Skip to content
Archive with last of tag-string Evd

3V0495.4

3V0495.04 “Who’s Peggy?” (She points to herself: [That]) (6/1/79)

Later Peggy sat in my lap. Among other games, I asked her, “Who’s
Peggy?” She replied by raising her right hand behind her ear, with her
forefinger extended, and touched her head, saying “That” very
definitely.

3V0524.1

3V0524.01 Pragmatics and names [bring me the snuggle gruggle] (6/30/79)

Peggy was playing with a large ball. At one point, when it was not in her
possession and she had been distracted by something, I said to her,
“Peggy, bring me the snuggle gruggle.” Without hesitation she went
over to the ball, picked it up, and brought it to me. Gretchen.

3V0534.1

3V0534.01 Words and situations: trash can-words, like things seen can be unconsidered (cf. notes # for problem solving analogy) (7/10/79)

A little exploration following Chomsky’s advice that you can probe
language understanding (only) by examining the interpretation of
nonsense — Gretchen’s “snuggle gruggle” shows how easy it is to over
interpret language understanding on the bases of action. This is a
second example (cf. 6/8/79 Trash can).

Peggy picked over the contents of my writing table again today and
found a tulip-shaped tiny metal bell — the end of a light cord. I
directed her: “Peggy, put this in the trash can” as I returned it to her.
She toddled across the room and did so and returned to my table.
Selecting another piece of disposable stuff, I gave it her with “Put this
in the birdbath.” Peggy complied, but carried it to the trash can. In the
third variation, I gave her a roll of scotch tape in a dispenser and said,
“Put this in the icebox.” She put the tape in the trash can. Although we
would not throw it away, Peggy was willing.

Clearly the nouns of destination [?] in these sentences are not
determining what Peggy does. Does she know “birdbath”? No. Does she
know “icebox”? Quite likely — we more often name the refrigerator by
that label instead of “icebox,” but she has doubtless heard me use the
word when trying to raid it. That is, the refrigerator looms large in
Peggy’s life. She tries to get food out of it whenever it is opened and
often is permitted to do so.

3V0536.1

3V0536.01 More words and situations: “Give this to dada” vs.
“dada have that”; language role in microworld selection: role genetically prior
to terminal specification though it recedes to discourse level feature
(CENTRAL IDEA) (7/12/79)

Miriam sat across the dining room table unable to bring me something I
wanted (a magazine, perhaps). She directed Peggy, “Give this to Dada”,
then pointing directly at me when Peggy looked at her
uncomprehendingly she repeated, “Give this to Dada.” Peggy did not
respond. I caught her eye and whispered she should say, “Daddy have
that.” Miriam said, “Dada have that” without any gesture. Peggy
brightened, circumnavigated the table, and brought me the object.

To be doubly sure of Peggy’s non-understanding, I tried repeating the
incident: “Peggy, give this to Miriam.” I expected Peggy not to do so —
after which I intended to say “Miriam have that” with her consequent
execution — but Peggy carried the object back to Miriam right away.
Importance — the most striking element in the difference of Peggy’s two
responses to the “Give this etc.” directions is her successful
interpretation of my intention in the second case. How did that
happen?

In the first case, Miriam gave Peggy an incomprehensible order which
meant that Peggy should perform a familiar action (carry and give) on
an object in her grasp. When expressed as a well know formula, Peggy
executed the action. In the second case, when a similar order (only the
indirect object changed) [was given] Peggy executed that action on that
object in response without translation into a well known formula. The
two changes were recipient AND the immediate context or situation of
the utterance.

Can we say that language’s function as evidenced here is at the level of
microworld or frame selection? Yes. It IS reasonable then to consider
this function as genetically prior to terminal specification, even if it
may gradually recede in prominence to what linguists call “discourse
level features.”

3V0559.1

3V0559.01 “Daddy Hug Peggy” : 08/04/79;

Comforting the baby, it was our custom to hold her close and pat her
gently on the back. Amusingly, when she was so comforted, even
though crying, Peggy would return this gentle patting on the back.
Recently, she has begun responding to my statement or question
“Daddy hug Peggy” by toddling close to me, ready to receive a hug.
After my many previous huggings of her toy fox and bear,
accompanied by verbal description, e.g. “Daddy hug Foxy,” Peggy
would hug her toy and would eventually do so in response to a verbal
command (if she wanted to). Sitting in my lap today, I said, “Daddy hug
Peggy.” Her response was to come to me (i.e. lean over to my torso),
put her head on my chest sideways, and put her arms around my waist;
i.e. Peggy hugged me. The activity is the first, with explicit verbal
connection, wherein agent and patient can be interchanged. As such, it
can show both Peggy’s pristine interpretation and can be used as a test
vehicle to explore when and how Peggy begins connecting surface word
order with different roles.

The pristine interpretation of “Daddy hug Peggy” and “Peggy hug
Daddy” is order invariant and seems to be “Daddy and Peggy hug each
other.” This construction of mine reflects an earlier conception of
Mimi Sinclair’s (for older babies, i.e. several years of age) but more
importantly springs out of the evidence itself both of this incident and
Peggy’s earlier “patting.”

3V0563.1

3V0563.01 Scissors : 08/08/79;

Prospecting for playthings one place or another, Peggy came up with a
pair of children’s safety scissors. Even though they have rounded ends,
I feared Peggy could hurt herself by pinching her fingers and bade her
put them on my writing table. After putting them down, Peggy pointed
at them decisively and said, “That.” Turning to me, she repeated,
“That.” I responded, “Scissors. Those are scissors.” Peggy tried a
pronunciation which might have been /***/ (I distrust the memory as
too pat). I corrected pronunciation. “Yes, those are scissors.”
Peggy turned away and began playing with the sleeves and hems of
clothes hung in the closet behind my writing table. While doing so,
speaking entirely to herself and not attending to the writing table or its
contents, Peggy said [scissors].

Relevance: What we witness here is an infant either rehearsing or
practicing a new word. Did she recall it later? Of course. Gretchen
reports Peggy entered the girls’ room and seeing the same safety
scissors on Miriam’s bed, said, “Scissors.” Did she apply the name to
others? Indeed she did, naming as ‘scissors’ the crude kitchen shears
with which I cut a piece of twine.

3V0583.2

3V0583.02 [fan]: indistinct initial consonant; her accepting correction. 8/28/79

Terrible, muggy weather with the atmosphere filled with pollen and
mold spores. I set up the fan to pull cold air from the air conditioned
bedroom down to the dining room. Peggy came over to play with the
new object and was warned away because of the danger. She tried to
name it before we did and her best attempt came out as /vaen/. After
a few repetitions of /faen/ (by me), Peggy accepted correction and
referred to the object as /faen/.

Relevance: Peggy’s evident pleasure I interpret as evidence that she
knows she has “caught on” to naming — that even though sounds may
be ever so similar (as /vaen/ and /faen/ and as /faen/ and /caen/, one
can make a one-to-small-number correspondence between words and
possible meanings. (“meanings” here being the names of things or
relations.)

3V0588.2

3V0588.02 [some…/bae/bae/]: appearance of modified noun, but no clear
evidence that “some” is used adjectively.

As Peggy has recently pleaded [one… one… one…] when asking for a
cookie or a piece of cheese, an apple, or whatever. Our frequent
response has been “Do you want some cheese ?” etc. Thus the word
“some” has begun creeping into Peggy’s repertoire, as one
interchangeable with “one.”

“baba” appeared first (my recall may be faulty here) as the name Peggy
applied to her large bear (?) “Bearhug”. It rapidly was generalized in
references to anything Peggy wanted, e.g. cheese, an apple (see Vignette
V0585B). Today I heard her pleased [some… some… some… baba]

Thus, as with [mine…box] we have the appearance of a modified noun,
but no clear evidence that the noun is as one modified adjectively.
What would be evidence: a pattern of speech accompanying actions
thus “some blocks… some cups… some balls…” etc. or “One cup… one
ball…” in Peggy’s natural speech production.

3V0612.1

3V0612.01 [kiss]: spontaneous and kisses Gretchen.

While I was working in the kitchen, Peggy walked by holding a doll. She
held it up , said “kiss” and kissed the doll. A week later (9/26) Peggy
repeated this with me, saying spontaneously [kiss] and leaning over to
kiss me. (repeats text of 3V0604) Gretchen.

3V0622.2

3V0622.02 [bag…culdae gone]: extremely non-standard order.

Peggy was roving about with a plastic, opaque bag in one hand. She
picked up the toy Scotty we bought in Boston and stuffed it in the bag.
Peggy saw me looking at her and explained, [bag culdae gone].

Importance: locative (into the bag) Agent (culdah) Activity (playing
game “gone”). This is another example of extremely non-standard word
order.

3V0623.1

3V0623.01 [my daddy]: first recorded use of possessive modifier without hiatus and inverted order (see note #242) 10/7/79

With the picnic table newly set up in the kitchen, Peggy came walking
more or less cautiously down the bench to run to my arms. She put
her arms about my neck as I caught her and exclaimed [my daddy]. I
believe this is the first recorded use of a possessive modifier without a
hiatus and inverted order. (cf. [mine…box] on 9/9/79.)

3V0626.1

3V0626.01 [mama hurt. mama hurt. hurt head] Context permits 10/10/79

This morning was a bad one for me. Rearranging the fire in the
upstairs fireplace, I banged the back of my head on the lintel. Peggy
could see and hear that I was upset. Less than five minutes later, I
passed through the partially completed partition between the new
bedrooms, didn’t duck far enough, and clocked the top of my head.
Our bed was not far away, so I went and sat down, half crying, half
cursing. Peggy was in the “family room” (our old bedroom). I heard
her go into Miriam’s room, repeating “Mama hurt. Mama hurt. Hurt
head.” (The only thing wrong with this communication is that Miriam
didn’t pay any attention.) Gretchen.

3V0628.1

3V0628.01 [hurt…ham(mer?)]: instrumental case in presyntactic form 10/12/79

Working at completing the partition in Robby’s room, I set a chair
across the doorway to keep Peggy away from the tools and paint.
Having removed my shoes (paint on the bottom of one), I came out of
the room carrying a hammer. Stepping over the obstacles, I hit my toe
on it and limped in a stream of expletives to a chair where I sat down.
Peggy was solicitous [hurt ?…ham ?] — which I interpret to mean “did
you hurt yourself with the hammer ?” The sense of this sequence is
instrumental, as the context makes so clear.

3V0630.1

3V0630.01 [gotcha]: verbal accompaniment of micro-script.

Peggy sat in my lap as I warmed me toes before the fire. At her request,
the toy Scotty was in her lap. She remarked [fire… hot], repeating our
frequent warning to her. I said “toes warm” and taking her legs, held
up her toes parallel to mine. The toy slipped between her legs, which
she closed on it saying [gotcha]…She laughed, pulled the toy dog out
and replaced it with another [gotcha]. this was done several times.

3V0636.1

3V0636.01 /cup…au.ehl/: adjective < further specification of idiom "owl-cup"; idiom degenerates and is reconstructed from more successfully competitive /kup/ in pre-standard order MAJOR EXAMPLE

Pointing to my own coffee cup, Peggy remarked /kuhp/, then after a
pause said /au ehl/ (owl). I have always identified this cup for Peggy as
my owl cup, and pointed out the picture on both sides. Gretchen.

3V0638.1

3V0638.01 Holophrase sequences: [goody…scurry…food…treat] see note below: # 289 10/22/79

Peggy knows where Scurry’s goodies are kept, and often asks to give
her one (frequently giving it a nibble herself in transit). She has always
called it /fu/ (“food”). Today, as I got Scurry’s heartworm pill from
the shelf above, Peggy pointed up and said /guh/di (goodie)…/kur/di/
(Scurry)…/fu/ (food)…/trit/ (treat). This is, I think, the first time I
have heard her give a multiple identification of something, using
different words to apply to the same object. (The “cup”…”owl” seems
more like “mama…eye”, a description of an attribute rather than an
alternate definition.) Gretchen.

3V0638.3

3V0638.03 Naming: metalinguistic note: changes in the name of Scurry; Naming Miriam and LaRene /nehm/. 10/22/79

Over the past week or two, Peggy’s name for Scurry has shifted
somewhat from /kuhl/dah/ or /kuhl/dae/ or /kar/di/ (roughly). She
has shown a tendency also to call other dogs /dawg/ rather than
/kuhl/dae/. I have told her that Scurry is a dog, and what we call her,
her name, is Scurry. The last time I did so, Peggy repeated /naim/.
During the same time, she has been making an effort to name Miriam
also. (cf. naming Robby, 10-3; naming Miriam, 10-1). Her usual
rendition is “Mimi” or “Mamie”, with occasional attempts that sound
like Mary. While LaRene D. was here this past week, Peggy called her
/rin/. Gretchen.

3V0643.1

3V0643.01 Verbal imitation + action:[Shame (on scurry; kicks her)] (10/27/79)

Today Scurry committed some minor fault against Peggy (such as
eating her cookie) and I scolded her. “Shame on you, Scurry,” Peggy
repeated [s’em] then kicked the dog neatly under the chin (She was
wearing shoes.) Gretchen.

3V0644.1

3V0644.01 [/pinsh/ (punches doll)…shame] (10/28/79)

Peggy had her doll completely undressed. At one point, she punched it
on the chest, remarking as she did [pinsh…s’em]. Gretchen.

3V0647.1

3V0647.01 Baby becomes a toddler on getting shoes. (10/27/79 & 11/1/79)

Peggy just got her first pair of shoes (blue sneakers) and appears very
pleased. I remarked to her that she is a big girl now and had her very
own shoes, so she would not have to use other peoples’, and Peggy in
reply identified herself as a [tod l’r].
Gretchen

“Are you a Baby ?” Gretchen told me of Peggy’s delight in her first pair
of shoes and that she deemed herself a “toddler.” Home from Boston
this evening (must have been 11/1 or 11/2), I hugged Peggy and asked
if she had been a good baby. She replied assertively, “toddler.”
Bob

3V0653.1

3V0653.01 [Robby run] (later) [kuldah run]. (11/6/79)

Watching Robby trot down the drive to the mailbox – “Robby run.”
Later, when Scurry was tearing around inside “kuldae run.” Gretchen.

3V0660.1

3V0660.01 [with daddy]: answer to question “where’s Mimi ?” (11/13/79)

Reported by LaRene Despain:
Waiting for me in the car, LaRene talked with Peggy. Peggy mentioned
“Daddy.” LaRene, “He’s in Boston. What about Mimi ? [Miriam]. where
is Mimi ?” (Peg replied) “With Daddy.” Gretchen.

3V0666.1

3V0666.01 [bear come Peggy]: near sentence example. (11/9/79)

She got away from us — up the stairs where the older children were
while Gretchen and I were in the living room. When I realized she was
gone, I raced to the stairwell and found Peggy at the top, coming down
one step at a time, in the sitting position, dragging her bear along. I
was worried, told her to put the bear down and she replied, “bear come
Peggy.” I watched her closely as she continued down.

3V0668.1

3V0668.01 Answering questions: she interprets query as request for more information but does not interpret specific elements, for example
“who” or “what”. (11/21/79)

Peggy interprets questions as requests for information — more
specificity — in what she has said. but she does not distinguish roles of
elements in a sentence as related to the specific queries, such as
“who?” or “What?” Today, sitting in my lap, she dropped a comb on the
floor and said “drop.” No answer to “who?” But when I asked “who
drop?” Peggy replied, “comb.”

She was interpreting my query — when it specifically related to her
previous utterance by repetition of “drop” as meaning the more
sensible of two questions:
1. “who dropped the whatever ?” (this is a stupid question: she was
sitting in my lap and I didn’t drop it.)
2. “Whatever was it you dropped.?” (a sensible query.)

3V0670.1

3V0670.01 UP & DOWN: symmetrical relations; very IMPORTANT DATA on word-thing relations: she relates words and their structures of meaning
through reversibility as actions. (11/23/79)

Peggy wandered into the living room today with her “Bear Hug” in hand.
She held it high “Up” and put it on the ground “Down.” She repeated
this exercise several times — interrupting it once, I believe, with a hug
accompanied thus “hug”. Peggy was plainly excited by her knowledge,
and she was demonstrating it to me.

What do I make of this ? Here she was relating two words and their
structures of meaning through the reversibility as actions. She brought
together vaguely related terms into a specific relations of antithesis — a
primary kind of specific relations. This shows the level at which
Peggy’s mind is now progressively integrating.

3V0674.1

3V0674.01 COUNTING (carrying two cookies) [one, two, seven]
ONE, TWO, SEVEN (11/27/79)

Peggy came into the study (living room) with cookies in hand (one
each) and said to me “two”. She continued beyond me, saying, “One,
two, seven”. [FOOTNOTE: Later note on date written up: 12/6 This
evening, I asked Miriam is she had been teaching Peggy to count
(which Miriam denies) after Peggy’s “funny counting”, as “one, four, ten”]

Peggy clearly has learned several number names – perhaps from
watching Sesame street on TV. But her organization of the knowledge
is quite non-standard. Her construction of the number names goes not
much further than “one, two, three and other bigger numbers”.

3V0679.1

3V0679.01 OKAY: communication ending with acknowledgment (12/2/79)

While I prepared a lecture, Peggy brought a toy to me and named (it) in
her way of imploring me to play with her —
Peggy: Train. Train.
Bob: Take it out to Robby.
Peggy: ‘Kay. (takes the toy to Robby. They play.)

This very simple conversation show Peggy’s conventional use of a
common communication protocol that concludes with a message of
acknowledgment (ie. I have received your message and am satisfied
with it.) Such a response, especially when followed by the related
action, should be looked for as evidence that Peggy interprets to her
satisfaction what we say to her.

3V0683.1

3V0683.01 CHIN: word learning and private review in play. (12/6-7/79)

Peggy found an old doll of Gretchen’s in the basement. She brought it
to Miriam (who was sitting in my lap) and me and began pointing to
and naming what struck her — the dress, the hair, face parts — eyes,
nose. I realized that Peggy didn’t know the word “chin” and asked her
to point to it. When she pointed to the nose, Miriam corrected her
“That’s the nose, Peggy. where’s the chin ?” Peggy continued pointing
at the doll’s head – looking at Miriam – while she gradually moved her
hand around, past the face, to the back of the head. We showed her
the doll’s chin, and she repeated the name.

This morning, alone in the study when I came in and saw her, Peggy
played at her toy box and, when she picked up the doll, pointed to the
chin and named it.

3V0686.1

3V0686.01 [gone…bird] Formulation: pre-sentences as further verbal specification of a well worked out scenario of action (along with infant’s gradually increasing sense of what else it might have meant). (12/4/79)

Peggy has been playing her “gone” joke or game (cf. ???) for sometime.
Frequently when she says gone, I ask “What’s gone?” Today, while
[playing with a wind-up hopping toy bird “Woodstock,” Peggy thrust
the toy behind her back and said “gone…bird.” The latter word
following the former with a missed beat (a half second or so). I
consider this an important example of how Peggy is beginning to
assemble complex proto-phrases. Note well that they are syntactically
irregular and proceed as further verbal specification of a well worked
out scenario of action.

3V0687.1

3V0687.01 [gone…room] answers “what happened to your pants?” progressive specification example. (12/13/79)

Peggy came into my ken in a short [shirt?] and diaper. “Peggy, what happened
to your pants ?” “Gone…room,” she responded.

Here the meaning of “gone” is clearly applied beyond the scenario of
her game — but the pattern of her response is progressive specification.

3V0688.1

3V0688.01 Directions and conversation: [there…up]; [throw… down] (12/4/79)

As I was sitting in the big recliner, Peggy came over to me and
requested, “Book.” confused, I replied, “Book…Where ?” Peggy waved
her hand in the general direction behind me and said, “There…up.”
following her instructions, I located the Sesame Street record, whose
built in “book” was what she desired. I took this down and gave it her.

I think it was a toy Peggy had upstairs. I heard a noise, and came out to
inquire, “What was that ? Are you OK, Peggy ?” She pointed and
replied, “Throw down.” Indeed, she had thrown the toy down the
stairs.

3V0689.1

3V0689.01 Conversation: adverbial phrase sans pause assembled from fragments of Gretchen’s phrases. (12/12/79)

Today Peggy inquired of me “Daddy ?”
G: “Daddy’s coming home… probably tonight.”
P: Back ?”
G: “Yes, Daddy’s coming back.” “Soon.”
Later on, I said something about Daddy, and Peggy responded, “Back soon.”

In one of our conversations, Peggy said something I did not catch.
I made a guess. “Lawler? Your name is Lawler.” She looked at me, then
repeated her statement complete with gesture so I should not again
misinterpret, “shoulder.” (pointing to the same). Gretchen.

3V0690.1

3V0690.01 Harp and Guitar: naming shows assimilation of a new object to a familiar schema with spontaneous naming, social differentiation of relations, and her locking in the relationship. (12/13/79)

We were all watching the Marx Brothers movie “Monkey Business.”
(Note also that bob Despain recently gave Miriam an old Guitar of his.)
At one point, Harpo played a harp and Peggy said, “Guitar.” Gretchen
said, “No, Peggy, that’s a harp.” I continued, “That’s O.K., Peggy; it’s a
kind of guitar.” Peggy concluded definitely, ” ‘tar.”

Peggy’s naming reflect her assimilation of a new object to a familiar
scheme with spontaneous naming, social differentiation of the new
object from the old, recognition of their relations, and her “locking in”
the relationship. She has done this with other objects as well, but the
examples escape me now.

3V0695.1

3V0695.01 Non-standard nouns [all+/i/] (12/18/79)

12/18 truck…truckie.
12/20 sock… sockie (previously “soxie”)
Gretchen.

3V0696.1

3V0696.01 [run…running]: effect of variant form in parent expression; interpreted by Peggy as correction. (12/19/79)

Peter Spier’s “London Bridge is Falling Down” is one of Peggy’s favorite
books. She really likes the page on which is “Iron and steel will bend
and bow.” Inevitably she points to the figure in the middle. “Run.”
(Gretchen responds:) “Yes, the man is running.” Today she pointed to
him and remarked, “run…running.” Gretchen.

3V0697.1

3V0697.01 [nice bear]: feeling is first ! good example for raising issues in the further-specification model. (12/20/79)

Peggy has been using the term “nice” very frequently both as an
expression of her feeling about something and her request for
concurrence. For example, in P99 or P98, after drawing on a piece of
paper, she asked “Nice?” and I agreed.

This evening she brought her bear to the bench of our picnic table and
said, “Nice.” Lifting her bear onto the bench and said “Nice…bear.”
(The pause between the adjective and noun is uncertain.”

“Nice bear” looks like a standard English phrase (as written), but is it?
I believe the anchor of the phrase is the primary thing, “nice” – with the
subsequent term “bear” appearing as the further specification of what
that feeling attaches to.

3V0699.2

3V0699.02 [hat…water…drop]; [li-len run…puppy running too] (comments on book pictures). (ca. 12/22/79 )

Looking at another picture in London Bridge, Peggy said,
“hat…water…drop.” (a man is leaning over the balustrade of new
London Bridge, looking down at the hat he has dropped.”
Looking at the Brittanica book “words.” “li-len (lion)” “run… puppy running too.”
(to me it is unclear whether the last string involved pauses between the
words or not; not marked in the original text. RWL)

3V0700.1

3V0700.01 [apples…all gone] (12/23/79)

Peggy has been sick the last few days — running nose, cough and
excessive vomiting. We decided to regularize her diet by removing the
large bag of apple I recent bought from Bishop’s Orchard. Peggy has
been eating enormous quantities of apples (for one her size).
I removed that bag in the morning, and when Gretchen carried her into
the kitchen, Peggy could see the counter where they had been,
“Apples…all gone.”

3V0700.2

3V0700.02 Knives and spoons: learning the word “fork”; called initially a spoon; when I named the object as fork, she called it a “foon”; counting incident. (12/23/79)

When the dishwasher cycle ended, I asked Miriam to put away the
dishes. Helpful Peggy was easily recruited. She started selecting
silverware from the dishwasher and carried it to the appropriate
cabinet. When she was unable to reach high enough to put the
silverware away, I became her assistant. Peggy ran back and forth.
“knife…spoon…spoon.” (The later name applied to forks as well. I
tried correcting her… “That’s a fork, Peg, not a spoon.” Peg brought me
the next fork and said as she gave it to me “foon”)

Peggy began bringing handfuls of silver and said as she handed them to
me, “one, three, four.” on the next trip, (no one speaking between) she
continued “one, three, another”.

Peggy clearly knows some number names, and that they apply to
counting and that a successor name “another” can be used in a
counting series.

Could “two” be left out of her series of well known number names
because of the homonym “too” which is richly meaningful for Peggy as
“me too” a word she uses very assertively ?

3V0701.1

3V0701.01 [Mine…Peggy…Peggy’s…back]:clear use of a possessive, but one where syntactic structure is decidedly subordinate to the context; Peggy’s picture (12/24/79)

I bought some Polaroid film the other day and today had taken a
picture of Peggy sitting with me in my chair. I set it on the piano to
develop completely. when her image appeared, Peggy was fascinated by
the picture, kept pointing to it saying “Peggy…picture.”

Later in the day, I retrieved the picture to protect it from seizure
(I gave Peggy another which she fingered and mouthed.) Peggy returned
to the piano several times and implored me for its return
“Back?…Back?…Peggy?”

Eventually I gave in, replacing the picture. When she saw it, she was
elated. “Mine…Peggy….Peggy’s….back.” I consider this a clear use of a
possessive, but one where the “syntactic” structure is decidedly
subordinate to the context. (The dots represent Peggy’s typical
inter-word gap. This caesura is what I identify in my mind as “frame-
swapping-time” — with the word produced as a consequence of a new
frame in control.)

3V0703.1

3V0703.01 [Mimi…mad…Mimi…fall down] Expressed speculation. (12/26/79)

Miriam has been playing with her old set of infant size legos which we
gave Peggy for a Christmas present. She has tried through much of the
day to construct a mobile dog (dragon?) and failed with amazing
consistency. Lately cries of “awg !!” have been coming down from the
living room.

Peggy was in the dining room having lunch with Gretchen and me. As an
exceptionally loud series of cries came from the living room, Peggy
said, “Mimi…mad…Mimi…fall down.”

Peggy could not see Miriam or what she was doing and had been sitting
at the table with us. She was speculating about what might have caused
Miriam to make such sounds of aggravation.

3V0703.2

3V0703.02 Adjectives and Causes “shitty…toilet…diaper…init.” (12/26/79)

Carried past the bathroom where her newly removed diaper was
soaking: “shitty…toilet…diaper…init.” Gretchen.

3V0705.1

3V0705.01 Social Shaping of utterance word order change 12/28/79 (see
12/22/79)

Today Peggy remarked “Drop…hat…water.” [Usually when she points
to this and says whatever, I respond “Yes. The man dropped his hat into
the water.” Later on, she phrased it “drop…water…hat”

Coming back from Gordy’s, Bob made some remark about beer. Peggy
immediately cried “pop-pop (lollipop)….Gordy.” Gretchen.

3V0706.1

3V0706.01 Knock knock jokes: story used in ACR chapter of CECD. (12/29/79)

Jokes have been much in the air lately. I’ve worked on OCL: Inventing
Jokes. Miriam made me a joke book as a Christmas present. Peggy has
begun telling knock-knock jokes, apparently in imitation (without
instruction):
Peggy: knock-knock ?
Victim: Who’s there ?
Peggy: 1. big smile and laugh – no words
Peggy: 2. knock knock ?
In this joke, it is clear that Peggy expects
a “who’s that?” [there ?]
response and enjoys the protocol.

What will she do if someone say another response to “knock-knock? ”
Dunno. But trying that may help us interpret whatever response she
makes to ungrammatical sentences.

3V0706.2

3V0706.02 Puppy in Boston: default location of “gone” animate things (12/29/79)

Over the past several weeks, Peggy has often given evidence of
distinguishing between the sound of a bark and the word as the name
of the sound. One of the puzzles Peggy received for Christmas was a
five piece Puppy puzzle.

Peggy came crawling into the living room on hands and knees, and she barked, twice.
Bob. Did a puppy bark ? (a leading question about whether she was
pretending to be a puppy.)
Peggy: – no words – she looks around.
Bob: Did Peggy bark ?
Peggy: Puppy.
Bob: Where is it ?
Peggy: Gone.
Bob: Where did it go ?
Peggy (decisively) Boston.

Because Robby, Miriam, and I have gone to Boston (whence we have
spoken with Peggy on the ‘phone), that name has become her
default/prototype for a place where “gone” things have gone.

3V0707.1

3V0707.01 Color names: beginning of a long story. (12/30/79)

Peggy wears plastic pants over her diapers. Most are transparent. One
pair is pink and she prefers that pair. While changing her recently,
Gretchen began putting on a pair of transparent pants. Peggy cried
plaintively, “Black, black” while pointing in the direction of the pink
pants she had seen before. I interpreted this as the use of a color name
for reference — but her word could have been a corrupt pronunciation
of ‘plastic’.

3V0714.1

3V0714.01 [own stool… on it] Example of two loosely joined tight substructures: needed descriptions of cross level tightness of binding. (1/6/80)

Miriam cooked soup at the stove and Peggy wanted to see. Miriam
offered the use of her small red stool, one of two. Peggy chose to get
the second, put it next to Miriam, and climb up, speaking as she did,
“Own stool…. on it.”

3V0718.2

3V0718.02 Tirades: reappearance as singing (cf. P103-105); talking to Scurry. (1/10/80)

Failing earlier to capture Peggy’s tirades mechanically, I’ve been
delighted to find this behavior re-emerge. The most striking example
appeared as Peggy led Scurry around the house on the leash. She spent
considerable time yammering at Scurry as she took her on this inside
walk. Similarly, Peggy has begun singing very openly (and noisily). Her
tune is most various but her words are recognizable — they usually
include (occasionally) “Morning Dew” and “Monkey Zoo” and thus
recognizably classify the tirades as songs. The burden of singing seems
to be repetitions of “Oh no.” Some of Peggy’s singing has been
captured on videotapes P103-P105.

3V0719.1

3V0719.01 [gone…room], [found…floor] more examples of loose structures. (1/11/80)

[gone…room] Peggy wanted to go out with me. As I stood with my coat
on by the door, I asked, “Where’s your coat ?” Peggy responded,
“Gone…room.” She then ran into the living room (which she refers to
as “room” and returned with her coat..

[Found… floor]: Peggy brought me some yarn she found, handing it
first then delivering her message..

Both these examples characterize Peggy’s speech before pause deletion.
The pattern of verb and location is only one of several.

3V0720.1

3V0720.01 [fork…hurts…arm…me]: Peggy’s most complex phrase construction before the upsurge of pause deletion and appearance of anchoring with variation in her verbal productions (1/12/80)

Peggy stabbed herself with the tines of a fork. I can’t recall whether
she was in her high chair or helping unload the dishwasher, but her
words and pauses are certain. I consider this an extended example of
Peggy’s most complex phrase construction before the upsurge of pause
deletion and anchoring with variation in her verbal productions.