerrero Conclusion Final Assessment “The overview of work presented here provides an impressive measure of the impact that a ‘Vygotskyan SCT approach has exerted on research on private and inner speech from an L2 perspective. As shown, private speech appears to be a widespread phenomenon among L2 Teamers and users, both as a general self-regulatory mechanism in cognitive tasks involving. ‘an L2 and as a language learning tool potentially leading to internalization. In form, private speech among L2 leamers or users may be externalized in various modalities: orally, in writ- ing, in drawing, and in gestures, appearing in various degrees of covertness (from audible to inaudible) and reliance on the L1 (see Stam's chapter in this volume for a view of the privatefinner speech aspects of L2 gestures). In function, L2 private speech serves cogni- tive, metacogoitive affective, and social purposes. Although long-term studies are scarce, the microgenetic research produced within the SCT approach does seem to indicate that ‘Vygotsky's conception of private speech as a transitional stage between social and inner speech can be extended to .2 development, confirming the ole of private speech as a major component of the 12 intellectualization process. As an application of Vygotsky's genetic method, the study of private speech manifes- tations in L2 leaming and use has yielded important insights on the nature of 1.2 inner speech, that is, speech mediated by the L2 at its most internalized phase in the develop- mental progression. Vital information on L2 inner speech has also been obtained through SCT-grounded research secking methodological alternatives in a variety of approaches: traditional experimental research as well as introspective and retrospective verbal report procedures (think-alouds, diaries, questionnaires, interviews, and self-narratives). Overall, this research shows that L2 learning may indeed lead ultimately to changes in inner speech supporting the use of an L2 for verbal thinking and self-communication. Evidence from highly competent L2/FL leamers and users, bilinguals, and multlinguals suggests certain conditions are necessary for the development of the capacity to use the L2 intramentally: high levels of proficiency, intense past and present exposure and socialization in the L2, and substantial conceptual/semantic restructuring on the basis of the L2. Actual activation of the L2 for intemal purposes, however, is likely to depend on a host of social, cognitive, and affective factors, such as, for example, linguistic environmental context, the particular ‘mental task to be performed, and personal atitudes towards using the L2. Whereas for most individuals the L1 continues to be their preferred medium for thinking, at least for certain functions, the research reveals lifetime dependence on the L1 for inner speech is not abso- tute. Sustained and efficient use of an L2 in inner speech is possible and frequently does take place contingently on the above-mentioned conditions and factors. When, as Vygotsky (1997) suggested, the full impact ofthe development of an L2 is assessed, profound changes in the whole of a person's intramental life—intllect, emotions, sense of self—appear 0 ‘occur as a result of the development of L2 inner speech. Further Research Although great strides have been made in applying Vygotskyan theory to private and inner speech from an L2 perspective, further research is needed in some areas. More studies are necessary showing linkages between L2 private speech and iotemalizaton that might signal development of greater L2 mediation in inner speech. Both microgenetic and studies over 160Private and inner Speech in L2 Learning longer periods of time could provide evidence of movement from social, to private, to inner speech in L2 development. In particular, longitudinal case studies could be undertaken doc- menting ontogenetic stages in the attainment of the capacity for verbal thought in another language in various acquisition scenarios (¢.,, simultaneous or consecutive bi-multilingual acquisition; children and adult FL/L2 learning through academic instruction). Differences in various aspects of 2 private and inner speech, such as frequency and functions, across diffes- ent age groups could also be further investigated. Another area where SCT-inspired research could make a valuable and interesting contribution is the nature of inner speect in its con- ceptual/semantic foundation as a result of changes effected through internalization of a new language. Specifically, studies could pursue the impact of conceptually based approaches to 12 instruction on the systematic and deliberate development of new ways of thinking through an L2, For Vygotsky (1997), “the pedagogical effect on the development ofthe native and the foreign language” was one ofthe most important aspects in solving the question of children’s ‘multilingualism (p. 257). Greater research efforts are thus needed to investigate the role of instructional intervention (in various modalities) on L.2 private and inner speech development. ‘Also, there is still great potential to be explored on the issue of verbal reception and pro- duction tasks such as listening, reading, writing, and speaking, and the role played in them by L2 private/inner speech processes. Finally, a general recommendation for future studies on private/inner speech from an SCT stance is to broaden the scope of populations to be included, taking into account the sreat diversity of sociocultural and individual factors that shape the various L2, FL, bilin- gual, and multilingual learning settings and that ultimately affect a person’s capacity for private thinking and self-communication References Abadikhah, S., & Khorshidi, A. (2013). An investigation ofthe private speech phenomenon in the collaborative interaction of Iranian adult EFL learners. The Southeast Aslan Journal of English Language Studies, 193), 71-8. Alarcén-Rubio D., J, Sénchez-Medina, A., & Prieto-Garca, J. R. (2014). Executive function and verbal self-regulation in childhood: Developmental linkages between partially internalized private speech and cognitive flexibility. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 29, 95-108. ‘Amodeo, L.B., & Cardenas, M. (1983). Private speech production during task performance by bilin- gual and monolingual children. In T. H. Eseobedo (Ed), Early childhood bilingual education: A Hispanic perspective (pp. 50-62). New York: Teachers College Press. ‘Anani Sarab, M. R, & Gordani, Y. (2015). The roe of private speech in cognitive regulation of earn- xs: The case of English asa forsign language education. Cogent Education, 2(1), 1054331, doi0, 1080/2331 186X.2015.1054331 Appel, G., & Lantolf J.P. (1994). Speaking as mediation: A study of L1 and L2 text recall tasks. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 437-452. Borer, L (2007). Depth of processing in private and socal speech: Its role in the retention of word knowledge by adult BAP learners. Canadian Modern Language Review, 64, 269-295, Broner, M., & Tarone, F. (2001). Is it fan? Language play in a fifth-grade Spanish immersion classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 85, 363-379. Centeno-Cortés, B. (2003). Privave speech in the second language classroom: lis role in internll- zation and its link to social production (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA. Centeno-Cortés,B.,& Jiménez-Jiménez, A. (2004), Problem-solving tasks in a foreign language: The importance of the Li in private verbal thinking, Inernational Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14, 78s. 161Maria C, M. de Guerrero Cen, R. (1987). The private speech of a Chinese-English bilingual child: A naturalist ongitudinal study (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UML No, 8802996) Clark, B. (2005), Private speech: A window into the selftalk of Kindergarten children from diverse language backgrounds (Doctoral dissertation. Retvieved fom hips. handle neV 229281 Damianovs, M.K, Lucas, M, & Sullivan, G.B, 2012) Verbal mediation of problem solving in pre- ‘primary and junior primary schoolchildren. South African Journal of Pychology 42, 445-45. «de Coury, M. (2003). French takes over your mind: Private speech and making sense in immersion programs, Journal of Educational Thought, 37, 349-367. Deivaee,1-M. (2009). Age effects on self perceived communicative competence and language choice among adult mullinguals, EUROSLA Yearbook, 9, 245-268. do:10.107SIeurosia.9.[2dew Dewaele, JM, 2015) From obscure echo to language of the heart: Mullinguals language choices for (emotional) inner speech. Journal of Pragmatics, 87, 1-7, Dewaele, J-M., & Pavlenko, A. (2001-2008). Bilingualism and emotions [Web questionnsire. Univesity of London Diaz, RM, Padilla K. A, & Weatherby, EK (1991). The effects of bilingualism on preschoolers private specch, Barly Childhood Research Quarterly, 6,377-293, DiCamill, FJ, & Ants, M2004) Private spech: A study of language fr thought inthe collabo- ‘ative interaction of language lamers. ternational Journal of Applied Linguistics, If, 36-69. DiCanilla FJ, 4 Lantolf, P. (1994). The linguistic analysis of private writing. Language Sciences, 16, 347-369. Ewer, A. (2010). An educational language community: Extemal and intemal language wse by mul ‘lingual students. In J. Arabski & A. Wojtaszek (Eds), Newrolingustic and psycholinguistc perspectives on SLA (pp. 189-174). Bristol, UK: Mullingual Mates. Frawley, W, & Lantolf, JP (1985). Second language discourse: A Vygotskyanperopectve, Applied Linguistics, 6 19-44, Frawley, W., & Lantolf JP. (1986), Private speech and self-regulation: A commentary on Frauengass and Diaz, Developmental Psychology, 22, 706-108 Gabryé-Barker, D. 2006) Language activation in the thinking processes ofa multlingval language ser. International Journal of Mulilingualism 3, 105-124 Gabryé-Barker, D. (2014), Face to face with one's thoughts: On thinking mutilingually. In M. Pawlak ‘EL. Aronin (Eds), Essental topes in applied linguistics and mulilingualism (pp 185-208), New York: Springer. . Galperin, P. Ya. (1967). On the notion of atemaization. Soviet Psychology, $,28-33. Guerrero, M. C. M. de. (1994), Form and functions of inner speech in adult second language earn- ing. In Lantolf, J. P. & ©. Appel (Eds), Vygocskan approaches to second language research (9p. 83-115) Norwood, NI Ablex. Cuerrero, M. C. M. de, (1999). Inner speech as mental rehearsal: The case of advanced L2 leernes. Tesues in Applied Linguists, 10, 27-5. CQuertero, M. C.M. de. 2008), Evy stages of L2 inner speech development: What verbal reports sug- gest. international Journal of Applied Linguists, 14, 90-112. Guerero, MC. M. de (2005) Ine speech—-L2. Thinking words ina second language. New York: Springer. Cereero, M. C. M. de. (2009) Lifespan development of the L2 as an intellectualization process: An ‘ontogenetic sociocultural theory perspective. In K. de Bot & R. W. Schrauf Eds), Language devel- ‘pment over the lifespan (pp. 107-124) New York: Routledge. Guerrero, M.-C. M. de. (in press) Going cover: Inner and private speech in language leering. Language Teaching. Huh, M. 2002, Apa) A perspective on LI inner speech in 2 writing ideology. Peper presented at the meeting ofthe American Associaton for Applied Linguistics, Salt Lake City, UT. Jiménez Jiménez, A. (2018). Problem-slving activites in bilingual speakers. International Journal of Bilingualism, 19, 259-281 162Private and Inner Speech in L2 Learning Jol-Stener,V. (1985). The roed to competence in an alien land. In J. V. Wertsc (Bd), Culture communication, and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives (pp. 348-371). New York: Cambridge University res. Xozulin, A. (1986). Vygotsky in context, In A. Kozulin (Ed). Thought and language. Lev Vygotsky (pp. Ki-lv), Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Lantolf, J.P. (1997). The function of language play inthe acquisition of L2 Spanish. Tn A. T. Pérez- Leroux & W. R. Glas (Eds), Contemporary perspectives on the acquisition of Spanish (Vol. 2, pp. 3-24). Somerville, MA: Cascadia Press Lantolf, J.P, & Frawley, W. (1984). Second language performance and Vygotskyan psycholinguis- tics: Implications for L2 instruction. In A. Manning, P, Martin, & K. MeCalla (Eds), The tench LACUS Forum, 1983 (pp. 425-440). Columbia, SC: Hombeam Press. Lantolf J P., & Thome, S. L. 2006). Sociacultural theory and the genesis of second language devel- opment. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, Lantolf, J.P. Yéiez, M. (2003). Talking youself into Spanish: Private speech and second language leaming. Hispania, 86, 97-108. Larsen. F, Sehrauf,R. W, Fromhott, P., & Rubin, D.C. (2002). Inne speech and bilingual atobio- sraphical memory: A Polish-Danish cross-cultural study. Memory, 10, 45-54 Lee, J (2008). Gesture and private speech in second language acquisition. Studles in Second Language Aeguisitin, 30, 169-190. Leopold, W. F. (1949), Speech development ofa bilingual child. A linguists record. Vol. 4, Diary from age 2. New York: Northwestem University Press Maha, H., & John-Steiner, V. (2013). Vygotsky and sociocultural approsches to teaching and learning In1.B. Weiner, W.M. Reynolds, & G. E. Miller (Eds), Handbook of Psychology nd ed, Vol. 7, pp. 117-145), Hoboken, NJ: Wily. McCaffery, S. G. (1992). The use of private speech by adult second language leamers: A cross- altura study. The Modern Language Journal, 76, 179-189. MeCafferty, SG. (1994). Adult second language learers' use of private speech: A review of studies. The Modern Language Journal, 78, 421-436. MeCaffery, 8. G. (2004). Space for cognition: Gesture and second language leaming. Intemational Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14, 148-165. Oia, A. S. (001). Second language acquisition processes in the classroom: Learning Japanese. Mahvsah, NJ: Exibaum Pavlenko, A. (1999). New approsches to concepsin bilingual memory. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 2, 209-230, Pavlenko, A. (2005), Bilingualism and thought. In JF. Kroll & A. MB. de Groot (Eds), Handbook of bilingualism. Psycholinguistic approaches (pp. 433-453). New York: Oxford University Press Pavlenko, A. (2014). The bilingual mind. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Pres. Pavlenko, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Second language learaing as participation end the (re)con- struction of selves. In J. P, Lantolf (Ed), Sociocultural tery and second language learning (p. 155-177), New York: Oxford University Press Roebuck, R. (2000). Subjects speak out: How learners position themseves in a psycholinguistic task 1InJ.P. Lantolf (Ed), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 79-95). New York: Oxford University Press. ‘San Martin C., Boada, H., & Feigenbaum, P. (2011) Private and inner speech and the regulation of social speech communication. Cognitive Development, 26, 214-229. Saville-Troike, M. (1988). Private speech: Evidence for second language leaning strategies during the “silent” period. Journal of Child Language, 15, 67-590. Sawyer, J. (2016) In what lenguege-do you speak to youself? A review of private speech and bilin- aualism. Early Childhood Research Quarteriy, 36, 489-505. di:10.1016).ccresq.2016.01.010 Schrauf, R, W. (2009). English use among older bilingual immigrants in linguistically concentrated neighborhoods: Social proficiency and intemal speech as intracultural variation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology, 24, 157-179. 163Maria C. M. de Guerrero Smith, H. J, 2007) The social and private worlds of speech: Speech for inter-andintremental activity ‘The Modern Language Journal, 91, 341-386 Sokolov, A.N. (1972). Inner speech and thought. New York: Plenum. Séamez, 8.8. (2011). study of private speech and cognitive regulation in native-nonnative speaker interactions. (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMINo. 3477273) Stafford, C. A. 2013). What's on your mind? How private speech medites cognition during initia non primary language learning. Applied Linguistics, 34, 151-172. SteinbachKobler, F, & Thome, 8. L 2011). The social life of self-directed tlk: A sequential phe- ‘nomenon? in J. Hall. Hellermana, SP. Dochler,& D.Olsher (Eds), L2 interactional competence and development (pp. 66-92). Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters, ‘Ushakova, T. (1994). Inner speech and second language acquisition: An experimental-theoretical approach. In. P, Lantolf & G. Appel Eds), Vygotsian approaches 1 second language research (pp. 135-156). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. ‘Wygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Pres. ‘Wygotsky, L. 8, (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press Vygotsky, L. $. (1997). The question of multilingual children, In R. W. Rieber (Ed), The col- lected works ofL S. Vigotsy. Vol 4: The history of the development of higher mental functions (pp: 253-255) New York: Plenum (Original work published 1935). Wang, L. & Hyun, B. (2009). A study of sociolinguistic characteristics of Taiwan children's peer-talk in a Mandarin-English-speaking preschool. Journal of Early Childhood Research, (1), 3-26. Wells, G. (1998). Using Ll to master L2: A response to Antén and DiCemill’s “Socio-cognitve functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the 2 classroom.” The Canadian Modern Language Review, 54, 33-353 Yi, 8. 2010) Three young Korean children's English language learning in two American preschool ‘classrooms. (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMINo. 3443615) Yoshida, R. (2005), Leamers in Japanese lenguage classrooms. Overt and covert participation. London: Contimium, Further Reading . Ehrich, J. F, (2006). Vygotskyan inner speech and the reading process. Australian Journal of Educational and Developmental Prychology, 6, 2-25. Discusses Vygotskyan theory in relation to inner speech in silent reading. Guerrero, M. C. M. de. (2012). Inner speech in second language acquisition. The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguists, doi:10.1002/978140519843 weal0539 Describes inner speech from a Vygotskyan perspective and summarizes studies on inner speech in L2 acquisition. Guerrero, M. C. M, de, (2012). Private speech in second language acquisition, The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. doi:0.1002/9781405198431-wheal0955 Explains the notion of private speech and synthesizes research on private speech from an L2 acquisition perspective. Pavlenko, A. (2011). Bilingualism and thought inthe 20th century. In A. Pavienko (Ed), Thinking and speaking in owo languages (pp. 12-42) Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters ‘Presents a view of “thinking” as inner speech and diseusses multilinguals’ experiences in transitioning from one language of thought to another. 164