Skip to content
Archive with last of tag-string Obj

3V0125.1

3V0125.01 References for “Three Years and Talking” 05/27/78

In Thursday’s discussion with Mimi Sinclair, I showed her my “lifetime living plan,”. she asked about the work with Peggy, why I should wait until she’s four, I responded, “That’s what I want to talk with you about. She gave us directions (to me, the “us” refers to Gretchen and me) both for experimenting and reading. The reading references are 3. to Laguna and Leopold, for observational focus; and to Marcel Cohan for theoretical focus. We have settled on the following bases of data collection
1.) half hour videotapes every two weeks from 18 weeks to 104 weeks (4 to 24 months).
2.) naturalistic developmental observation with a rough frequency of written notes every two days.
the videotapes will have three sections: proto-conversations; action logic, and sibling play. The most exciting aspect of this project for me is that Gretchen will not merely be involved in it, but that it will be essentially her project. Beyond that, two other factors stand out.

First, I believe we will be asking the right questions: why does it take babies so long to learn to talk when they can do so much in action ?
Secondly, the data collection methodology and interpretation approaches which I have been developing in the Intimate Study seem appropriate with respect to the level of grain necessary to resolve the issue.

Not to pass unmentioned is that how a child learns language is one of the great, unresolved puzzles of our time and a major center of controversy.

Gretchen committed herself to the project yesterday and I spent the day gathering equipment and referenced books. Because Gretchen has no institutional affiliation and the project is not in any way grant supported, we will remain free to terminate it at any point if our best judgment requires that — this is an essential condition for research in the heart of the family. Robby and Miriam have agreed that it should be fun to play with Peggy in the experiment and both are eager to begin.

We will start on Monday, 5/29/78.

3V0180.6

3V0180.06 Surfaces. Precursor to the object concept:
later development from “surface fascination” of early infancy 07/22/78

This afternoon, I tried to jollify Peggy while Gretchen and the older children went to the beach. We played for 20 minutes or more. I was interested in seeing how well Peggy could sit up. With my lap horizontal, she most frequently and quickly fell flat on her face. As I inclined my lap a little she became able to balance in a “sitting” position. During this time, Peggy’s interest was quite different from mine. She was trying to pluck away my belt from my clothes. She focused on this task for at least 10 minutes. When I attempted to distract her with the favorite teething ring, she plucked at the belt with the teether in hand (the white rubber, multi-nipple ring), appearing to pry at the belt with the teether. What do I make of this activity?

I see this as a physical verification of a figure/ground distinction. the inch-and-a-half brown leather belt was set off against a white T- shirt and gray and red plaid pants. The brass buckle was obvious also. If it appeared so obviously distinct to Peggy, should not she have been puzzled that it would not come away at her tugging? The long duration of her interest testifies that there was something in this situation which engages an issue she is working on. Could this have been puzzling as a potential counter-example to a strong “separate object” hypothesis? I believe so and see this issue as pointing forward to the development of the object concept and backwards to the surface-scratching, flower- pattern-plucking activities observed previously.

I interrupted Peggy by turning her away from me, still on my lap. She reached out toward the chair arm. I played “peek-a-boo” with the chair arm by draping a diaper over and covering it. Peggy reached out, plucked off the diaper, dropped it, then proceeded with her examination of the chair arm, which has both wooden and material (integral) parts.

Finally I returned Peggy to upright sitting in my lap. When she again started working on the belt, I undid the buckle. She brought the long leather end to her mouth and chewed on it longer than I liked (did the tanning leave chemical residues that would be bad for her?)

3V0200.1

3V0200.01 Lack of discrimination; debugging habitual actions; roots of self awareness 8/10

Gretchen recalls with certainty that Peggy began rearing back during feeding as early as during the second month.

Before the last videotape session (on 8/6/78), I observed Peggy playing simultaneously a foot and her ladybug rattle. Most striking was her bringing both objects (foot and rattle) to her mouth at one time — where they competed for entry and got in each other’s way. This sort of conjunction offers the accidental opportunity for insertion to use [?] as an observation. Hoping to capture this occurrence, in P 28 I gave Peggy both her familiar teething ring (the circular ladybug) and the set of three sticks. I segregated the sticks from the other objects of the set so there would be less clutter and distraction.

3V0216.1

3V0216.01 Object Permanence: Miriam’s Peek a boo game with toys (8/26/78)

Miriam is playing with Peggy on the bed. She hid Peggy’s rattle (shaped like a little girl), remarking that Peggy didn’t know where it was, but that when part of the rattle showed Peggy reached and uncovered the rest. “How much was showing ? What could she see ? “The head,” Miriam replied and an instant later, Miriam and the rattle were lying together under the covers with just their heads showing. As Miriam had placed the rattle by her and drew up the covers, Peggy reached for it. She knew it was there and was interested in it. Miriam then covered the head of the rattle (as in the game of peek a boo). Peggy instantly reached over and uncovered the rattle.

3V0216.2

3V0216.02 Social context of learning (8/26/78)

Relevance: I see this example as an outstanding example of how a child could discover ideas such as object permanence in a most incremental fashion in the midst of social situations — especially in children’s play with each other. when the older child draws out a simple situation to keep a baby doing something more interesting than mouthing everything in reach, that child will play with what the baby desires and pushing at the boundaries of the baby’s ignorance — so the baby may be surprised and delighted — but babies learn quickly and can’t be surprised the same way forever.

This is an example of intrusive, socially driven learning. The perspective in which this is seen as important agrees then that learning in a social situation is most affected by the quality of the play. Having people around is not what’s important. Hugging the baby is not the factor that directly promotes learning. the active/interactive play where the more learned uses his understanding of the less learned’s knowledge prods the less learned kid into situations where insights are likely to occur.

3V0216.4

3V0216.04 Robby Pretending to Speak for Dapper Dan;
Peggy talking to toys and Scurry

One of the toys not shown on videotape is Dapper Dan — a baby-size cloth doll. After the session, I propped Dapper Dan in the corner of Peggy’s playpen and left her with the two older children reading in the library. From my reading alcove, upstairs I heard a conversation going on. Robby “hid” outside the playpen behind Dapper Dan. When Peggy started talking to Dapper Dan, he responded in the appropriate turn. After a while this lost interest for him. Over following days, Peggy addressed Dapper Dan on occasion and received no response and has stopped doing so (recall she also used to address Scurry with the same expectation).

Can we figure out some simple experiment which will permit us to determine how Peggy classifies things into speakers and non-speakers (or interactors and non-interactors)?

3V0216.5

3V0216.05 Putting On 8/26

One of my interests in observing Peggy’s play with the ring tower is to see when (and how) her interest in putting-into (e.g. the pole into her mouth) expands the putting-onto (the hole of the rings functioning then like a newly separated mouth analog). Thus far Peggy has not put a ring on the pole. Over the past several days I have seen her several times strike the top of the pole with a ring. I can’t tell whether this is a not-letting-go bug in her attempt to grab the pole or a bona fide but failing attempt to put the ring on the pole. One difficulty may be that the pole has a rocking base and requires a specific effort to hold it still enough to [put] a ring on. — Maybe I can change that.

3V0216.6

3V0216.06 Siblings and Play 8/26/78;

The rings clearly “belong” on the pole (of the Ring Tower Toy”). Peggy has several times been present with the toy so assembled. Further, yesterday she saw Robby start a game of ring toy while he played on the floor with her. I believe this is a first exhibit of them being “put on.”

3V0221.1

3V0221.01 Peggy at the Beach: 8/31/78;

The older children have been going down to the beach just about every afternoon, weather permitting. Since they cannot go alone (not good enough swimmers) I accompany them to keep an eye on them. Usually Peggy comes with us. We walk down, Peggy in the stroller and spread out a towel on which to sit. Soon Peggy begins showing interest in the sand. At first, she grasped a fistful and put it in her mouth, necessitating a cleaning and brushing off. Thereafter, she only ran her hands over and through the sand, grasping a fistful occasionally and it a good hand look (?). She has not really tried to eat any more, and I have said “No” whenever she appeared to be on the verge of putting sand in her mouth. Likewise, I have tried to wipe the sand off before she puts fingers in her mouth to suck. She seems to be very interested in the sand, perhaps because it is solid under her, yet the surface is not smooth (unless made so) nor inviolate — she can pick up pieces. This is another instance of her interest in surfaces and what is part thereof, what can or cannot be removed.

3V0221.3

3V0221.03 Putting On (8/31/78)

Two days ago, the peg came out of the ring tower and instead of replacing it, I cut a hole through the bottom of the base and inserted the peg from that side. Now the effective bottom of the base is flat and the peg will not rock out of the vertical as Peg tries to mount a ring on it. since the repair, I have watch Peggy play with the toy several times. Thus far, she has not succeeded in mounting a ring on the peg. [She just now missed with the blue ring — crawling at least six inches to the peg, she reached out directly with the ring for the top of the peg.; The peg hit her hand and the ring did not go on. Is she trying to put it on and failing ? Or is she reaching for the peg without considering that her hand is already occupied ?] Several times, Peggy has approached the vertical peg and immediately struck the top with the ring in her hand. I would impute to her a motive of “putting on,” but I can not really tell.

3V0221.4

3V0221.04 Peggy Discovers an Inside (8/31/78)

Just now, we played on the bed after Peggy’s feeding. She crawled up to the headboard — fascinated both because of the wood grain and scroll work. She reached for and pulled a knob on the drawer of an adjacent small table. The drawer came open a few inches ! Peggy raised herself up and discovered (for the first time) an INSIDE. This wooden thing not only came apart with pulling, but also contained restaurant take-out menus, a tire patching kit, and some small pieces of paper, all of which could be moved by her hand’s insertion inside the drawer. Peggy was clearly delighted with the discovery and frustrated that her mouth could not explore what her eyes saw. She did manage to extract one small piece of paper and put it in her mouth. Eventually, her leaning on the drawer to reach inside led to its closing.

3V0221.5

3V0221.05 Rolling Objects (8/31/78)

Down on the floor afterwards, playing with the ring tower, the purple ring escaped her in such a way as to roll across the floor — a good four feet, Peggy was quite surprised (so the look on her face testified). Gretchen tried to toss it back, but the ring landed on its side and rolled around the floor. within a few minutes, I observed Peggy lifting her lady bug ring and throwing it (a distance greater than its diameter) crawling to get it and throwing again. She may also have been trying to throw the rings, but that is less certain. Surely, though, she hit them on the perimeter and made them jump, as she discovered how some weeks ago.

3V0221.6

3V0221.06 Putting People Inside Boats (8/31/78)

Another “inside” oriented play with a boat and two toy men, all both toys. After a morning bath, Peggy has appeared to be trying to put the men into the boat but has not yet succeeded.

3V0225.3

3V0225.03 Miriam Giving the Ring Tower Lessons 9/04

During the last week, I found Miriam sitting on the floor with Peggy, playing with the ring tower. “I’m teaching Peggy how to put the rings on,” she explained.

3V0233.1

3V0233.01 Peek a Boo, a Central game for Peggy 9/12

EYE CONTACT AND PEEK-A-BOO
Peggy has been playing PEEK for some time now, and it is a central game for her, i.e. one from which her knowledge of the world and objects’ permanence is growing outward (cf. notes on 8/26). When we sit at table and are satisfied with food, the situation becomes primarily a social one. Peggy’s repertoire being limited while her social interest is high leads me to try simple variations on games I know satisfy her social needs. For example, recently (during this week) Peggy played Peek-a-boo with the diaper Gretchen used to wipe up the food that escaped Peggy’s mouth. I didn’t have a diaper to play with. So, in my turn I first looked at her intently, smiling, then looking away said, “Where’s Daddy?” Then looked her directly in the eye, saying “Peek.” Peggy burst out laughing, a sure sign that she caught on to the way this new game was a variation of her familiar game.

In this same situation (of Peggy’s interacting but having a minimal repertoire), a situation recurring at nearly every meal, I started winking at Peggy. She enjoyed it tremendously (with only one eye closed, I could see very [well] her broad smile and kicking gestures of excitement).

RELEVANCE — these variations on Peek-a-boo are incremental extensions of a social game into the problem of object permanence. Clearly, people (even babies) don’t go away when they put a diaper over their faces. Playing Eye-peek makes explicit the temporary social separation of a very permanent object – an important person. When a child’s important toys — such as Peggy’s humanoid rattle — suffer Peek-a-boo, the extension of the sense of permanence from people to specific objects may be only an incremental step.

3V0233.7

3V0233.07 Object Permanence and Throwing Away Toys |

Peggy sat in my lap, Sunday, playing with her rattle. The chair had several inches of space between the wooden arm and the seat cushion. Peggy’s legs dangled over mine at the left near that gap. She threw her rattle over the arm of the chair and immediately twisted about in my lap to look for the rattle through the gap of the chair arm and cushion.

RELEVANCE — The first incident testifies to Peggy’s experimenting with objects and space.

3V0233.8

3V0233.08 Dancing, disappearance, and reappearance 9/12

Last night (9/12) Peggy sat in my lap as we played some records I brought back from Boston. Robby and Miriam had been cooped up inside this rainy afternoon, and when they heard some fast jigs and reels by De Danaan, went into their own version of step dancing which rapidly became a session of dancing around the house. Behind the couch, behind the chair where Peggy and I sat, around again and past the piano. Peggy turned and twisted to follow their path. Out through the short hall past the fireplace — then Peggy saw them reappear through the glass doors on the far side of the fireplace (a see-through one). Peggy was engrossed. Here were important people in her life doing unusual things, appearing and disappearing. These sequences must have been very mysterious. Especially when hidden factors and actions make prediction impossible. Sometimes the older kids would dance past the far side of the fireplace and could be seen. Other times they would crawl past the opening below the level of the high hearth and reappear in the fireplace window from the wrong side.

RELEVANCE — The first incident testifies to Peggy’s experimenting with objects and space. The second highlights again the problem of conceiving of object permanence (in terms of predictable movement) when people with self-control behave in ways difficult to predict. Is object permanence developing the perspective that some things are not willful and mobile?

3V0233.9

3V0233.09 Debugging (major story) 9/12

A LITTLE DEBUGGING — Sunday morning I gave Peggy the “Fermi Spool” experiments wheel and axle: two 3″ wooden wheels with a fat pencil between them as axle. This was Peggy’s first rolling toy — and it was able to get away from her. When it came my way I rolled it back to her. Other times she would crawl over to where it stopped to retrieve it. In her little bedroom play area, one boundary is our bed, raised clear of the floor by a simple metal frame. The spool rolled under the bed and the axle caught on the upright. Peggy approached the bed frame from the end of the bed — some 12″ from the support. Crawling directly toward her goal, Peggy first whacked her head on the bedspring (a box spring). Then, reaching, stretching her arm to its utmost, she still fell inches short of the target. what a wailing was there! Crying too. Peggy was angry and frustrated. My strong inclination was to help her, roll the spool over. Instead, I waited. As she flailed about, her head made enough of an excursion [?] that she could see one of the wheels around the corner of the box spring. She stopped crying and began a different solution, crawling around the corner then parallel to the bed till close enough to search for the spool directly.

RELEVANCE — This is a straightforward example of Peggy’s stumbling [into] the “bypass” solution to an impasse. It would be most interesting to return her to the same situation and observe if she has remembered the specific solution — then present her with an analogous problem (or maybe do so first).

3V0243.1

3V0243.01 Surface phenomena: chewing on the duck appliqué 9/22/78

Last Friday (9/22/78) Peggy went to the doctor’s. I was wearing a blue T-shirt with an anchor appliqué in the center.

Peggy showed quite a bit of interest in the anchor and tried to chew on it. Subsequently (9/27 and other times), I noticed her playing a good deal of attention to the duck appliqué on her orange suit — plucking at it and pulling the material far enough out and up to get it into her mouth.

3V0248.1

3V0248.01 (9/27/78)

Peggy was playing with her ring toy on the bedroom floor. She had two of the bigger rings and was banging them down in an apparent effort to get them to roll. When they did so, she watched most intently.

10/2: Playing with Peggy and the smallest (purple) ring. I rolled it to her and she smacked it on the floor in an effort to make it roll !

3V0275.1

3V0275.01 Sitting Up (10/24/78)

We have been disinclined to sit Peggy on the floor. We have no rugs because of Miriam’s allergies and when Peggy might fall sideways, she would take a solid crack on the skull. This night, both the older children played in the bedroom and Peggy crawled about on the floor crying. I did not want to pick her up, so I sat her down in the middle of the bed with her ring tower, her person rattle, and a box of blocks. Peggy stopped squalling and played quietly for half an hour, all the time seated in one place. During that time, she also extended her range. she began by leaning a little sideways to pick up her rattle; she then put the rattle in front and learned forward to get it. Finally, Peggy tossed the rattle beyond her reach, leaned forward between her legs half crawling, then she pushed herself back up to a sitting position.

3V0277.1

3V0277.01 Rolling Objects (10/26/78)

At home alone with Peggy, I brought her from the living room to play in the bedroom while I worked there. Peggy had been playing with tinker-toy connectors of this sort (sketch of wooden cylinder with holes on the top, bottom, and around the side).
Even when I put her, sitting, on a multi-folded quilt, Peggy dismissed her block, ring tower, and rattle to play with this object. It was round and should roll. thrown onto the quilt, it did not roll much. Peggy threw it on to the floor and pursued it when it rolled. Most striking were those situations, they were frequent, when the piece landed on its flat side and did not roll at all. These clearly puzzled Peggy. She picked up the piece, put it in her mouth, tried again.

Relevance: Peggy may have solved this problem represented by this piece sometimes rolling and sometimes not. The incident suggests a clear experiment – give her two objects, of about the same size: a ball and a cylindrical solid, follow her experimenting with both to see if she can dependably get the cylinder to roll. Problem: how can we tell whether she has it figured out or not ? Does she lose interest ? Does she get it to roll consistently ?

Finally, this contrast, if still a puzzle to her, could be a situation where we could witness the mouthing “shape-verification” that Mimi believes she has seen.

3V0282.1

3V0282.01 Spoon dropping = food rejection

Spoon play – After the edge has been taken off her hunger, Peggy reaches for the spoon as she is being fed. Or she grips the spoon with her teeth, holding it in her mouth until she can grasp it with a hand. Frequently, she plays with the spoon, turning it over and over, and feeling any food left in the bowl, and chewing on it. When she tires of this, she simply lets the spoon drop. Occasionally, she takes the spoon from my hand and immediately, deliberately drops it over the side of her chair into the floor.

3V0283.1

3V0283.01 Trapped fingers: a really bad bug (11/01/78)

Twice in these last several days, as she played with her box of blocks, Peggy has closed the box lid on a finger. The problem quickly magnifies because she leans on the box with her other hand. Peggy screams and cries; it has been clear that she doesn’t understand the problem at all. Her desire to solve the “problem” couldn’t be clearer.

With her finger hurting so much, it should be “obvious” that the cause is its being caught in the box — but it probably is not.

3V0283.2

3V0283.02 Clear Example of Object Concept crudeness -> prefer gradual elaboration (11/01/78)

Relevance: This is another example , albeit a peculiar one, of Peggy having a very crude object concept. she obviously recognizes that objects have an “inside”: This blocks box does — for it can be opened and blocks taken out; her cups have an inside into which balls may fit. It should not be expected that with the discovery of object permanence one “inherits” some knowledge about how surfaces relate to substances. Peggy apparently knows that blocks can go into her box – But she may not yet realize that the lid must be open for the blocks to get inside; so I would interpret her banging them on the lid of the box as an attempt to get them inside. Similarly, when she frequently bangs a ball against the bottom of a cup, I interpret the action as an attempt to get the ball into the cup, but one which does not acknowledge the need to pass through an open face of the object.

3V0287.1

3V0287.01 Assimilation of the pen to the pipe giving game. 11/05

GIVING — Out at the soccer field, I found Peggy in my arms and no pipe in my pocket. This does appear to be her favorite toy-with-daddy.) She was not dismayed, however, and took from my pocket this black, felt-tipped pen with which I am writing. (It looks a little like a pipe-stem, as it sticks above the pocket edge.) The interesting event followed Peggy’s identifying the object by mouthing — she held it out for me to take in my mouth. I did so, and she took it back soon.

RELEVANCE — Assimilation of a pen to a pipe-giving activity.

3V0293.1

3V0293.01 Giving with chewing. Earlier precursor possibilities. 11/11

GIVING — I tried to work in the living room while keeping the fire going and an eye on Peggy. After discarding most potential toys from the small table I put them on, she charged about in her walker, waving the conical peg from her ring tower toy (this plastic piece was replaced with a cylindrical peg months ago). Peggy rolled over to me, smiled, chewed on her plastic peg, then offered an end for me to chew on. I accepted her gift, held the end in my mouth, and she took it back.

— refer to the initial section of the videotape P 41, where Miriam played ball with Peggy for the first time. Peggy quickly accepted the protocol.
Gretchen’s only suggestion of an earlier protocol possibly related to this is her request that Peggy give her a spoon. I much prefer the simpler finger-in-the-mouth game — where Peggy, waving her hand about sometimes striking an adult in the face or near the mouth, would have her fingers kissed, nibbled, or sucked.

3V0321.2

3V0321.02 Putting on and Putting into (12/09/78)

Yesterday I sat Peggy down on the bedroom floor and pointed out the toys. Her blocks box was there, and I opened it up for her. It was empty. Peggy looked, and immediately grabbed a block off the floor and plunked it into the box. True, she picked it up again and took it out. Then she repeated this sort of thing two or three times. The last time, she left the block in the box, and picked up the box by the handle, swinging it around.

3V0355.1

3V0355.01 Putting into: 01/12/79

After last week’s videotape, wherein Peggy, for the first time, explored putting into of sticks to a cup, I have become more sensitive to her extensions of this exploration – at the table: Peggy’s juice cup has a recessed lid with nipple. I have seen her repeatedly take a cookie, put it in the lid, lift it out to take a bite, and re-insert it in the lid. (This is with nothing else in her food tray.)

This evening she placed her spoon there and, later on, her bead bracelet.
In my lap: Peggy drew my pipe from my shirt pocket. After mouthing it, she offered it to me. Because I have now a “bug” of some sort, I refused to take it in my mouth but, thanking her, replaced it in my pocket. Peggy seized upon the pipe, extracted it, examined the pocket, and re-inserted the pipe in it — When I refused to play with the pipe, Peggy cast her eyes about and, spying a collection of safety (diaper) pins on my table, she showed she wanted them by saying /thae/ and pointing (she now seems to use the pure point more than the “impure” point). After mouthing the four pines (three speared in a circle by the point of the fourth). Peggy extracted my pipe from my pocket — then she inserted the pins in my pocket and withdrew them. Finally, she tried (with 3/4 success) at inserting the diaper pins in the pope bowl.

3V0355.3

3V0355.03 Picture Gallery: extensive discussion: 01/12/79

The change in Peggy’s behavior after I mounted our collection of children’s pictures in the bedroom was so profound it marks a watershed in her development. Let me elaborate, and begin by describing that collection of pictures.

When Robby was young, I bought a Nikon 35 mm camera and began taking many pictures. Of the many pictures of Robby — and soon after, of Miriam — I selected favorites every six months or so. The favorite slides I had blown up to 5 x 7 inch prints. We framed them and thus created our collection. During the 2 years we were in Boston, we found the printing too expensive, but our collection still contains about 15 pictures of each child from infancy on.

The first consequence of my mounting these pictures was on feeding. Gretchen typically put Peggy to suck early in the morning in bed. Peggy had been tailing off from breast feeding and demanding more solid foods. The first morning she saw the pictures, she began pointing, (/thaet/,/thaet/) excitedly from one to another. All those familiar children;s faces on the wall ! Thereafter, she might, on one day or another, get the breast wet but she was so distracted she stopped breast feeding. Could Gretchen move to another room and try there ?

Peggy has discovered other vertical walls with other things on them. In every room its /thaet/ and pointing — some times at the foxes (2 pictures) in the living room, wall hangings in the kitchen, and even the telephone the radio (which appears to be another telephone).

I believe Peggy has discovered vertical space as visually explorable. But she surely was aware of walls before ? Yes, surely. And trees ? Certainly so, here (our house was in the woods). But typical of her interest in walls and trees was her response to the sight of sunlit trees through the window, especially on days of a light breeze when the leaves sway gently. Many times I carried her to such a window — but the trees went away beyond her reach. Sitting in a patch of leaf-splattered sunlight on the floor, Peggy would try to pick it up, hit, even mouth the shadows.

The pictures are fascinating to Peggy and they don’t go away when you get close. (They even come off the wall for her to play with). Peggy’s exploration of wall-things is still very tactile. By this I mean that, although the sight of a picture wakens her interest, she is immensely frustrated if she cannot touch it. she will point from one to another and call our attention to them (which I interpret as a request that we lift her to touch them) but I have not seen her sit quietly and study them visually.
This change in Peggy’s range of visual interests has already affected our videotaping sessions. In P49, Peggy was so interested in our wall things that she hardly played with the physical objects in her set of toys. I expect that in future sessions she will be more distractible. Even more of a difficulty will be the task of being sensitive to what Peggy is interested in at a given moment.

If I say Peggy;s world has opened up in the vertical dimension, I don;t imply that she knew nothing of height (or other foolishnesses). I mean to imply that her view of space was as of a surface whereon people moved (and this space had multiple layers, as in our living room where one could look up to a second storey balcony). I believe this new interest in my childrens’ picture gallery has literally added a new dimension to Peggy’s life. How can one follow up that speculation ? Will we soon see her building towers of blocks (of course there would be other influences) ? Has it already had an impact on her standing with no hand (probably not directly). Gretchen says it has only been within the past week that Peggy has stood up and disengaged her hands from supports. She stands on the bed, one hand holding the bedstead, the second pointing at pictures right above her. Since we give her pictures to hold, is it that she now has reason to want free hands while standing (and being able to do so has become also an independent objective) ?

I don’t find myself able to conclude this note in any clean way. This merely shows my confusions about what to expect, even more, about what to look for in following up this event.

3V0357.1

3V0357.01 Putting into. 01/14/79

PUTTING IN — As Peggy sat in her high chair I pointed out to Gretchen how much now Peggy had mastered “putting-in”. First she put her curved spoon in her cup’s cap, removed it, and then she did the same with a pipe stem I had given her to play with. Gretchen even noted further that she put both things in together.

RELEVANCE — These variations point to a further exploration of ‘the hollow’ — first testing different sorts of things to see whether they are containable by the hollow; secondly, exploring whether it will contain more than one thing at a time; further (not yet occurring) how much will it hold.

PUTTING IN — Peggy sat playing with a pipe in my lap. She directed my attention to a pipe-stem on my table, which I gave her. We played with both for a while, giving them to each other, almost trading them. I put the pipe in my pocket, then the pipe-stem when Peggy gave it to me. Although it had completely disappeared, Peggy dove into my pocket and fished it out. Most striking was Peggy’s successful insertion of the pipe-stem into the bowl of the pipe — with its open face away from her and turned on its side [this is very similar to her attempts to insert a stick in a cup in session P 50].

3V0368.2

3V0368.02 Putting on and putting in are distinguished (1/25/79)

Relevance: These observations document that Peggy has now distinguished putting-on from putting-in. I believe further, that they trace Peggy’s experience through the events in which putting-on developed. The sequence is first, climbing, i.e. putting oneself on (at least getting on); drawing back from an object onto which one might not get if not so risky; putting-on other things as the put-on-able object.

Reflecting further: where might this lead ? This stool is for Peggy literally a “body-support-structure” –ie it is a thing capable of supporting her body. She should be able to dissociate the idea of her body from the support structure, but it will probably be quite a while before she can decompose its arches into legs and a span. However, she may soon discover that some put-on-able objects have the equivalent of a hollow, are thus put-in-able as well, just as cups are — her interest in side insertion should lead to that directly, Will she be surprised to find the putting-in one side may eventuate in coming out the other ? It is clear that the stool and perhaps a solid equivalent should enter our next video tape session.

3V0369.1

3V0369.01 More putting on: multiple objects (1/26/79)

I usually sit working in the midst of clutter, a table on one side, a tall stool on the other. When sitting in my lap, as this morning, Peggy points here and there, say /thaet//thaet/, thus she comes in possession of my pipe, my pens or whatever else catches her eye within my reach. Today, sitting on my lap. the stool nearby, Peggy played with a handful of pens. She picked one out, reached over and took it up. Peggy tried a different pen. When it remained on the clip-board (on top of the stool), she added a second pen and then a third. She continued placing and retrieving pens for several minutes.

3V0376.1

3V0376.01 Example of insensitivity to obvious features of objects (2/2/79)

Peggy sits in my lap, often playing with my pipe. Today we sat near my very small table with its clutter of writing implements. Peg took one pen and began poking it into the pipe bowl. Casting her eyes over the clutter, she spied a clear plastic ruler and indicated she wanted it. The width of the ruler is greater than that of the pipe bowl. Peg was puzzled as she kept trying to stuff the ruler end in the bowl. She tried again with the pen. It succeeded but the ruler failed once again and she stopped trying.

Relevance: simple example of her assimilating the ruler to her ‘rod’ scheme and running into trouble.

3V0388.1

3V0388.01 Hiding from sight and relocating things (2/14/79)

For weeks now, when playing with objects taken from my pockets or my writing table, Peggy has delighted in hiding them. her characteristic move is to put a pen, for example, underneath her leg on the seat cushion or, the usual case since she is on my lap, pushing the pen between the seat cushions or between my body and the chair. Typically, she is not content until that object is out of sight. When this is the case, she turns away and then returns and seeks the object where she had hidden it.

As she is now becoming more mobile, she has taken to hiding things (small objects she can pick up) in any places difficult for her to see into. when my pens disappear, I have to look in the trash can, in dresser drawers left ajar, around the corners of furniture, and under such pieces.

3V0412.1

3V0412.01 Putting-on; (3/10/79)

Peggy has definitely begun putting objects on “tables”, i.e. any flat
surface bounded and raised. The evidence of intention is her repeating
the action. For example, she spent a long time (10 minutes or so) with
Miriam’s boots and the checker table, putting on one, then both, then
taking them off.

She also sat beside a pile of books at my chair, placing all the objects in
her reach on top of the dictionary; her hair brush, a rolling toy, some
other random objects she played with that day.

3V0413.1

3V0413.01 Change of fashion in Peggy’s favored sounds; cups, closing(3/11/79)

About three weeks ago “Doit” [do-it?] replaced “ha zat” (have that) and
“zat …zat…zat” as the most frequently used phrase in Peggy’s speech.
For a while the older phrases disappeared completely, then returned….

Ten days or so ago, Peggy went to take a nap about 5 pm, and slept
through until 2:30 am. Naturally she was wide awake and fresh, so I
took her down stairs and fed her a container of yogurt. Part way
through, she refused the spoon, pointing to the lid and saying “that,
that, that.” When I gave her the lid she began playing with it and
resumed eating the yogurt. (She does this frequently, sometimes not
eating at all until she obtains the lid.) She then started replacing the lid
on the container, at first in between my dipping out a spoonful, then
while the spoon was still inside. When the container was empty, she
played with it also, putting the lid on and lifting the container up with
both hands. At one point she brought it to her mouth like a cup. Tiring
of this, she bobbed her head forward to peer up at me, and laughed
delightedly when I imitated her. She repeated the action many times to
provoke my response.

At about the same time, she picked up her cup to drink. By chance the
drinking spout was on the upper edge. Previously I have always seen
her try to drink from the spout anyway, but this time she rotated the
cup by bringing her left hand over to the right and the right over to
the left, and drank in that contorted position. She also delights in
pouring some milk out onto the tray of the high chair, so she can
smack the puddle with her hand. Gretchen.

3V0417.1

3V0417.01 Putting-in with no pockets! insensitive to the “obvious” (3/15/79)

After many games of “wooba wooba”, pockets still confuse Peggy.
Equally, they interest her. When my shirt pockets have the flaps tucked
in, she can occasionally get enough of a hanky in for it to stay in place.
Similarly, she succeeds more or less well getting my pipe stems or pens
(even two at a time) into my pocket. With the flap down, but not
buttoned, she fails. When Peggy fails to insert an object in a pocket,
she tries a second time, holding the object in place and (it seems)
pressing slightly or holding long. This response applies even when I
have no pockets. In one case, I wore a sweater about the same color as
my green shirt and , when we played with a hanky, Peggy tried putting it
into a non-existent pocket in the sweater.

Peggy tries putting objects, especially pens, into her “pockets.” Her
infant clothes have none, but whenever she sits and the material
puckers up between sets of snaps, she has a pocket which she pokes
about in.

3V0423.1

3V0423.01 Trying to stick a magnet to the butcher block (3/21/79)

Peggy had a small magnet, from the varied collection that normally are
holding things on the refrigerator door. She approached the smooth
side of the butcher block and held up the magnet to the surface. It did
not hold, of course. She picked it up and very carefully placed it on
the wood again. I do not know if she was trying to make it stick with
pressure, or just attempting to make sure that the magnet was in good
position before she let it go.

3V0429.1

3V0429.01 Stair gate: extends her horizon. (3/27/79)

We have long had a stair gate at the bottom of the flight to our second
storey. I put it up at first to keep Scurry downstairs (for Miriam’s
sake) but knew also that we want to keep Peggy from climbing
unattended. While I have worked at my thesis, all too frequently
Gretchen has left Peggy in our bedroom, the door closing her in with
me while she is washing laundry and so forth. Gretchen’s purpose was
clearly to prevent Peggy falling from the top of the stair flight down.
finally, I mounted a second baby gate at the stair top.

The effect of the gate for Peggy has been a vast widening of her
accessible horizon. Now no longer [confined] to my bedroom, she wanders about
the second storey — out in the hall, into the bathroom, into the water
closet, into the room she shares with Miriam — and returns with booty
from her journeys. the only problem so far from her new found
freedom was a scare that she was sick because of eating some soap
(this possibility was pure speculation). Not so. Peggy has been feeling
out of sorts for a few days with a low fever — probably from a minor
cold.

3V0432.3

3V0432.03 Problem solving: bad bugs; insensitivity to the “obvious” (3/30/79)

Problem solving: bad bugs; insensitivity to the “obvious” (3/30/79) |
One of those many times she has sat in my lap, Peggy began trying to
uncap pens. (She has seen me put the cap on firmly many times, so
that when she put them in my pockets or took them out she would not
get ink all over). she succeeded with various bic pens and today she
tackled a black (?) Flash pen. This plastic pen has a metal ring and a
pocket clip and a white/gray circle at the top of the cap on the end.
Peggy succeeded in separating the cap from the pen. I put the cap back
on to avoid our both getting covered with black ink. Peggy removed
the cap. she began then trying to replace the cap, holding the pen in
her right hand and the cap in her left.

Peggy had a lot of trouble. She managed quite well inserting the pen in
the cap hole. BUT without good alignment, the pen would not go in
very far. She pressed harder. She removed the end and tried again.
After several tries, her persistence coupled with luck to permit the pen
insertion. She repeated the action five to ten times, refining her action
so that he re-insertions were quicker and more sure than the original
process. Somehow, the pen and the cap changed hands.

Peggy tried capping the pen with the cap in her right hand. She could
not do it. The reason is more surprising than the fact. The cap had
been turned around and she persisted in trying to insert the pen
through the white circle on the top of the cap. Can she not, does she
not distinguish a hole (whose appearance is black and round) from that
decorative circle (whose appearance is white and round)? The other
obvious common feature is that both are on the end of a cylinder.
If this is a discrimination failure, is the problem some non-salience of
color ? (Hard to believe.) Is it the complexity of three intersecting
features (being round, on a cylinder, and of different colors) ?
Perhaps it is not a discrimination failure but one of ignorance, i.e.
Peggy does not know that a covered hole prohibits insertion.

3V0444.1

3V0444.01 Playing with Scurry; tool, weapons, chimps, and Peggy (4/11/79)

After Peggy became more skilled at toddling around, she and Scurry
have delighted in chasing each other about the house. Scurry bounces
up and down, changes direction running off, hides under the chairs and
peers out. Peggy toddles about, chortling gleefully, sometimes chasing
Scurry, sometimes patting her (the petting is very hard). The latest
prop introduced to this play is a yard stick. Peggy holds one end and
chases Scurry with the other. With such an end grip, the yardsticks’
other end stays on the floor as Peggy chases Scurry who leaps nimbly
over the impediment.

When Peggy gets to use a different grip, she is dangerous. Holding the
yardstick at mid-point and “patting” Scurry with it, or “chasing” her
with it, has given the dog a few bad whacks which she seems to accept
without anger.

3V0454.1

3V0454.01 Functional Classification: hairbrush, handkerchief; too far (4/21/79)

It’s clear that Peggy knows what certain things are “for.” The first clear
example was her use of a hairbrush. The second and most pervasive,
was (and continues to be) her use of “handkerchiefs.” She and I have
played much with hankies — they are the main prop in the “wooba
wooba” game and continues to be Peggy’s most favorite object for
picking out of my shirt pockets. At this time, Peggy began to retrieve a
hanky from my pocket then bring to her nose and wipe it across or
press it against her face. Subsequently, she would wipe my nose with
the hanky (this sort of play was captured in videotape near the time of
its beginning.)

Since late April, Peggy has extended her functional definition of hanky
to include anything that can be so used. For example, Peggy takes the
tea towel off the handle of the refrigerator door and so uses it.
Similarly with a damp face cloth — after wiping her hands and face, we
have had the damp cloth taken away (by her). Peggy then used it for
“blowing her nose.”

3V0495.2

3V0495.02 Pretending; incorrect choice as a joke (6/01/79)

Late in the afternoon I found myself waiting at home for two telephone
calls while Gretchen took the cub scouts on a trip. Peggy played in my
care and during the hour and more the following incidents occurred:
Pretending: Peggy of pulls dishes and other utensils from a cabinet with
low shelves. She pulled out and emptied a coffee jar. The lid to that
specific jar has a lip on it. It’s general appearance is like the surface of
the shield for Peggy’s drinking cup./ Peggy picked up the jar, lifted it to
her lips and “drank” from it. She turned to me and smiled. Was she
pretending to drink ? Did she expect milk to come out of the empty jar
(it was a transparent jar – but her cup is opaque). Is it possible she was
trying on the chance that it might work ? Or just to be sure that it
would not work ?

If she were disappointed, would she have smiled when she put the jar
down and looked at me ? Could we see here a very early example of
“incorrect-choice-interpreted-as-a-joke: as in the examples of Miriam’s
“going-flying” bug in CECD ?

3V0495.3

3V0495.03 Putting herself into things: hats and more (6/01/79)

Peggy has played with Robby’s Boston Red Sox protective helmet. The
children or I place it on her head when she brings it to us – and replace
it when it falls off, as it always does. Peggy extracted a large colander
from those low shelves, put it on her head, and toddled about the
kitchen.

Peggy has been putting her feet into shoes for a while, has even tried to
get socks on her feet. With that same colander which served as a hat,
she extended its use as a thing for putting the whole self into. This use
may have been inspired by a game of Miriam’s: she took a large box
(left from the new encyclopedia set), attached a strong (string? rope?) to the front
flap, and declared it a cart; both girls were happy when Miriam pulled
Peggy about the downstairs. Peggy has since then climbed into the box
by herself (a difficult job for her because of its height.)

3V0508.1

3V0508.01 Over the head: what it means to Peggy (6/14/79)

Putting cloth objects especially (but others as well) over the top of the
head and down about her neck has become one of Peggy’s favorite
activities. This leapt to prominence in our eyes with her wandering
from the living room into the kitchen with a pair of Robby’s jockey
shorts around her neck, her head through the waist and one leg. She
was delighted with her success and kept repeating the action — just
with the shorts and in subsequent days with any piece of clothing she
could pull from her dresser drawers. Latterly (7/1 say) Peggy has
concentrated on putting a small found necklace of Miriam’s over her
head with the same satisfaction.

Relevance — this activity appears to capture what ‘over the head’ means
to Peggy — i.e. to her, clothing is that class of cloth things that goes
over the head. She has been dressed by others so long, that this new
success must be to her an extension of her control of her world that is
significant from her point of view of what life is about (imagine trying
to imagine the existential philosophy of an infant!)

3V0516.2

3V0516.02 Concrete pipe: putting in (6/22/79)

Peggy often rides with Miriam and me down to the Cox school to pick
up Robby after soccer practice. Beside the soccer field is a play area
for the older children.. One object is an 8 foot long concrete pipe of 4
foot diameter. Peggy was obvious(ly) fascinated by it when Miriam
went through it. She toddled over, leaned in then backed up to me for
comfort. From the other end, Miriam urged her by calling. Peggy did
go through with some unease and was delighted at having finished the
challenge — delighted but not merely relieved. Robby joined us and
calling her to keep her attention on him, he first went around the
outside then came back to her through the inside of the pipe.
Relevance: this records an experience of Peggy’s wherein she goes
through personally a cylinder in the way of various objects she inserts
in the cardboard tubes in our videotape experiments. This sort of
experience could serve as an exemplar permitting connection of
putting-into and going-through kinds of experiences.

3V0527.1

3V0527.01 Spontaneous naming [shoe] (2 different examples) (7/3/79)

This morning before breakfast Peggy was playing in our room. She
picked up one of Bob’s moccasins and said, “Shoe.” Shortly thereafter
she picked up one of his deck shoes and repeated, “Shoe.” Gretchen.

3V0556.1

3V0556.01 Toothbrush: 08/01/79;

Playing on my bed, looking at the older children’s pictures, Peggy saw
my ‘traveling’ toothbrush on the adjacent dresser top. “Have that, have
that” was her cry and I did not stop her from taking it.

Peggy picked up the toothbrush by the handle, examined the bristles,
then tentatively opened her mouth and put the brush sideways on her
tongue. (This mouth insertion was definitely NOT the lip-exploration-
mouthing Peggy usually applies to objects.) When she looked at me, I
laughed, ‘that’s right, Peggy.” She moved the brush a little in her
mouth then brought it out, rubbing the bristles once against her
stomach; she then replaced the toothbrush on the dresser.

Peggy did NOT confuse this brush with any hairbrush (though she is
used to some small ones). The children have not given Peggy any
instruction or practice in brushing teeth. Gretchen and I have not done
so. This is clearly a case of function definition of a specific object
based on observation. (This should not surprise us. Peggy obtrudes into
bathrooms whenever she can to watch people do strange things where
she has nothing to do but rip toilet paper off the roll.)

3V0568.1

3V0568.01 A Verbal Confusion: 08/13/79;

During the videotape session P81, Robby read THE POKY LITTLE PUPPY to
Peggy. At that time, or later in the evening, Peggy pointed to a picture
of a lizard (on the page with no other animals). “Lizard,” I said. Peggy
imitated my naming by saying /***/, possibly /***/. (This heard
pronunciation should be verifiable (or not so) if the incident occurred
during P81.)

Relevance: This incident could be important in itself if my hearing and
recall are borne out. Notwithstanding that question, this incident and
Gretchen’s observation of 8/14 (On) are quite important for raising in
concrete terms a central theoretical issue: how precisely are word
knowledge and operation and thing knowledge related? More
specifically, is “lizard” originally confused with “scissors” and
differentiated from it? (Would not this be a pristine example of
“linguistic confusion” and the establishment of a “must-not-confound”
link?

Peggy’s first production of “on” occurred with an activity she had long
been accustomed to, both in the videotape experiments and
otherwheres, i.e. sticking parts of herself into things (last night I saw
her put her entire leg inside an empty coffee jar). Can we not infer that
this word is a late association (as a label for a relation) with a well
developed body of body knowledge? The production is evidence of the
association — which might have occurred earlier when Peggy put a
thing ON and someone said “on” at the same time.

I have a sense that these incidents permit and even promise a
deepening of my microworlds’ formulation — one wherein language
serves primarily as a labeling of relations between structures of
knowledge (of parts thereof, also) — a role integral with and yet
profoundly different from that of the structures themselves — and a
role capable of increasing the complexity of interaction of a primate
mind to the complexity we homo sapiens witness.