In the initial sociocultural theory (SCT) timeline, Lantolf and Beckett (2009) surveyed a broad spectrum of research informed by sociocultural psychology as it was extended into the field of second language acquisition and language teaching. Since that time, the amount of research that has been published within the SCT framework has grown exponentially. With regard to the educational setting, two major strands of research have emerged; one that addresses pedagogical practice and the other that deals with assessment. The assessment strand, Dynamic Assessment, adheres to principles that emerge from the SCT concept of the Zone of Proximal Development and is the topic of a separate timeline (see Poehner & Wang, forthcoming). The pedagogical strand, the topic of the present article, is generally referred to as Concept-based Language Instruction (C-BLI), although in some publications the rubric Concept-based Instruction (CBI) is used. Unfortunately, the abbreviation of the alternative rubric has on more than one occasion been confused with content-based instruction, also abbreviated as CBI. We would like to suggest here that it would be better if SCT researchers were to adopt C-BLI to avoid misinterpretations going forward.

For some, research in learning and teaching of a second language (L2) runs the risk of disintegrating into irreconcilable approaches to L2 learning and use. On the one side, we find researchers investigating linguistic-cognitive issues, often using quantitative research methods including inferential statistics; on the other side, we find researchers working on the basis of sociocultural or sociocognitive views, often using qualitative research methods including case studies and ethnography. Is there a gap in research in L2 learning and teaching? The present article developed from an invited colloquium at the 2013 meeting of the American Association for Applied Linguistics in Dallas, Texas. It comprises nine single-authored pieces, with an introduction and a conclusion by the coeditors. Our overarching goals are (a) to raise awareness of the limitations of addressing only the cognitive or only the social in research on L2 learning and teaching and (b) to explore ways of bridging and/or productively appreciating the cognitive-social gap in research. Collectively, the nine contributions advance the possibility that the approaches are not irreconcilable and that, in fact, cognitive researchers and social researchers will benefit by acknowledging insights and methods from one another.

Second language acquisition (SLA) research informed by sociocultural theory (henceforth, SCT) began in earnest with the publication of Frawley & Lantolf's (1985) article on L2 (second language) discourse (described in the timeline proper). Since then, well over 300 journal articles, book chapters and doctoral dissertations have appeared in the research literature. Although the term ‘sociocultural’ is often applied to a wide array of approaches to research that seeks to understand what it means to be a human being, in the present timeline, we restrict its interpretation to refer to the specific theory of psychological development proposed by Vygotsky (1986). Other approaches that have appropriated the term, such as those emanating from the writings of Bakhtin (1981), while compatible in many respects with Vygotskian theory, have a different focus and are not strictly speaking psychological or psycholinguistic theories. To be sure, Vygotsky rarely used the term ‘sociocultural’, preferring instead ‘cultural psychology’ or ‘cultural-historical psychology’ to refer to his theory. Wertsch (1985) is generally credited with having coined the term ‘sociocultural’ as a way of capturing the notion that human mental functioning results from participation in, and appropriation of, the forms of cultural mediation integrated into social activities.

This presentation is situated within the general framework of Vygotsky's educational theory, which argues that development in formal educational activity is a fundamentally different process from development that occurs in the everyday world. A cornerstone of Vygotsky's theory is that to be successful education must be sensitive to learners' zone of proximal development. This requires the dialectical integration of instruction and assessment into a seamless and dynamic activity. The presentation includes a discussion of how the integration is systematically achieved in the process known as dynamic assessment and illustrates through analysis of data from advanced learners of French how this functions in second language education.

Although the sociocultural theory (henceforth SCT) of mental activity, rooted in the work of L. S. Vygotsky and his colleagues, has certainly come to the fore in developmental and educational research (cf. Forman, et al. 1993, Lave and Wenger 1991, Moll 1990, Newman, et al. 1989), it is still very much the “new kid on the block” as far as SLA research is concerned. Recently, however, SCT has begun to enjoy increased attention among L2 researchers, as is amply attested in the bibliography of this paper. This research has focused on three general areas: activity theory and the relevance of motives and goals for L2 learning; the role of private speech in L2 learning; and learning in the zone of proximal development. These areas serve as the organizing basis for the survey that follows. The overview begins, however, with a brief, but necessary, overview of the theory itself.

This study investigates the interface between speech and gesture in second language (L2) narration within Slobin's (2003) thinking-for-speaking (TFS) framework as well as with respect to McNeill's (1992, 2005) growth point (GP) hypothesis. Specifically, our interest is in whether speakers shift from a first language (L1) to a L2 TFS pattern as manifested in the GP of narrations they produce. The data are drawn from the narrations of an animated cartoon story produced by advanced L2 speakers of Korean (L1 English) and L2 speakers of English (L1 Korean). Korean is a verb-framed language (Talmy, 2000) that conflates path of motion on the verb and expresses manner, if at all, through separate lexical items, onomatopoeia, or gesture alone. English is a satellite-framed language (Talmy, 2000) that encodes manner on verbs, expresses path through satellite phrases, and synchronizes manner-path conflated gestures with manner verbs when manner is in focus. The typological difference between the languages presents significant challenges for the L2 speakers, who, despite their high level of proficiency in their respective L2s, appear to retain their L1 TFS patterns.

Second language acquisition research is coming to recognize the influence of the sociocultural environment in the L2 learning. For example, beginning with the early work of Frawley and Lantolf (1985), a group of L2 researchers have been exploring the implications of L. S. Vygotsky's (1978, 1986) sociocultural theory of mind (henceforth, SCT) for the learning and teaching of languages beyond the first. Similarly, scholars working within the Conversational Analysis tradition, stimulated in large part by the seminal article of Firth and Wagner (1997), have also been investigating the impact of conversation on L2 development. It should come as no real surprise that researchers interested in dynamic systems theory (henceforth DST), and its variants (emergentism, chaos and complexity theory) have also shown an interest in the implications of their theoretical stance for SLA. Larsen-Freeman (1997, 2002), to my knowledge, the first researcher to make a case for the potential relevance of chaos and complexity theory for L2 acquisition, argues for the need to expand the scope of factors impacting on L2 learning to consider more than what goes on inside of a learner's head. In addition to Larsen-Freeman's publications, a special issue of Applied Linguistics (N. Ellis and Larsen-Freeman, 2006) and an invited colloquium at the 2006 Annual Conference of the American Association for Applied Linguistics (De Bot, 2006) have been devoted to the topic. The contribution by De Bot, Lowie and Verspoor (henceforth, DBL&V) represents a significant continuation of this trend.

This article considers the implications of two central constructs of sociocultural theory (SCT) for second language (L2) development: mediation and internalization. It first discusses Vygotsky's general theoretical claim that human mental activity arises as a consequence of the functional system formed by our biologically specified mental capacities and our culturally constructed symbolic artifacts. It then examines some of the L2 research that has investigated the extent to which L2 users are able to deploy their new language for cognitive mediation. Specific attention is given to the mediational function of L2 private speech and to the synchronization of gestures and speech from the perspective of Slobin's thinking for speaking framework, a framework that interfaces quite well with Vygotsky's theory. The second general topic addressed, internalization, is intimately connected to the first. It is argued that internalization of the features of a L2 takes place through imitation, especially as occurs in private speech. Imitation, based on recent neuroscience and child development research, is seen as an intentional and potentially transformative process rather than as rote mimicking. The research documents that L2 children and adults rely on imitation in their private speech when they encounter new linguistic affordances. What remains to be established is the connection between the linguistic features of private speech and those deployed by L2 speakers in their social performance. Finally, the article proposes that the study of how L2 learners internalize and develop the capacity to use conceptual and associated linguistic knowledge should move to the forefront of SCT L2 research and argues that a productive way of realizing this agenda is through the union of SCT and cognitive linguistics.

Rod Ellis's latest offering addresses issues relating to the interface between SLA research and language pedagogy. To this end, the book opens with an informative and thought-provoking examination of applied SLA (research simultaneously encompassing the theory and practice of SLA and pedagogy), which, following Widdowson, Ellis distinguishes from SLA applied (extension of SLA findings to teaching). In this regard he discusses the difference between technical knowledge and “confirmatory,” often experimental, research on the one hand, and practical knowledge and “interpretative,” real world, observation-interactional research on the other. According to Ellis, the confirmatory tradition, which promotes an applied science (i.e., SLA applied) view of education, has been the dominant paradigm in the field. This tradition situates researchers at the top of the research-practice hierarchy as producers of information and locates teachers lower down on the hierarchy as information consumers.

More than 75 years ago, at the Second All-Russian Psychoneurological Congress, L. S. Vygotsky presented a paper, “Methods of Reflexological and Psychological Investigations,” in which he began to lay the foundation for a unified theory of mind. Vygotsky's concern was that psychology had lost sight of the uniqueness of human mental functioning, which for him resides in our ability to intentionally mediate, and hence regulate, our biologically specified mental systems (i.e., in today's jargon, input systems) through culturally determined means. Contemporary sociocultural psychologists, J. V. Wertsch in particular, have noted that, although Vygotsky called for the unification of psychology, in his writings, he actually paid very little attention to one part of the mental equation—the biological, or natural, mind. As it turns out, even those who fault Vygotsky for his failure here have themselves not focused much attention on the contribution of the natural, or what Frawley refers to as the computational, mind, preferring instead to concentrate on the sociocultural parameters of cognition. The present book can be seen as an attempt to bring to fruition Vygotsky's earlier vision of a unified psychology.

I would like to apologize to Robin Scarcella and Rebecca Oxford for an erroneous statement I made in my review of their book, The Tapestry of Language Learning. In the review I accused the authors of not referencing Vygotsky's seminal work, Thought and Language. Upon rereading the review, I suddenly realized that the authors do indeed cite the first volume of Vygotsky's collected works which includes his Thought and Language.