لخّصلي

Sociocultural theories draw on L. S. Vygotsky's (1978, 1987) insights into the social nature of learning but also on the work of more contemporary theorists who have extended and modified his ideas (e.g. Wertsch 1998; Rogoff 2003).Lave & Wenger's (1991) work has been used by many language researchers allied with sociocultural theory, especially with respect to their construct, LEGITIMATE PERIPHERAL PARTICIPATION, which represented their view that communities are composed of participants who differentially engage with the practices of their communities, and that this engagement or participation in practice is 'learning'.Stressing the importance of local analysis of communities, they pointed out that conditions vary with regard to ease of access to expertise, to opportunities for practice, to consequences for error in practice, and so on. Lave & Wenger discussed the importance of not sequestering newcomers away from participation in community activities, if they are to learn.Such studies are sometimes more psychological in orientation (examples are Lantolf 2000; Lantolf & Thorne 2006; Swain et al. 2010); sometimes they are more anthropologically- and sociologically- focused (Kostogriz & Tsolidis 2008; Toohey 1998, 2000; Toohey & Norton 2010).Vygotsky (1978) argued that humans

IDENTITY, LANGUAGE LEARNING, AND SOCIAL CHANGE 419 act on the world with tools (both physical and symbolic), and emphasized the symbolic tool of language, proposing that children gain 'increasing control over the mediational means made available by their culture, including language for interpersonal (social interaction) and intrapersonal (thinking) purposes' (Lantolf 2000: 8).Sociocultural theories have been frequently drawn upon in studies of SLA.

Sociocultural theories draw on L. S. Vygotsky’s (1978, 1987) insights into the social nature of learning but also on the work of more contemporary theorists who have extended and modified his ideas (e.g. Wertsch 1998; Rogoff 2003). Vygotsky (1978) argued that humans

IDENTITY, LANGUAGE LEARNING, AND SOCIAL CHANGE 419
act on the world with tools (both physical and symbolic), and emphasized the symbolic tool of language, proposing that children gain ‘increasing control over the mediational means made available by their culture, including language for interpersonal (social interaction) and intrapersonal (thinking) purposes’ (Lantolf 2000: 8). From this perspective, learning is a social process in which culturally and historically situated participants engage in culturally- valued activities, using cultural tools. They thus develop the sorts of behaviors required for participation, and in so doing, change the activities and the tools. This foregrounding of dynamic social activity and the tool mediators of that activity are special features of sociocultural theory. Educational studies grounded in this perspective pay careful attention to the activities provided for learners in their diverse environments and to the qualities of the physical and symbolic tools, including written language, that learners use. In addition, they stress the importance of learners’ access to cultural resources, and how learners might change those resources over time. As Rogoff (2003) noted, development (or learning) is ‘changing participation in the sociocultural activities of a community, which also change’ (2003: 368).
Sociocultural theories have been frequently drawn upon in studies of SLA. Such studies are sometimes more psychological in orientation (examples are Lantolf 2000; Lantolf & Thorne 2006; Swain et al. 2010); sometimes they are more anthropologically- and sociologically- focused (Kostogriz & Tsolidis 2008; Toohey 1998, 2000; Toohey & Norton 2010). The theories represent a shift from seeing learners as individually internalizing stable systems of language knowledge, to seeing them as differentially-positioned members of social and historical collectivities, using (and thus learning) language as a dynamic tool. This moves observers toward examining the conditions for learning, and the issues of access of learners for appropriation of practices, in any particular community.
Lave & Wenger’s (1991) work has been used by many language researchers allied with sociocultural theory, especially with respect to their construct, LEGITIMATE PERIPHERAL PARTICIPATION, which represented their view that communities are composed of participants who differentially engage with the practices of their communities, and that this engagement or participation in practice is ‘learning’. For them, the ‘oldtimer’ as well as the ‘newcomer’ are simultaneously learning through practice. Stressing the importance of local analysis of communities, they pointed out that conditions vary with regard to ease of access to expertise, to opportunities for practice, to consequences for error in practice, and so on. Lave & Wenger discussed the importance of not sequestering newcomers away from participation in community activities, if they are to learn. They noted that, ideally, learners must ‘see’, or be in the presence of, mature practice. This theme is taken up by SLA researchers who examine, in particular, learners’ access to L2 communities.