Skip to content
Archive with last of tag-string Int

3V0612.5

3V0615.05 More word practice and an inference: “sleepy” is a signifier appropriate to an observed yawn. 9/26/79

I yawned. Peggy looked at me and immediately inquired /S’ipi ?/ The
following morning a similar incident occurred with Miriam. For a day
or so, every time any one yawned, Peggy would as /s’ipi?/ This is
another word she has not been “taught.” At night, at bedtime, I will
sometimes say to her, “Peg, are you sleepy?” It might as often be “are
you tired?” Bob will remark “sleepy baby” as he holds a tired Peggy
before she goes up to bed. But putting “sleepy” as a proper response to
a yawn seems to be her own unprompted idea. Gretchen.

3V0614.1

3V0614.01 [gone]: first explicit verbal joke. 9/28/79

Peggy still enjoys putting things in my pockets and taking them out.
Not only does she ask for a pen (/pehn/) but she explains that she is
putting in or taking out of the pocket (pae/taet/) by saying [in there]
(as she stuffs a pen in) or [put in].

While playing so today, Peggy made what I consider her first, explicit
verbal joke. She put a fingernail clipper in my pocket, looked at me
and said [gone] and laughed. This joke seems to be a peek-a-boo
variation and is possibly connected with Peggy’s newly emerging sense
that she can be an independent agent.

3V0614.2

3V0614.02 [Da…door…go]: pre-sentence 9/28/79

Upstairs with Peggy in our bedroom. The door shut to keep her from
going downstairs, since we are here only a short time and I don’t want
to bother with the gate. Peggy was a little restless, wanting to leave.
She went to the door and pushed, saying [door…door]. Then (knowing
Bob was downstairs), [Da…door…go] Gretchen..

3V0619.2

3V0619.02 [/cul/du/eat]: sentence. 10/3/79

Peggy left a partially eaten hot dog on the low hearth. Later I saw
Scurry prowling about, and asked Peggy, “Where is your hot dog?” She
replied [/cul/duh/ eat] Gretchen.

3V0622.1

3V0622.01 [mama got eye]: MAJOR NOTE on cognitive structures behind speech; topic and comment at “discourse” level, not a word level. 10/6/79

Gretchen long ago began instructing Peggy in the names of body parts,
especially of the face. Recently, Peggy has surprised me by making
comments about the commonality of the body parts. For example,
pointing to her eye, she says [eye], then she points to me and repeats
[eye], then to Gretchen and Scurry, saying [eye] in all cases. I take this
point cum word as equivalent to the assertion that each of us creatures
has an eye.

The behavior is not restricted to eyes or to animate things. Today, we
gave Peggy a toy Scotty, which she referred to as /kuhl/dae/ and now
carries everywhere with her. Investigating it, Peggy noted its nose, its
eyes; pointed also to Scurry and me and made similar “assertions.”

The clearest proof of the positive assertion is the denial of its negation.
Peggy rarely says “no”. She usually indicates disagreement or
frustration by crying. In one of her rounds of assertions about noses, I
pointed to my nose and said “eye.” Peggy denied it at once [no]. The
response is vague in its interpretation. Could she have meant “nose” ?
(I think not. She always says /noz/, but I will have to try this negation
again.

Sitting in my lap this evening before the fire, Peggy once again pointed
out owners of noses. She pointed to her nose and mine and then said
[mama got nose]. This is clearly a three word sentence. Is the order
standard by accident or necessity ?

The best indication of the real situation is shown by observing the more
extended context into which the locally coherent productions are
embedded. Today, comparing her toy Scotty and Scurry, Peggy went
through this sequence:
[culdae eye]
[eye (pointing at Gretchen)]
[Mama eye]

I have imposed order on these productions by putting brackets around
them… but those brackets are in my mind, not in Peggy’s. What is the
structure of this tirade in Peggy’s mind flux ? There is a clear assertion
that dogs have eyes. Then we infer the generalization that others have
eyes, as exemplified by Gretchen. The conclusion is the expression in
standard (agent/ copula/ property) of the instantiated generalization.

The structure of this utterance is thematically anchored, at the
discourse level. Sentence structure is derivative and secondary.

– – – –
Marginal notes (by Bob) made on 10/8/79:
I tried this (misnaming of body parts) with my ear. No clear result.
Peggy’s “ear” is not very well defined.
Peggy is much caught up with explicit specification of classes, e.g. all
things with noses. This gives thematic coherence to her discourses.
My ideas is that standard order derives from audiences recasting
speech into standard form at sentence level while Peggy’s focus is on
the discourse. She may take recasting, rephrasing as local corrections
to much approved discourse. Auditors do not notice they are
“correcting”, in their view they are just asking for confirmation of
their understanding.

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.

3V0638.2

3V0638.02 Everything’s a pen if it comes out of my pocket. 10/22/79

Recently I’ve done some electrical work. I usually keep small tools in
my pockets — a screwdriver, for instance. when Peggy sat in my lap
this afternoon, she found in my shirt pockets a pen knife (she had seen
it before and knew it as a knife), a screwdriver (she decided “pen” after
examining it) and short pieces of wire (these also she called “pen”. I
named these objects – “screwdriver….. wire” Peggy imitated my names
for them, replaced them in my pocket. Withdrawing them again, she
said “pen” and “pen”, looking at each in turn.

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.

3V0639.2

3V0639.02 [hold dog]:assembled command. 10/23/79

Going upstairs, Peggy paused at the bottom, then handed me her
“snoopy” pull toy and ordered [hold dog]. 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

3V0650.1

3V0650.01 Diminutive “y”; is it a personal relation indicator, nominal date inserted: 11/3/79 from “Early November”

Peggy has been appending the “y” suffix to a number of words, e.g.
“dog” has become (on occasion) “doggy.” She exhibits the typical
extension in using any new feature. For example, not only has the dog
become “doggy” an alternate name for her toy terrier, not Scurry), but
even BALL has become BALL-y and SOX has become SOX-y. (This, as
Miriam notes rhymes with Foxy and is a most “logical” over extension
in terms of Peggy’s experiences).

What does the diminutive mean to her ? My speculation is that it is a
relation-indicator, one showing personal attachment to objects (as if
equivalent to “my dog.” “my ball,” “my sox.”) This is not much
different from adult usage.

3V0664.1

3V0664.01 Important observation and speculation: hiatus in holophrastic period as structure transition indicator; its disappearance indicates a new level of organization (11/17/79)

[following write-up of [bear come peggy] incident —
This last incident contrasts with what has been Peggy’s normal usage in
situations of accompaniment. It has been typical that when Peggy saw
some action or heard some statement she interpreted and wanted to
apply to her, she would say quickly and assertively, “Too !” This has
force like the common interjection, “Me too !”

What has been most striking to me about Peggy’s speech during this
time while dominated by single words is the tempo of extended
dialogues. The typical situation is that Peggy says one word — and
after a second long pause — says another. I am noting that I have
observed more constancy of rate than of function. I find this
interesting mainly in that it reinforces the vision of words as top-level
elements of semantically rich supportive structures frame- transition
mechanism – with one word salient in each activated frame.

We don’t know, of course, what one “word” is — the better, more
general term would be idiom…. but that, while it might be more
accurate would not express the obvious point that Peggy’s locutions are
so limited in general that she mostly says “words.”

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.

3V0683.2

3V0683.02 Kicking and hurt feelings. (12/6/79 and earlier)

Peggy’s control over her supports, her legs, has been of apparent and
considerable interest to her, I recall her joy at being able to jump with
both feet when first she could and, most recently (12/20 ff.), her
tapping with one foot to music while standing [this has been an obvious
effort on which she concentrated, i.e. she would look at her foot while
doing it, whenever her cries of “Morning Dew” got us to play a
recording]. Early in December, Peggy worked at kicking – which got her
in trouble. Her kicking was dangerous because her target was most
commonly Scurry’s neck I feared that as Peggy became more skillful
she would hurt Scurry and get bitten. Thus Peggy’s kicking me was an
opportunity. She ran up to me and said “kick” and kicked me in the
shin. When she did it a second time, I smacked her bottom.

Peggy was shocked and her feelings were hurt. She clasped both hands
to her eyes, hiding the entire upper portion of her face while tears
streamed down, and went off to a dark corner. Thus her typical
response when refused or censured. It’s funny because he reaction is
most extreme to an often inconsequential rejection, but it’s also
touching that the smallest refusal is taken as a personal rejection.

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.

3V0689.2

3V0689.02 Singing. Play [morny dew]; ride [boton…lynn] (12/12/79)

About this time, Peggy began referring to “Morning Dew” to indicate
she wanted to hear some Irish Music (One of our newest records is
Makem and Clancey’s “Two for the Morning Dew” with two songs
referring repeatedly to “early in the morning dew” and “two for the
morning dew.”

Playing with Peggy, I bounced her on my lap and dropped her between
my knees. Peggy immediately said “Bo’ton…Lynn” (referring to “Ride a
horse to Boston…” which we have done with her.) 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.

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.

3V0699.1

3V0699.01 Peggy’s first arch. (12/22/79)

During many experiments, Peggy has played with the blocks shown in
this picture, has even been shown an arch (in P??) — but she exhibited
little interest in the blocks except as objects to pile and kick over.

At the end of P99, Peggy took these blocks and piled them by my
typewriter. After playing with other toys or books, Peggy said “blocks”
and began bringing these one by one to a pile in the middle of the
floor. She did her usual things – standing the skinny blocks on end up
on the “biggies” (so she calls them). As she brought the square blocks
over, one, by one, she piled them up. sitting down, Peggy set the large
rectangular on end and, after adding a small square to the other pillar,
capped the arch with a second large rectangle. “Nice?” she asked.

insert Arch picture here

I congratulated her, and took this picture, during the doing of which
Peggy once peered at me through the opening between the pillars.
Peggy did not intend to build an arch. Her peering through the opening
indicates she noticed a “special” thing about an arch. She had the
opportunity to construct other arches (as she continued playing with
the blocks) but she did not do so. The next day, Peggy once again got
out these blocks and built a single tower of squares which pleased her
as much as the arch.

Peggy has been fascinated by the picture above. She first referred to
her image as a “baby” but afterwards referred to it as “peggy.” (We
told her it was Peggy, those myriad times she has come to us requesting
to see the picture.)

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.

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.

3V0706.3

3V0706.03 [fork!…for-me]: example of bound preposition (12/29/79)

Peggy sat in her high chair. Miriam had made an open faced cheese
sandwich and given two pieces to Peggy. It is our custom to eat such
fare with our fingers. Peggy had put her fork on the table beyond
immediate reach.

Other of us ate food with a fork. Peggy began, “Fork ?…Fork?”, a
request to give her one. I said, “No, Peggy, you don’t need a fork. Eat it
with your fingers.” Peggy, nearly crying, said, “Fork? Fork?…for-me?”
This prepositional usage may be tightly bound to the pronoun as an
idiomatic form. How can we tell ?

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’.

3V0709.2

3V0709.02 [Mimi did it…Peggy’s] Good example; issues important; developing a vocabulary to describe observed phenomena. (1/1/80)

The situation to which the locution applies was Miriam’s making a
wrapped package, a present, and giving it to Peg. Peggy brought it to
me to show. what is significant here is the pause/connected structure
of the phrasing. There was a pause (represented by dots) between the
phrases. “did-it” I consider a single verbal element of specific meaning.
So also is “Mimi.” therefore, this phrase has a two element structure.
We need to develop and use a vocabulary to describe the phenomena
we become sensitive to. We need names for:
– the pauses between expressions in Peggy’s speech.
– the phenomenon of the deletion of that pause from speech (will others also discover, observe this ? a critical test.)
– a name for the meaning units clustered/bracketed by pauses but not identified with “words”
– the process(es) of mental reconstruction by which labels becomes nodes of a control structure elevation (here, in embryo, is my theory of language in the mind)

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.”

3V0718.1

3V0718.01 Who’s there ? (Original notes on homely binding and lonely discovery) (1/10/80)

Peggy’s use of the knock-knock joke script has been monolithic — ie.
she would not respond in the victim’s role, nor would she continue in
any way no matter what response her victim made. This morning,
when I brought some coffee to Gretchen, I heard Peggy talking to
herself in the crib (Miriam was asleep). Peggy said, “Knock-knock.”
waited a while and then said, “Who’s there?” That is, she was clearly
rehearsing the entire joke script of her knowledge. The standard use of
rehearsing implies her objective of later performance. I mean no such
thing, but instead that Peggy was reciting both sides of a dialogue —
because she was alone, had no one to interact with.

Why is this significant ? Later that day, I said to Peggy, “Knock-knock,”
and she responded “Who’s there?” Subsequently, Miriam also noticed
that for the first time in her hearing that Peggy performed the victim’s
role. This seems a very early example of what I now see as a
fundamental process of learning which relates the elements of cultural
knowledge and indicates construction (see workbook, mid-January
1980). This process is the same as Miriam’s playing both sides of a
game in tic tac toe. Through homely processes of social binding scripts
are “memorized” from one role’s perspective. Through a later process
of lonely discovery, the multiple roles of a script are articulated. This
is a theory of enculturation and construction at a level of generality
comparable to Darwinian evolution as opposed to more nearly
computational theories of population genetics – but still it is a
beginning in an area currently too vague and unspecific.

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.

3V0720.2

3V0720.02 [joke… knock-knock]: verbally formulated classification based on a single exemplar. 1/12/80)

We all sat at table this evening. Either Gretchen and I teased and all of
us laughed, Peggy too. I believe I asked her what she laughs about (the
joke was one she could not comprehend). Peggy responded, “joke…”
and then continued “knock-knock.” Here is a clear example of verbally
formulated classification.

3V0723.1

3V0723.01 [chlokat mook] spontaneous expression of desire. (1/15/80)

Spontaneously, as we were heading home over Stepstone Hill, Peggy
remarked [chlokat mook] “Chocolate milk.” Gretchen.