Vygotsky's work has prompted several interpretations. Older theories naturally spark a range of interpretations, especially if the work of an investigator is sufficiently rich. After all, the reading of historic works is inevitably done on the basis of present-day and personal knowledge and possibly with an eye to the future. As our knowledge is constantly changing, so will our interpretations of the writings of the classic scholar whose work we are studying. In this sense, the need to restudy historic works may perhaps be compared to the need to regularly retranslate classic novels to adjust them to the newest standards. The older translations are no longer acceptable in light of the current knowledge and language. Another way to look at this phenomenon is to consider the process of creating new interpretations and new translations of classic works in terms of Piaget's concepts of assimilation and accommodation, where both the reader and the text will always be transformed in the reading process (van der Veer, 1999a).

Among the older interpretations of Vygotsky's work, I would like to mention the analyses by Wertsch (1985), Cole and colleagues (1978), the younger Leontiev (1990), Tulviste (1991), Yaroshevsky (1989, 1993), Kozulin (1990), and Puzyrej (1986). Interesting newer interpretations have been advanced by, again, Cole (1996), Veresov (1999), and Toomela (2000). Each of these scholars emphasizes different aspects of Vygotsky's work and creates, as it were, his own Vygotsky. But these were only the interpretations of Vygotsky's work published in English or Russian.