Skip to content
Archive with last of tag-string Y2

3V0369.1

3V0369.01 More putting on: multiple objects (1/26/79)

I usually sit working in the midst of clutter, a table on one side, a tall stool on the other. When sitting in my lap, as this morning, Peggy points here and there, say /thaet//thaet/, thus she comes in possession of my pipe, my pens or whatever else catches her eye within my reach. Today, sitting on my lap. the stool nearby, Peggy played with a handful of pens. She picked one out, reached over and took it up. Peggy tried a different pen. When it remained on the clip-board (on top of the stool), she added a second pen and then a third. She continued placing and retrieving pens for several minutes.

3V0376.1

3V0376.01 Example of insensitivity to obvious features of objects (2/2/79)

Peggy sits in my lap, often playing with my pipe. Today we sat near my very small table with its clutter of writing implements. Peg took one pen and began poking it into the pipe bowl. Casting her eyes over the clutter, she spied a clear plastic ruler and indicated she wanted it. The width of the ruler is greater than that of the pipe bowl. Peg was puzzled as she kept trying to stuff the ruler end in the bowl. She tried again with the pen. It succeeded but the ruler failed once again and she stopped trying.

Relevance: simple example of her assimilating the ruler to her ‘rod’ scheme and running into trouble.

3V0377.1

3V0377.01 Neat phenomena and instruction: An Ale Bottle — (2/03/79)

Peggy has long had the habit of carrying ale bottle. We separate glass trash for recycling and Peggy has long been able to careen over in her walker, select one she likes, and continue charging about the ground floor waving her prize. She usually puts various parts of the bottle in her mouth at various times.

After lunch today, Peggy sat in my lap. As she asked for that or that or that from my table, finally for an empty ale bottle, I held it off from her long enough to make it sound by blowing across the mouth of the bottle. Peggy was amazed and delighted. After becoming sure that the sound came from the bottle when I held it to my mouth, Peggy demanded it from me. She took the bottle to her mouth and tried to make it sound; he best attempt was a humming with her mouth over the bottle opening. This should be no surprise. Peggy;s brother and sister also had trouble with this trick until they were much older.

Relevance: another homely example – this time of Peggy trying to do something that fascinates her but is clearly beyond her capability.

Note: 6/14/2012: looks like a dating / sequence error in Vignette / file name

3V0380.1

3V0380.01 Need for specificity expands repertoire of signifiers 2/6/79

Peggy drives [us] to distraction. A few weeks ago when her talk was all /[th]aet/[th]aet/ and her pointing restricted to pictures, the talk was endurable, but now that it is coupled with specific objectives Gretchen and I are subject to streams of /[th]aet/ and /hae/[th]aet/ and [WANT THAT]. Peggy clearly knows what she wants; when we offer her something not her desire she turns away. This move expresses her rejection and exacerbates our frustration. She turns back with intensified commands: /hae/[th]aet/- hae/[th]aet/. WHAT does she want?

We ALL need to have Peggy discover the use of names. She appears to have begun making distinctions in her specification of things./[th]aet/ is now interlaced with /zit/. I believe her use of /zit/ derives directly from our questioning as we search for what she wants. “Is it this?…Is this it?” (/iz/[th]is/it/ on repetition –> /iz/[th]i/zit/). The distinction (probably to be a transient one) is that Peggy now applies /zit/ to nearby things and /[th]aet/ to those far away. (Note that we most frequently ask “Is this it?” about objects within our reach on the table; since her arrowroot cookies are kept on a remote counter, they are rarely touched when we ask, “Is this it?”)

3V0384.1

3V0384.01 More verbal specificity; productive uses of signifiers 2/10/79

Returning from a three day trip to Boston, I have Peggy in my lap more than usual. At one point, she indicated she wanted Miriam’s belt which lay near by on the floor: /zIt//zIt/. I gave it to her. Peggy chewed it over, and because I figured she might poke herself with the buckle closer (the rod going through the holes in the leather), I fastened the buckle. Peggy took the loop and put it behind her head, then she put it over her head [to] bring it down to her neck.

Casting the belt aside eventually, she pointed to a toy on the floor: /zIt/ /zIt/. I got for her the Snoopy dog (a pull-behind noise maker). Peggy pointed at the dog’s eye — and then at the buckle on its collar. It looks quite similar to the larger one on the belt she had just cast away. When did Peggy notice the similarity? Was it not when she put the belt around her neck as a collar? (The [dog] had been lying upside down; I believe the collar was not visible when Peggy showed she wanted the dog.)

Peggy next turned her attention to my writing table. The clutter thereon demands specific reference. She began /zit/ and kept it up while I offered her first one object, then another. She wanted neither one pipe stem nor the other. After three or four trials she burst out: /thaet//iz//zit/. (The unaccented syllable iz may have been no more than a falling tone on /thaet/.) I turned to Gretchen across the room. “Did you hear that? Did you hear her say ‘That is it’?” Gretchen responded, “That’s what I heard her say.”

Relevance — I judge this last observation to be an important one precisely because it shows Peggy assembling a new grammatical form, i.e. we interpret the utterance as [THAT IS IT]; its genesis is probably an intensive agglomeration of signifiers, i.e. /thaet/ and /zIt/. When she learns some names, we will expect this emphatic agglomeration to produce such phrases as /pen//zIt/, /paip//zIt/, and /thaet//dog/.

3V0385.1

3V0385.01 Peggy’s nose; two element phrase from idiom variation 2/11/79

Peggy sat on my lap, and Miriam, feeling left out, demanded the same privilege. Gretchen has been naming face parts with Peggy for months and Peggy cooperates by reaching out to touch her nose when Gretchen asks, “Where’s my nose?” Miriam asked, “Peggy, where’s my nose?” Her use of “Peggy” was a calling and the word nose was emphasized. Miriam continued, after Peggy’s response, “Where’s Daddy’s nose?” Peggy again touched Miriam’s nose. Miriam said, “No!” and pointing at my face, said, “Daddy’s nose.” Miriam next asked, “Where’s Peggy’s nose?” When Peggy pointed to Miriam’s face, she said, “No. That’s my nose. Where’s Peggy’s nose?” Peggy turn to me and reached out an finger to me. “No. That’s Daddy’s nose.” Miriam continued, “Where’s Peggy’s nose?” Peggy then brought up her hand to her own nose, and Miriam gave her a hug and praised her discovery of her own nose.

Relevance — This may or may not be Peggy’s “discovery of her own nose” (I tend to doubt it is). What I see important in this incident is an example of a process of meaning refinement which requires the joint handling by Peggy of two words, one of which is treated by the speaker as variable, i.e. what Peggy handles as an idiomatic utterance is required to be interpreted as a two- element phrase. The guidance Peggy receives in this setting, both explicit and implicit (the latter by using new terms ‘Daddy’ and ‘Peggy’ with which she is very familiar) is so strong as to be instruction. The requirement for analyzing the idiom to parts and varying one is a very primitive introduction of structure, an impressing of structure upon an idiom. Peggy’s trial and error process of interpreting “Where’s Peggy’s nose?” exemplifies how the differentiation of meaning and the development of structure comprehension is an empirical learning.

3V0387.1

3V0387.01 Peggy varying elements of a transient game; like phrases 2/13/79

Wooba wooba — Peggy hates to have her face washed or her nose wiped. But she does like to take things out of my shirt pockets. Her usual pocket-picking targets are pens or pipe stems. Today, with my having two shirt pockets, she discovered a handkerchief in the second (I was prepared because her extended cold has left her nose frequently run[ny]). I was not happy when Peggy extracted the hanky and held it high. I took it from her, rubbed her mouth and nose, exclaiming ‘wooba wooba’ and returned the hanky to my pocket. Peggy was delighted. A new game! She again extracted the hanky, and the sequence was re-run about ten times, at which point I gave up. Peggy took the handkerchief. When I failed to respond, she looked puzzled at first, then drew the hanky up to her nose with a big smile. I laughed and replaced the hanky in my pocket. Peggy once more extracted the hanky. When I did nothing, she lifted the hanky and put it against my mouth.

Relevance — After the incident of “Peggy’s nose”, I find this little story striking testimony to the coherence of the kinds of actions and transformations of meaning of which Peggy is now capable. It was Peggy’s idea to generalize her game (to keep it going) by varying the agent; it was her idea to generalize immediately the patient of the action (when she wiped my nose) although this was not required to keep the game going.

3V0388.1

3V0388.01 Hiding from sight and relocating things (2/14/79)

For weeks now, when playing with objects taken from my pockets or my writing table, Peggy has delighted in hiding them. her characteristic move is to put a pen, for example, underneath her leg on the seat cushion or, the usual case since she is on my lap, pushing the pen between the seat cushions or between my body and the chair. Typically, she is not content until that object is out of sight. When this is the case, she turns away and then returns and seeks the object where she had hidden it.

As she is now becoming more mobile, she has taken to hiding things (small objects she can pick up) in any places difficult for her to see into. when my pens disappear, I have to look in the trash can, in dresser drawers left ajar, around the corners of furniture, and under such pieces.

3V0398.1

3V0398.01 Shaping and imitation (2/24/79)

Perhaps two weeks ago, Peggy had a cookie. In the process of consumption, a rather large piece was broken off and dropped. I retrieved it for her and handed it back.
she took this piece in her free hand and immediately tried to match it to the main body of the cookie in her other, like someone doing a puzzle. Eating, however, was her main interest after a few seconds.

Imitation: about the same time, Peggy had found a small bell tied with yellow yarn. This intrigued her. I wanted to show her how it rang, but she would not yield it to me. I took her arm by the upper part and elbow and gently shook her whole arm. The bell jingled (somewhat dully, since her hand was wrapped around the bell). When I let go, she looked at me, then at the bell in her hand. Then she deliberately raised her hand and shook the bell, producing a tingling again, to her delight.

3V0398.2

3V0398.02 Identifying toys and pictures of foxes; classification possible insight;
(nominal date 2/28/79 added)

Late February – Foxes: (a reconstruction) Before videotape session P57 (a day or two before) Gretchen sat with Peggy on the couch in the living room. Gretchen was ‘reading’ Baby Animals. Peggy pointed at the Fox on the cover and said [that that]. Gretchen responded, “That’s a fox, Peggy, a fox.” Peggy turned and pointed to the picture of Vixen and pup and on turn, to the Fox painting. In both cases, Gretchen confirmed her judgment, “Yes Peggy, that’s a fox too.”`

3V0398.3

3V0398.03 First introduction to pictures of herself. (3/01/79)

Late February – Pictures and Names (a reconstruction) Carrying Peggy back from the balcony, when she pointed to some pictures and requested them, I turned Peggy to pictures of her hanging above the balcony entry. I was trying to distract her attention to pictures beyond her easy reach as mine). That is the place where pictures of Peggy are hung. “See, that’s a picture of Peggy. That’s you, Peggy.” Here, I pointed to her after — both pictures where she, in her familiar robe, is held on her mother’s lap. From being cranky and demanding, Peggy brightened immediately. My impression was that she understood that picture was of her. (It is not at all clear whether she assumes all baby pictures are pictures of her or not — but most of the baby pictures in my room are of Robby and Miriam.)

We continued out into the hallway. Stopping at the hall mirror, I said. “Peggy, see, there’s Peggy.”

Relevance: I note this incident as a possible precursor in kind (though I do not claim this is, in fact) of Peggy’s catching on in an articulated way to the representative character of pictures. (I’m not sure what I mean by this.)

3V0403.1

3V0403.01 “dog” used as a verbal label for Scurry (3/01/79)

Peggy was downstairs in the kitchen with Gretchen. I sought a book
from our shelves on the balcony of the living room. Peggy entered
downstairs and crawled over to the sliding glass doors. (These are a
window on the world at her level. For several weeks she has been
looking over the porch to the woods and playing peek-a-boo and put-
over-my-head with the curtains.) Peggy was “alone”, i.e. she did not see
me on the balcony and I watched from the time she entered. Scurry
barked (she was tied to a tree at the woods’ edge). Peggy pointed to
her and said /dog/ i.e. [DOG]. She did not repeat it.

Relevance — Peggy clearly used /dog/ as a verbal label, a name, for
Scurry. Her use shows no communicative intent to any other person.
Gretchen informs me she has been referring to Scurry as a “dog”, i.e.
whenever Peggy points at her, Gretchen typically says, “That’s Scurry.
She’s a dog.”

3V0412.1

3V0412.01 Putting-on; (3/10/79)

Peggy has definitely begun putting objects on “tables”, i.e. any flat
surface bounded and raised. The evidence of intention is her repeating
the action. For example, she spent a long time (10 minutes or so) with
Miriam’s boots and the checker table, putting on one, then both, then
taking them off.

She also sat beside a pile of books at my chair, placing all the objects in
her reach on top of the dictionary; her hair brush, a rolling toy, some
other random objects she played with that day.

3V0413.1

3V0413.01 Change of fashion in Peggy’s favored sounds; cups, closing(3/11/79)

About three weeks ago “Doit” [do-it?] replaced “ha zat” (have that) and
“zat …zat…zat” as the most frequently used phrase in Peggy’s speech.
For a while the older phrases disappeared completely, then returned….

Ten days or so ago, Peggy went to take a nap about 5 pm, and slept
through until 2:30 am. Naturally she was wide awake and fresh, so I
took her down stairs and fed her a container of yogurt. Part way
through, she refused the spoon, pointing to the lid and saying “that,
that, that.” When I gave her the lid she began playing with it and
resumed eating the yogurt. (She does this frequently, sometimes not
eating at all until she obtains the lid.) She then started replacing the lid
on the container, at first in between my dipping out a spoonful, then
while the spoon was still inside. When the container was empty, she
played with it also, putting the lid on and lifting the container up with
both hands. At one point she brought it to her mouth like a cup. Tiring
of this, she bobbed her head forward to peer up at me, and laughed
delightedly when I imitated her. She repeated the action many times to
provoke my response.

At about the same time, she picked up her cup to drink. By chance the
drinking spout was on the upper edge. Previously I have always seen
her try to drink from the spout anyway, but this time she rotated the
cup by bringing her left hand over to the right and the right over to
the left, and drank in that contorted position. She also delights in
pouring some milk out onto the tray of the high chair, so she can
smack the puddle with her hand. Gretchen.

3V0415.1

3V0415.01 Functional classification: two examples, one in error (3/13/79)

Peggy has begun to classify objects by what she knows their use to be.
Some examples are equivocal, though I remain convinced of their
interpretation. For example, Peggy has been “brushing” her hair. This
could be from having her hair brushed, from seeing Miriam brush her
hair, or it could be her use of the object according to a functional
definition of what it is for. A further complication, with a hair brush, is
that Peggy passes so many things behind her neck, it is hard to be
certain that she is really “brushing.” (The best evidence is that she
repeatedly brushes her hair even if she eventually passes the brush
behind her neck.)

There is less certainty about the second example, depending as it does
on an incorrect assimilation, Peggy hates to have her nails cut. She
carries on terribly. She sat in my lap demanding objects from my table.
One of the first that came to her hand was a pair of tweezers. Peggy
held one end and touched the other to each of the toes on one foot in
succession. (The day before, she had had her nails clipped.) I infer
that Peggy saw the tweezers as a nail clipper (both are of the same
length and have a small set of jaws at the end). The functional
classification it witnessed by her application of the tweezers.

3V0417.1

3V0417.01 Putting-in with no pockets! insensitive to the “obvious” (3/15/79)

After many games of “wooba wooba”, pockets still confuse Peggy.
Equally, they interest her. When my shirt pockets have the flaps tucked
in, she can occasionally get enough of a hanky in for it to stay in place.
Similarly, she succeeds more or less well getting my pipe stems or pens
(even two at a time) into my pocket. With the flap down, but not
buttoned, she fails. When Peggy fails to insert an object in a pocket,
she tries a second time, holding the object in place and (it seems)
pressing slightly or holding long. This response applies even when I
have no pockets. In one case, I wore a sweater about the same color as
my green shirt and , when we played with a hanky, Peggy tried putting it
into a non-existent pocket in the sweater.

Peggy tries putting objects, especially pens, into her “pockets.” Her
infant clothes have none, but whenever she sits and the material
puckers up between sets of snaps, she has a pocket which she pokes
about in.

3V0423.1

3V0423.01 Trying to stick a magnet to the butcher block (3/21/79)

Peggy had a small magnet, from the varied collection that normally are
holding things on the refrigerator door. She approached the smooth
side of the butcher block and held up the magnet to the surface. It did
not hold, of course. She picked it up and very carefully placed it on
the wood again. I do not know if she was trying to make it stick with
pressure, or just attempting to make sure that the magnet was in good
position before she let it go.

3V0429.1

3V0429.01 Stair gate: extends her horizon. (3/27/79)

We have long had a stair gate at the bottom of the flight to our second
storey. I put it up at first to keep Scurry downstairs (for Miriam’s
sake) but knew also that we want to keep Peggy from climbing
unattended. While I have worked at my thesis, all too frequently
Gretchen has left Peggy in our bedroom, the door closing her in with
me while she is washing laundry and so forth. Gretchen’s purpose was
clearly to prevent Peggy falling from the top of the stair flight down.
finally, I mounted a second baby gate at the stair top.

The effect of the gate for Peggy has been a vast widening of her
accessible horizon. Now no longer [confined] to my bedroom, she wanders about
the second storey — out in the hall, into the bathroom, into the water
closet, into the room she shares with Miriam — and returns with booty
from her journeys. the only problem so far from her new found
freedom was a scare that she was sick because of eating some soap
(this possibility was pure speculation). Not so. Peggy has been feeling
out of sorts for a few days with a low fever — probably from a minor
cold.

3V0432.1

3V0432.01 First example of symbolic thought: “doll-up” for herself (3/30/79)

Miriam has been making fantastic figures by cutting out paper. She
displays them by taping them up below my mantle motto at the second
story fireplace. Peggy caught sight of them and wanted to ‘see’ them.
She indicates this by a high pitched noise of delight //\/ and pointing,
with as many repetitions as necessary. When I carried her up to the
gallery of cutouts, Peggy was especially interest[ed] in the cutout of a
small person with a bow in her hair (the other figures appeared to be
more like hairy critters from some Dr. Seuss book). I gave it to her.
For some time, 2 days, Peggy has wandered about with the cutout doll
in her hand, dropping and neglecting it for a while but later picking it
up again.

Many times, Peggy has brought the cutout doll to me, made her
‘delight’ noise, and set [it] on my knee. My typical response has been
to pick it up, examine it, make some comment and hand it back to her.
Often this has angered or frustrated Peggy. I finally understood when
she began repeating this sequence with Foxy. (Here too my response
was to pick it up, pet it and give it back.) Peggy wanted me to pick her
up; she was using favorite objects to represent herself in
communicating to me what she wanted.

How do I know that’s true? I can’t be certain. Even with the difference
between her delight and frustration, [it] is not an adequate sign because
[she] would be happy to be picked up even if it were only my idea and
not hers. Claiming that Peggy uses a token for herself is thus
imputation — but an important one.

Relevance — If my interpretation is correct, this is the first incident
wherein I have witnessed symbolic thought. It is distinct from simple
naming in that here one object stands for and is operated on as a
representative of the referent. If Peggy is thinking symbolically NOW,
the use of language when it emerges later will be seen as an extension
of symbolic relations already in place.

3V0432.2

3V0432.02 Foxy Robin Hood: classification. (3/30/79)

Peggy has been playing much of late with Miriam’s stuffed toy fox,
called “Foxy.” Peggy carries the toy about by the ear, pets it as she tries
to do with Scurry. (Has she compared it yet to our pictures in the living
room ? I’m not certain.) Yesterday Peggy sat on the floor in front of
her dresser (which is in my bedroom because of Miriam’s allergies)
pointing to a decal on the bottom drawer, in an attempt to point it out
to Miriam. Today it became clear why. The decal is one of Robin Hood
— but the picture is of a Red Fox in a green suit with a bow and arrow.
Peggy hauled Foxy over to the dresser. then talking only to herself but
with the same delighted tones of yesterday’s talk with Miriam, Peggy
pointed first at Robin then at Foxy, then repeated her pointing and her
exclamations.

3V0432.3

3V0432.03 Problem solving: bad bugs; insensitivity to the “obvious” (3/30/79)

Problem solving: bad bugs; insensitivity to the “obvious” (3/30/79) |
One of those many times she has sat in my lap, Peggy began trying to
uncap pens. (She has seen me put the cap on firmly many times, so
that when she put them in my pockets or took them out she would not
get ink all over). she succeeded with various bic pens and today she
tackled a black (?) Flash pen. This plastic pen has a metal ring and a
pocket clip and a white/gray circle at the top of the cap on the end.
Peggy succeeded in separating the cap from the pen. I put the cap back
on to avoid our both getting covered with black ink. Peggy removed
the cap. she began then trying to replace the cap, holding the pen in
her right hand and the cap in her left.

Peggy had a lot of trouble. She managed quite well inserting the pen in
the cap hole. BUT without good alignment, the pen would not go in
very far. She pressed harder. She removed the end and tried again.
After several tries, her persistence coupled with luck to permit the pen
insertion. She repeated the action five to ten times, refining her action
so that he re-insertions were quicker and more sure than the original
process. Somehow, the pen and the cap changed hands.

Peggy tried capping the pen with the cap in her right hand. She could
not do it. The reason is more surprising than the fact. The cap had
been turned around and she persisted in trying to insert the pen
through the white circle on the top of the cap. Can she not, does she
not distinguish a hole (whose appearance is black and round) from that
decorative circle (whose appearance is white and round)? The other
obvious common feature is that both are on the end of a cylinder.
If this is a discrimination failure, is the problem some non-salience of
color ? (Hard to believe.) Is it the complexity of three intersecting
features (being round, on a cylinder, and of different colors) ?
Perhaps it is not a discrimination failure but one of ignorance, i.e.
Peggy does not know that a covered hole prohibits insertion.

3V0434.1

3V0434.01 Non-standard use of name ‘bird’ (04/01/79)

We have a “make-it/bake-it” cardinal hanging high on the dining room
window. Peggy is much interested in it, and Gretchen often informs her
that it is a bird. Peggy’s verbal imitations are pretty good. Sometimes
sound turns out more like /b/\p/ or /b/\d/, but it’s quite easy to
distinguish from her other vocalizations. Peggy has begun applying that
label to other things, the outstanding example of which is her pointing
to some Chinese watercolors high on our bedroom wall and repeating
“bird.” One picture is of yellow chrysanthemums and blue butterflies;
the second might be red-bud flowers and bees.

Importance — Peggy applies the label “bird” to “colorful-things-high-
up.” It is not at all clear that she would so name a living bird. Let’s
hope we see.

3V0444.1

3V0444.01 Playing with Scurry; tool, weapons, chimps, and Peggy (4/11/79)

After Peggy became more skilled at toddling around, she and Scurry
have delighted in chasing each other about the house. Scurry bounces
up and down, changes direction running off, hides under the chairs and
peers out. Peggy toddles about, chortling gleefully, sometimes chasing
Scurry, sometimes patting her (the petting is very hard). The latest
prop introduced to this play is a yard stick. Peggy holds one end and
chases Scurry with the other. With such an end grip, the yardsticks’
other end stays on the floor as Peggy chases Scurry who leaps nimbly
over the impediment.

When Peggy gets to use a different grip, she is dangerous. Holding the
yardstick at mid-point and “patting” Scurry with it, or “chasing” her
with it, has given the dog a few bad whacks which she seems to accept
without anger.

3V0454.1

3V0454.01 Functional Classification: hairbrush, handkerchief; too far (4/21/79)

It’s clear that Peggy knows what certain things are “for.” The first clear
example was her use of a hairbrush. The second and most pervasive,
was (and continues to be) her use of “handkerchiefs.” She and I have
played much with hankies — they are the main prop in the “wooba
wooba” game and continues to be Peggy’s most favorite object for
picking out of my shirt pockets. At this time, Peggy began to retrieve a
hanky from my pocket then bring to her nose and wipe it across or
press it against her face. Subsequently, she would wipe my nose with
the hanky (this sort of play was captured in videotape near the time of
its beginning.)

Since late April, Peggy has extended her functional definition of hanky
to include anything that can be so used. For example, Peggy takes the
tea towel off the handle of the refrigerator door and so uses it.
Similarly with a damp face cloth — after wiping her hands and face, we
have had the damp cloth taken away (by her). Peggy then used it for
“blowing her nose.”

3V0483.1

3V0483.01 [That’s a pup] (5/20/79)

Robby’s National Geographic World subscription brings other materials
beside the magazine into the house. Beside the vixen and pup poster
(and others) occasionally a small set of ‘cards’ arrives. one recent set
was of various types of dogs. Peggy looked at one with two basset
hounds. “What’s that?” I asked. Peggy paused and replied [That’s a
pup].

3V0485.1

3V0485.01 Action initiation; observations of symbolic ‘up’ from discussions with
Mimi Sinclair (5/22/79)

I discussed Peggy’s development with Mimi Sinclair and we reviewed a
video tape or two. She encouraged me to continue with the study till
Peggy is at least two years old. We discussed several topics.

Peggy and shoes — Peggy has no shoes of her own. (This is true at 16
months, 5/22/79, as it was six weeks ago). She has never had baby
shoes put on her. In cold weather, when her dress has not built-in
‘socks’, she has had socks put on her feet. Consequently, her attempt
currently and even earlier to put her feet in others’ shoes is as clear a
case of imitation as one could ask for. Peggy continues to put her feet
in others’ shoes; once she walked across the room with one moccasin
of mine; yesterday it was Miriam’s cowgirl boots.

The token ‘up’ revisited — When I discussed this topic with Mimi, she
found it interesting but not convincing. Were there any clear signs that
Peggy wanted to be picked up? How did she indicate this normally? Did
she follow or precede this token with such behavior?

In our conversations, I could not agree that she had done so.
Thereafter, it became common for Peggy to place a toy in my lap then
indicate (by flapping her arms, by making eager noises and smiling, by
placing her hands in her armpits) that she also wanted to be in my lap.
Sometimes I refused to pick her up and she indicated her frustration
(crying was usually reserved for cases of minor hurts when I did not
pick her up at once).

Mimi’s general advice on the experiments was that I should try to be
less intrusive…. Perhaps this will be possible in the future if I get more
time to plan the weekly experiments.

3V0485.2

3V0485.02 Game-agent flexibility precursor to language (5/22/79)

Toe grabbing — We grownups tickle Peggy (so do the older children)
and she enjoys it. She has begun to try tickling us in return. Her
attempts are good imitations although not very effective. (She holds
her hand over a patch of skin and scratches [with] all her fingers one
after the other.

Another form of activity in which Peggy has ‘turned around’ the agent-
patient relation is ‘toe grabbing.’ Ofttimes when she carries Peggy past
me, Gretchen stops for a moment. Since she is usually standing and I
am sitting, Peggy’s foot is about hand height and it is my custom to
tickle her foot or grab her foot and wiggle it gently. Early in May, Peggy
toddled over to my chair, grabbed a hold of my big toe and shook it.
She looked at me expectantly, so I made loud noises of surprise. Peggy
was delighted. She has kept up this toe grabbing and has even attacked
my feet from under the dining room table. This apparently delights her
and is quite reminiscent of her cranking Scurry’s tail (which she
enjoys, doubtless, more than the dog does).

Importance — the turning-around of agent-patient relations is an
important precursor in action to structural flexibility in the use of
language.

3V0485.3

3V0485.03 Napping and Symbolic Play (5/22/79)

Napping — Sometimes when Peggy is playing in my lap, she will stop for
a while and lay her head down on my chest. She keeps her eyes open.
Peggy does this in other situations, not on people. For example,
yesterday she was bouncing on Miriam’s bed (she stands precariously
then definitely lets herself go, falling backward and bouncing on her
rump). In between these exercises, Peggy lay down her head on
Miriam’s pillow. Sometimes she smiles or laughs when she does it. It’s
a common activity of hers.

Importance — Could this “napping” be the precursor to that first
species of symbolic play, pretending-to-sleep? Since she does not close
her eyes, that significant aspect of sleeping is missing…but perhaps
Peggy doesn’t know that one closes his eyes in sleep? (She shares a
room with Miriam and surely has seen her [lie] in bed with closed
eyes.)

3V0485.4

3V0485.04 Action Imitation — Helpful Peggy (5/22/79)

Last Thursday or Friday I was washing windows using the Ritz cloth then
wiping down with an old linen dishtowel. Peggy noticed what I was
doing, and while I was working on the sliding glass doors downstairs,
she disappeared for a moment and returned with the dish towel that
she found hanging from the refrigerator door. She had it bunched up
and was making ‘wiping’ motions in the air.

3V0491.1

3V0491.01 Peggy hiding by closing her eyes; no sense of how others see her (5/28/79)

Peggy likes to hide and play chase. The way she hides is reminiscent of
playing peek-a-book [sic]. She will run to the corner of a wall and its
perpendicular projection and put her head in the corner. When I cry
out “Where’s Peggy?” she will peek and smile and hide her head again.

Playing chase with Miriam, Peggy shows the same sort of behavior. Her
most common hiding place is the corner formed by a cabinet and wall.
This gives her room to hide, but she not merely gets out of sight of the
chaser, she goes deep into the corner, puts her head there, and closes
her eyes.

Today (June 8th) Peggy hid in a different context. She was mad at me
because she wanted to go downstairs and the gate was closed. As she
came crying back to me (I sat in the bedroom), I condescendingly tried
to jollify her. Peggy was unconsoled and hid her head in the corner of
the hallway and the door jamb to the bedroom.

Importance — Peggy seems to have no sense at all of how she appears to
another. Like the ostrich who hides his head in the sand, Peggy acts as
though she does not see herself as others see her. We can consider this
note as capturing a starting point in the expected, long-developing
dissociation of points of view from primary egocentrism.

3V0492.1

3V0492.01 New Car Seat Opens up Peggy’s World (5/29/79)

Ever since the children got some real bargains at a tag sale last summer,
they have been followers of local tag sales. They take whatever cash they
can scrape up and spend it all, giving away their loot in case they can
not imagine a use for it and to justify the spending. Miriam bought
Peggy a crib toy and Robby bought her a set of little wheeled racing
animals some days ago. The next day, Miriam recalled seeing on sale
for $5. a car seat, which we need now that Peggy has outgrown her
infant seat. Gretchen purchased and I repaired the new car seat for
Peggy. A small thing this seems to be, but it has changed Peggy’s access
to the world significantly.

No longer does Peggy ride in a car facing backwards and below the level
of the window sill. She sits up, facing forward and looks out on the
world. Peggy has enjoyed coming outside to ride in her swing, play in
the sand box, or just walk about, say up the driveway to where Scurry
is tied. She has complained when brought in. But now her complaints
are getting more vehement. She even gestures inside, that she wants to
go outside. She has been so eager to go for rides that later on (June
4th) she rode all the way to Boston and back the next day without any
significant fussing.

Importance: This simple furniture addition, the new car seat, has
opened wider Peggy’s access to the world. When she goes shopping
with Gretchen, now she can see variety in the world about her as she
moves through it.

3V0493.1

3V0493.01 Fragmentary sound knowledge contrast to prosodics (5/30/79)

Diaper = /dai/ — Peggy needed changing this morning — so I believed —
and Gretchen upstairs agreed to do it. Peggy was complaining loudly,
toddling around and smacking her plastic pants. To make certain, I
asked, “What do you want, Peggy?” She replied [die] (/dai/) and
toddled over to the stairs eagerly.

When we got upstairs, Gretchen was folding laundry. I asked her not to
use any of her normal phrases. She asked something like “What shall
we do, Peggy?” Peggy, grabbing her plastic pants and smiling, said /gi/
and ran (at a fast toddle) into her bedroom.

Importance — It is very difficult to capture the sense of an infant’s
knowledge of names in speech production. These two incidents focus
on a situation where Peggy’s meanings were clear to me from the
pragmatics. In her attempts to respond to questions, we see her
produce parts of sound patterns we associated with the name ‘diaper’
and the action ‘change’. This very fragmentary speech knowledge
contrasts amazingly with the performances which witness Peggy’s rich
prosodic knowledge described in the later notes under the heading
TIRADEs.

3V0495.2

3V0495.02 Pretending; incorrect choice as a joke (6/01/79)

Late in the afternoon I found myself waiting at home for two telephone
calls while Gretchen took the cub scouts on a trip. Peggy played in my
care and during the hour and more the following incidents occurred:
Pretending: Peggy of pulls dishes and other utensils from a cabinet with
low shelves. She pulled out and emptied a coffee jar. The lid to that
specific jar has a lip on it. It’s general appearance is like the surface of
the shield for Peggy’s drinking cup./ Peggy picked up the jar, lifted it to
her lips and “drank” from it. She turned to me and smiled. Was she
pretending to drink ? Did she expect milk to come out of the empty jar
(it was a transparent jar – but her cup is opaque). Is it possible she was
trying on the chance that it might work ? Or just to be sure that it
would not work ?

If she were disappointed, would she have smiled when she put the jar
down and looked at me ? Could we see here a very early example of
“incorrect-choice-interpreted-as-a-joke: as in the examples of Miriam’s
“going-flying” bug in CECD ?

3V0495.3

3V0495.03 Putting herself into things: hats and more (6/01/79)

Peggy has played with Robby’s Boston Red Sox protective helmet. The
children or I place it on her head when she brings it to us – and replace
it when it falls off, as it always does. Peggy extracted a large colander
from those low shelves, put it on her head, and toddled about the
kitchen.

Peggy has been putting her feet into shoes for a while, has even tried to
get socks on her feet. With that same colander which served as a hat,
she extended its use as a thing for putting the whole self into. This use
may have been inspired by a game of Miriam’s: she took a large box
(left from the new encyclopedia set), attached a strong (string? rope?) to the front
flap, and declared it a cart; both girls were happy when Miriam pulled
Peggy about the downstairs. Peggy has since then climbed into the box
by herself (a difficult job for her because of its height.)

3V0502.1

3V0502.01 Trash can: comprehension and generalization

Peggy comes to pick at the contents of my writing table whenever she is
in my bedroom. (Just now she took a box of chalk and complained
vociferously when I retrieved it from her). Today she found the cap of
a beer bottle and picked it up. I asked “Will you put that in the trash
can ?” Peggy immediately turned towards it, toddled over, and dropped
the cap in the can.

Questions: 1. how would Peggy have acted if I asked her “Will you put
that in the blitz krieg ?” or made some other equally inappropriate
request ? I should try this.

2. did anyone teach her the name “trash can” ? Gretchen informs me
that yesterday she asked Peggy to put something in the “trash can”
(down in the kitchen, one which is quite different in appearance), and
when Peggy looked blank, she touched it and continued, “This is the
trash can.”

Importance: a surprising response on Peggy’s part is here traced back
to a specific incident in which the name of an object was given and
apparently well-attached to a functionally defined object.

3V0502.2

3V0502.02 Pure verbal interpretation overwhelms context: 6/08/79

Pick up Foxy
The older children have a bad habit (likely picked up from me) of
dropping wherever they are whatever they have no further need of.
when I try to get them to pick up after themselves they complain “I
didn’t have that” or “Shouldn’t (the other child) pick up that (other
thing) also ?” With considerable justice, they complain that Peggy
makes an absolute mess of the house, dropping her things, theirs, or
whatever comes to have wherever she is when something else
dominates her mind. Thus, when I asked Robby today to pick up some
clothes he had dropped in the kitchen I turned to Peggy who had
dropped the toy red fox near her high chair and said “Peggy, will you
pick up Foxy ?” pointing at the toy on the floor. Standing near me and
the toy (to which I pointed and which was in her sight), she looked up
at me then crossed the kitchen to the dog’s bed, grabbed Scurry by the
ear, and tugged at it three times.

Importance: Peggy’s reaction to this instruction was entirely
unexpected. No one has ever referred to Scurry as Foxy. Even though
Foxy (the name we all use for her toy red fox) was in plain view and
further specified by pointing, Peggy apparently considered Scurry the
intended referent of the name I spoke. Clearly, Scurry is the
outstanding exemplar of what a fox is — for Peggy has identified the
Scotty as a fox numerous times on videotape.

It would be a mistake to erect a theory of label fixation on the basis of
a single example, but I incline to see this “error” of interpretation as
similar to the hypothetical process I have otherwheres called the
“nucleation of microworld clusters.” Here, in place of an archetype,
the primary example of Peggy’s class of ‘Fox’, i.e. Scurry, is interpreted
as the referent for a term which has never been applied to her. If no
more, this incident is evidence and a lucid example of how thought
intervenes even in so “simple” a process as the association of names
with referents.

3V0502.3

3V0502.03 TIRADES; issue: forming technical terms for phenomena appearing in
observations (6/8/79)

Tirades — I am introducing this word as a technical term in the sense in
which it appears in French and Italian drama. The tirade is a long
speech or declamatory passage by a single actor directed to an
audience but not to other actors engaged in a play with him. A
conversation, in contrast, involves turn taking and more than one
speaker.

Peggy has begun to speak in a specific way we will name a ‘tirade’. Let
me describe the first such that came to my attention (Gretchen has
witnessed this before. How often?) also because it is a lucid example of
specific aspects of the tirade. Peggy and I were in the bedroom. I sat
writing and she toddled past my chair, over to the sliding glass doors.
She began speaking, not with words but in ‘sentences.’ She continued
talking, without any sound patterns recognizable as signifying to me,
but with intonation patterns and caesurae characteristic of connected
discourse. She did NOT pause or interrupt her speech to give me a turn
(to be sure, I could have interrupted her). She did not, by intonation,
request my response via interrogation.

Was this babbling? No, for I take babbling to signify the repetition of
various sound[s] but with phonological repetition at the base. What
Peggy said sounded like speech in a foreign tongue (one cognate with
ours, i.e. I could not recognize any distinctive, non-English sounds in
her repertoire). Did her speech mean anything? It conveyed nothing to
me in the incident by the door. I can not say what it meant to her, if
anything.

Peggy continued from the glass door over towards the closet, on the
lower clothes rack of which are Miriam’s dresses. She began to handle
the sleeves, speaking the while, turning to me occasionally, poking
around some more to extract the sleeve of yet another dress. This
tirade went on for at least two minutes — a significant discourse.

Importance — in the tirade we see surfacing an important kind of
linguistic knowledge — that related to the prosody of connected
discourse and the roles of conversation, i.e. speech is something you
say about a topic to another person. Peggy gives evidence of a very
flexible system of speech. What is lacking is communication through
common reference, the use of words and phrases as socially shared
signifiers.

The recognition of the tirade as a kind of linguistic knowledge as yet
distinct from others permits us to imagine now how Peggy will learn to
speak — i.e. we can propose a first order theory of speech acquisition.
Let’s claim three different uses of language exhibit three distinct
knowledges about language. Let the tirade be one. Let the use of words
as labels for objects (e.g. foot, nose), classes of objects (intensionally
or functionally defined — fox versus trash can) and actions (e.g.
change, get down from high chair) be the second. This second use, in
extension beyond what adults recognize as words, obviously extends to
clichés by which reference is made. The third use of language I have no
name for yet, but by it I mean that knowledge that Peggy has already
elaborated upon her use of “that.” I need a good name for this.

Conceiving of Peggy’s language knowledge as in these three systems
promises some hope of being able to observe how and precisely when
her recognizable speech emerges and from what predecessors(i.e.
there may be more or they may be different from what I have
proposed here but this proposal seems simple enough to understand
and complex enough that it has a chance of reflecting what really goes
on).

Because I deem the documenting of Peggy’s tirades important, I have
begun a series of audio tape records (on 6/9/79) wherein I will try to
capture her speech now before she assembles effective speech
performances. Her speaking is clearly well enough developed to be
interesting and she is outspoken enough that she may say valuable
things before she understands how reference, elaboration of (assembly
of) meanings and large scale discourse are integrated.

3V0503.1

3V0503.01 [Who have that?] role of pragmatics; example for analysis (6/9/79)

Miriam, sitting at the table, had left a pair of shoes across the kitchen
despite my asking her to pick them up. When I called them to her
attention and we talked about the shoes, Peggy picked up one and
carried it over to Miriam. Miriam tried to get Peggy to bring her the
second shoe as well, speaking in this vien. “Peggy, get me the shoe. The
shoe. Miriam have that.” Peggy went back for the other shoe but
brought it to me at the table. I said, “No, Peg. Not Daddy. Who have
that? Miriam have that.”

Peggy looked at me, walked away carrying the shoe, then dropped it
and turned. She walked determinedly back to me, poked my arm with
her finger, and said, “Dad.”

Importance — Peggy clearly can label me as “Dad.” Her productive use
witnesses it as much as her pointing to her own head when
asked “Where’s Peggy?”

More importantly, this incident witnesses the not-always evident role of
pragmatics. That is, Peggy took Miriam’s shoe (because they were hers?
Because of the size?) Then, she gave me a turn to receive a shoe and
was confused when I verbally redirected her.

3V0508.1

3V0508.01 Over the head: what it means to Peggy (6/14/79)

Putting cloth objects especially (but others as well) over the top of the
head and down about her neck has become one of Peggy’s favorite
activities. This leapt to prominence in our eyes with her wandering
from the living room into the kitchen with a pair of Robby’s jockey
shorts around her neck, her head through the waist and one leg. She
was delighted with her success and kept repeating the action — just
with the shorts and in subsequent days with any piece of clothing she
could pull from her dresser drawers. Latterly (7/1 say) Peggy has
concentrated on putting a small found necklace of Miriam’s over her
head with the same satisfaction.

Relevance — this activity appears to capture what ‘over the head’ means
to Peggy — i.e. to her, clothing is that class of cloth things that goes
over the head. She has been dressed by others so long, that this new
success must be to her an extension of her control of her world that is
significant from her point of view of what life is about (imagine trying
to imagine the existential philosophy of an infant!)

3V0509.1

3V0509.01 Writing on a paper bag (6/15/79)

Peggy was running around our bedroom with an open pen. I told her
not to write on her clothes and suggested that she could draw on a
paper bag that lay on the floor. Pointing to it, I said [something like]
“You can use that paper bag there to draw on.” Peggy looked at me,
then at the bag, and went over, picked it up, and handed it to me (just
as though that was what I had said to do). I took the bag, pretended to
write on it, and placed it on the floor in front of her. Peggy
immediately bent down and tried to scribble on the bag. (She does not
realize that a ball point pen requires pressure and will not leave much
of a mark otherwise).

General observations — over the past week or two Peggy has been
reaching out for the banister as she is carried upstairs. If she is close
enough, she will hold on and run her hand along the rail.
She has also begun to smile and clap when praised and/or pleased.

Gretchen.

3V0516.1

3V0516.01 Naming cars; relation of teaching and exploration (6/22/79)

Riding Back from graduation at MIT, Peggy frequently pointed at trucks
passing in the opposite direction with her squeals of delight. We
named them for [her] “truck,” “van.” We all over subsequent days
continued this on local trips where the distinction was often made
between trucks and cars (the latter seen more frequently). This
gradually became passé.

Today, Peggy sat in her car seat, nobody paying any particular
attention. As we passed any car either on the road or parked, she
would point and say /ka/, once for each vehicle.

Relevance — This incident touches upon the problem of language use by
others, learning to recognize and associate specific sounds and
objects, and then the appearance [of] those sounds as labels in speech
production. This case shows a lag of several weeks from the beginning
of the social instruction, its becoming boring to the ‘teachers.’ The
drop in interest by others perhaps inspired Peggy to extend herself
from recognizing correspondences to producing them herself. The
slight ‘vacuum’ gave her room and motive (?) to expand her
performance. If this be a typical pattern, it implies that the best
procedure for investigating Peggy’s growing knowledge and
competence — (best for bringing it out in explicit, public behavior) —
is to cut off any verbal prompting, letting the pragmatics of the
situation call forth whatever she is capable of.

Could this be the method of “natural instruction” — and an explicit
model for education. [marginal note, partly missing: …sensitive…this
sort of instruction]

3V0516.2

3V0516.02 Concrete pipe: putting in (6/22/79)

Peggy often rides with Miriam and me down to the Cox school to pick
up Robby after soccer practice. Beside the soccer field is a play area
for the older children.. One object is an 8 foot long concrete pipe of 4
foot diameter. Peggy was obvious(ly) fascinated by it when Miriam
went through it. She toddled over, leaned in then backed up to me for
comfort. From the other end, Miriam urged her by calling. Peggy did
go through with some unease and was delighted at having finished the
challenge — delighted but not merely relieved. Robby joined us and
calling her to keep her attention on him, he first went around the
outside then came back to her through the inside of the pipe.
Relevance: this records an experience of Peggy’s wherein she goes
through personally a cylinder in the way of various objects she inserts
in the cardboard tubes in our videotape experiments. This sort of
experience could serve as an exemplar permitting connection of
putting-into and going-through kinds of experiences.

3V0518.1

3V0518.01 Naming with pointing [car] (6/24/79)

Driving in her car seat, Peggy named a car [ka] with pointing
simultaneously. Gretchen.

3V0520.1

3V0520.01 Naming with pointing at pictures; alternating car, dog (6/26/79)

Miriam and Peggy were looking at a book by Richard Scary. Peggy
pointed to a picture of a dog driving a car. Miriam said, “Car.” Peggy
pointed again. “Car.” And again. “Car.” About the fourth or fifth
repetition, Miriam was bored and tired of repetition. “Car. Don’t you
know that? How many times do I have to tell you?” I took over. “Car.”
“Car.” “Car…” Then Peggy introduced a variation. “Dog.” “Car.” “Dog.”
“Car.” She pointed first to one, then the other, for what seemed to be
at least a dozen repetitions. I do not know why she does this; she knew
perfectly well what they were. Perhaps it was the sense of power, being
able to invoke a response; perhaps it was curiosity, to see if the answer
would change.

3V0524.1

3V0524.01 Pragmatics and names [bring me the snuggle gruggle] (6/30/79)

Peggy was playing with a large ball. At one point, when it was not in her
possession and she had been distracted by something, I said to her,
“Peggy, bring me the snuggle gruggle.” Without hesitation she went
over to the ball, picked it up, and brought it to me. Gretchen.

3V0527.1

3V0527.01 Spontaneous naming [shoe] (2 different examples) (7/3/79)

This morning before breakfast Peggy was playing in our room. She
picked up one of Bob’s moccasins and said, “Shoe.” Shortly thereafter
she picked up one of his deck shoes and repeated, “Shoe.” Gretchen.

3V0531.1

3V0531.01 COUNTING: beginning of notes. Cookies, hands, and counting (7/7/79)

During interviews at IBM, Moshe Zloof raised the question of whether
or not, in effect, counting is innate. I told him the question was a big
one about which I felt no one could speak with authority but that I had
very strong prejudices. As an example of the kind of experience from
which I felt the knowledge of counting might develop, I cited Peggy’s
reception of cookies. After convincing us to get her a cookie, Peggy
would sometimes open her mouth to receive it directly. More
commonly, she would hold out her hand (usually the right), take the
cookie, and put it in her mouth. Some time ago (we neither can recall
just when), in a situation where a whole stack of cookies was available,
Peggy requested and received a cookie for each hand. In some
circumstances, Peggy ended up transferring two cookies to one hand
and eating a cookie sandwich. The final step, which I witnessed but
can’t date, was Peggy requesting a cookie for each hand, then
transferring the right cookie to the left hand and requesting another.
In this little series of incidents, we see one-to-one correspondence and
a procedure for “getting one more”. These two are enough to base a
counting system on.

Today, Peggy began picking up all the various things on my chair side
table. I gave her three small bean bags to play with. The game of
choice became putting them in my palm and removing them. The
material scraps from which the bean bags were made are all colorful
and quite different from one another. She removed them several ways:
by ones, two first, and two last. When my hand was empty, she twice
scratched my palm after removing the third bag.

Peggy was much engaged with this bean bag play, talking all the while
(the talk is recorded on audio tape #3). I intend to play with these
little bags during our next experiment on videotape. Let’s see if we can
catch the development of Peggy’s knowledge of counting.

3V0541.1

3V0541.01 Scars: scrape on floor analogous to scar on her own body.
Comprehension evidence for “what’s that?” Explaining. (7/17/79)

Raising beams for the living room ceiling led to a lot of furniture
moving. At one point, a pebble caught under the couch, scraped across
the floor and left a wide (1/4″) and long (14″) scar in the oak flooring.
When the work was finished and the area cleaned, Peggy came in to
play. Eventually the scar caught her interest. She pointed to it (for her
own edification only; there were no [THAT] requests for names or
whatever) and made her noises of interest (/au/u/u/?)

While she was pointing, I asked, “What’s that, Peggy?” She pointed. I
asked again, “What’s that?” Peggy pointed again and mumbled some
uninterpretable utterance. Once more I asked and she responded by
grasping her foot and pointing to the scar on her toe where I recently
removed a splinter.

3V0541.2

3V0541.02 Comprehension evidence for “what’s that?” — Infant explanation

Importance — I consider this exceptionally clear evidence that Peggy
understands the meaning of the question “What’s that?” I judge it
important because it is a general request for information sufficient to
meet another’s criterion. Her first attempted answer, pointing to the
scar, is a sort of identity assertion. The second answer, when I was not
satisfied, coupled a mumbled utterance (does not this production give
us some sense of her interpretation, i.e. [if]? you can explain a thing by
mumbling ‘anything at all’ we might infer she attributes no specific
meaning to the words which she receives in answer to her “that”
requests) with specification by pointing. The third explanation, by
analogy to her scar, witnesses that she understands I want her to make
sense of what she is concerned with for my benefit.

Perhaps this illuminates her interest in the first place. If she explains
what she sees through what she has experienced personally, the trauma
of my removing her splinter sensitized her to phenomena that are
interpretable by that experience. What are the “features” implicated?
Probably only that the mark is long and thin and a gouge in the surface
(the latter likely more important).

3V0541.3

3V0541.03 [right!] Comprehension issue (7/17/79)

Peggy and I had a fight today. I was charging about the house, all
concerned with th beam-raising project or its clean up. Peggy was
toddling about with the yardstick, probably looking to chase Scurry
with it.

We collided. The yardstick and my left shin. Peggy was knocked [over].
I was pained and angry and threw the yardstick out of the way. Peggy
cried because she was frightened as well as for her fall, and Gretchen
picked her up to comfort her.

Peggy was frightened of me! I asked her, “You think your Daddy is mad
at you, don’t you?” Peggy said “Right” and dropped her head onto
Gretchen’s shoulder.

Importance — How much understanding need we ascribe to Peggy to
infer that this was a conversational transaction? How different is this
in her understanding from a more direct question, “Am I mad at you?”