Skip to content
Archive with last of tag-string Q8


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.


3V0644.01 [/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.


3V0647.01 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].

“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.”


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.


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.


3V0660.01 [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.


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.”


3V0666.01 [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.


3V0668.01 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.)


3V0670.01 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.


3V0674.01 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”.


3V0679.01 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.


3V0683.01 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.


3V0683.02 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.


3V0684.01 [Bye, Culdah] (12/7/79)

Going out for a trip in the car, Peggy paused on the front porch to wave
to Scurry, who was tied out on the other side of the drive, “Bye,
Culdah.” Gretchen.


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.


3V0687.01 [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.


3V0688.01 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


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.


3V0689.02 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.


3V0690.01 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.


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

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


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.


3V0697.01 [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.


3V0699.01 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.)


3V0699.02 [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)


3V0700.01 [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.”


3V0700.02 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 ?


3V0701.01 [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

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.)


3V0703.01 [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.


3V0703.02 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.


3V0704.01 Playing the piano. (12/27/79)

Often since her early infancy, Peggy would come to me while I sat at the
piano and ask to come up with me. It has been my practice to then
play “chopsticks” with the middle range of the piano free for Peggy’s
playing with me. I have shaped her playing and applauded her striking
of the keys. Peggy is very much at home with the piano now, clambers
up onto the bench by herself and strikes the keys with enjoyment.
Exposed to much popular music, just about all of it Irish folk songs and
contemporary instrumentals (Chieftains et al.) and joined in dancing by
her sister and me, Peggy has had an unusually rich and accessible
musical education for an infant, as compared to her brother and sister.


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

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.


3V0706.01 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
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.


3V0706.02 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.


3V0706.03 [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 ?


3V0707.01 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’.


3V0709.02 [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)


3V0714.01 [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.”


3V0718.01 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.


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.


3V0719.01 [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.


3V0720.01 [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.


3V0720.02 [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.


3V0720.03 First time Peggy opens shape-fitting toy box. (1/12/80)

For the first time, Peggy opened her shape-fitting toy box. On later
days, she has delighted in dumping out the pieces and fitting them back
in through the holes.


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.


3V0724.01 [no…no…no] accompanies failure of trial fitting shapes into holes of box. (1/16/80)

Playing with her shapes box, Peggy held a shape in her hand and
matched it with the holes on one side of the box. ‘No…no…no.’ She
turned to another side. ‘No…no…no.’ Then she turned to the correct
hole and immediately fitted the shape in. Gretchen.


3V0728.01 [Robby…lookit] vocative + verb example (plus others) (1/20/80)

Another example of a vocative-verb to element structure. Peggy, just
now, (1/29/80) came out with another, more directly comparable to
‘Mimi…did-it’), she carried a book to Robby and said ‘Robby, do-it.’


3V0728.01 CAUSE – toilet training; cause, agent, effect (1/20/80)

We have tried to interest Peggy in using a small toilet. She plays with it,
pushing around the house, chasing the dog with it, and so forth –
investigating the removable pot and peering at it every which way. Now
she knows the clothes come off before using the toilet and that one sits
down over the hole, but doing so distresses her, perhaps frightens her
about falling through. (She sits on it only with the lid down.)
Another aspect of this toilet training situation has been my suspicion
(based on my own recollections from infancy) that Peggy might not
know that SHE shits in her diapers, ie. she might not connect at all any
activity or somatic feelings of hers with the appearance of feces in her
diapers. Recently I had asked her, when she requested a diaper change
and it was filthy, whether she had shit in her diapers. She uniformly
answered ‘no.’ Today she came over and said, ‘Diaper change…shitty.’
‘Did you shit in your diapers ?’ I asked. When Peggy answered, ‘Yes,’ I
continued ‘Why didn’t you shit in the toilet ?’ Peggy replied, ‘ ‘Cause.’


3V0728.03 [take X] Central note on syntax development: Anchored on verb “take”; following agent is variable. The phrases (sentences) made of two
elements; they have internal pauses deleted. (1/20/80)

Miriam brought to my attention today what I expect to be primary
evidence for the pause deletion development of Peggy’s speech. Miriam
reported that Peggy was pulling Scurry around by her leash and said,
‘Take Mimi. Take Mommy. Take Robby. Take Daddy.’ talking to
herself. This production is anchored on the verb ‘take’ and varied by
the object of the verb. The phrase is clearly made of two elements and
is one I interpret as variablizing, explicitly and consciously, the
contexts in which the verb may be used. I call this anchoring with
variation. What is most striking is that these phrases have internal
pauses deleted, and thus they have more the appearance of phrases
(about whose structure one may inquire) than of sequences of
disconnected words. This anchoring with variation seems to have
appeared first with the use of ‘bye’ as Gretchen will describe it.