Skip to content
Archive with last of tag-string W88


3V0619.01 Calling Robby by name. 10/3/79

Today Peggy started calling Robby by name. She called him repeatedly
during this day and the following. Gretchen.


3V0619.02 [/cul/du/eat]: sentence. 10/3/79

Peggy left a partially eaten hot dog on the low hearth. Later I saw
Scurry prowling about, and asked Peggy, “Where is your hot dog?” She
replied [/cul/duh/ eat] Gretchen.


3V0620.01 [(ice)cream]=/kim/ 10/4/79

Last night, Robby and Peggy had ice cream. This morning as she picked
up her used dish, brought it over to me, and inquired hopefully /kim?/ Gretchen.


3V0620.02 [memi]: calling Miriam by name.

Peggy was inquiring for her father, “Dada ?” I told her he was in
Boston. Peggy then said /meh/mi/ which I interpreted as “Miriam.” Gretchen.


3V0622.01 [mama got eye]: MAJOR NOTE on cognitive structures behind speech; topic and comment at “discourse” level, not a word level. 10/6/79

Gretchen long ago began instructing Peggy in the names of body parts,
especially of the face. Recently, Peggy has surprised me by making
comments about the commonality of the body parts. For example,
pointing to her eye, she says [eye], then she points to me and repeats
[eye], then to Gretchen and Scurry, saying [eye] in all cases. I take this
point cum word as equivalent to the assertion that each of us creatures
has an eye.

The behavior is not restricted to eyes or to animate things. Today, we
gave Peggy a toy Scotty, which she referred to as /kuhl/dae/ and now
carries everywhere with her. Investigating it, Peggy noted its nose, its
eyes; pointed also to Scurry and me and made similar “assertions.”

The clearest proof of the positive assertion is the denial of its negation.
Peggy rarely says “no”. She usually indicates disagreement or
frustration by crying. In one of her rounds of assertions about noses, I
pointed to my nose and said “eye.” Peggy denied it at once [no]. The
response is vague in its interpretation. Could she have meant “nose” ?
(I think not. She always says /noz/, but I will have to try this negation

Sitting in my lap this evening before the fire, Peggy once again pointed
out owners of noses. She pointed to her nose and mine and then said
[mama got nose]. This is clearly a three word sentence. Is the order
standard by accident or necessity ?

The best indication of the real situation is shown by observing the more
extended context into which the locally coherent productions are
embedded. Today, comparing her toy Scotty and Scurry, Peggy went
through this sequence:
[culdae eye]
[eye (pointing at Gretchen)]
[Mama eye]

I have imposed order on these productions by putting brackets around
them… but those brackets are in my mind, not in Peggy’s. What is the
structure of this tirade in Peggy’s mind flux ? There is a clear assertion
that dogs have eyes. Then we infer the generalization that others have
eyes, as exemplified by Gretchen. The conclusion is the expression in
standard (agent/ copula/ property) of the instantiated generalization.

The structure of this utterance is thematically anchored, at the
discourse level. Sentence structure is derivative and secondary.

– – – –
Marginal notes (by Bob) made on 10/8/79:
I tried this (misnaming of body parts) with my ear. No clear result.
Peggy’s “ear” is not very well defined.
Peggy is much caught up with explicit specification of classes, e.g. all
things with noses. This gives thematic coherence to her discourses.
My ideas is that standard order derives from audiences recasting
speech into standard form at sentence level while Peggy’s focus is on
the discourse. She may take recasting, rephrasing as local corrections
to much approved discourse. Auditors do not notice they are
“correcting”, in their view they are just asking for confirmation of
their understanding.


3V0622.02 [bag…culdae gone]: extremely non-standard order.

Peggy was roving about with a plastic, opaque bag in one hand. She
picked up the toy Scotty we bought in Boston and stuffed it in the bag.
Peggy saw me looking at her and explained, [bag culdae gone].

Importance: locative (into the bag) Agent (culdah) Activity (playing
game “gone”). This is another example of extremely non-standard word


Peggy Study, Panel P088

Themes: Objects, Language, Social Interaction
Source: (Lawler); date: 10/1/1979

Text commentary: These clips show how extensive is vocal, pre-verbal communication.

P88A Blocks & Teddy, 23mb

P88B1 Interpreting Talk, 20mb

P88B2 Interpreting Talk, 23mb

P88C Wind-Up Car, 6mb

P88D1 Wind-Up Car & Scooter, 21mb

P88D2 Wind-Up Car, 5mb

P88E1 Std Objects: 3 Balls & Cups, 25mb

P88E2 Std Objects: 3 Balls & Cups, 24mb