APA copyright notice: This article may not exactly replicate the final version published inthe APA journal. It is not the copy of record. www.apa.org

CITATIONDamianova, M. K., & Sullivan, G. B. (2011). Rereading Vygotsky's Theses onTypes of Internalization and Verbal Mediation. Review of General Psychology, 15, 344-350.

Rereading Vygotskys Theses on Types of Internalization and Verbal Mediation

Maria K. DamianovaMonash South Africa, A Campus of Monash University,Australia

Gavin Brent SullivanLeeds Metropolitan University and Monash University

AbstractThe Vygotskyan sociocultural approach to human development and cognition marked a new direction in psychology and created new, distinctive avenues for exploring fundamental matters of the mind. The complexity, diversity, and multilayered meaning of Vygotskys formulations have in the history of psychology triggered scholastic debate, which has focused on the clarification, implications, and extension of the core explanatory constructs of his frameworkmediation and internalization. The aim of this review is to offer a contemporary logico-semantic rereading of Vygotskys formulations of theseconstructs with an emphasis on speech and, in particular, its dual mediatory role as a primary meditational means and a mediating process. Vygotskys less renowned, and rather incomplete, propositions on the types of internalization are revived and examined in relation to the ontogenetic formation of speech. In this critical analysis, some ambiguous conceptual links between the notion of internalization types and the transformation of social speech into private speech and inner speech are explicated, debated, and refined. By addressing these conceptual links, the present examination extends the sociocultural account of semiotic mediation. The interpretations proposed highlight the logical cohesion and enhance the comprehensibility of Vygotskys theoretical stance on human development.Keywords: Lev Vygotsky, internalization, semiotic mediation, private speech, sociocultural approach

Vygotskys work, in its diversity and innovation, is justifiably described as revolutionary because, at the time, it introduced entirely novel explanatory principles and challenged previous epistemological assumptions about human development and cognition (Cole & Wertsch, 1996). The philosophical substance that Lev Vygotsky brought to the study of development, and his prolific contribution to the philosophy of human consciousness, position him as a philosopher in his own right (Bakhurst, 2007). Many of Vygotskys views on the genesis and formation of higher mental functions; on the processes of mediation, internalization, and mastery; and on the role of speechin its different formsas a mediator of human praxis and human consciousness have gained recognition that surpasses the constraints of a particular historical context (Daniels, Cole, & Wertsch, 2007). Vygotskys fundamental premises of the historical essence and the sociocultural foundations of human existence continue to guide contemporary research and epistemological enquiries across a wide spectrum of disciplines (Fernyhough, 2008; Garton & Pratt, 1998; Valsiner, 2001). The significance of Vygotskys work is well recognized, as evidenced by his ranking in the top 20% of the most eminent scholars in psychology (Haggbloom et al., 2002).His ideas, although formulated in the early twentieth century, continue to be a source of inspiration for contemporary scholars as well as a challenging conceptual arena for debating developmental issues (Meshcheryakov, 1999, 2007). A contemporary understanding of Vygotskys ideas requires a consideration of the intellectual climate at the time he was working (Berducci, 2004); it necessitates going beyond the surface of texts (Meshcheryakov, 1999, 2007) and entails perpetual intellectual engagement with the subtle and multilayered meaning of his writing. In light of these issues, Meshcheryakov (1999, 2007) has advanced the view that Vygotskys work is, and will remain, amenable to logico-semantic analysis. The purpose of such an analysis would be to enunciate the general construction of Vygotskys theory, to identify the logico-semantic correspondence and incongruence between concepts and terms, and finally, to create a thesaurus of the entire theory.In addition to the conceptual diversity within Vygotskys own work, a further, partially language-based empirical and theoretical diversification prevails within the broader Vygotskian-based body of knowledge that has accumulated to date (Rieber & Robinson, 2004). In recent decades, substantial conceptual elaborations of Vygotskys views have been generated in contemporary Russian psychology, but the extensions and interpretations of Vygotskys work published in Russian have not necessarily been incorporated into the work of the English-speaking scholars. As a result, there exist disparate readings of Vygotskydisparate empirical priorities, approaches, and trends within as well as between the investigative philosophies and cultures of Russian and of non-Russian origin. Contemporary examinations of Vygotskys stance on internalization are an illustration of this disparity. For instance, in the Russian school of psychology, the notion of an internalization typology is considered an integral part of the sociocultural conceptual framework (Meshcheryakov, 1999) and has been addressed in recent explorations (e.g., Senushtenkov, 2006). Contrastingly, in Western psychology, this theme has not been the focus of theoretical or empirical work by prominent neo- Vygotskyan scholars (e.g., Cole, 1999; Wertsch, 2007; John-Steiner, 2007; Kozulin, 1986, 2005; Hedegaard, 2007; Van der Veer, 2007; and others.). This is despite the fact that many of the contemporary advancements in the notions of cultural mediation and internalization have arisen from the work of these scholars.As a process that brings about the genesis of higher mental functions, internalization occupies the central position in the sociocultural construal of human development. Accordingly, the defining features of internalization in Vygotskys work have been perpetually analyzed, reexamined, and reinterpreted, resulting in an accumulation of open-ended and diverse, yet related, formulations. The same applies to the notion of semiotic mediation and, particularly, to speech with its multiple rolesas a mediatory tool and mediating process, and as a culturally mediated higher mental function. However, the cohesion within and between the formulations on these themes is not necessarily apparent, as they were derived from different premises, served different primary objectives, and were generated at different historical stages of Vygotskys scholarly endeavor. Thus, the task of reexamining and elucidating the logical and conceptual links of Vygotskys central ideas on internalization, particularly with reference to speech, remains germane. The aim of this review is to critically examine, by means of logico-semantic analysis, Vygotskys theses on the types of internalization, with a specific focus on speech as the primary mediator. The conclusions should guide contemporary theorists and empirical psychologists through a conceptually driven reinvigoration of sociocultural research.Speech as the Primary MediatorMediation encompasses the use of signs and tools, which are socially and culturally meaningful things (Kozulin, 2005, p. 104). It determines the in-depth transformation of the natural, biologically determined functions into newly generated cultural forms of mental and behavioral activities (Meshcheryakov, 1999, 2007). Vygotskys (1978) thesis of two lines of development (Cole & Gajdamaschko, 2007) contains the notion that the formation of these distinct kinds of functions evolves due to different determinants and is governed by different principles. Biologically determined functions are governed by the mechanisms of adaptation developed by particular species as a result of evolution and natural selection (Karpov, 2005, p. 18). In contrast, higher mental functions are the product of socially evolving mediation (Cole, 1999; Meshcheryakov, 1999, 2007; Mirolli & Parisi, 2011). Given these differences, their relationship is not merely interactive but hierarchical. Cultural or higher mental processes are a dialectical negation of biological determinants, and, as such, they are not a simple addition but a qualitatively different, superseding layer within the human psychological mode of being. The vital importance of signs and tools for sociocultural development, irrespective of their particulars, resides in the meaning encoded in them (Knox & Stevens, 1993; Valsiner, 2001). Speech and language, as well as mnemonic techniques and numerical systems, are all exemplars of sign systems (Cole & Scribner, 1978; Kozulin, 2005). The range of semiotic phenomena further includes works of art; writing; schemas; diagrams; maps and mechanical drawings (Vygotsky, 1981, p. 137). As a system of signs, speech exhibits all the generic properties of the sign systems, but as a particular type, it demonstrates its own unique structural and functional features. Speech, in its different forms, is always culturally mediated and culturally specific, but it also holds the utmost significance among the other mediating systems and the higher mental functions because it is simultaneously a mediated function and a mediating sign system (Kozulin, 1986).This duality of speech has been recognized and further explored by Wertsch (2007), who has argued that in Vygotskys writing, two types of mediation may be distinguished, namely, explicit and implicit types. According to Wertsch (2007), explicit mediation refers to the use of purposefully introduced external auxiliary aids in the performance of cognitive operations. Wertsch (2007) regarded this type of mediation as inherent to those conditions, which are characterized by the use of signs that facilitate the organization (p. 181) of an activity. He specifically referred to Vygotskys (1978) well-known functional method of dual stimulation1 to illustrate the nature of the explicit mediation. Further examples include any practices where signs or tools are incorporated into the structure of an activity and enable the performance of that activity at a new, higher level (e.g., memorizing through the reliance upon external auxiliary means, such as cards with pictorial representations or tying a knot).In contrast, implicit mediation encompasses the role of speech and language for mediating human consciousness. The core feature of implicit mediation is that it is based upon signs, especially natural language, whose primary function is communication (Wertsch, 2007, p. 181). This stance warrants a clarifying comment.It is important to recollect that Vygotskys (1978) analyses have recognized language as both a means of communication and as an artifact. In exploring the role of the systems of signs as means of mediation, he specifically stated that differentiation between tools as a means of labor of mastering nature and language as a means of social intercourse become dissolved in the general concept of artifacts or artificial [cultural] adaptation (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 53).A consistent feature of Vygotskys writing is the acknowledgment that language (and speech), like other mediational means, is used as an auxiliary aid for the facilitation and deep reconstruction of the performance of an activity. Hence a written, spoken-out loud or covert word may stand in for, and take on the role of, the knot or a card in memorizing. This role of language was further explored in Lurias (1963, 1966, 1973) renowned work on remediating executive dysfunctions caused by frontal lobe damage.In light of Vygotskys stance on language as a living texture of human thought and as a sign system or mediational means, Wertschs (2007) proposition for differentiating between explicit and implicit mediation may be expanded upon as follows. Speech may be conceptualized as a plane of convergence between the two types of mediation, rather than as representing the implicit type only. As a system of linguistic signs existing objectively, it should be viewed as the means of explicit mediation. However, as a realm of words that permit generalization and discrete sequential representation (Wertsch, 2007, p. 183), speech has to be regarded as an instrument facilitating the implicit mediation. It is therefore argued that this dialectical unity of mediational variations embedded in speech determines its status as the primary means by which the sociocultural and the historical mediation of the human mode of being occurs (Cole & Scribner, 1978).In the ontogenetic evolution of this mediation, the ongoing question is how sociocultural products and practices manage through social interaction to get from outside into inside repertory of thought (Bruner, 1997, p. 66), and how the processes of such external-internal conversions evolve. Understanding the exact nature of the transitions and transformations of the outer sociocultural- historical realm into inner realities, and vice versa, still presents contemporary scholars with complex epistemological challenges and dilemmas (Asmolov, 1998). The role of speech in these transitions is considered by the Vygotskyan school of thought to be crucial. Speech is viewed as the primary mediator and as the process that makes possible the conversion of the external into the internal (John-Steiner, 2007; Lawrence & Valsiner, 2003; Mirolli & Parisi, 2011; Zinchenko, 2007), and the embodiment or the exteriorization of the internal into the external (Lawrence & Valsiner, 2003). As a mediational means, speech is the supreme instrument that allows for the sociocultural transformation of mental functions and, as a mediating and mediated process, it evolves in ontogeny in accordance with generic principles and stages of internalization, to be outlined in the next section.Internalization as a Generative ProcessThe core postulates of Vygotskys (1986) stance on the formation of higher mental functions, including speech, are that they have social origins as sign-mediated activities and are the product of the process of internalization. In Vygotskys view, internalization constitutes the law of transformation of the external into internal (Meshcheryakov, 1999, 2007). The status of a law acknowledges the significance of the process of internalization in ontogeny without restricting the scope for diversifying and expanding its theoretical connotations. In some neo-Vygotskyan accounts, the multilayered essence of internalization has been acknowledged. For instance, from the theory of mind stance (e.g., Symons, 2004), it has been proposed that Vygotskys views allow for conceptualizing internalization on two levels: as a process which encompasses the human universal dimension in development, and as a process that entails the formation of internal representations that are specific to the cultural and individual contexts.Defined as the internal reconstruction of an external operation (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 56), internalization as both a universal and culture/individual-specific process contains: (a) substitution of the initial, immediate, natural (biological) function; (b) its alteration as it underlies and enters in the composition of the superseding higher mental function; and finally, (c) the actual emergence of the new, higher order psychological formations (Vygotsky, 2004).The depth and the scope of these fundamental qualitative changes are reflected in Vygotskys choice of the term metamorphosis (Stepanova, 2001) to describe this developmental progression. A revealing metaphor used by Vygotsky to depict the intrinsic transformative nature of the development of the higher mental functions in ontogeny is the process whereby a pupa is converted into a caterpillar, and, in turn, into a butterfly. Similarly, through internalization, one mode of a function or a stage in its formation is transformed into another qualitatively different one. Such is the case when social speech transforms into its ontogenetic successors or when externally mediated attention, memory, or any other higher mental function convert into their internally mediated, volitional types.In ontogeny, the metamorphosis of speechas it internalizesis evident in the emergence of the distinct, yet interrelated, types of social, private, and inner speech. What simultaneously connects and differentiates these different speech types is that they are stages in the developmental continuum of the process of speech internalization. This continuum encompasses the progressive inward shrinking of the most expanded external speech (social speech) and its conversion into self-directed overt communication (private speech), whose subsequent internal shifts culminate in the formation of the most intimate intrapersonal form of speech (inner speech). The dynamics of these successive inward shifts are complex and are thought to encompass a chain of structural and functional transformations between the already evolved, the currently evolving, and the-about-to-evolve speech types. Vygotsky (1986) described these dynamics as the schema of development [where] first social, then egocentric then inner speech (p. 35) emerge. He argued that the origins of childrens social speech lie in their communication with others, occurring in the context of their own activity as agents, while the origins of private speech reside in social speech (Vygotsky, 1978). Differentially, yet jointly, these speech types allow the products of the broader cultural-historic systems to be incorporated into interpersonal social interactions (intersubjectivity) and, subsequently, to be transmitted and integrated into the realm of the inner world or intrasubjectivity (Bruner, 1997; Garton & Pratt, 1998; John-Steiner, 2007).Internalization TypologyIn addressing the question of the modus operandi of the reconstruction of mental functions due to cultural mediation, Vygotsky (1994, 1997) proposed that it evolves sequentially, following four stages: (a) a primitive level, when operations are carried out naturally without any auxiliary aids; (b) a nave level, when auxiliary aids are introduced by a social agent but their meditational utility and role is not yet known to, and grasped by, an individual; (c) external cultural mediation, when an individual uses the auxiliary aids competently and becomes cognizant of their role as aids for the execution of a particular activity; and (d) internalization of the mediational link, when the use of auxiliary aids becomes internal and operations are conducted within the internal realm.In this developmental progression, the most complex transitionfrom the third (external) to the fourth (internal) mode of mediationis achieved via three different types of transformation of the mediatory link. These are the seam-type, the structure-type, and the holistic-type,2 which represent the variable paths of shifting inward the use of the external mediatory means in the execu tion of complex mental activities. Vygotsky first referred to this inward advancement as in-growing, but he subsequently discarded this name and instead adopted the term internalization. By some contemporary accounts (e.g., Senushtenkov, 2006), this change was not accidental but reflected a new dimension in Vygotskys construal of ontogenetic development as a process constituting the transformation not only of the external into internal but also of the collective (social) into individual (psychological) realities. However, such a distinction has not been widely accepted, as no specific clarification exists in Vygotskys writing. Vygotsky himself used these terms interchangeably (Senushtenkov, 2006), which was also the case with many of the contemporary analyses (Russian) of his work on internalization, including the current review.Like many of his novel, revolutionary ideas, Vygotskys remarks on the different internalization types also appear to have been a work in progress. His propositions on this theme were only briefly outlined and remained incomplete, thus leaving substantial scope for further refinement and extension. Contemporary scholars are therefore left with Vygotskys rather sketchy and ambiguous notes on the types of in-growing and their relevance to the different ontogenetic types of speech.Vygotskys views on in-growing were formulated during the so called instrumental period (1928 1930) and were initially presented in the Problems of the cultural development of child (1928), and then in History of development of higher mental functions (1931). The comments featured in these publications were woven into his discussion of the mechanisms of the cultural transformation of psychological functions and the conversion of external mediation to internal mediation. By Vygotskys own account, at that stage of his work, he considered the ideas presented to have been only a first hypothetical scheme of the path along which the cultural development evolves (Vygotsky, 1994, p. 66). As this hypothetical scheme was not integrated in his subsequent seminal elaborations of semiotic mediation (e.g., in the Thought and Language publication in 1934), it remained at the periphery of contemporary scholarly interest, especially outside the Russian school of psychology. Recently, the theoretical importance of internalization types has been revived in Meshcheryakovs (1999) and Senushtenkovs (2006) work, which has reclaimed their central role and value for understanding the conceptual apparatus of Vygotskys framework.Vygotsky primarily discussed these types in the context either of arithmetical operations (counting on fingers, aloud, or in the mind), or memorizing tasks, where auxiliary means (cards) were introduced to assist the retention and recall of words, or to facilitate a particular response to stimuli (e.g., pressing a key with a picture of a sleigh in response to a picture of a horse). Although speech was not the primary focus in his discussion, it was nevertheless implicated in the analysis as a function that is culturally mediated (i.e., higher) and hence amenable to explanation in terms of the internalization typology.The internalization of the seam type involves the connecting of a biological or natural process, which is immediate in its essence, with a cultural sign, where the external implementation of the sign gradually becomes no longer necessary (Vygotsky, 1994, p. 66). The creation and utilization of such a link between an external sign and the mental operation are evidenced clearly in memorizing tasks or in any other variations of Vygotskys dual-stimulation method. In Wertschs (2007) terminology, this link was typified as constituting explicit mediation.Seam-type internalization encompasses the incorporation of various auxiliary aids in the execution of a particular act, such as the use of numbers to establish quantities or the use of words to signify entities (i.e., using the word cup to denote the object cup). This internalization type is manifested when a particular sign or tool (whether a verbalized or written word, or a memorizing aid) initially used as an external means becomes firmly integrated within the internal constitution of a particular operation, function, or activity. After it is introduced, the mediatory link may still be retained externally for some time, but as the mastery of the operation increases, this external occurrence diminishes. The operation is then carried out as if such a link is not involved. This is evident in conditions such as when, at first, an external intermediary (e.g., a card or a verbal denotation) is employed for the purpose of memorizing certain information. However, as soon as that information is retained, external use of the intermediary falls away and then it seems like this retention has happened naturally, on its own accord. In other words, on the surface, the act of memorizing appears as if to be immediate, which disguises the fact that in reality it has become mediated.The other type of internalization, defined as holistic, encompasses transfer of the entire, once external, operation inward. With this type of internalization, no overt manifestations occur. The operation comes to be carried out by internal means only, and the auxiliary means, once used externally, are no longer made use of. The holistic type of internalization is present, for instance, when a child switches from counting overtly (on her fingers or aloud) to counting silently in her head in such tasks as establishing the number of things in two heaps. The next compound type of internalization, called the structure type, is attained when mental functions become solely governed, executed, and mastered within the internal plane as well as when they acquire their own intrinsic structural composition. When the latter occurs, this is then used as a prototype for conducting other mental operations. In such cases, the function (or operation) itself becomes an internal schemata that serves as the foundation for performing other, more complex functions in the internal plane (Vygotsky, 1994, 1997). For instance, the structure-type internalization is attained when the already acquired and fully mastered operation of counting in the head becomes like an internal template for conducting the adding of one-digit numbers in the mind, which, in turn, becomes the template for the adding of two-digit numbers, and then for solving a relatively simple mathematical equation in the mind.Vygotskys premises were that the three types of internalization are generic in nature. They are uniformly applicable to the ontogenetic development of all higher mental functions and constitute the modus operandi of their progressive internalization. When applied to speech, each internalization type may be seen as primarily represented by, and embodied in, either social, private, or inner speech. From Vygotskys propositions on the defining features of the different types of internalization, it can be inferred that the structure-type internalization is particularly applicable to, and reaches its full representation in, inner speech. This is so because this type of speech is the ultimate expression of the inner operation of the mind as a whole; it forms the internal psychological foundation upon which the mediation and internalization of other higher mental functions evolve. Inner speech constitutes the stream of consciousness, which is publicly and socially generated, yet privately and intimately owned by the person, and is distinguished by features of utmost structural abbreviation and semantic condensation.As for private speech, it resurfaces in Vygotskys (1997) writing that it may be aligned with seam-type internalization. This assumption appears to be plausible if one juxtaposes the schema of development of speech to that of other functions, specifically analyzed by him (e.g., arithmetical reasoning). The reasoning is that first, this type of speech is, in part, conducted externally (there are overt manifestations), and second, the words retained are used in their capacity as symbolic representations. By analogy, just as a seam joins two distinct entities, private speech connects an immediate, natural process of vocal expressiveness with the use of signs (i.e., words).When the complexity of the structural composition of private speech is examined, then the features of the seam-type internalization become even more visible. Although utterance fragmentation (predication) is considered to be a defining feature of private speech (Vygotsky, 1986), and has been validated in contemporary empirical investigations with children (e.g., Feigenbaum, 1992; Goudena, 1992; Winsler, De Leon, Wallace, Carlton, & Willson-Quayle, 2003) and with young adults (e.g., Duncan & Cheyne, 2002), some further unanticipated structural trends have been recently identified. Damianova (2009), for instance, has shown that private speech is composed neither exclusively nor entirely of predicated utterances but may also incorporate complete utterancesa trend indicating its structural variation rather than structural homogeneity. Furthermore, it was demonstrated that this dual structural mode is uniformly retained across the preprimary and primary school years (Damianova, 2009). This suggests that the ontogenetic changes permeating the structural organization of private speech are more complex than initially suggested by Vygotsky.The conjecture advanced in the present analysis, therefore, is that private speech is likely to represent a mixture of, and possibly also a cross-junction between, seam-type and structure-type internalization. The seam-type internalization in private speech is present primarily when complete utterance structures are used. However, it may also be manifested through, and within, predicated utterances, as these are partially overt and partially covert. In the predicated utterance structure, the external segments that have remained operate as the ultimate expression of the signifying role of the respective words. This is so because, as residuals, the words that are retained have absorbed, and thus inherently contain, an additional dimension of significationwhat would have been carried out by the already internalized utterance parts. For instance, when, in the context of an individuals problem solving, a complete utterance, such as I need to find the yellow triangle, is reduced to, and substituted by, the fragment yellow triangle, this predicated overt verbalization stands for and embodies all the semantic and contextual connotations of the entire expression. As residuals, the overt fragments represent the diminishing external presence of the link between the mediator (the verbalized word) and the mediatee (the reality it denotes).Consequently, the seam-type internalization exists in either the complete or abbreviated overt expressions because the words that constitute them are used as signs, specifically, as verbal units possessing individual meanings and representing, in symbolic terms, the reality to the individual. In such instances, private speech aligns with social speech, as both of them primarily and extensively make use of, and draw upon, the signifying power of words. The dual (complete and fragmented) structuring in private speech and the structural idiosyncrasy of predicated utterances afford the simultaneous retention and demise of the external manifestations of the mediator-mediatee link (i.e., the typical feature of seam-type internalization).Structure-type internalization in private speech is evidenced in fragmented or predicated utterances because they incorporate a portion that has already become covert. This point can be clarified by considering Vygotskys (1986) seminal discussion of the distinction between meaning and sense. It may be argued that rather than just being expressions of the word-meaning alone, the external fragments in a predicated utterance serve as both the material rudiments and carriers of the sense dimension. At the same time, the segments of the fragmented utterances that are executed on an entirely internal plane operate as fairly nonmaterial, fully developed, pure, and true sense units. With these covert segments permeating the utterance structure and accounting for its predication, private speech is more proximal to inner speech than social speech and aligns with the structure-type internalization.To summarize, as external in appearance, complete, and/or partially overt, private speech can be viewed as the carrier of the seam-type internalization. At the same time, as a partially covert, internal in essence, abbreviated and semantically highly condensed type of speech, private speech embodies the structure-type internalization. The seam-type and the structure-type internalization find their ultimate expression and unification in the predicated utterance structure because of its partial overtness and partial covertness. Given that the predicated mode has been found not to be the sole, but nevertheless the prevalent, mode of structural occurrence of private speech (e.g., Damianova, 2009) across diverse age groups (preprimary and primary school years), it is reasonable to infer that the speech internalization process is carried out and advances further through the operation of this mode.The significance of Vygotskys (1994) original analysis of the types of internalization is that it, first, highlighted how the mediational, sign-to-mental operation link becomes instituted in individuals; second, showed how this link shifts from the external to the internal plane; and finally, outlined the modifications of the mediational link emerging in the process of this inward transition. The two markers of internalization that resurface in Vygotskys (1994, 1997) writing, which were used to distinguish between each of the types of internalization appear to be (a) the partial or complete absence of external manifestations of the mediatory link, and (b) the extent of the incorporation of the mediating sign or tool into the arising internal constitution of the operation undergoing mediation. Taken together, these markers denote the dialectical submergence between the process of mediation and internalization, whereby the mutual advancement of each is determined by the other. By delineating the modification of the mediator-mediatee link in the process of the inward advancement, Vygotsky took a step further in revealing how the transformation of the biologically determined functions into the culturally or sign-mediated activities evolves. Consequently, these remarks may be seen as an extension and refinement of his two-lines-of-development thesis.ConclusionsThis critical review focused on examining Vygotskys propositions on the types of internalization, with the aim of explicating and reclaiming their theoretical significance and their application to the ontogenetic formation of the higher mental functions, and speech, in particular. The revision of Vygotskys theses on the seam-type, structure-type, and holistic-type of internalization revealed their potential for clarifying the modus operandi of the external-internal transformation. By addressing the ambiguous conceptual links between the notion of internalization types and the conversion of social into private and then into inner speech, the present examination advanced the sociocultural construal of semiotic mediation. The analysis further demonstrated that many of the diverse and on-the-surface unrelated Vygotskys writings on mediation, internalization, and formation of higher mental functions are inherently cohesive. The threads of this conceptual unity originate in and are informed by Vygotskys construal that these processes share a common denominatorthe human sociocultural praxis.

ReferencesAsmolov, A. (1998). Vygotsky today: On the verge of non-classical psychology.Commack, NY: Nova Science.Bakhurst, D. (2007). Vygotskys demons. In H. Daniels, M. Cole, & J. V.Wertsch (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky (pp. 5076).Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Berducci, D. F. (2004). Vygotsky through Wittgenstein. Theory & Psychology,14, 329353. doi:10.1177/0959354304043639Bruner, J. (1997). Celebrating divergence: Piaget and Vygotsky. HumanDevelopment, 40, 6374. doi:10.1159/000278705Cole, M. (1999). Cross-cultural research in the socio-historical tradition. InP. Lloyd & C. Fernyhough (Eds.), Lev Vygotsky: Critical assessments:Vol. 1. Vygotskys theory (pp. 392410). New York, NY: Routledge.Cole, M., & Gajdamaschko, N. (2007). Vygotsky and culture. In H.Daniels, M. Cole, & J. V. Wertsch (Eds.), The Cambridge companion toVygotsky (pp. 117). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Cole, M., & Scribner, S. (1978). Introduction. In L. S. Vygotsky, Mind insociety: The development of higher psychological processes (pp. 114).Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Cole, M., & Wertsch, J. V. (1996). Beyond the individualsocial antinomyin discussions of Piaget and Vygotsky. Human Development, 39, 250256. doi:10.1159/000278475Damianova, M. (2009). Ontogenetic trends in the formation, structure andfunctions of private speech (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). MonashUniversity, Melbourne, Australia.Daniels, H., Cole, M., & Wertsch, J. V. (2007). Ed.s Introduction. In H.Daniels, M. Cole, & J. V. Wertsch (Eds.), The Cambridge companion toVygotsky (pp. 117). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.doi:10.1017/CCOL0521831040.001Duncan, R. M., & Cheyne, J. A. (2002). Private speech in young adults:Task difficulty, self-regulation, and psychological predication. CognitiveDevelopment, 16, 889906.Feigenbaum, P. (1992). Development of the syntactic and discourse structuresof private speech. In R. Diaz & L. Berk (Eds.), Private speech:From social interaction to self-regulation (pp. 181198). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.Fernyhough, C. (2008). Getting Vygotskian about theory of mind: Mediation,dialogue, and the development of social understanding. DevelopmentalReview, 28, 225262. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2007.03.001Garton, A., & Pratt, C. (1998). Learning to be literate. The development ofspoken and written language (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell.Goudena, P. P. (1992). The problem of abbreviation and internalisation ofprivate speech. In R. Diaz & L. Berk (Eds.), Private speech: From socialinteraction to selfregulation (pp. 215224). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Hedegaard, M. (2007). The development of childrens conceptual relationto the world, with focus on concept formation in preschool childrensactivity. In H. Daniels, M. Cole, & J. V. Wertsch (Eds.), The Cambridgecompanion to Vygotsky (pp. 246275). Cambridge, England: CambridgeUniversity Press.Haggbloom, S., Warnick, R., Warnick, J. E., Jones, V., Gary, L., Yarbrough,G., & Monte, E. (2002). Study ranks of the top 20th centurypsychologists, Review of General Psychology, 33, 139 152. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.6.2.139John-Steiner, V. (2007). Vygotsky on thinking and speaking. In H. Daniels,M. Cole, & J. V. Wertsch (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky(pp. 136152). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Karpov, Y. (2005). The Neo-Vygotskian approach to child development.Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Knox, J. E., & Stevens, C. (1993). Vygotsky and Soviet Russian defectology.An introduction. In R. W. Rieber & A. S. Carton (Eds.), Thecollected works of L. S. Vygotsky: Vol. 2. The fundamentals of defectology:Abnormal psychology and learning disabilities (pp. 125). NewYork, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press.Kozulin, A. (1986). Vygotsky in context. In L. Vygotsky, Thought andLanguage (pp. xilvi). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Kozulin, A. (2005). The concept of activity in Soviet psychology: Vygotsky,his disciples and critics. In H. Daniels (Ed.), An introduction toVygotsky (2nd ed., pp. 101123). Hove, East Sussex, England: Routledge.Lawrence, J., & Valsiner, J. (2003). Making personal sense. An account ofbasic internalization and externalization processes. Theory & Psychology,13, 723752. doi:10.1177/0959354303136001Luria, A. R. (1963). Restoration of function after brain injury. New York:Macmillan/Pergamon.Luria, A. R. (1966). Higher cortical functions in man. New York: BasicBooks.Luria, A. R. (1973). The working brain: An Introduction to neuropsychology.New York: Basic Books.Meshcheryakov, B. (1999). Logikosemanticheskii analiz koncepcii L. S.Vygotsky: Sistematika form povedenia i zakoni razvitia visshih psihicheskihfunkcii [Logicosemantic analysis of the theory of L. S.Vygotsky: Systematization of forms of behavior and laws of developmentof higher psychological functions]. Voprosy Psihologii [Problemsof Psychology], 4, 315.Meshcheryakov, B. (2007). Terminology in Vygotskys writings. In H.Daniels, M. Cole, & J. V. Wertsch (Eds.), The Cambridge companion toVygotsky (pp. 155177). Cambridge, England: Cambridge UniversityPress.Mirolli, M., & Parisi, D. (2011). Towards a Vygotskyan cognitive robotics:The role of language as a cognitive tool. New Ideas in Psychology, 29,298311. doi:10.1016/j.newideapsych.2009.07.001Rieber, R. W., & Robinson, D. K. (2004). Preface. In R. W. Rieber & D. K.Robinson (Eds.), The Essential Vygotsky (pp. xiiixvii). New York, NY:Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press.Senushtenkov, S. P. (2006). Tipy interiorizacii v teorii Vygotsky [Types ofInternalization in Vygotskys theory]. Voprosy Psihologii [Problems ofPsychology], 5, 134142.Stepanova, M. A. (2001). Problema obuchenia i razvitia v trudah L. S.Vygotsky i P. Y. Galperin [The problem of instruction and development in the Works of L. S. Vygotsky and P. Y. Galperin]. Voprosy Psihologii[Problems of Psychology], 4, 106114.Symons, D. K. (2004). Mental state discourse, theory of mind, and theinternalization of self-other understanding. Developmental Review, 24,159188. doi:10.1016/j.dr.2004.03.001Valsiner, J. (2001). Process structure of semiotic mediation in humandevelopment. Human Development, 44, 8497. doi:10.1159/000057048Van der Veer, R. (2007). Vygotsky in context: 1900-1935. In H. Daniels,M. Cole, & J. V. Wertsch (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky(pp. 2149). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higherpsychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Vygotsky, L. S. (1981). The instrumental method in psychology. In J. V.Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 134143). Armonk, NY: Sharpe.Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MITPress.Vygotsky, L. S. (1994). The problem of the cultural development of thechild. In R. van der Veer & J. Valsiner (Eds.), The Vygotsky reader (pp.5772). Oxford, England: Blackwell.Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). Genesis of higher mental functions. In R. Rieber(Ed.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: Vol. 4. History of developmentof higher mental functions (pp. 97119). New York, NY: PlenumPress.Vygotsky, L. S. (2004). Analysis of sign operations of the child. In R. W.Rieber & D. K. Robinson (Eds.), The Essential Vygotsky (pp. 557569).New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Press.Wertsch, J. V. (2007). Mediation. In H. Daniels, M. Cole, & J. V. Wertsch(Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky (pp. 178192). Cambridge,England: Cambridge University Press.Winsler, A., De Leon, J. R., Wallace, B. A., Carlton, M. P., & Willson-Quayle, A. (2003). Private speech in preschool children: Developmentalstability and change, across-task consistency, and relations with classroombehaviour. Journal of Child Language, 30, 583608. doi:10.1017/S0305000903005671Zinchenko, V. P. (2007). Thought and word: The approaches of L. S.Vygotsky and G. G. Shpet. In H. Daniels, M. Cole, & J. V. Wertsch(Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky (pp. 212245). Cambridge,England: Cambridge University Press.

1 The method of dual stimulation is based upon the use of auxiliary aids to facilitate recall. Using this method, Vygotsky (1978) examined how childrens memory and attention become internally restructured as a result of using a set of colored cards as an instrument to aid the memorization of certain information, e.g., list of words.2 The translations of the terms vary from seam-like in-growing and complete in-growing (Vygotsky, 1994, p. 66) to, respectively, seamtype revolution and revolution of the whole (Vygotsky, 1997, p. 118). The terms used in this presentation are the authors free translation.