2.1.2 Language

The second pedological underpinning of activity theory is the role of language. Vygotsky argued that language was the basis of consciousness, and therefore regulated behaviour.  Without language, one would be limited to ‘elementary mental functions’, such as unlearned capacities to respond to sounds, to remember smells and to cry.  With language, on the other hand, comes the facility for social interaction, and thus for the nurture and ‘teaching and learning of higher mental functions’ (Vygotsky, 1987: 168).  This tight relationship between, on the one hand, language-learning and language-usage (and, in a sense, the un-learning of language) with, on the other, behavioural regulation and consequently social interaction, is highlighted clearly in Pierre Boulle’s (1963) novel La planete des singes – or Planet of the apes.  As an aside, it is unclear the extent to which Boulle was familiar with Vygotsky’s writings, but the parallels between the two are striking.  For instance, Vygotsky (1978) makes explicit reference to the work of Köhler and Buhler and Buhler, all of whom investigated the intelligence of apes.  

A primary way in which languages are manifested, learned and used, is through speech.  Vygotsky described three stages in the development of the functions of speech.  Social speech (external speech) is the most primitive stage of language development, in which the child expresses simple thoughts and emotions out loud.  The function of social speech is to control the behaviour of others, or to express simple, often poorly understood, concepts.  As the child makes the transition from social speech to silent self-talk (or, inner speech), the child goes through the stage of egocentric speech.  Egocentric speech is characterized by the child appearing to talk to itself, in an apparent effort to regulate its own behaviour.  Inner speech is, of course, characteristic of children and adults.  Inner speech permits higher mental functioning and permits self-awareness and metacognition.  

This twinfold occurrence of a child’s cultural development was noted by Vygotsky as taking place on both the interpsyschological and intrapsychological planes, in his oft quoted “every function in the child’s cultural development appears twice: first, on the social level, and later, on the individual level; first between people, and then inside the child” (Vygotsky, 1978: 57).

Recently, Wells (2002) has extended the discussion of the role of dialogue in activity theory, by attempting to apply activity theory beyond its traditional Marxist roots of material objects transformed through material tools, to systems in which the objects to which actions are directed are not necessarily material in form.  Examples of such non-material objects include the understanding of events, concepts and theoretical relationships, while the artifacts that provide the mediational means in such systems would include verbal and written descriptions and explanations.

For example, Portugali (1996) has asserted that individuals gain information about the external environment, not only by navigating through geographic space, but also through reading maps, through language, photographs and other media.  Further, as they navigate through geographic space, they encounter elements that “act as symbols”.  

Such symbols can be a “physical landmark, a word or phrase, or a building in a photograph.  These trigger our internal knowledge representation”.  Each symbol derives meaning from “both the specific cultural context of that individual and by the specific meaning intended by the generator of that symbol” (Peuquet, 1998)  Kress (in press) terms these symbols ‘criterial features’.  Echoing Peuquet, he postulates that these symbols represent the symbol-maker’s “interest, his position in the world at that moment, vis-à-vis the object to be represented”.  

In fact, Cole (1996) points out that objects are at once both material and symbolic.  To elaborate, the materiality of the object is critical to its becoming a focus of the shared activity, while its symbolism allows its participation in the learners’ attempts to increase their understanding about the issue being investigated.  

The crux of Wells’s critique of activity theory (as represented by Engeström) is its apparent prioritization of the unidirectional nature of artifact-mediated, object-oriented action.  Wells argues that dialogue is different from such action in several ways.

First, the action that is performed by dialogue is not so much the production and exchange of utterances, as it is one of meaning.  To elaborate, dialogue (which need not necessarily be verbal, but multi-modal) coordinates the joint activity and its constituent actions, and one way it achieves this is by enabling the co-participants to manage their interpersonal relationships.  Defined thus, dialogue is said to be constitutive (Halliday, 1993; Martin, 1992).

Second, the object of the utterances are not so much the co-participants, as it is the issue that is the focus of the co-participants’ joint consideration.  This issue can take several forms, such as representations, plans and hypotheses – Wartofsky’s (1979) tertiary artifacts.  Finally, much dialogue yields no material artifact as outcome (although exceptions include recordings and scripts) – instead the outcome is often an enriched understanding of the object

Wells therefore argues for a representation of activity theory which recognizes the reciprocal influences that participants in a dialogue have on each other through the text that they co-construct (Figure 1).  In this way, Wells is seeking to represent the dynamics of the power relations which take place in the ZPD.

Wells’s approach to activity theory is of particular relevance to understanding the interactions that take place in so-called ‘mixed reality’ activities, which blend both online and offline interaction, such as those conducted by the Mixed Reality Laboratory at the University of Nottingham.  In early 2003, an activity known as ‘I like Frank’ took place in Adelaide.  Players were divided into so-called ‘online players’ and ‘street players’.  The former were tasked to explore a virtual map of the city, and had to enlist the help of the latter to locate actual physical objects, typically postcards, in Adelaide, which would then be mailed to the online players.  The online and street players communicated with each other via text messages.  In the process of helping the online players locate the postcards, the street players would come closer to their objective, which was to track down a real person somewhere in Adelaide within a given time frame.  The Mixed Reality Laboratory conducted subsequent iterations of this game, this time using handhelds, webcams and audio messages.  These were known as ‘Uncle Roy all around you’ in its British iteration, and as ‘Human Pacman’ in its Singaporean iteration. 

<- 2.1.1 Culture          -> 2.1.3 Relationship with environment