Skip to content
Archive with last of tag-string W109

3V0764.1

3V0764.01 Many Lawlers: extended family (2/25/80)

going through the catalog again:
P: “Peggy Lawler… Mimi Lawler…Tree Lawler…”
G: “Tree Lawler?”
P: “Out there (gesturing).”
Gretchen.

3V0765.1

3V0765.01 [I’m cold]? (2/26/80)

Out for a walk on a windy day. We did not get very far when Peggy
remarked, “I’m [or am – unclear] cold.”
G: “Shall we go back home and get warm ?”
P: “Yep.”
Gretchen.

3V0765.2

3V0765.02 [Hurts…neck] (2/26/80)

“Hurts…neck” Gretchen.

3V0767.1

3V0767.01 Don’t rub your eyes”; imitation as analysis by synthesis (2/28/80)

So, Gretchen reminded me. I sat in my chair with Peggy and one of her
books on my lap. (My eyes get itchy from allergic reactions and I rub
them excessively, almost without noticing). Peggy turned, looked at me
(after I had stopped) and said “/do/ruhb/aiz/.” Why?

What is THIS imitation all about ? Is it analysis by synthesis, i.e. does it
help Peggy understand another’s meaning to try producing her own
first interpretation ?
A weaker help: does producing her own copy confirm for her ability to
make sense of what she hears ?
A NOVEL idea: could this imitation of speech be useful in elaborating
and/or exercising the new network of verbal links abuilding between
disparate frames that are object and event oriented ?
How can I answer these questions ?

3V0769.1

3V0769.01 Miriam’s Pillow; idea: function words as pause fillers (3/1/80)

Because in the worst periods of her allergies, Miriam slept better sitting
up, we bought her a king sized pillow. It is longer than Peggy is tall and
wider. Thus Peggy finds it perfect for falling on. Miriam tried to take it
away while Peggy was falling on it, “Mimi pillow.” Peggy responded. ”
Peggy pillow,” and, after a pause, “My pillow.” This is clear evidence
for her understanding of at least the first person possessive pronoun.

When Robby tried to lay with his head on the pillow, Peggy lifted that
corner and said, “Sleep on boards.” — referring to our oak flooring.

Late in the day, she passed me at the table and said, “Get the pillow//
Down the bed.” (Where // = pause.) Here we have two separated
phrases as before we had separated words. What is the quality of “the”
in these phrases ? First, she said something that could easily be
interpreted as “the” — because it was unaccented and the vowel was at
least close to a schwa. The initial consonant ? I believe it was /th/ in
both cases. What is the function of “the” in these utterances ? I can
see it as a pause-filler of no semantic significance but permitting a
continuous flow of speech which connects related elements together as
the caesura between “pillow” and “down” separates them.
We should attend closely to such utterances.

3V0769.2

3V0769.02 “cake tastes good” (3/1/80)

Spontaneous sentence apropos a piece of cheesecake left over from my birthday.

3V0769.3

3V0769.03 Reading Hop on Pop (3/1/80)

Peggy sat reading in the middle of the study floor. Was Gretchen sitting
with her ? I can’t recall., but I know she was least in the room. Peggy
turned the first page, pointed at the picture and said, “Up // Pup.”
(This is the large letter text of the page.) On other pages, she “read”
other names and words, singly and in multi-word phrases: Song, Black;
All, Tall; No, Pat. She also produced her own interpretations. Where
three dogs fell out of a tub into the water, she noted, “Dog wet //
Soggy.” Peggy passed by the picture of three fish in a tree. I asked her
“What do you think of that fish in the tree?” She replied, “How bees ?”

The significance of this observation is that Peggy is obviously relating
uttered words and phrases to the specific pictures of her book “Hop on
Pop.” Some of this relating is associational, e.g. the name “Black” with
the specific character (she doesn’t know well color names). The role
of semantics is clearly evident in her interpretation of the “wet dogs”
picture. It is also probably implicated in her ‘reading’ of “No, Pat” and
“Up // Pup.” This applies even more strongly to her reply “How bees?”
(An idiosyncratic production instead of “How can that be?”)

3V0769.4

3V0769.04 Contrast: reading Cat in the Hat (3/1/80)

I read this to Peggy for the first time today. It was very difficult to keep
her interested in any specific page long enough for me to read aloud
the relatively extensive text on each page. Realizing early that this was
a problem, I decided to see how far I could carry a straight forward
reading. I just barely managed — by using all of the tricks picked up by
being a father for ten years, pointing at the objects, verbal emphasis,
preventing her turning pages, etc. So “Hop on Pop” is a book of
pictures with words. “Cat in the Hat” is a storey book with pictures.
The episodic character of “Hop on Pop” is not only no draw back for
Peggy, she is clearly insensitive to, uninterested in, any extended story.

P109

Peggy Study, Panel P109

Themes: Language Development, Object Knowledge, Social Interactions
Source: (Lawler); date: 2/24/1980

Title:
Text commentary: I am not proud of letting my frustration surface so much in this session, but it came from the technology (30 minute video tapes) that I couldn’t afford as a grad student ($15. each, in 1970’s). Times spent on re-reading “Little Black” etc. were lost opportunities for other data capture.



P109A Singing/Talking, 2mb


P109B Building Blocks, 13mb


P109C Talk w/Camera Man, 10mb


P109D1 Reading Pictures, 20mb


P109D2 Reading Pictures, 21mb


P109E Building Blocks, 8mb


P109F More Books?, 20mb


P109G Standard Objects, 22mb


P109H Madeline, Again, 24mb


P109I Madeline, w/GPL, 6mb