Skip to content
Archive with last of tag-string W110


3V0771.01 Reflexive reference: [me do it self] (3/3/80)

Going upstairs “Somebody broke oo gate.” [True]
Objecting to being carried. “Me do it self.”


3V0771.02 Scurry and cookies

Peggy all too often shares her food with the dog, sometimes on
purpose, sometimes not so. Today she took some cookies from a little
easter basket made by Miriam and carried them over to Scurry. she
then said (and repeated 3 more times) “Scurry eat some.”

Here Gretchen censured Peggy, telling her that cookies are not good for dogs
and she should not give them to her. Peggy concluded the interchange
with her own affirmation, “Scurry good dog.”


3V0772.01 Plan for Reading list: March 3rd-April 4th,1980

record located in notes near August 28, 1980:
This reading list will be first set up as a spread sheet then modified for
insertion in this file and copied to it. (roughly 160 entries)

not clear that this plan was ever completed. (RWL, March 2011)


3V0773.01 “Nice poo” (3/5/80)

Miriam reports – on explaining that she had to stop play to go to the
bathroom, Peggy said (as M. left) ‘Nice poo, Mimi.’


3V0774.01 Jokes as communication protocols (3/6/80)

Miriam has been telling (surely in Peggy’s hearing) a knock-knock :
M : Knock knock.
V : Who’s there ?
M : Tim.
V : Tim who ?
M : Tim – ber !

At supper this evening, Peggy said :
P : knock knock.
B : Who’s there ?
P : Him.
B : Him who ?
P : laughter.

We continued, because Peggy kept initiating the jokes. Miriam repeated
her ‘Timber’ joke. And then Peggy, apparently sensing something was
required after ‘Him who ?’ continued in her final recitation to say :
B : Him who ?
P : After me.
This phrase is from a picture in Hop on Pop. The one where a tiger is
biting a boy (text : ‘He is after me.’)

I believe Peggy was imitating Miriam’s joke — but misapprehended it —
then recognizing something was amiss — went on to try repairing her
imitation by making what sense of it she could. I believe this is a
beautiful example of the particular process. As it connects back to her
initial learning of the KK script, this incident argues we should continue
attending to Peggy’s joke appreciation — because if we follow it all the
way through her initial ‘getting’ of a joke in a mature form, we will
have a primary example of how a child learns a socially embedded
communication protocol.


3V0774.02 Keeping warm (3/6-8/80)

While the older children clustered around the stove in the morning,
Peggy picked up her ‘Bear Hug’ from the floor across the room and
brought it to the stove. Holding it up and close, she said, ‘Bear keep

Two days later, before an open fire in our sitting room fireplace, Peggy
sat in a nearby (fire, sic) chair and spoke as I rearranged the burning
logs. ‘Wood on fire,’ I heard her say., Gretchen interpreted it differently
either as ‘Watch the fire’ or ‘Watch oo fire.’


3V0775.02 Repetition and further specification (3/7/80)

Gretchen mentioned hearing Peggy do a most interesting thing : she
first said, ‘ Lookit table.’ then immediately ‘repeated’ the phrase more
precisely as ‘Look at the table.’

This is an example of the incremental standardization of speech
production under her own direction (this may be well compared to her
development of the KK joke just noted). There is a production,
internally criticized by more specific comprehension knowledge,
followed by a reproduction reflecting the current ‘state of

There is no reason to believe production should lag far behind
competence when the toddler’s major concern is elaborating a new
mind control structure based on labels — the symbolic interconnection
of previously disparate frames — this is especially true when there is a
critical process monitoring production.


3V0775.03 Who’s that? — syngnostic use (3/7780)

Peggy does not distinguish Who and What. consequently, when
requesting the name of an object she asks, ‘Who’s that?’ Today she
held up a toy, plastic doll and asked “Who’s that?” “You mean your dolly?’
I responded. She then became more specific, pointing with her
finger on the bonnet, ‘Who’s that ?’ I understood then and answered,
‘That’s a hat.’ She pointed under the doll’s chin and asked, ‘who’s that?’
‘That’s a neckerchief.’

I speculate Peggy asks ‘who’s that ?’ in imitation of the frequent
question we put to her while reading.

This same dolly was the object around which another possible example
of repetition/further specification occurred. Peggy turned it over.
‘dolly…tie…back.’ (The doll’s apron is tied at the back.) Then pointing
at the tie, Peggy repeated ‘Dolly tie, that.’


3V0776.02 An inference (3/8/80)

Peggy ran from the dining room to me in the living room. Holding out
her hand to me (I responded to take whatever it might be), Peggy
dropped coins in my hand. She said, ‘Money on table. Somebody left it.’

Not only is this a two-sentence speech act, it also exhibits an inference
(Notice the pause that once would have separated ‘Money…table’ is
gone, moved to the position as a sentence stop. With the intra-phrase
pauses deleted, it is now possible to relate through language, across an
un-namable pause of semantic relation, two clusters of ideas that
earlier would have been too unstructured, too fragmentary, to be
pulled together as a semantic whole.

Confer here Archibald MacLeish’s presentational discussion of Chinese
poetry in his book ‘Poetry and Experience.’


Peggy Study, Panel P110

Themes: Language Development, Object Exploration, Social Interactions
Source: (Lawler); date: 3/2/1980

Text commentary: These clips show ??; Why important ??

P110A Sibling Pictures, 7mb

P110B Standard Objects: Tower, 22mb

P110C Standard Objects: Cups and Balls, 21mb

P110D Army Book, 18mb

P110E1 Reading Hop On Pop, 20mb

P110E2 Reading Hop On Pop Title, 19mb

P110E3 Reading Little Black at the Circus, 18mb

P110F Plastic Letters, with Miriam, 25mb