Skip to content
Archive with last of tag-string W81

3V0567.1

3V0567.01 A Complex Sentence; Comprehension of complex sentences (?) :
08/12/79;

After release from her high chair, Peggy will come begging food at the
table. This is especially true where Gretchen and I stay long after the
meal is past. This evening Peggy came asking for a wheat thin ([that!
that!]). I gave her a cracker and (knowing she likes best of all the
cheese we spread on them) said, “If you want some cheese on that, go
to your mama.” Peggy looked at the cracker, then over to Gretchen.
Speeding around the table, Peggy gave her cracker to Gretchen and as
Gretchen reached out with her knife, Peggy said [cheese! cheese!].
Receiving the covered cracker, Peggy turned it on end and scraped the
cheese off the surface with her teeth.

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.

3V0569.1

3V0569.01 Gone : 08/14/79;

Peggy has been using the word ‘gone’ since the VT of August 6. By it she
means finished, empty, nothing left. Today I helped her get the last of
a container of yogurt. Then I put the cap back on, preparatory to
throwing it out. Peggy watched and remarked, “Gone?”

3V0569.2

3V0569.02 Putting On : 08/14/79;

Peggy removed the plastic cover from a package of latchhook yarn. She
has played with these before over the past two months. The cover is a
cylindrical piece of plastic about 2 in. high and 2 in. in diameter as a
circle, just right for Peggy to use as a wristband or bracelet. She did
just as I expected, placing it on one wrist, saying (unexpectedly) as she
did so, “On.” I asked if she could take it OFF and she readily complied.

3V0569.3

3V0569.03 Cup: [cup, cup…thaets (=thanks)] : 08/14/79;

As I carried Peggy, protesting, up to bed, we passed the dining table and
Peggy cried, “Cup, cup.” (Well articulated, with both ‘c’ and ‘p’
distinct.) Her weighted cup was on the table, with some milk in it. I
gave it her and she said, “Dats [thanks]” and drank the milk. Gretchen.

3V0573.1

3V0573.01 See and That: 08/18/79;

Scurry looms large in Peggy’s life, and it should be no surprise that she
was much delighted to find among our other books one on “Caring for
Your Scotch Terrier.” After bringing the book to me, Peggy turned
pages and pointed. [That…that…see]. In this usage, I see prefigured a
functional split, i.e. “see that” versus “what is the name of that” and
“that is a thing I recognize.” Where has SEE come from? Nowhere
surprising, my speech or Gretchen’s or the children’s. The pattern here
is one of differentiated verbal expressions applied without apparent
distinction to a single phenomenon (the variegated verbal expressions
are socially given).

3V0573.2

3V0573.02 Enriched Phrases : 08/18/79;

Peggy has long said [have that] meaning either [(you) have that] or [(I
want to) have that] as the pragmatic context makes sufficiently clear.
In a typical scenario today, Peggy was unnecessarily specific in her
utterance, thus. Peggy frequently plunks some object (a book or toy) in
one’s lap, says “have that” and indicates her desire to lap-sit. Today
she placed a doll in my lap and said /***/. When I asked “Who have the
doll?” she responded [get up], and coming around my knee, made
clear it was she who should “get up.”

Relevance: Peggy here strung together two utterances which we would
recognize as ‘phrases.’ [have doll] was unnecessarily specific. I
interpret its use as a sure sign that the utterance “have that” has
become a two-element phrase with one variable. Contrast “get up” with
the contrary “get down” (Peggy interprets both adequately) which may
be more easily conceived as two related idioms with a common
utterance core (/***/), whose commonality may be more accidental
than meaningful (as perceived by the child).

P081

Peggy Study, Panel P081

Themes: Language development, Social Interaction, Object Exploration
Source: (Lawler); date: 8/13/1979

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



P81A Talk re:Bear-Hug, 19mb


P81B Corkscrew, with GPL, 19mb


P81C1 Rob reads “Pokey Little Puppy”, 22mb


P81C2 Rob and Peggy: “Puppies” Book, 18mb


P81D Peggy Bouncing Balls, 20mb


P81E1 Standard Objects, 25mb


P81E2 Standard Objects, 22mb