The Realization of the Verbal Composition of Speech by Preschool Children 9783110801941, 9789027931863

Citation preview

JANUA

LINGUARUM

STUDIA MEMORIAE NICOLAI VAN WIJK DEDICATA edenda curai C. H. V A N

SCHOONEVELD

Indiana University

Series Maior,

56

THE REALIZATION OF THE VERBAL COMPOSITION OF SPEECH BY PRESCHOOL CHILDREN by

Sof'ja Nikolaevna Karpova with a Foreword for the English edition by

A. R. Luria

1977 MOUTON THE HAGUE - PARIS

© Copyright 1977 Mouton & Co. B.V., Publishers, The Hague No part of this issue may be translated or reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publishers.

ISBN 9 0 2 7 9 3 1 8 6 0

Printed in the Netherlands

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Foreword, by A. R. Luria I. The Problem II. The Course of Study 1. The Methods of Study 2. The Ascertaining Experiment 3. The Forming Experiment Stage I. Formation of the Orientational Basis of Action Stage II. Materialized Action Stage III. Action on the Plane of Loud Speech Stage IV. Action for Oneself 4. The Control Experiment III. Discussion of the Obtained Results 1. On the Role of External Supports 2. A Characterization of the Transformation of the Action of a Child according to the Parameter of Shortening 3. The Relations between the Ordinal and Cardinal Types of Analysis 4. Change in the Nature of Orientation in the Process of Forming an Action according to the Analysis of Words 5. The Psychological Analysis of the Errors of the Subjects

vii 1 11 11 22 29 30 57 124 164 185 205 205 209 216 228 240

Conclusions

267

Bibliography

269

FOREWORD

I was very happy to learn that the English translation of S. N. Karpova's book will be published by Mouton — one of the most authoritative linguistics publishing houses in the world — and that this will make it possible for a wide range of readers - linguists and psychologists - to bccome acquainted with the basic tenets of this original work. In recent decades the study of the development of children's speech has attracted much attention, and if in the first decades of this century the books devoted to this question were only isolated, now the literature on the problems of a child's speech numbers many tens of titles. Such an interest in the problems of the development of children's speech is understandable: the basic findings of modern linguistics advance, as central, the question of how a child in such a fantastically short period masters the wealth of lexical, syntactic and semantic structures of the language, a wealth that is vast in its encompassment and changeability. Owing to a number of works which have appeared in the last decade - among which belong such excellent works as those published by R. Brown, Slobin, Beaver, Bellugi, Chomsky, and many others - this question has obtained rich material, and there is no doubt that the studies on the basic stages which a child goes through in mastering the vocabulary and grammar of the language, allow us to approach more closely the fundamental problems of its development. However, one aspect of this process has remained quite insufficiently studied: it remains unclear how the child himself realizes his speech, into what units he divides speech, and which elements, in his opinion, are its 'immediate constituents'? S. N. Karpova's book is one of the first studies devoted to this theme. Many years ago L. S. Vygotskij devoted attention to the fact that the two types of concepts - 'everyday' and 'scientific' - follow completely different paths of development. The former are formulated in the process of practical activity, but are realized only comparatively late. In practice a child knows what a table or a plate, a dog or a bird is, but he cannot define or formulate this concept. The latter follow the reverse path of development: they are formulated in the process of school instruction, while their practical mastery subsequently fol-

viii lows a long path. A pupil can define what 'electricity' or acid' is, but the practical mastery of these concepts takes a much longer time. For a normal child the mastering of the language follows the same path as the development of 'everyday' concepts: in practice the child masters them earlier in the process of verbal intercourse, but for a long time he cannot realize those forms of the language which he uses. Very often he sees only the meaning that is behind a word, realizes the meanings of words (which themselves have for him a structure that differs significantly from those which they assume for an adult), but is not in a position to realize the very elements of speech, to isolate words as special units of the language. That is why there is a stage at which the child who is asked to answer the question as to how many words there are in the phrase 'There are twelve chairs in the room', confidently answers 'You just said that there are twelve', while in answer to the question as to how many words there are in the phrase 'Katja ate all the patties', answers just as confidently 'Not one, they ate them all'. S. N. Karpova took upon herself the task of tracing step by step how the realization of the verbal composition of the language develops for a child, what immediate constituents the child isolates earliest in speech, what stages this development passes through, and what the nature is of the rational means which should be used in teaching the child the language. The reader who goes through the pages of S. N. Karpova's book will encounter a number of interesting questions. He will see that in the early stages of development the child easily realizes the presentive meaning of words (first of all, of nouns), but is not in a position to isolate words which do not have a presentive meaning, and in answer to the suggestion that he count the words in a phrase, ignores the verbs, adjectives, and, moreover, syntactic words (prepositions, conjunctions). He will see how adjectives and verbs gradually begin to become objects of the child's consciousness, while syntactic words (prepositions and conjunctions) are still ignored and are viewed as a part of the autosemantic words. He will see what kind of revolution occurs in the realization of the verbal composition of the language for a child who for the first time is beginning to learn written speech and the grammar of the language, and what dangers of unnecessary formalization arise in the first stages of this learning. Finally, the reader will be able to acquaint himself with the system of external means and pedagogical devices which can be successfully used to speed up the process of realizing the verbal composition of speech and which, in having their own scientific basis, are already in practical use in the language instruction in the schools of our country. There is no doubt whatsoever that the reader who has for the first time become acquainted with S. N. Karpova's book will share the opinion of the author of these lines, and will find that the careful analysis of the course which is taken by the child who not only is mastering the language, but also at-

ix tempting to realize its verbal composition, is one of the most interesting chapters in psychology and linguistics; they are equally important both to the representatives of psychology and to the representatives of linguistics. Moscow, October 1973

A. R. LURIA

I THE PROBLEM

Direct observations, as well as special studies, reveal that toward the end of preschool age, as a result o f the development and complication o f the type o f activities o f a child and the forms of his communication with the people surrounding him, considerable progress occurs in the child's practical mastery of his native language. For example, A.N. Gvozdev writes: " T h e level attained by school age in the mastery o f one's native language is very high. At this time the child already has mastered to such an extent the entire complex system o f grammar, including the subtlest rules o f syntax and morphological order, which operate in Russian, as well as a firm and flawless use o f the set o f individual rules standing by themselves, that the mastered Russian language in fact becomes for him his native language" (Gvozdev, 1961a, p. 467). However, the child must overcome many difficulties in the process of attaining a high level o f practical mastery o f his native language. One o f the basic difficulties first confronting him is the dominant meaning in the process of his verbal communication of the objective situation, which he should overcome when shifting to specific linguistic forms o f communication. It is generally known that during the practical mastering o f speech by young children one observes a period when in the communication process the decisive factor is not speech, but the objective situation which determines his understanding o f words. This is very convincingly attested by a number o f studies by Soviet psychologists and physiologists ( F . I . Fradkina, G. L. Rozengart-Pupko,

1955; M . M . Kol'cova,

1945;

1948; and others).

It also turns out, as was shown, for example, by F.A. Soxin (1955), that older children (two- and three-year-olds), who have been given a task quite complicated for them (understanding the meanings o f prepositions included in a sentence), also first rely primarily on the logic o f concrete objective relations and only gradually begin orienting themselves on the meaning o f the preposition, which is abstracted from these objective relations. D.B.

fil'konin

believes that an understanding o f meaning and of the

majority o f other grammatical forms develops in just this manner (El'konin, 1964).

2 Thus, in the process of the practical mastering of the language, gradually and at different periods for tasks differing in difficulty the child's comprehension of a verbal utterance ceases to be conditioned by the immediate objective situation and begins to rely primarily on linguistic means. However, the facts show that if the preschooler is confronted with a task requiring of him a theoretical attitude toward speech reality, for example, the problem of realizing speech reality and its elements — words, he might again encounter the difficulties which he overcame in course of the practical mastering of speech; the objective situation reflected in a verbal utterance and its objective components may again hide from him the verbal utterance and its elements — words. Consequently, for the preschooler (just as for the illiterate adult) the realization of speech reality as an independently existing reality and the realization of the verbal composition of speech in its development lag considerably behind the practical mastery of the language. The peculiar nature of a preschooler's notions about speech reality and the word as its element has been mentioned time and again in West European psychology (W. Stern, 1924; Stumpf; and others). Soviet psychologists have also frequently pointed out the peculiarity and complexity of these notions for the preschooler. For example, L.S. Vygotskij writes: "For a long time a child regards ... a word as one of the properties ... of a thing. Studies made of older children have shown that this attitude towards words as natural features of things is of long duration... "... A connection is created for the child between the name of a thing and the thing itself, and children consider the name to be one of the properties of a thing on a level with its other properties" (Vygotskij, 1960, pp. 221-222). S.L. RubinStejn, in demonstrating the incorrectness of W. Stern's idea about the 'greatest discovery' which a child supposedly makes at an early age (the discovery that 'each thing has its own name'), also relied on the facts of a child's attitude towards speech reality and the word. He wrote: "... a child begins using the relationship of a word to the objects it signifies without yet comprehending it at all theoretically. The theoretical interpretation of this relationship does not precede in the form of 'a truly general idea' its application to the corresponding practical operation, but, on the contrary, follows it and is accomplished on the basis of it over a number of years of the child's mental development. For a long time the comprehension of the relationship of a word to the thing which it signifies, still remains quite primitive. Initially a word represents a property of a thing, its inseparable accessory or the expression of a thing" (RubinStejn, 1946, p. 356). In his turn, A.R. Luria defines the psychological features of a preschool child's attitude towards speech in the following manner: " . . . the first important period in a child's development is characterized by the fact that, while

3 actively using grammatical speech and signifying with words the appropriate objects and actions, the child is still not able to make the word and verbal relations an object of his consciousness. In this period a word may be used but not noticed by the child, and it frequently seems like a glass window through which the child looks at the surrounding world without making the word itself an object of his consciousness and without suspecting that it has its own existence, its own structural features" (Luria, 1946, p. 61). Analogous ideas have been expressed by a number of linguists: A.A. Potebnja, 1 9 2 6 ; D.N. Uiakov, 1 9 2 2 ; and others. Hence, when at the outset o f school instruction the child is confronted with the task of isolating the words in a sentence, a task presupposing as a condition o f its solution the realization o f the independent existence of speech reality and its elements — words, the child's successful solution of this task encounters certain, at times insurmountable, difficulties. This situation has frequently been noted by methodologists. For example, S.P. Redozubov writes: "Pupils who have just begun school are not able to divide sentences into words, they do not notice the individual words in their speech" (Redozubov, 1947, p. 19). In school an attempt is made to eliminate the difficulties in the realization o f speech elements (words, sounds) by doing exercises during the first two or three weeks on the elementary analysis of speech (the isolation of words in a sentence and sounds in a word). However, as observations have shown, complete success cannot always be achieved in this case. Meanwhile the preparation o f the school child for school instruction cannot be limited to the development o f his speech in the process of practical communication and to its enrichment from the viewpoint o f vocabulary and grammatical structure. For the successful training o f a child it is absolutely necessary that speech itself as a special reality and the elements of it, particularly the words in the totality of their external (intonational-phonetic) and internal (semantic) aspects, become an object of his consciousness, of his cognitive activity. A child's realization o f speech and its elements is necessary not only for the teaching of writing and reading, but also to enable the child to make the system of knowledge presented to him an object of his study activity. It is precisely for this purpose that the realization of the structure o f a sentence, of the verbal composition of speech, as well as the realization o f the very course o f judgments, is very important. A question arises about the fundamental possibility of surmounting the difficulties a preschooler has in realizing speech reality and its elements — words, and about concrete means o f surmounting them before school instruction begins. In order to arrive at an answer to this question, let us try first to discover the causes of the difficulties experienced by a child when confronted with the task o f realizing speech and its elements.

4 It should first of all be noted that from the viewpoint of Soviet psychology the above-outlined picture of a child's attitude towards speech reality and the word in no way characterizes the child's possibility of realization of speech reality and its elements, but is only the result of a specific (and, unfortypical) way in which a child masters speech, masters spontaneous communication with the people around him, which is limited to his immediate needs. D.B. fil'konin emphasizes in a number of works (fil'konin, 1960a, 1964) the idea that speech reality, in particular its phonetic material form, like any other objective reality, early becomes an object of a child's orientation and activity and thereby an object of his cognition. It seems to us that the understanding advanced here of speech reality as one of the types of objective, material reality, which a child masters in the process of his activity and depends on in the purpose and organization of this activity, opens vast possibilities for the experimental study and theoretical interpretation of the process by which a child masters speech reality. Thus, the cause and nature of the difficulties experienced by a child if he is confronted with the task of analyzing the elements of speech (for example, words), from our point of view can be understood in the following manner. 1. The active orientation of a child with respect to particular phenomena of language arises for him in the process of mastering these phenomena, while after their final mastery it reappears only if the child encounters linguistic phenomena especially difficult for him or a sharp divergence from the linguistic norms. In particular, in a child's actual mastering of speech reality he is confronted very early with the task of mastering the material, phonetic envelope of the language and its grammatical forms. In correspondence with this task there appears early in a child an orientation on the phonetic material of the language and later, on its formal elements, and hence, since orientation at an early age is closely interconnected with activity, there easily arise for the child the appropriate actions with respect to these formal aspects of the language. While with respect to the mastering of the formal elements of the language the child's orientation on them disappears, the use of well-mastered elements is automatized, and since this is not required by the conditions of practical communication, they cease to be realized by him. As opposed to the formal aspect of speech, its semantic aspect, being much more diverse and complex, is mastered more gradually. The conditions of practical communication gradually maintain in the child the active orientation on the aspect of meaning. This orientation is directed primarily at the semantics of the sentence, whose words, which are closely connected in the grammatical and the intonational-rhythmic respects, form a unified semantic whole. There is an orientation on the semantics of individual words, primarily on

5 the semantics of the words most meaningful and comprehensible for the child, i.e., substantives. These features of orientation find confirmation in the nature of the preschooler's questions which are related to speech reality. In the vast majority of cases these questions concern precisely the semantic aspect of words, and not the phonetic aspect, and primarily the semantics of the most objective words - substantives. 2. There should also be noted the nature of a child's action with speech reality. This action is included in the activity of a child's communication with the people surrounding him and is entirely determined by its needs. Even in those instances when linguistic phenomena from the means used for the purpose of communication are transformed into the goal of the child's action (the child asks about the phonetic or semantic aspect of a particular word, speaks about them, is trained to better master them, etc.), this goal most often arises within his activity of communicating and serves the concrete needs of this activity. It is characteristic in connection with this that a child, in arguing his points about some concrete linguistic phenomenon, never draws generalized conclusions which would demonstrate the work of his thought on speech phenomena as such (outside the aims of communication). In all cases he limits himself to reference to a concrete example. The concrete nature of a child's explanations of linguistic phenomena has been noted by a number of authors. A.N. Gvozdev, for example, notes: "his (i.e., the child's-S.K.) observations pertain not to entire categories of homogeneous phenomena, but to isolated facts, for example, he speaks about the pronunciation of the word skula instead of skura 'pelt', and not about the fact that for a friend, about whom he is speaking, there is s instead of s, and the child expresses his understanding by citing concrete examples in which there is a necessary similarity... or difference... Conclusions in a general form and their formulation do not exist for and are, evidently, inaccessible to children of this age" (Gvozdev, 1961b, pp. 4 5 4 6 ) . Thus, a child's recognition of speech reality is usually of a spontaneous, extremely practical nature, and its results are realized from concrete considerations and to a greater extent involuntarily. Hence, at preschool age, if the child is confronted with the task of relating theoretically to speech reality, there can arise between objective and speech reality the relation cited by researchers (see above), in which the child insufficiently differentiates these types of reality and frequently has a tendency to orient himself on the objective reality reflected in speech. From the start of school instruction there is gradually formed in a child a theoretical attitude toward speech, which opens the possibility for its analysis and for generalizing the regularities observed by the child.

6 But the task of analyzing and generalizing these phenomena confronts the child, while the means of solving it, the necessary criteria are not given to him, and his activity in mastering the appropriate concepts is not organized in the proper manner. The concepts which thus arise for the child, concerning the elements of speech reality, are vague, indefinite, and insufficiently realized. T.G. Egorov writes: "As to the pupils' mastering of such new concepts as 'word', 'syllable', 'letter', etc., this occurs incidentally, does not occupy a special time and does not require special efforts... "As our observations have shown, the vaguenesses in a child's differentiation of the concepts 'words', 'syllable', and 'letter' are often the obstacles which hinder a child from mastering the basic problems of education that confront him" (Egorov, 1953, pp. 34-35). In 1953, under the direction of A.R. Luria we conducted an experimental study, in the first part of which an attempt was made to ascertain the features of the isolation of words in a sentence at various stages of a preschooler's development and among first grade pupils (Karpova, 1953, 1955). This study showed that the spontaneous emergence of the concepts of speech reality and the word follows an extremely slow and complex path of development during all of preschool childhood. As a result, up to the end of the preschool period, in most cases the child never forms adequate and sufficiently realized notions about speech and its elements. In the second part of this study we attempted to teach children of different preschool ages to isolate the words in a sentence. In the subsequent exposition we will dwell in detail on the results we obtain in doing this, but for the moment let us only note that the method for introducing objective supports (plates) into the analysis of sentences helped the majority of our subjects to shift to a higher level of word isolation. At the same time, the introduction of external supports gave rise to some difficulties for the children; the establishment of the connection 'external support-word' in a number of cases appeared for the child as a special task. The introduction of external supports sometimes induced our subjects to divide words into syllables. The transition to a higher level of action did not always have a sufficiently stable nature. All these facts attest that the action we formed of isolating words was not without substantial defects. The use of external supports as an auxiliary means in the analysis of words also did not acquire for us a distinct theoretical basis. At present, owing to studies on the formation of mental activities and concepts (P.Ja. Gal'perin and his collaborators), it has become possible to give a new theoretical interpretation to the facts we observed earlier. It has also become possible to organize the formation of action with regard to isolating words in a sentence by means of the method elaborated on the basis of theoretical tenets concerning the formation of mental activities.

7 The essence and nature of mental actions are characterized by P. Ja. Gal'perin in the following manner: "We regard mental actions as a psychic reflection of external material actions. This situation has an immediate practical significance: it requires that the formation of a new mental action begin with its external material form. "If its objects and instruments for direct action are inaccessible in the original, then the formation of a new mental action should begin with its material form, i.e., with an action which depends on the material reflection of the essential properties and relations of these means and objects" (Gal'perin and Talyzina, 1957, p. 28). Thus, P.Ja. Gal'perin attempts to view psychic processes as final forms of the concrete objective activity of man. Here he proceeds from the fact that every mental action is characterized by a number of properties or parameters. He distinguished four parameters. 1. Levels of action. They are represented in three basic types of activity: a) the material level of action (with objects or the material reflections of the essential properties of these objects); b) the level of action in loud speech; c) the level of mental action. The parameter of the levels of action is the main one, since its markers reflect the basic transformations of action in the process of turning it into a mental action. 2. Measure of generalization of an action: the isolation of those properties of the o b j e u of an action, which are constant and essential for performing the action. 3. Completeness of the composition of an action — the degree of its development. It was established that when starting to learn a new action its complete development, the performance of the entirety of operations, is absolutely necessary. This ensures the sensibility, the intelligibility of the logic of an action for the subject. Subsequently it becomes possible and desirable to shorten some operations of the action, but under the condition that the content subject to shortening is implied. 4. Mastery of an action — the degree of ease and speed of performing an action. The highest degree of mastery is expressed in the maximum automatization of an action. The last three parameters: measure of generalization of an action, completeness of the composition of an action, and its mastery, determine the quality of the action being formed. Thus, a mental action (in our case, the isolation of the words in a sentence) in the formation process should go through a number of successive stages with the appropriate elaboration of the parameters of the action in each of them. 1. The stage for formation of the orientational basis of the action. 2. The stage of objective material (or 'materialized') action. 3. The stage of action on the plane of loud speech. 4. The stage of internal, mental action.

8 Only as a result of a stage-by-stage elaboration is a mental action formed as a full-fledged, properly generalized, reduced and mastered action, which is objectively reflected in the speed and ease with which it begins to be produced for itself, and in the correctness of the obtained results. Recently, in a series of studies conducted by P.Ja. Gal'perin and his collaborators (L.I. Ajdarova; V.V. Davydov, 1957; N.U. Nepomnjascaja, 1956; P.Ja. Gal'perin and L.S. Georgiev, 1961), the possibility was indicated of forming adequate grammatical and mathematical concepts at preschool and early school age under the condition of a stage-by-stage organization of the action of learning. On the other hand, in a number of studies by D.B. fil'konin (1956, 1962) and his collaborators (A.E. Ol'sannikova, 1958; N.A. Xoxlova; L.E. Zurova and fil'konin, 1963; and others), which proceeded from P.Ja. Gal'perin's conception of the stage-by-stage formation of mental actions, among average and older preschoolers there had already been successfully formed the action of analyzing speech sounds. The principles established in the studies of D.B. fil'konin and his collaborators have in recent years been applied extensively and with success in the teaching of the sound analysis of words in a number of experimental classes conducted by them. Having set ourselves the task of organizing the formation of the action of isolating the words in a sentence, and basing ourselves on the theory of the formation of mental actions, along with P.Ja. Gal'perin we elaborated appropriate methods. The results of the experiment conducted according to these methods and the comparison of these results with the data of a preliminary study, which we mentioned above (Karpova, 1953, 1955), constitute the basic content of the subsequent exposition. However, before turning to a detailed description of the methods w( adopted, it is necessary to dwell on yet another problem. At the basis of the methods both of our preliminary study and of th( study having a formative nature there was placed the mode of isolating th words in a sentence by counting them. The child, after repeating the sentenc given to him (in answer to the question: "What words did I say to you?"' was then to count over again the words of each sentence and give their tot; number. Let us note that it is this method — one of the ordinal and cardinal anal} sis of words in answer to the corresponding questions — that is used in schoc in the pre-alphabet period with the aim of teaching the child to isolate tl words in a sentence and thus of giving him an elementary practical idea of tl sentence and the word. In using this method in experiments with preschoolers it is first necessa: to make sure that the action of counting objects has already been formed f the child to an extent sufficient for our purposes and that he is able, by pr

9 ceeding from the ordinal numbers he has named, to determine the total number of elements counted. Having proceeded to ascertaining the level of development of ordinal analysis among the children we studied, we encountered a complicated picture of their activity in forming ordinal numbers. The results we obtained have much that is similar to the data of other studies on this problem, and primarily with the data obtained by N.A. Mencinskaja (1955,1957). However, the features of the method we used made it possible to reveal some new facts which supplement the picture outlined by N.A. Men5inskaja of the formation of ordinal analysis. Below, in a special section, we will state the material we obtained and will try to formulate some conclusions concerning the spontaneous formation in the preschooler of ordinal counting and the transformation of this counting into the operation used for determining the total number of elements counted. There will be presented there the data of the forming experiment, which show the results of the stage-by-stage elaboration of the action of the ordinal analysis of words. These results are interesting because in them there appear certain subtle details of the transformation of the ordinal analysis of words into an automatic operation serving to determine the total number of words in a sentence.

II THE COURSE OF STUDY

1. THE METHODS OF STUDY

Our experiment on the formation in a preschool child of the isolation of the words in a sentence consisted of three parts: an ascertaining, a forming, and a control experiment. As was already noted above, the mode of isolating words by counting them was placed at the basis of the methods of the forming experiment as well as of the preliminary study. The child was at first to count the words of the sentence and then give their total number. The ascertaining experiment began with a verification of whether the child knew the alphabet and whether he could read. Then, before presenting the child with the task of an ordinal and cardinal analysis of words, it was necessary to make sure that the very action of counting the individual elements and determining their total number was within his reach. In this case the difficulties which could have confronted him in isolating the words should be related not by the process of counting, but by the objects of the counting, i.e., the words. Several objects were placed before the child (at first three, then five, then up to seven), and he was asked to determine their total number (the question was asked: "How many ... are there?"). The children who experienced appreciable difficulties in counting the objects did not participate in the subsequent experiment. With the child who did not experience any difficulties there was carried out after this series a fundamental series: verification of the ability to isolate the words in a sentence. The child was shown a picture depicting a simple situation. This situation was described by a simple sentence (for example: Devocka prygaet 'The girl is jumping'). Then the child was supposed to answer the following questions of the experimenter: "What words did I say?", "What is the first, second... (word)?", "How many words are there in all?" Such a nature of the questions made it possible to determine whether the child could make the words themselves an object of his operations, while if

12 the task of isolating words proved to be beyond his ability, the experiment made it possible to determine what can replace for the child this operation which is beyond his ability. The forming experiment occupies the central position in this experiment. Its first stage is the stage of organization of the child's adequate orientation, in the action. This organization consists first of all in explaining to the child the order of action (the scheme of analysis), i.e., the sequentially and meaning of the questions presented to the child, and also in explaining to him the connection between the objective support (the 'square') and the element of speech isolated by it (the word). On the other hand, there was organized the child's orientation on the criteria of the word, which are given to him. By using examples of the ascertaining experiment, in the analysis of which the child experienced difficulties and made mistakes, the experimenter tried to explain to the child simply and graphically what a word is. On the basis of concrete examples the experimenter explained, first of all, that a word cannot be lumped together with that which it signifies, e.g. with the object or action it signifies. Second, it was explained to the child that a word cannot be lumped together with its parts, e.g. with the syllables from which it is composed. Here the experimenter operated with the following features of the word: (1) A word is a phonetic entity (the child's attention was directed especially to the phonetic aspect of the word). (2) A word always has a definite meaning ('it always signifies something', 'it says something'). On the whole the explanation of the action being formed was constructed in the following manner: the child was shown the appropriate picture and given the sentence which earlier he had incorrectly analyzed. In pronouncing it the experimenter separated with pauses the individual words belonging to it, articulating them clearly. Then the sentence was again pronounced slowly and distinctly by the experimenter; with the pronunciation of each word it was 'written down' (more correctly, signified) in an abbreviated manner (the first letter or two), but distinctly, with large printed letters on a separate paper square which was placed in front of the child. At the end of the analysis of the sentence there was before the child a series of squares, the number and sequentially of which reflected the number and sequence of the concrete words in the analyzed sentence. This series was an objective model of the sentence. The experimenter explained to the child that the number of squares was equal to the number of words ("We have as many squares as words"), thus, having counted the squares, it was possible to find out how many words were spoken ("What is the first, second... (word) here?", "How many words did I say?", "There are as many squares as words.", "Let us count how many squares we have and find out how many words I spoke.").

13 The process of 'spelling' the word on the square seems quite important for us. Owing to it each word is gradually recreated and materialized in the subject's eyes in a form that is firmly fixed but at the same time clearly different from the object which this word signifies, while each paper square, by having a distinctive picture for the individual word, thereby acquires its own individual imprint in the child's eyes and on a regular basis that is clear for the child figures in the action as the bearer of the image of the particular word. Above it was noted that for a child the correlation and differentiation of an object and the word signifying it, when the audibly pronounced word is not fixed objectively and firmly, are made much more difficult, and sometimes impossible; this is explained to a certain extent precisely by the absence of a stable fixation of the word as a result of the extreme instability of the word's material, of its sound envelope. The above-described materialization of the word facilitates significantly the possibilities of correlating an object (or its representation) with the word signifying this object, and thereby helps the child to understand the difference between an object and a word. Now it can be graphically explained to the child that the girl in the picture is one thing, and the word 'girl' written on a square is something completely different. At the same time the word is separated from the object by the positing of semantic questions. Example. Experimenter (pointing to the appropriate square): "Here we have the word 'girl'. It says: who is this? (pointing at the picture) — a girl. (Pointing to the appropriate square): 'Jumps' is also a word. It says (pointing at the picture): what is the girl doing? — jumping." In the process of explaining, the experimenter dwells especially on the words causing the child difficulties. In this case a number of examples were cited in which when changing all the other words the word creating the difficulty remained unchanged, the child's special attention was directed to it, and it was explained what the word signifies (says). For example, if in the ascertaining experiment the child did not isolate the adjective 'red' in the sentence 'They bought MiSa a red ball', then they say to him (while 'writing down' the corresponding words on squares and forming from them the given sentence): "'They bought MiSa a red ball', 'Vera was given a red flag'. See, all the words are changed, but the word 'red' remains. Here it is (pointing at the corresponding square). It shows what kind of ball, what color it is." Along with the correlation and 'separation' of a word and the object signified by it there were carried out a correlation and 'separation' of the sentence and the situation depicted in the picture. Example. (The child is shown a picture in which are depicted a garden and a

14 girl jumping rope.) Experimenter: "I said to you about the picture the following words: 'The girl is jumping'. But it would be possible to say other words as well: 'The girl is merrily playing', 'The flowers are blooming'." As a result of the thus organized system of clarifications there was formed for the subject a preliminary, still vague and insufficiently differentiated idea of the action he is faced with. This preliminary image of the action and the criteria given to the child of the object of the action (the word) still needed external objective supports for their articulation, they still had an insufficiently defined nature. However, they now fulfilled the function of the initial control image, to which the subject's action will continuously be aimed in the future, approximating it ever more closely and at the same time defining it more precisely, differentiating and clarifying it for the subject, while the control image, in its turn, in absorbing the experience of the subject's action, will orient this action all the more correctly and adequately. Owing to the presence in the child of a preliminary orientation it becomes possible to transfer him to the stage of materialized action, i.e., an action which is based on the material reflection of the important properties and relations of objects and which with time is transformed more and more into the subject's own action. At this stage the child is given new sentences with which he did not deal in the ascertaining experiment, and the experimenter begins firmly prompting him to increasingly more active participation in the analysis of these sentences. Having indicated the appropriate picture and having designated it with a simple sentence, each word of which was isolated by pauses between the words, the experimenter asked: "What word will we write on this square?" If the subject could not answer this question or answered incorrectly, the experimenter himself gave the necessary word and designated it in the square, while the subject repeated the word and placed in front of himself the square with its designation in the order of the sequence of words given to him. At the end of the division of the sentence the child had before him a series of individual squares. With this series, which was created with the active participation of the subject himself, the child subsequently produced different actions: he pushed a particular square forward, raised it, pointed to it, in answering the experimenter's questions: "What words did I say?", "What is the first, second... (word)?", "How many words are there in all?", "And what is the fourth word?", etc. Subsequently the experiment was constructed so as to ensure the regular shift of the child to a more generalized action. If in the course of the experiment the child began to analyze more quickly and with fewer mistakes the short (3 or 4 words) sentences given to him, the experimenter gave him sentences with a greater number of words (5 or 6),

15 among which along with concrete ones there were more abstract categories of words (adjectives, numbers, adverbs). If in analyzing these words the child experienced difficulties, there were used the means of explanation used in the exposition of the first stage, i.e., the word is separated from the object by the positing of semantic questions, which make more precise and expand the child's orientation. But here, as distinct from the first stage of action, the experimenter has with the appropriate question induced the subject himself to correlate an object (its representation) and the word signifying it, and sometimes to ask the semantic questions. On the other hand, the child was given sentences in which with a change of all the other words the word that caused the trouble remained unchanged. But, as opposed to the first stage of action, here the experimenter, after giving one or two sentences, then asked the child himself to invent and analyze analogous sentences. Let us cite an illustration of the application of these two means of explanation. In front of the child is a picture to which is given the sentence: Mai' cik moet ruki 'The boy is washing his hands'. E. (pointing to the appropriate square): "What word do we have here?" S.: "Mai'cik 'the boy'." E.: "Right. It says: Who is this? (pointing at the picture)—a boy. And what is the next word that should be written down? (pause).—The following word is moet 'is washing' (E. writes it on a square). It says-what is the boy doing?" S.: "Moet 'he is washing'." E.: "And what is he washing?" S.: "Ruki 'hands'." E.: "Right, this is a separate word. Let's write it down (E. writes it down). Mal'cik-moet-ruki 'The boy is washing his hands'. One can also say: Devocka-moet-ruki 'The girl—is washing—her hands'. Tell me, what else can be said with the word moet 'is washing'?" S.: "Mama moet casku 'Mama is washing the cup', koska moet uski "The cat is washing its ears'" (the experimenter writes them down on squares). E. (pointing to the appropriate squares): "See, all the words change, but the word moet 'is washing' remains. It is a separate word. It says: what Mama is doing, what the cat is doing." With similar examples the word that caused the child trouble is emphatically isolated as a sound unit having an independent existence and a definite semantic meaning, and the child is brought to a certain extent to an understanding of the word from the viewpoint of its general, significant features (1—a word is a sound complex; 2—a word always has a definite meaning). The change of the child's action in the direction of its shortening (in analyzing, the child began only slightly to shift the square and even only pointed to them with his finger), and also in the direction of its mastery (the action

16 began to be produced with increasing ease, speed, confidence, and independence) was for us a signal that the opportunity has arisen to move our subject on to more independent, generalized and shortened action, to action with plates. In this case the squares were taken away and several (up to ten) plates of the same color were placed on the table in a disordered fashion. The experimenter explained to the child that he (the child) would have to mark each word not with a square given to him by the experimenter, but independently, with any one of the plates suggested to him, which no longer have a representation of each concrete word. The isolation of the words in a sentence by plates was shown to the child in a simple example, and the child had to repeat it. Since an obvious logical connection existed between the action suggested to the child and the previous action - the action with the squares - as a rule he quickly grasped its essence and after one or two illustrations could now proceed to independent action. Here the experiment was constructed in the following manner: the experimenter placed before the subject a picture depicting a simple situation, and slowly and distinctly pronounced the corresponding sentence, isolating with pauses each of the words in it. Then he asked the subject: "What is the first, second... (word)?". The subject, in answering each of the experimenter's questions, drew towards himself in sequence one plate at a time. Thus there was formed before the subject a series of plates, each of which signified a single word, while the entire series as a whole reflected the number of words in the sentence. Therefore, in answer to the experimenter's question: "How many words are there in all?", the child easily gave the required result. Subsequently, for control the experimenter induced the child to carry out the analysis of the words at random, asking him the questions: "What is our second word... and the fourth?", etc. Owing to the introduction of the plates the child's action, while remaining an objective, 'materialized' action, underwent, however, significant changes. When signifying words with squares each square contained an individual picture precisely of the given word and was a reflection of this word in the entirety of its features that were common to other words and its particular, extremely individual features. The series of such squares, which was formed as a result of the ordinal analysis, was an objective model of the sentence, which visually depicted not only the number, but also the sequence of the concrete words of the sentence being analyzed. Owing to this the connection 'word—square' became utmostly evident for the child. On the other hand, however, precisely as a result of this, the action with the squares could no longer sufficiently contribute to the isolation of the word's properties which were general and important for the purposes of the analysis.

17 At the same time this analysis could be only the combined action of the experimenter and the subject (the experimenter writes each word down on the square, while the subject forms a sequential series of squares). It could not yet become the subject's own action in this form. Finally, the action with the squares is possible only in an extremely expanded form: each word is depicted on a square, and only then is the square arranged in the series of other squares. In designating the words with plates the features of concreteness are obliterated in the external support (the plate). Each plate no longer contains an individual picture of the given word. However, in this case the correlation of each individual plate with the word is preserved. Also preserved is the nature of the relation between words — the relation of sequentiality. Thus, from the concrete, individual depiction of each word on squares we proceed in the action with the plates to an objective, material, but already generalized designation of the word. This considerably facilitates the isolation of the general properties of the word which are important for our analysis: here any plate designates any word from the viewpoint of its features that are important for us (the word as a phonetic and semantic unit). As compared to the action with the squares the action with the plates is shorter - there disappears here the moment of designating each word. Finally, the action with the plates, as opposed to the action with the squares, is on the whole an action of the child himself: in the process of analysis the child himself forms the series of plates which indicates the number of words in the sentence. His analysis begins to be constructed as a combination of speech analysis and active motor analysis, the course and final result of which are firmly and materially fixed by the plates. As a result of this analysis there is formed in this case, as in the action with the squares, an objective model of the sentence. But this model now objectively and visually reflects the sequence and total number of generalized, abstract words. The concrete markers of each word begin to be implied by the subject, and the plates serve only as a support for such an implication. It should be noted that although the features of concreteness are absent on the plate, yet the connection 'plate—word' is easily established by the child, since it was prepared by the preceding action with the squares. The action with the plates was understandable for the child as a shorter form of the action with the squares. Taking into consideration the changes in the child's action, in the course of the experiment with the plates the experimenter also began changing the conditions of the action, preparing the transition to the following stage — the stage of action on the plane of loud speech. The decrease in the number of errors in instances which previously caused the child trouble, the absence of tension during the analysis, his speed, and in some cases independence - all this attested to shifts in the direction of the generalization and mastery of the action.

18 In order that the action with the plates would achieve a higher degree of generalization and mastery, the sentences presented to the child (as in the action with the squares) were gradually complicated both in the quantity (from three to six words) and the quality of the words (more abstract categories of words were introduced). If in the analysis of more abstract words the child experienced difficulties, the experimenter resorted to the above-described models of clarification (the asking of semantic questions and the changing of all the words in the sentence except for the word that caused the child difficulty), here activizing to a maximum the subject's activity. The examples given to the child were now analyzed with reliance on the plates. As to the shortening of the action, it was elaborated in the action with the plates in the following manner. Having noticed that in the course of the analysis the child began pushing the plates aside only slightly or only pointing to them with his finger, the experimenter explained to him that subsequently, while carrying out the analysis of words, he should not push the plates aside, but should only point to the appropriate one with his finger. A series of up to ten plates was placed before the subject. At the end of the analysis he was supposed to push aside the unnecessary plates. The experimenter showed the subject this action by an example, and the latter learned to cany out the analysis successfully in this manner. As a result of mastering this means of analysis, the majority of the children were subsequently able to replace the indicative gesture with a glance: in analyzing they fixed every following plate with a glance. All these changes in the action of isolating words served us as an example of the fact that the shift of the child to the next stage - the stage of the formation of the action on the plane of loud speech — is possible. By this time the presentation of a picture depicting the situation designated in the sentence .had already become optional for all of our subjects. They all now differentiated objective and speech reality and analyzed quite sufficiently the elements (words) of the latter. Therefore the pictures were generally removed, and before the end of the experiment the situation designated by the sentence appeared before the child in a purely verbal form. On the whole, at this stage the experiment was constructed in the following manner: the experimenter explained to the child that now he would have to isolate the words in the sentence without the aid of plates in answering the experimenter's questions: "What is the first, second... (word)?". As in the preceding cases, this action was demonstrated to the child with a simple example, and the child had to repeat it. Thus, at the beginning of this experiment the child was required to deal with supports that were verbal, but yet external to it. Among other things, the peculiarity of verbal supports consists in the fact that their natural presence ceases with the sounding of speech. This situation

19 cannot but complicate the child's analysis, but if this analysis was already sufficiently elaborated at the preceding stages and its logic was clear for the child, these difficulties are successfully overcome by him. At this stage, as at preceding ones, we tried by special means to stimulate and direct the child's action. This aim was served by the means already described in detail above (the positing of semantic questions to the individual words of the sentence and the changing of all the words of the sentence except for the word that caused the child difficulty). However, here the appropriate examples were now analyzed without the aid of external supports, entirely on the plane of loud speech. Here the experimenter continued to activize maximally the subject's activity, suggesting that he himself ask semantic questions and select appropriate examples. Aiming at the subject's maximum activization resulted in that the means that were independently applied by him, were illustrated by his own examples and served as the basis and justification of his subsequent isolation of words, were gradually well mastered and realized by the child. Therefore, there arise here and are subsequently further expanded the child's realization of the order of analysis (the scheme of the analysis) and of the very object of the analysis (the words in the sentence), and his ever more arbitrary use of them. After the child has mastered this action to a sufficient extent, i.e., after he has begun to isolate words quickly, easily and correctly, it was suggested to him to carry out the isolation as before out loud, but now without reliance on the experimenter's questions. In this case the ordinal numbers, which were given by the child himself, became the verbal supports in the analysis. For example, the child was immediately to divide out loud and distinctly the sentence Deti pojut pesnju 'The children are singing a song' in the following manner: "The first word is deti 'the children', the second is pojut 'are singing', and the third is pesnju 'a song'." Consequently, the formed action as a whole became the child's own speech action, his reasoning in the process of solving the task of isolating the words in a sentence. There were created thereby the prerequisites for transforming this action into an internal psychic action. But for the time being it was still maximally borne outwardly and expanded. This situation is important, among other things, because in this manner there was preserved the complete possibility of control over the child's action on the part of the experimenter. At first glance it seems that the isolation of words without reliance on the experimenter's questions does not differ significantly from the isolation of words with reliance on the experimenter's questions, for in the first instance the child has verbal supports — the ordinal numbers given by himself ("The first word is deti 'the children', the second is pojut 'are singing', and the third is pesnju 'a song'.").

20 But in reality, as we will see below when analyzing the obtained results, the transition to the isolation of words without reliance on the experimenter's questions can lead for some children to a deterioration of the action. However, in the course of the experiment this aspect of the action was sufficiently mastered by all the children. After this it was suggested to the child to carry out the analysis in a whisper, and only to give aloud how many words he obtained. This was the first step towards transforming the external action of analysis into an internal process. The mastering of this intermediate type of action made it possible to transfer the child to the stage of internal mental action. Here the child is given the following instructions: "Now you will count the words for yourself. I will tell you the words, you will repeat them out loud, and then you will count for yourself how many words I said to you, and you will say out loud how many words you obtained." Then an appropriate example was cited, and after this the child proceeded to the analysis. At this stage the child's action was finally hidden from direct observation; it became a mental and generalized action, in which, without knowing its history, it was difficult to find out the initial concrete and practical action. It was now possible to judge the quality of the analysis only by the speed and correctness with which the child answered the experimenter's questions: "How many words are there in all?", "What is the second one?", "What is the third word?". At this the forming experiment ended. Then followed the control experiment. We assumed that as a result of the formed mental action in the child there should have been formed a notion of the word, which would be sufficiently valuable for our purposes and which would orient his action in the isolation of words. The objective marker of this fact would be the child's unerring isolation for himself of the words of a different degree of abstraction (not only substantives and verbs, but also adjectives, numbers, pronouns, as well as prepositions and conjunctions). The control experiment served the clarification of this question. The child was given a series of sentences specially chosen according to their lexical composition, and he was supposed to carry out for himself their analysis. The experimenter judges the results of the analysis by the nature (the speed and correctness) of the child's answers to the questions about the word order in the sentence and about their total number ("How many words are there in all?", "What is the first, second... (word)?", "And what is the fourth word?", "What is the last word?", etc.). The experiments were conducted according to the above-stated methods with fourteen preschoolers whose ages at the beginning of the experiments were from 4;3 to 6; 1.1 The experiments were conducted with seven of them by the author, and

21 with the other seven by the student D.A. Zamkova, under the author's direction. The children were divided into three groups. For the children of the first group: Kolja M. (4;5), Anja S. (4;6), Ljusja 5. (4;10), Ira I. (5;2), Dzamilja R. (5;3), Tanja S. (5;3), Katja N. (5;5), and Vova M. (5;6), there was produced the formation of the isolation of all word categories, except prepositions and conjunctions. For the children of the second group: Jura I. (4;3), Lida I. (4;8), and Vasja K. (5;4), during the entire experiment (except for stage I for Jura I.) the isolation of the words of all categories, including prepositions and conjunctions, was treated. Finally, the following group: Natasa P. (5;0), Marina A. (5;10) and Natasa I. (6;1), was an intermediate group. In the first two stages — the stage of forming the orientational basis of action and the stage of materialized action (with reliance on the squares) — the isolation of prepositions and conjunctions was treated for them, and on this basis they entered the second group, while at all other stages the isolation of prepositions and conjunctions was not treated for them, and their mistakes were analyzed in the composition of the first group. In the control experiment all the children without exception were given several sentences containing prepositions and conjunctions. Such a construction of the experiment made it possible to become more completely acquainted with the features of the formation of the isolation of words of different categories, and, in particular, it made it possible to ascertain: (a) whether it is possible in the process of the stage-by-stage treatment of the action to form in preschoolers the isolation of the parts of speech that are most abstract and complicated for realization: prepositions and conjunctions; (b) whether it is possible to form for the child the isolation of prepositions and conjunctions, with the omission of the last two stages: analysis on the plane of loud speech and analysis for oneself, i.e., with the omission of the stages ensuring the consciousness and arbitrariness of the formed action; (c) whether some of our subjects (the subjects of the first group) will be able to isolate prepositions and conjunctions owing to generalization of the concept of the word, which was formed for them in the process of the experiment. Let us note that as a result of the complexity and independence of the data which are connected with the isolation of prepositions and conjunctions, these data were studied by us separately. In the course of the experiment the children were given simple expanded sentences, whose number of words varied on an average from three to six. The subject in most cases was expressed by a substantive which was the name of objects, of beings. Subjects were encountered which were expressed

22 by word combinations (Mama and her daughter, a cup and saucer). Among the predicates there were encountered simple predicates, compound nominal predicates, and compound verbal predicates (of the type: "The girl-jumps", "Today—there is cold weather", "The girl—is getting ready to play"). In addition to the main parts in the sentences there were encountered direct and indirect objects, attributes, and adverbial words. These parts of the sentence were expressed by substantives and certain classes of adjectives, adverbs, pronouns, and numbers. Prepositions and conjunctions were introduced into the sentences given to the children included in the second group. In the control experiment sentences with prepositions and conjunctions were given to all the children. As a result of the above-indicated reasons, the experiment was characterized by some difference in the number and quality of the sentences given to the subjects of the different groups. In conclusion let us cite its scheme for convenience of orientation in the experiment. TABLE 1. The General Scheme of the

Experiment

Forming Experiment Stage II. Materialized Action

Stage III. Loud Speech

On Plates

a x w «

In Answer to One's Own Questions

c e o o

3

»O1

C

O M

E < _; o

4> SO

3

O1

C/5

.3 >

O

S

G

o

o

PH

M O O

J

s e < a P. ÄIÜ

,

O u.

•a 3 O >-)

£
e and Ke." - E.: "Who is laughing?" - S.: "Devocka 'the girl'." E.: "Devocka is the first word, and what is the second?" - S.: "Vy." - E.: "Are there any more words?" - S.: "No." As is seen from the examples, these children, in dividing the words into sounds, frequently isolate only consonants and seem not to hear the vowels. We encountered similar instances already in our preliminary study. The

28 peculiar 'deafness' to vowels, as is known, is frequently observed among first graders when they copy a text. The facts of the isolation of consonant sounds and of the 'deafness' to vowels among children when beginning to learn to read and write have been noted by a number of researchers (Ju.N. Fausek, 1922; D.B. fil'konin, 1962; and others). Apparently, the decisive importance in this case belongs to the greater expressiveness of the articulation of consonants as compared to vowels, and also to the fact that vowels in the process of the child's phonetic development, as was noted by N.X. Svackin (1948), are mastered earlier than consonants and are encountered in speech five times more frequently than consonants. Therefore the active orientation on them disappears for a child earlier and more thoroughly than the orientation on consonant sounds. So as not to return any more to this question, let us note that a series of examples of analysis in the forming experiment, which concern the semantically most complex words — prepositions — is apparently a manifestation of such 'deafness' to vowels. In some cases during the analysis the child gave the preposition NA 'on, at, in' as A® or A T ; the preposition PO 'along, across' as PE, etc. 3 V A S J A K. (5;4). E.: "Na ulice deti igrajut v mjac 'In the street the children are playing ball'." - S.: "Na ulice deti igrajut v mjac." - E.: "What is the first, second, third, fourth, fifth word?" - S.: 1 - "Na 'in'", 2 - " u l i c e 'the street'", 3 - "deti 'the children'", 4-"igrajut 'are playing'", 5-"v mjac 'ball'" [v 'in' is not translated into English-trans.]. Right?" - E.: "No!" (Explanation of the preposition v according to the methods.) - S.: "And did I say NE [=M4] correctly?" - E.: "Yes!"... N A T A S A I. (6;1). E.: "Na stole stoit vaza 'On the table stands a vase'." (She repeats it correctly.) "What is the first word?" - S.: " A T . " - " W h a t is the first word?" - E.: "NA 'on'"... Turning again to the ascertaining experiment, let us note that by the features of the isolation of words Vasja K., Vova M., Anja §., and NataSa I. can be placed in the category of children, for which the intonationalrhythmic and phonetic aspects, owing to some reasons (sometimes, the teaching of reading), conceal the semantic aspect entirely or in part. Finally, in the last group of children: Ira I. (5;2), Tanja S. (5;3), and Marina A. (5; 10), the isolation of words begins to dominate. But for Ira I. (5;2) such a nature of isolation in the first sentences is preceded by engrossment in the situation and isolation of the objective components of the situation. IRA I. (5;2). E.: "Segodnja ploxaja pogoda 'Today there is bad weather'." —"It's raining." (I repeat the sentence. She repeats it.)—"What is the first word?" - S.: "A boy is standing with his mama." (She describes the picture.) - E.: "What is the first word?" - S.: "Segodnja 'today'." - E.: "The

29 second?" - S.: "Ploxaja 'bad'." - E.: "The third?" - S.: "Pogoda 'weather'." - E.: "How many words are there in all?" - S.: "Three." Only at the end of the experiment, under the influence of the experimenter's questions, does she begin to isolate the words, omitting, however, the adjectives. However, even for the other children of this group the isolation of individual words is still not of a stable nature. In some cases they may slide to a repetition of the sentences or to the isolation of its intonational-semantic groups. On the other hand, they most frequently either omit adjectives and numerals, or slur them together with the following substantives. It need be noted that the omissions and perseverances of individual words (both substantives and words from other categories) were encountered for all our subjects (except for those who isolated the individual sounds — there was no opportunity there to establish them). And for Lida I". (4;8), Natasa P. (5;0), and Katja N. (5;5) there were also perseverances of the preceding sentence as a whole. Thus, it can be stated that for all of our subjects the action of isolating words is more or less not formed. The orientation of children in speech reality appears in different variants, the extremes being the orientation primarily on the semantic aspect of speech and the orientation primarily on the purely formal aspect of speech. Moreover, neither variant of the orientation is stable. The notions of speech reality and its elements for all the children are characterized by indefiniteness and nonrealization. With this data we proceed to the forming experiment.

3. THE FORMING EXPERIMENT

In the forming experiment we produced in our subjects the action of isolating words according to the following stages: 1—the stage of forming the orientational basis of the action; 2—the stage of materialized action, which included two successive variants: a) analysis with the aid of squares that were written on, b) analysis with the aid of identical plates. In the latter case the child, when analyzing, first drew each plate to himself, then pointed to each of them with his finger and subsequently only fixed his glance on each of them; 3—the stage of action on the plane of loud speech, which also included two successive variants: a) analysis with reliance on ordinal numbers given by the experimenter, b) analysis with reliance on ordinal numbers given by the subject himself. In this last instance the analysis was carried out in a loud voice, and then in a whisper; 4 - t h e stage of action for oneself.

30 Stage I: Formation of the Orientational Basis of Action As was already said when describing the methods, the content of this stage was the organization of the child's preliminary orientation in the action. The connection between an objective support ('square') and a word and the order of action (the scheme of analysis) was explained to the child, and his orientation on the criteria of the word, which were given to him, were organized. In this experiment our subjects each analyzed from six to eight sentences. It must be said that the subjects regarded the experiment with interest and, as a rule, during its course were sufficiently intent and attentive. But at the beginning of the experiment the youngest of them (Jura I., Kolja M., Ljusja S., and Lida I.) were sometimes distracted and even began to misbehave. We tried to play up the situation of the experiment, having presented it in the form of playing school, but this did not increase the younger children's responsibility, since they did not assume the role of pupils. In the entire experimental situation they were attracted most of all by the bell with which we began and ended our 'lessons', and then by the pictures which we showed to them, as we did to the other subjects, in the course of the experiment, which aroused in them lively reference reactions. In some cases they made remarks which reflected associations or questions which arose for them in connection with the sentence presented to them or with the picture illustrating this sentence. KOLJA M. (4;5). E.: "Ole kupili plat'e 'They bought Olja a dress'." - S.: "We also have an Olja, Olja Martynova, she is in our group"... By stages and quite rapidly these children became involved in the experiment, became accustomed to its order, and became distracted only as a result of fatigue. In proceeding to the analysis of the obtained data, let us recall that the experiment began with an explanation of the action with the squares. This explanation went approximately as follows: "Here we have squares. I will say the words, and you and I will write one word on each square. Thus it will be easy for us to count the words: we will have as many squares as there are words." Then the experimenter pronounced distinctly and clearly a simple sentence and, appending a semantic question to each word, isolated it and 'recorded' it on a square, giving the criteria of the word. After this he asked the subject, in answering the question, to give the recorded word by pointing to the squares and then to determine their total number. The next sentence was analyzed in the same manner, but the subject was drawn into the action of the analysis at the very beginning: he himself had to answer the semantic questions asked by the experimenter, while in some cases he himself had to ask the semantic question and then carry out the ordinal and cardinal analysis. If the subject had difficulties, the experimenter gave the necessary clarifications, cited examples, asked additional questions, etc.

31 LJUSJA S. (4;10). E.: "Kury kljujut zerna 'The hens are pecking grain'." (Explanation of the features of the word and the order of the action.)—"Kury kljujut zerna. Who is pecking?" — S.: " K u r y 'hens'." — E.: "Let's write on a square this w o r d - k u r y . What are the hens doing?" - S.: " K l j u j u t 'are pecking'." — E.: "Let's write on a square the word kljujut. And what are they pecking?" - S.: "Zerna 'grain'." - E.: "Right, zerna. Let's write on the next square the word zerna. On our first square there is written the word kury, on the second square there is written the word kljujut, and on the third square the word zerna. What is our first word?" - S.: "Kury kljujut zerna." - E.: "You said all three words. See, there are three squares, that means there are three words. The first word says, who is pecking?—kury, the second word says, what are the hens doing?—kljujuf, and the third word says, what are the hens pecking?-zerna. What word is on our first square?" - S.: " K u r y kljujut zerna." - E.: "You said all the words, but what is the first word?" - S.: "Kury." - E.: "And what word is on the third square?" - S.: "Zerna." - E.: "Right, here is the word zerna. And how many words are there in all?" — S.: "Three." — E.: "Show me, what is the first word?" — S.: (She points.)— "Kury." - E.: "And the second word?" - S.: "Kljujut." - E.: "And the third word?" - S.: "Kury kljujut zerna." - E.: "The third word says, what are the hens pecking?" - S.: "Zerna." - E.: "Show me again, what words we have." - S.: (She points.)-l "A"w/>>", 2 - " k l j u j u t " , 3-"zerna" Thus, from the very beginning the subjects participated in the action, and the further on things went, the more the experimenter stimulated their activity. By what markers did we judge during this experiment the degree of formation in our subjects of an adequate orientation in the action suggested to them? It is necessary to dwell on this question, since for our subjects, young and middle preschoolers, as was indicated by the studies of A.V. Zaporozec and his collaborators (Zaporozec, 1960), the process of forming a preliminary orientation in an action cannot yet be isolated as a special process differing from their industrious activity: they are still closely interconnected. The markers, which we followed in judging the degree of formation of the orientational basis of the action of analyzing words, were the following. First marker: the features of the establishment of the connection the objective support (the 'square') - the word. And solid connection between the 'square' and the word corresponding to it was a necessary condition for success in forming the action. Second marker: the adequacy of the child's answers to the questions which the experimenter asked him; in other words, how quickly and freely the child, in answering the corresponding questions, repeats the sentence and then carries out its ordinal and cardinal analysis. These two markers indicate the nature of the child's orientation in the scheme of the analysis and its direction.

32 The third group of markers concerned the content aspect of the child's analysis. Here belonged the degree of correctness of the analysis, the nature of the existing errors, and the possible means of overcoming them. These features reveal the peculiarities of the child's orientation in the criteria of the word; they reveal the nature of the orientation in the criteria of the word and the direction of this orientation. It may be asserted that for all our subjects after the experimenter's first illustration and explanation the connection between the objective support (the 'squares') and the element of speech reality, which is taken by the child as a word, is established quite firmly. This is attested by the fact that in our material there is not encountered a single instance when during the analysis the child would correlate the word (it is another thing what he understood by it) with the 'square', when he would not see the correlation between the number of 'squares' and the number of 'words', etc. But since all the conditions of the experiment directed the child's orientation only to one of the possible elements of speech reality - the word, the correlation 'square-word' began to dominate all the more among the other possible variants. In the statements of the majority of children there is found a certain degree of realization of the correlation 'square—word'. A N J A S. (4;6). E.: "Vere kupili zelenoe plat'e 'They bought Vera a green dress'. What words did I say?" (She repeats them.) "What is the first, second, third, fourth word we write down?" (She pulls the squares to herself in a sequence.) - S.: 1 -"Vere 'Vera'", 2-'kupili 'they bought'", "zelenoe 'green'", 4 - " p l a t ' e 'dress'." - E.: "How many words are there in all?" - S.: (She whispers while counting the squares.)-"Four." - E.: "What is the third word?" - S.: ( W h i s p e r i n g . ) - " Z e l e n o e - E.: "And the fourth?" - S.: "Plat'eV - E.: "And how did you know that plat'e is the fourth word?" — S.: "Here it is." (She points to the square designating this word.) — E.: "What is the first word?" - S.: "Vere. Here it is, written on the square!" D Z A M I L J A R . (5;3). E.: "Babuska neset kastrjulju 'Grandmother is carrying a pan'." (She repeats it. After the experimenter has written the words on squares.) "What is the first word?" - S.: "Babuska 'grandmother'." - E.: "Show me where it is on the square." — S.: (She points.)—"There!" — E.: "And what is the second word?" — S.: "Babuska neset 'grandmother is carrying'." - E.: "You said the first word was babuska. Here it is. And what is the second?" - S.: "Neset 'is carrying'." - E.: "And the third?" - S . : "Kastrjulju 'a pan'"... - E.: "How many words are there in all?" — S.: (She points.)— "See, the first square is the first word, the second square is the second word, the third square is the third word." — E.: "And how many are there in all?" - S.: "Three!". Moreover, in analyzing the second sentence Vasja K. began to demand the squares.

33 VASJA K. (5;4). E.: "Kurica kljuet zerna 'The hen is pecking grain'. How many words are there?" - S.: "Will you give me the squares, OK?" — E.: (I write them in sequence on squares.)—"Who?— kurica 'hen'; what is it doing?— kljuet 'is pecking'; and what is it pecking 1—zerna 'grain'." — S.: (He looks at the squares lying in front of him.)—"There are three words here!" Let us examine how the formation of the child's orientation in the scheme of the analysis occurred. As we have already noted above, at the beginning of the experiment there was observed among the youngest subjects a shifting to accessory actions: the child began to ask questions about the picture given to him, the surrounding situation, etc. Sometimes in some connections he remembered things which he hastened to share with the experimenter, etc. But even among the older children when giving answers there were initially observed difficulties, the external expression of which was confusion of the child, long pauses, and sometimes refusals to analyze. At least a part of these difficulties was connected with the children's insufficiently clear conception of the scheme of action presented to them. In such cases the experimenter had to direct the subject's action step by step, with the aid of clarifications and additional semantic questions. However, after the analysis of the first two or three sentences the need for such questions, as a rule, decreased considerably. Ljusja §. (4;10) continued the need for systematic and detailed questions longest of all, but then she analyzed the last sentences almost without the aid of such questions. Thus, by the end of the experiment our children's refusals to act disappear, the instances of confusion and perplexity — the markers of a child's inability to carry out the action according to the scheme suggested to him — decrease, and correspondingly the number of the experimenter's clarifications and semantic questions concerning the scheme of analysis also decreased. In answer to the appropriate questions the child, without being distracted or losing his place, repeats the sentence, and subsequently he carries out its ordinal analysis and gives the total number of words. It is especially significant that the fact of a child's mastering of the scheme of action appears in the cases already at this stage, when the subjects on their own initiative begin independently, without waiting for the experimenter's corresponding question, to repeat the sentence given them, and sometimes even to carry out independently their ordinal and cardinal analysis. The distribution of such instances among our subjects is represented in table 3. Upon acquaintance with this table one is struck by the high percentage of independent repetitions for almost all the children, which is apparently explained by the relative easiness of this action. Instances of independent ordinal and cardinal analysis are encountered here only for a few of the most ac-

34 tive subjects. Moreover, the independent ordinal analysis is carried out by the children either after the ordinal analysis in an action together with the experimenter, i.e., in the child's repetition of the ordinal analysis, or as a partially independent analysis within an action together with the experimenter.

57 50 100 71 29 71 85 85 75 67 100 100 57 28

Control Questions

7 8 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 6 8 8 7 7

Cardinal Analysis

Jura I. (4;3) KoljaM. (4;5) Anja S. (4;6) Lida I. (4;8) Ljusja S. (4;10) Natasa P. (5;0) Ira I. (5;2) Dzamilja R. (5;3) Tanja S. (5;3) Vasja K. (5;4) Katja N. (5;5) VovaM. (5;6) Marina A. (5;10) Natasa I. (6;1)

Ordinal Analysis

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Subjects

Repetition

No.

Total Number of Sentences

TABLE 3. The Number of Independent Answers of the Subjects at Stage I (in % of the total number of sentences)

14 37 14 14

14 14

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

14

-

-

13 17

-

-

50

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

KOLJA M. (4;5). E.: "Djadja odel zimnjuju sapku 'Uncle put on a wintet cap'." — S.: "What's his name?" (After the words were written down and the squares are in front of him.) - E.: "What is the first word?" (Each time he points with his finger.) - S.: "Djadja 'uncle'." - E.: "The second?" - S.: "Odel 'put on'." - E.: "The third?" - S.: "Zimnjuju 'winter'. And the fourth word is sapku 'cap'." — E.: "How do you know?" — S.: "Well I saw it on the square, I didn't give it." VASJA K. (5;4). E.: "Belka sidit na dereve "The squirrel is sitting in the tree'. Repeat it." (He repeats it correctly.) "What is the first word we will write down?" - S.: "Be." - E.: "Who is sitting in the tree?" - S.: "Be-loc-ka 'the little squirrel." (I write it on a square.) - E.: "What is the little squirrel doing?" - S.: "Sidit na dereve 'is sitting in the tree'." (By himself!) "On the second (square) let's write sidit 'is sitting', and on the third na dereve 'in the tree'. Look, I'll do it on my fingers (he counts, bending his fingers). Belka— sidit-na dereve. There are three words in all."

35 Let us dwell now on the data characterizing the degree of development with which the child carries out the analysis of the words. In the analysis of the material one is struck by the fact that at the beginning of the experiment maximally developed forms of analysis dominate, which then for some children give way to more reduced, shortened forms. Thus, the ordinal analysis for all children has for the most part a developed nature: in carrying it out the child necessarily moves or raises each of the squares or points at it, and if the squares are placed at some distance from each other, the analysis of the subjects, especially of the youngest ones, proceeds more successfully. Therefore, in order that the conditions of the experiment would be eased as much as possible for the subject, when giving the sentence we tried to isolate each of the words intonationally and rhythmically. On the other hand, when laying out the squares in front of the child we placed them at some distance from each other; the path followed by the child's glance and hand was thereby lengthened, which ensured him the possibility of more developed action. The decisive significance for the success of an action of maximum development appeared especially clearly in some examples. In a reduced action the child gives incorrect answers here as well, while in an expanded action, when counting the squares, he gives correct answers. JURA I. (4;3). E.: "Devocka smeetsja 'The girl is laughing'." (I explain the action with the squares, giving each word; I write it on a square. The child draws the squares to himself in succession.) "What is the first word here?" — S.: "Devocka smeetsja." - E.: "Point with your finger at the squares; in this square (pointing at the first square), what is the word?" - S.: (He points.)1 -"Devocka 'the girl'." - E.: "And this one?" - S.: (He points.)2 - "smeetsja 'is laughing'." - E.: "What is our first word?" - S.: (Looking at the experimenter.)-"Devocka smeetsja." - E.: (I repeat the analysis.)"Show me on the squares, what are the words?" — S.: (He moves the squares.) —\—"Devocka", 2-"smeetsja". VASJA K. (5;4). E.: "Devocka prygaet 'The girl is jumping'." (I explain the action; giving each word I write it on a square and place the square in front of the child.) "Well, what is the first word we have here?" - S.: "Devocto pry-ga-et." (By himself, raising each square.)—\—"De-voc-ka 'the girl'", 2—"pry-ga-et 'is jumping'." - E.: "How many words do we have?" — S.: "I don't know how many words there are. It's impossible to count the letters!" - E.: "I am asking you not for the letters, but the words." - S.: "Oh, two, there are two words! That's right, isn't it?" - E.: "What is the first, the second?" - S.: (He points.)-l-"Z)evocfaz", 2 - " p r y g a e t " . At the end of the experiment, especially in the easier cases, when carrying out the ordinal analysis the children limited themselves to pointing at the squares with their finger. In one case (with Tanja S.) we encountered an example of an even more

36 reduced action, when the child, after the appropriate words had been written on the squares, in looking at them, independently carries out an intonational ordinal analysis. TAN J A S. (5;3). E.: "Zina moet ruki vodoj 'Zina washes her hands with water'." (After the words are written down, and the squares lie in front of the child.) "What is the first word?" - S.: "Z... No, Zinal" (Further she pronounces the words separately, looking at the corresponding squares.)—"Moe? 'washes'—ruki 'hands'—vodoj 'with water'." - E.: "What do you want to say?" — S.: "I wanted to say what the first, second, and third words are." — E.: "So, what is the second word?" (Each time she shifts her glance to the corresponding square.) — S.: "I've told you—moet, isn't it clear!" — E.: "And the third word?" - S.: "Ruki." - E.: "And the fourth?" - S.: "Vodoj. You see?" — E.: "I see! How many words are there in all?" — S.: "There are four words"... Proceeding to the above-noted shifts in the action of the subjects, we found it possible already at stage I, earlier for the older children, and at the end for some of the younger children, to complicate the control questions. If at this stage as a control the younger subjects for the most part only reproduced the ordinal analysis, then we now required the rest of the children to give the words at random, in answer to the questions: "What is the second word?", "And what is the fourth word?", etc. Moreover, the child was acquainted beforehand with the method of such an analysis, by giving him the following instruction: "Say in a whisper all the words, pointing to the squares, and when you get to the necessary square, say out loud what word is on it." Furthermore, the method was shown to the child in an example. This method is especially good, because owing to it in the depths of the preceding stage there were gradually formed under easier conditions the prerequisites for the transition to the next stage (since in answering the control questions the analysis is carried out in a whisper and by pointing at the squares). The subjects to whom this method was shown, mastered it and, when answering the control questions, at this stage carried out the analysis according to the instruction in an expanded form. In the remark of one girl subject it appeared convincingly that it was the expanded form of counting in answering the control questions that corresponded here to the child's potentialities. KATJA N. (5;5). E.: "Papa rubit drova toporom 'Papa is cutting firewood with an axe'." (She repeats it.) "What is the first word?" (Each time, when she gives the word, she moves the corresponding square.) — S.: "Papa." — E.: "The second?" - S.: "Rubit 'is cutting'." - E.: "The third?" - S.: "Drova 'firewood'." - E.: "The fourth?" - S.: "Toporom 'with an axe'." - E.: "How many words are there in all?" - S.: "Four." - E.: "What is the third word?" (She is silent.) - S.: "I want to repeat everything from the beginning." (She repeats it, pointing to the corresponding squares.)—1—"Here is

37 papa", 2-"rubit", 3-"drova", 4-"toporom". - E.: "What is the third word?" - S.: "Drova." - E.: "The fourth?" - S.: " T o p o r o m . " - E.: "The first?" - S.: "Papa." In the following stages in the process of elaboration this method is mastered, is transformed into a shorter and more generalized action, and furthermore begins to be produced on higher levels (on the speech and 'for oneself levels). All these shifts in the course of the exposition will be specially noted by us. Both repetition and ordinal counting were actions quite well known to all of our children. Therefore, the child quickly began repeating independently the sentence and in the expanded objective action to answer adequately the questions about the word order in the sentence. In answering the question about the total number of words a more complex picture was observed. Its analysis reveals the peculiarities of the child's orientation on ordinal counting, which was used as a means for determining the total number of elements. Let us dwell on the nature of the relations between the ordinal and cardinal aspects of the analysis of the words. In a number of studies (in Soviet psychology: N.A. Mencinskaja, 1955, 1957; V.V. Davydov, 1957; N.I. NepomnjaScaja, 1956; and others) it is well known that a child can correctly answer the question about the number of objects ( h o w many?) only if there is for him. a connection between the last number of the objects being counted and the total number of these objects, i.e., if by the last ordinal number he implies the total number of countable objects. Already in the ascertaining experiment in the counting of objects we found that in answering the question "How many?", which was asked after the ordinal count was carried out by the child, in a number of cases our children again carried out an ordinal count, after which for the younger children there was required the repeated question "How many?", in order that the child would finally answer with a cardinal number. In the transition of the isolation of words an analogous picture was observed from the very beginning of the forming experiment. In carrying out the ordinal analysis, by the last ordinal number the young children could not give the number of words. In answer to the experimenter's question "How many words are there in all?", they again began to count the squares, i.e., they duplicated the ordinal analysis. Moreover, in the majority of cases, having duplicated the ordinal analysis, they stopped with this. The experimenter's repeated question "How many words are there in all?" was needed in order for the child finally to give the cardinal number. Such a picture obtained in a number of instances for the other children, with the one difference that they gave the resultant number without waiting for the experimenter's repeated question. Thus, for them, as opposed to the

38 younger children, there was already a quite stable connection between the last ordinal number, which was obtained in the process of the duplicating ordinal analysis, and the total number of countable elements. JURA I. (4;3). E.: "Cypljata kljujut zerna 'The chicks are pecking grain'." - S.: "You don't even have to write the letters!" - E.: "Well, tell me, what is the first word?" — S.: "Cypljata kljujut zerna." — E.: (I write on squares, giving each word, and place the squares in front of the child.)—"What is the first word? the second? the third?" — S.: (He moves each square with his finger.)-l-"Cypljata 'the chicks'", 2 - " k l j u j u t 'are pecking'", 3 - ' z e r n a 'grain'." — E.: "How many words are there in all?" — S.: (He again points to each s q u a r e . ) - l - " C y p l j a t a " , 2-"klujut", 3-"zerna." - E.: "How many words are there in all?" - S.: "Three." NATASA P. (5;0). E.: "Devocki igrajut 'The girls are playing'." (After the ordinal analysis of the squares.) "How many words are there in all?" (Pause.) "There are as many squares as there are words. Count them!" (Pause.) "How many squares are there?" — S.: "One, two." — E.: "Thus, how many squares are there?" - S.: "Two." - E.: "And how many words?" - S.: "Two." - E.: "Right, there are as many squares as there are words." Further in the course of the experiment there began to be encountered among the younger children cases when the child, in duplicating the ordinal analysis, isolates intonationally the last number as the resultant one and, in other cases, after the duplication of the ordinal analysis, gives by himself the resultant number without waiting for the repeated question. LJUSJA §. (4;10). E.: "Deti igrajut 'The children are playing'." (After the ordinal analysis on the squares.) "How many words are there in all?" — S.: (Pointing to the squares.)-"One, TWO!" The younger children (Jura I., Kolja M., Ira I.) remained on this level of cardinal analysis to the end of stage I. For the other children the process goes in two directions. A number of symptoms indicate that for a child there is gradually established a connection between the initial ordinal analysis and the determination of the total number of words. This is attested by the answers given immediately by cardinal numbers without duplication of the ordinal analysis, answers which all the children gave and which were dominant for the two oldest children (NataSa I. and Marina A.). LJUSJA §. (4;10). E.: "Deti lovjatrybu 'The children are fishing'." (After the ordinal analysis.) "How many words are there in all?" - S.: "Three." In one of the responses of Lida I. there also appeared a certain degree of realization of the connection between the ordinal count of the words and the resultant number. LIDA I. (4;8). E.: "Natasa kladet rybu v vedro 'Natasa is putting a fish in the bucket'." (Afterthe words are written on the squares.)—"The first word?" - S.: "Natasa kladet rybu v vedro." - E.: "Is Natasa-kladet 'is p u t t i n g ' -

39 rybu 'a fish'-v 'into'-vedro 'the bucket' all one word?" - S.: (By herself, pointing at the squares.) "Natasa is the first word, kladet is the second, rybu is the third, v vedro is the fourth." — E.: "Thus, how many words are there?" - S.: "Four." - E.: "What is the last word?" - S.: "V vedro is the fourth word"... There are also distinct cases when a child answers the question about the number of words on the basis of the ordinal analysis, without duplicating it, but, having answered, reproduces (duplicates) the ordinal analysis, as if for verification of the correctness of his answer. D 2 A M I L J A R . ( 5 ; 3 ) . E.: "Zoja moet ruki 'Zoja is washing her hands'." (She repeats it.) "What is the first word we will write on the square?" - S.: "Zoja" - E.: "And the second?" - S.: "Moet 'is washing'." - E.: "The third?" - S.: "Ruki 'hands'." - E.: "How many words are there in all?" - S.: "Three. See: one, two, three." In this case it is possible to suggest a transitional moment, when the child now begins to use the initial ordinal analysis in two ways: for determining the word order in the sentence and for determining their total number, but the child still needs to verify his result with a duplicating analysis. But along with these instances there were observed for our children variants, different in degree of expansion, of the duplicating ordinal analysis: loud counting, in the course of which the child moves the squares or points at them, whiskered counting, which is accompanied by fixing of a glance on the squares, and, finally, answering after a pause. ANJA S. (4;6). E.: "Papa prines dva vedra 'Papa brought two buckets'." (She repeats it.) "What is the first word?" - S.: "Papa." - E.: "The second?" - S.: "Prines 'brought'." - E.: "The third?" - S.: "Dva 'two'." - E.: "The fourth?" - S.: " Vedra 'buckets'." : E.: "How many words are there in all?" - S.: (She counts, pointing at each square.)—"One, two, three, four. Four!" DfcAMILJA R. (5;3). E.: " T e t j a pokupaet belyj xleb 'Auntie is buying white bread'. What is the first, second, third, fourth (word we will write down)?" (She moves the squares.) — S.: 1 —"Tetja 'auntie'", 2—''pokupaet 'is buying'", 3-'belyj 'white'", 4 - ' ' x l e b 'bread'." - E.: "How many words are there in all?" (Pause.) - S.: "Four." - E.: "And how did you find out?" S.: "Because I counted the squares. I did it this way (she points at each square with her head, pronouncing respectively): Tetja-pokupaet—belyj-xleb." All these variants of the duplicating ordinal analysis attest that under easier conditions (with a repeated reproduction of the ordinal analysis) for older children there are possible already here types of ordinal analysis which differ in reduction, all the way up to analysis for oneself in especially easy cases. Moreover, for the older children there already is, as a rule, a connection between the duplicating ordinal analysis and the determination of the total number of words. The duplicating ordinal analysis can be produced by them with a different degree of reduction, including for oneself.

40 On the other hand, there is for them already more or less a connection between the initial ordinal analysis and the establishment of the total number of words. As a result of the spontaneous, unrealized process of forming this connection for the children, in some cases the children give answers on the basis of the initial ordinal analysis, and in others can determine the total number of words only after having duplicated the ordinal analysis. In conclusion it is necessary to emphasize the fundamental importance of the fact that at both this and especially at the subsequent stages our subjects in a number of cases began by themselves, on their own initiative, to use more perfect means of analysis. Here an example of this is the children's shift to the independent repetition of sentences, and in some cases to the independent ordinal and cardinal analysis of the words constituting them, as well as the independent shift to more reduced means of analysis. Similar cases at this stage, and in the subsequent experiment, are evidence of the subjects' success in forming the action and an indicator of the improvements occurring for them in the content of the process. On the theoretical plane such instances are objective confirmation of the fact that the stages according to which we worked out the action of analyzing words, as well as the individual parameters of this action (mastery, shortening of the action), form a natural and regular chain in the formation of a child's action. Of course, the above-described shifts in the subjects' action in the direction of its speed, ease and independence are conditioned not only by the particular degree of their mastering of the scheme of the analysis, but also by their successes in mastering the criteria of the word which are given to them. The overall picture of the mastering of these criteria by the overwhelming majority of our subjects appeared in the following form. In the analysis of the first sentence, when after explaining the action with the squares the experimenter asked the subject what word should be written on the given square, our subjects gave answers typical for them also in the ascertaining experiment. Then the experimenter, pronouncing the words of the sentence distinctly and separately, wrote each of them on a square and placed these squares in succession in front of the subject, observing between them some interval, which created the spatial conditions for the maximum development of the subject's action. In this case our subjects (sometimes with the aid of the experimenter's semantic questions and clarifications), although slowly and not always firmly, nevertheless began, by working with the squares, by moving them, by pointing at them, to give correct answers to the experimenter's questions: "What is the first, second, third... (word)?", "How many words are there in all?" However, in the transition to the next, the second, sentence it was found

41 that a part of the children, and primarily the younger ones, had mastered the correct division only relative to the first example shown to them. There was still no generalization of the means of action given to them. When the experimenter, in giving the second sentence, asked what words should be written on the square, the child again reproduced the analysis typical for him in the ascertaining experiment. But after the experimenter had himself written the words on the squares, the child with more or less mistakes and difficulties, with more or less aid from the experimenter (semantic questions, clarifications of the features of the word) began in an expanded action with the squares to answer his questions. Beginning with the third sentence there is most frequently observed a greater or lesser degree of generalization of the means of action shown to the child: the child begins to carry out correctly and with increasing readiness the analysis of the sentence with reliance on the squares. But even here, especially for the younger children, there is possible a return to the division characteristic for the child in the ascertaining experiment; for the majority of children there still continue to be encountered different types of errors. Let us move on to a detailed analysis of the picture of the children's mastering of the criteria of the word. Above we distinguished a number of features characterizing the peculiarities of the child's orientation in the criteria of the word. Here belong the degree of correctness of the children's analysis, the nature of their errors, and the possible means of overcoming the errors. On the basis of the analysis of these features let us acquaint ourselves with how the formation of the child's orientation in the criteria of the word occurred at this stage. The important shortcoming in the formation for our children of the action of isolating words was the fact that we did not find the means of giving them the features of the word (1. A word is a sound aggregate; 2. A word always signifies something) in a materialized, externally existing form (for example, those written out on cards, etc.). These features were given to the children in speech form, and only the examples illustrating them were accompanied by actions with the squares, the series of which, thus, was a visual model of the sentence being analyzed. This model of the sentence appeared before the child as its stable, materially fixed scheme allowing expanded action with its elements (active ordinal and cardinal analysis, etc.), which was a necessary condition that assures the possibility of the child's analysis. But the fact that the very features of the word were not given to the child in a materialized form, to a certain extent induced him to master these features by attempts which are carried out on the basis of the preliminary example being formed. True, the 'scope' of these attempts was considerably restricted by the fact that the experimenter, each time the child made a mis-

42 take, explained to him the features of the word with appropriate examples and semantic questions, and it must be said that at this stage, particularly at the beginning, the experimenter had to give such explanations repeatedly. Objective evidence of the existence of such attempts are the mistaken answers which are encountered in the process of the child's analysis. By the nature of these errors it is possible to judge on which of the features the child is primarily oriented in the process of mastering the criteria of the word which are given to him. One must bear in mind that the errors can also be an indicator of the difficulties in the child's mastering of the scheme of action at a particular stage. But, as we will see, in the majority of cases they are primarily an expression of the peculiarities of the child's orientation in the criteria of the word: if they are an indicator of the difficulties in the mastering of the scheme of the action, they have for the most part a specific nature, which we will specially point out in all instances. In moving on to the analysis of the errors, let us first of all note that the mistakes, which include failure in isolating prepositions and conjunctions, were investigated by us in a special way; the data on these errors are not considered in the general tables. Since at this stage the process of analysis is frequently of a protracted nature (after the experimenter's explanation the child again tried to carry out the analysis and in the course of it made the old and new mistakes, etc.), in order to create the correct idea of our subjects' mastering of the action of analyzing words, we cite two tables. In the first of them (table 4) there is given the distribution of the sentences of the total number, which were given to each subject according to the following groups. 1. Errors connected with the relationship to the sentence as a unified situational whole: isolating as a word the sentence as a whole and isolating only the most objective words which are expressed by substantives. a) sentences which as a result were analyzed incorrectly, b) sentences which as a result were analyzed correctly. 2. Sentences which from the beginning to the end were analyzed correctly. In the second table (table 5) there is given the distribution of all errors encountered for our subjects according to the following categories. 1. Errors connected the relationship to the sentence as a unified situational whole: isolating as a word the sentence as a whole and isolating only the most objective words which are expressed by substantives. 2. Errors connected with isolating as words the intonational-semantic groups of the subject and the predicate. 3. Errors attesting to the dominance of a purely formal analysis: the isolation of syllables as individual words. 4. Errors which represent the omission of words, the replacement of the

43 TABLE 4. The Quantitative Correlation of the Sentences Analyzed Sentences Analyzed Correctly at Stage I (in % of the total number of sentences)

with Errors and the

Sentences, in the course of whose analysis mistakes and errors were encountered

o

J!

5/5

°i >.72

•a .5

3

C

e3

o H

z

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Jura I. (4 ;3) Kolja M. (4;5) Anja S. (4;6) Ljusja S. (4;10) Ira I. (5;2) Dzamilja R. (5;3) Tanja S. (5;3) Katja N. (5;5) VovaM. (5 ;6)

7 8 7 7 7 7 8 8 8

10 11 12 13 14

Lida I. (4;8) Natasa P. (5;0) VasjaK. (5;4) Marina A. (5;10) Natasa I. (6;1)

7 7 6 7 7

U N ~M

O H

-

43 50 41 71 28 57 12 25

-

-

-

14

29 71 66 42 29

43 71 66 71 29

-

-

29 -

-

29 -

43 50 41 100 28 57 12 25

— .2 c » c « fli O vi o S'3 t i e ?S w a ? 57 50 59 -

72 43 88 75 100 57 29 34 29 71

sentence by the preceding one or the replacement of the word with another one taken from the preceding sentence (perseverance), the replacement of a word by its synonym; transposition of the word to a position in the sentence, which is not characteristic of it (inversion). In the cited tables the children are divided into two groups. To the first group (No. 1 - 9) belonged the children in whose sentences prepositions and conjunctions were not included (at this stage Jura I. was also among these children). To the second group (No. 10 - 14) belonged the children for whom the isolation of prepositions and conjunctions was being treated at this stage. From table 4 it is evident that the number of sentences which were immediately analyzed correctly, in the first group is clearly greater than in the second (if we do not consider the data for Ljusja S.), while for some of the older children it is close to one hundred percent.

44 The difficult task given to the children of the second group results in that even the analysis, which is carried out with the experimenter's aid and in a maximally expanded manner, with reliance on external means, entailed for the child different types of errors. However, it is characteristic that as a result of the experimenter's clarifications almost all of the children in the final analysis, as a rule, carried out the experiment correctly, although there are observed cases of the child's 'getting stuck' in his error. TABLE 5. Distribution

of the Subjects' Errors at Stage I

Subjects

a 3 O M o 1

M 1) o C 0> c %

l-H £

8 c o g s o G

3 o H

¿2 "o V3"o VI

7 8 7 7 7 7 8 8 8

2 2

£ 3 C

aIH > •o

Categories of errors

c vVI 0) n D. u cd •o G O t/> cd o * .5 3 vi £o ha o o G y _g G O t O 73 'R •a c M 2 e o "o G vi . p s G t-l O O •J-.G t-l > GJ

OH

C/3

-

1

2 -

-

-

1 6 3

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

1 3 - 1 - 1 1 -

2 2 4 2 1 1 1

2

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2

-

1

-

-

-

1

-

-

1

- 4 1 -

-

*H

0> .£> E 3 G

G 4>

3 « ° 8 2 S


2c eo 0) o

l"g

S'a t? ed B.-3 V 60

o o.

•2 Kg

•S

>•.2 « .a "3 a E 5 u C •c S

•a Z Si 13 u S 5 .5, 0) G •C O

17

66 75

en

7 7

6 4 4 5 2

°

o

100 40

5.2 > u

60

100

11 o H 83 75 100 100 100

0) O - O-Tl g Sfi S 5.2C 8.2 M 17 25

third?" - S.: "Na dereve 'in the tree'." - E.: "Na dereve is two words." (I write the words down on squares.) "Na 'in' is a separate word. It says that the squirrel is sitting in the tree, and not near or under the tree. Thus, what is the third word we wrote?" - S.: "Na dereve." - E.: "Where is the squirrel sitting? Na dereve 'in the tree', na vetke 'on the branch', na zemle 'on the ground'. All the words change, but NA remains the same. This is a little separate word. What is the third word we wrote?" (Pause.) "The third word is na, and the fourth is dereve 'tree'. Well, what is the word we have on the first square? the second? the third? the fourth?"-E.: 1 -"Belka", 2-"sidit", 3-"na", A-"dereve." It is characteristic that at the beginning of the experiment the children, even the older ones, carried out the isolation of the preposition or the conjunction with tension, pauses, and with little confidence. However, by the end of this stage their actions had already become freer. Single explanations, and in some cases even fragments of the experimenter's explanations (semantic questions, examples, assertions), begin to help them. Let us note that our oldest subject, NataSa I., already in the second sentence, which contained a preposition, isolated it correctly, although not entirely distinctly.

51

50 25 50 40 -

17

_

-

-

50

-

-

-

50

-

Total of sentences with explanations

17 50 50 60 50

Disapproving remarks (of the type: "Wrong!")

6 4 4 5 2

Fragments of explanations

1 2 3 4 5

Once expanded explanations

Repeated expanded explanations

Lida I. (4 ;8) NatasaP. (5;0) Vasja K. (5;4) Marina A. (5; 10) Natasa I. (6;1)

Number

Subjects

Sentences with prepositions and conjunctions

TABLE 7. The Quantitative Correlation of the Experimenter's Explanations, which Differ in Degree of Expansion, with Regard to the Isolation of Prepositions and Conjunctions (The data are cited as percentages of the total number of sentences containing prepositions and conjunctions.)

83 75 100 100 100

E.: "Na stole stoit vaza 'On the table stands a vase'." (She repeats it.) "What is the first word we will write?" - S.: "Ny." - E.: "What is the first word?" - S.: "Na 'on'." - E.: "The second word?" : S.: "Sto." E.: "Is this really a word here? What does it say?" — S.: "No, it isn't a word." - E.: "So what is the second word?" - S.: "Stole 'table'." - E.: "The third word?" - S.: "Stoit vaza 'stands a vase'." - E.: "How many words is that?" - S.: "Two." - E.: "The third word? fourth?" - S.: 3-"Stoit 'stands'", 4 "vaza 'i vase'." - E.: "What are the words here?" - S.: (She points to the squares.)— 1 —'Wy... na", 2-"stole", 3-"va... stoit", 4-"vaza." - E.: "How many words are there in all?" - S.: "Four." - E.: "The first one?" - S.: "Ny ... na." - E.: "The third?" - S.: "Stole." - E.: "Think!" - S.: "Stoit." Thus, the task of isolating the prepositions and conjunctions confronts the child with additional, at times considerable difficulties. However, by the end of stage I it gradually appeared that these difficulties were activizing our children. The action begins to be carried out by them in a considerably more animated manner than by the children of the first group, for whom by the end of stage I and subsequently throughout the entire experiment it proceeds more calmly, monotonously, and without special animation and interest. The animation and interest of the children of the second group sometimes appeared not only in their behavior, but also in the verbal statements of some of them. Two such statements are encountered with Vasja K., and in one instance N A T A S A I. (6;1).

52 he even tries to reproduce the experimenter's explanation. But as opposed to the cases which we will encounter at the subsequent stages, here the strictly verbal nature of his reproduction is evident. VASJA K. (5;4). E.: "Natasa igraet na stole 'Natasa is playing on the table'." (He repeats it.)-"What is the first? second? third word we will write down?" - S.: \-"Na... Natasa", 2-''igraet 'is playing'", 3 -"na stole 'on the table'. Not under the table, not near the table, but na stole 'on the table'." E.: "Na stole is one word?" - S.: "Yes. Is that right?" - E.: "No. Na stole" - S.: "It's two words! But I thought you said the word properly! Na stole is one word, and not letters. Well, all right, it's two words!" (Explanation of NA according to the methods.) - E.: "What is the first word?" - S.: "Na-ta-sa." - E.: "Natasa." (I place the square in front of him.) "What is the second one? third one?" - S.: (He takes the squares himself.)-2-"/graef", 3-"na stole." - E.: (I point to each s q u a r e . ) - \ - " N a t a s a " , 2-"igraet", 3-"na", 4 - " s t o l e " . Show me now what words are here." - S.: (He points.)-l-'W.

•«-> Vi

u


In the final analysis correctly analyzed

Sentences, in the course of whose analysis mistakes and refusals are encountered

then three mistakes in a sentence. In repeating the analysis after the experimenter's clarification the child either corrects some mistakes, but then makes others, or repeats these mistakes. In addition, somewhat later he may correctly analyze analogous sentences. Apparently, in some cases when repeating the same sentence which is sufficiently difficult for the child there appear phenomena of overextreme inhibition, as a result of which the child as it were 'grows dull' with respect to this sentence. The answers of the children in the ordinal analysis after designating the words on the squares are, as a rule, correct. The answers to the questions of the cardinal analysis ("How many words are there in all?"), being derived from the ordinal analysis, are correct in this experiment for all the children. Only in individual cases are there encountered incorrect answers, which are easily corrected in the transition to the expanded counting of the squares.

69 TABLE 10. Distribution of the Errors of the Subjects at Stage II (Action with the Aid of Squares) Categories of errors

o s Subjects

" o S

| a, 2 c§

jo S z 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

§ c

S g Kolja M. (4;5) Anja S. (4 ;6) Ljusja S. (4; 10) Ira I. (5;2) Dzamilja R. (5;3) Tanja S. (5;3) Katja N. (5;5) Vova M. (5;6)

8 6 14 7 7 7 8 7

Jural. (4;3) Lidal. (4;8) Natasa P. (5;0) VasjaK. (5;4) Marina A. (5; 10) Natasa I. (6;1)

12 14 14 11 13 13

6 V S S l c S S a o o e e o 'S äo 3 5 S S

Total Errors

-a c

S V ^ - o s ° .£ g & * S o B> o ° c e o c g S g o O .2 > O "S ac '5 i S Î » 8 | 8 J £

-

1

-

-

-

5

1

-

-

-

-

_ _

_ -

4 _ -

1 _ 1 -

2 2 3 2 1 4

2 1 4 1 1 1 2 1 -

1 2 2 5 -

I

« g 5j c .2 ? s

-

-

1

-

-

4

1 -

_ 1 -

_ -

6 1 1

1 1 2 2

2

-

E C 2 s | o = £ 2 ~ 3 ^ oc 2 S £ 2

S.S "3 c ? 5 c.s,

m 2 3 Z

O O C r - M e l - i £ t*> n ,5 o .5 o

O H

12 14 14 11 13 13

80 38 58 71 45 43

1 2 3 4 5 6

5 II

J u r a l . (4;3) Lida I. (4;8) NatasaP. (5;0) Vasja K. (5;4) Marina A. (5; 10) Natasa I. (6;1)

5 13 12 7 9 7

20

_

— -

11 —

~ « 6 6 .2 ~ C °

u 2 J= « »8 VI >>.2

•O pS o« .° 25 , 32 o oC c c c o

"3 c c? «.a,

., S « tt> s> o rs

60 38 58 71 34 43

-a

u» 28 .

pl

« .C 2 onS.S 20 62 42 29 55 57

NATASA P. (5;0). E.: "AM/a sidela na stole 'The doll sat on the table'." (She repeats it.) "What is the first word we will write down?" - S.: "Ku." - E.: "What does the word KU say? What is the first, second, third word?" - S.: 'the doll'", 2-"sidela 'sat'", 3 - " n a stole 'on the table'." (A 1 -"Kukla detailed explanation of NA 'on' according to the methods.) - E.: "What is the first, second, third word?" - S.: 1 -"Kukla", 2-"sidela", 3 (a very long pause)-"na stole." - E.: "Is na stole one word or two?" - S.: "Two." - E.: "What is the first, second, third word?" - S.: \-"Kukla", 2-"sidela", 3-"na stole." — E.: "You just said that na stole is two words. Think it over well." (I repeat the sentence.) "What is the first, second, third, fourth word?" — S.: 1 -"Kukla", 2-"sidela 'sat'", 3 - " n a 'on'", 4 - " s t o l e 'the table'." - E.: "That's right! What is the second word?" (Pause.) - S.: "Sidela." - E.: "The third? the fourth?" - S.: 3-"Na", 4 - " s t o l e . " In the course of the experiment it was found that the child gradually begins to deal differently with conjunctions and prepositions. Namely, he begins to isolate conjunctions more easily than prepositions only on the basis of the question of the experimenter, who reminds him that a conjunction is an independent word, or even independently.

76 TABLE 12. The Quantitative Correlation of the Experimenter's Explanations, which Differ in Degree of Expansion, with Respect to the Isolation of Prepositions and Conjunctions in the Experiment with Squares (Stage II) (The data are cited as percentages of the number of sentences containing prepositions and conjunctions.)

•a G P.

X)

a

Subjects 9 c V 3 ~ C a? A

X O S

o s

40

40 23 25 42 22 14

c

_

17 -

11 -

katajutsja

go.

a a

Ó-P 20 8 33 42 22 28

na lyzax

80 46 58 71 33 42

15

' V o l o d j a and

Katja are riding on skis'. What are the w o r d s ? " (She repeats them.) "What is the first one we will write down? the second? third? fourth? fifth?" - S.: 1 "Volodja", lyzax

2 - " / 'and'",

'on skis'." -

preposition NA 3—"Ljuba",

3 - " L j u b a " , 4 - " k a t a j u t s j a 'are r i d i n g ' " ,

5-"na

E.: " I s na lyzax really one w o r d ? " (Explanation o f the

' o n ' according t o the methods.) -

A—"katajutsja",

5 - " n a " , 6-"lyzax

S.: 1 -"Volodja",

'skis'." -

2-"/'",

E.: " H o w many

words are t h e r e ? " - S.: " S i x " . . . The children master the isolation o f prepositions somewhat more slowly than conjunctions, but in this respect unquestionable progress is observed during the experiment. First o f all, with an incorrect isolation it is most frequently sufficient f o r the experimenter t o reproduce individual fragments o f the clarification (a semantic question, an appropriate example, or a short statement), while in individual cases ( f o r Lida I . ) even simply t o evaluate negatively an incorrect result ( " T h i n k ! " , " W r o n g ! " , etc.) is sufficient f o r the child t o correct the mistake. is dropping a letter into the mail b o x ' . What is the first, second w o r d ? " - S.: \-"Volodja", next?" -

l-'opuskaet

'is dropping'." -

S.: " P i s ' m o ' l e t t e r ' . " -

mail'. R i g h t ? " mail b o x ' ? " -

E.: " N o ! " -

E.: " V - p o c . . . " -

E.: "What should be written

E.: " N e x t ? " -

S.: "Vpoctovyj

S.: " T h e n what? Vpoctovyj

jascik

'into the 'into the

S.: "A-ah! VY [ = v 'into'], y o u write VY, I

77 guessed!" - E.: "Next?" - S.: " P o c t o v y j 'mail'." - E.: "And then?" - S.: "jascik 'box'." - E.: "How many words are there in all?" - S.: "Six. Right?" - E.: "And what is the third word?" - S.: (He whispers, moves the squares.) -"Pis'mo." - E.: "What is the fourth one?" - S.: "Poctovyj." : E.: "Think, what is the fourth one?" - S.: "That means it's this way." (He moves the squares, whispers.)-l-"Fo/oc?/a", 2 - " o p u s k a e t " , 3-"pis'mo." (Out loud.) "VY, VY\" For some subjects we observed individual instances when the child, in carrying out the division incorrectly, still clearly vacillated and made a longer pause before slurring the preposition together with the substantive. In other instances, but in this experiment still rarely, in beginning to make the division incorrectly, the child then remembered and made the division correctly. LID A I. (4;8). E.: " Vitja i papa sidjat za stolom "Vitja and papa are sitting at the table'." - S.: "I forget!" (I repeat the sentence, the child also repeats it.) - E.: "What is the first, second, third, fourth word (we will write down)?" - S.: 1 -"Vitja", 2-"i ' a n d ' " , 3 - " p a p a " , 4-"sidjat za stolom 'are sitting at the table'." (She quickly remembers.) 4 - " S i d j a t 'are sitting'", 5 "za...sto...za 'at'", 6 - " s t o l o m 'the table'." NATASA P. (5;0). E.: " N a d j a idet v skolu 'Nadja is going to school'. What are the words?" (She repeats them.) "What is the first, second, third word (we will write down)?" - S.: l-"Nadja", 2 - " i d e t 'is going'", 3 (without confidence, after a long pause.)-"v skolu 'to school'." (Explanation of V 'in, to' according to the methods.)-E.: "What is the first, second, third, fourth?" - S.: \-"Nadja", 2-"idet", 3-"VY[=v]", 4-"v skolu." (After the explanation.) 1 -"Nadja", 2 - " i d e t " , 3 ~ " V T \ 4 - " s k o l u 'school'." Consequently, for the children there was formed on the basis of the experimenter's explanations a definite idea of the word, which, being actualized under the influence of the experimenter's remarks, and in other cases without a stimulus from outside, helped him to control and in some cases to correct the obtained result. The concluding stage in the formation of the isolation of prepositions and conjunctions is their independent isolation by the child in the action with the squares from the very first. Above we already noted that the majority of children for approximately the second half of the experiment, as a rule, carry out such an isolation successfully. Moreover, for all the children without exception there are observed in greater or lesser number instances when the child, in the process of isolation or even before the isolation, still in the repetition of the sentence, isolates the preposition or conjunction emphatically with his voice. Such reactions of the child, which attest to the formation for him of an independent and active orientation in speech, arise somewhat earlier in the course of the action; then there appear reactions which anticipate the child's action and which thus make it possible for him to emphasize, to isolate be-

78 forehand with his voice the element of speech reality given to him and thereby to note it especially for himself, having in mind the analysis. It is characteristic that in all the instances of isolating the preposition or conjunction with the voice the child carries out the isolation of these categories of speech correctly and with sufficient ease. Consequently, relying on the notions formed for him about speech reality and the word, the child begins by himself to orient himself in speech reality and especially actively in the elements of this reality which give him trouble, similar to how he was oriented in this reality by the more or less expanded explanations of the experimenter. NATASA I. (6;1). E.: "Deti igrajut v poezd 'The children are playing train'." - S.: "Deti igrajut VY poezd." - E.: "What is the first, second word (we will write down)?" - S.: "De-ti 'the children'", 2 - " / . " - E . : "What word is that?" (I repeat the sentence.) - S.: "Igrajut 'are playing'." - E.: "Well, start from the beginning." - S.: 1 -"Detf\ 2-"igrajut", 3 - V ' [lit. 'in', not translated into English-trans.], 4 - " p a r a v o z 'steam-engine'." NATASA P. (5;0). E.: "Mal'ciki i devocki ucatsja v skole 'The boys and girls are studying in school'. What are the words?" - S.: "Mal'ciki i devocki ucatsja VY skole." - E.: "What is the first, second (word we will write)?" S.: "Mal'ciki 'the boys'", 2-"/' devocki 'and the girls'"... - E.: "How many words is i devocki?" (Pause.)—1''Mal'ciki i devocki means the boys along with the girls. I 'and' is a separate word." (I repeat the sentence. Then I ask in succession what word should be written on the next square.) - S.: 1—''Mal'ciki"", 2—"/ devocki." (She remembers.) "7", 3 - " d e v o c k i " , 4-"ucatsja 'are studying'", 5 - " F Y [ = v 'in']", 6 - " s k o l e 'school'." - E.: "How many words are there?" - S.: "Six." Especially interesting is the example of the advanced isolation of a preposition by Jura I., the only example for him in this experiment. In analyzing one of the last sentences Jura I. especially notes for himself among the other words the preposition, he hastens to isolate it, and then this preposition continues to dominate in his consciousness, blocking out all other words. JURA I. (4;3). E.: "Skol'niki ucatsja v klasse 'The school children are studying in the classroom'." (He repeats it correctly.) "What is the first word we will write?" - S.: "VY[=v 'in']"(!). - E.: "Who is studying?" - S.: "Skol' niki 'the school children'." E.: "Let's write down the word skol'niki. And what are they doing?" - S.: "Playing." - E.: "Really?" - S.: "Ucatsja 'are studying'." — E.: "Here we have the word ucatsja. And what is the third word?" - S.: "Skola 'school'"(!). (I repeat the sentence clearly.)-E.: "What is the third word?" — S.: " V klasse 'in the classroom'." — E.: "The third word is V 'in', and the fourth is klasse 'classroom'. Let's write it down. How many words are there in all?" - S.: (He counts, pointing with his finger.)-"One, two, three, four. Four words." - E.: "What is the second word?" - S.: "VY."

79 - E.: "No, V is the third word." - S.: (By himself he points in succession to the squares.) 1 -"Skol'nikf', 2-"ucatsja", 3 - " V T \ 4 - " v klasse." - E.: "Are you tired?" — S.: "No, I want to do more!" Finally, in this experiment for the older children special attention to the conjunction or the preposition, externally fixing them with the voice, becomes unnecessary. The isolation of a preposiion or conjunction ceases to be a difficult case for the child, and in the action with the squares he carries out the correct isolation quickly and without particular vacillations. MARINA A. (5;10). E.: "Deti sidjat za stolom 'The children are sitting at the table'." (She repeats it.) "What is the first word? The next one? (etc.)" S.: \-"Deti 'the children'", 2-"sidjat 'are sitting'", 3 - " z a 'at'", 4-"stolom 'the table'." - E.: "How many words are there in all?" - S.: "Four." - E.: "What is the second one?" - S.: "Sidjat." - E.: "And the third?" - S.: "Za." Thus, we see that for the older children there is already in fact an orientation on the prepositions and conjunctions as independent words. However, an obvious realization both of the very fact of orientation and of the criteria from which the child proceeds in the course of it, are still absent here. Nevertheless, there are already in this experiment isolated instances which attest to the child's attempts to participate more actively and consciously in the action, to better understand for himself the bases for isolating the specific, especially difficult word, etc. Thus, in one example in a direct statement of Jura I. it appeared that with respect to a specific instance he was already beginning to separate the word from the object, to realize the independent existence of the word. J U R A I. ( 4 ; 3 ) . E.: "Mama prinesla spelye visni 'Mama brought ripe cherries'. What words did I say?" - S.: "What is this spelye 'ripe-bad?" (I explain.)-E.: "What words did I say?" (He repeats them correctly. I write them down on squares, saying each word. I place the squares in front of the child.) —E.: "Show me the first word." — S.: (Pointing to the appropriate square.)— "Mama. Here are the cherries in the picture." (He points.) "These are the cherries in the picture, but where is the word visni 'cherries' written?" — E.: "Here, on this square. Here mama is written, and here is visni. And what is the second word?" -S.: "Prinesla 'brought'." - E.: "And the third?" - S.: (He points.)—'"Spelye 'ripe'." — E.: "Right. How many words are there in all?" - S.: (He points in succession.)-"One, two, three, four." : E.: "How many are there?" — S.: "Four." In analyzing one of the sentences Marina A. breaks in on the experimenter's explanation and appropriately cites her own example. M A R I N A A. (5;10). E.: "Papa rabotaet na zavode 'Papa works at the plant'." - S.: "Papa rabotaet NA zavode." - E.: "What is the first word we will write down? The next one? (etc.)" - S.: 1 -"Papa", 2-"rabotaet 'works'", 3 - " n a 'at'", 4-"zavode 'the plant'." - E.: "Right, NA is a separate word. Na sluzbe 'at work', na katke 'at the skating rink'..." - S.: "NA

80 fabrike 'at the factory'." - E.: "Right, all the words change, but NA remains. NA is a separate little word. It says that papa is working not near the plant nor close to the plant, but at the plant itself." We will see that at the next stage the manifestations of the child's activity and independence are not limited to his participation in the experimenter's explanation, but go much further. Finally, for Vasja K. there are two instances of verbally stating that the isolated element is an individual word. In one case such a statement takes place after the analysis which is accompanied by a clarification of the experimenter. In the other case the statement is made by the child in the process of the ordinal analysis and entirely independently (in this and the three preceding sentences the experimenter did not explain the features of prepositions and conjunctions). After the statement the child, in isolating the preposition with his voice, correctly singled it out. Let us cite the second of these examples. V A S J A K. ( 5 ; 4 ) . E.: "Nadja kormit cetyrex kuripetuxa 'Nadjais feeding four hens and a rooster'." (He repeats it.) "What is the first word we will write?" — S.: "Nadja-kormit 'is feeding'—petuxa 'a rooster'. Three words, right?" - E.: "No!" (I repeat the sentence.) - S.: "Nadja-kormit... Cetyrex kur 'four hens'-write it. Right?" - E.: "No!" - S.: "Cetyrex 'four'-write it, and then kur 'hens'." - E.: "And the next one?" - S.: "/ 'and'-it's a separate word!" - E.: "What are the words?" - S.: (He moves the squares.)-"The first is Nadja, the second is kormit, the third is cetyrex, the fourth is kur, the fifth is I, the sixth is petuxa"... In one case this subject actively and persistently attempts on the basis of a concrete example to understand what an individual word is, even interrupting his analysis for this purpose. As a result he himself cites the bases for the correct isolation of the concrete word. This example is also interesting because from the very beginning, even before the ordinal analysis, the child begins to discuss the preposition, and further in the repetition isolates it with his voice. But doubts about the correctness of the isolation of another word prevent him from carrying out the analysis successfully. V A S J A K. (5;4). E.: "Kukla sidit na stole 'The doll sits on the table'." - S.: "Not POD 'under' the table, but NA 'on' the table." (I repeat the sentence.) "Kukla sidit NA stole."—E.: "What is the first word we will write on a square?" - S.: "Ku." - E.: "Who is sitting on the table?" - S.: "Ku-kla 'doll'." - E.: "Is there such a word as KuT' (Pause. I write the word kukla) — S.: "This is two words: Ku-kla\" — E.: "A word always speaks about something. What does the word KU speak about? What does the word KLA speak about? There is a word KUKLA." - S.: "All right, it's one word." (I repeat the sentence,)-E.: "What is the second word?" - S.: "Na stole 'on the table'." - E.: "The first word we have written down is kukla, and what is the

81 second?" - S.: "Na stole" (I repeat the sentence.) - E.: "What is the first word?" - S.: "Kukla." - E.: "The second?" - S.: "NA 'on'." (Recalling.) "Is ku-kla two words?" - E.: "It's one word. Kukla. Here is the doll." (I point to the picture. Pause.) — S.: "Right. In nursery school we say KUKLA, and not KU and KLA\" - E.: "Here we have the word kukla." - S.: "Then there is sidit 'sits'." (I write it down.) "And then there is na stole." - E.: "Na 'on'—stole 'the table'." — S.: "A-ah! Now you write NA, then you write stole. Right! There are four words in all!" (He counts, moving the squares.) "One, two, three, four"... The reasons cited by Vasja K. for isolating a word reveal the extreme limitation of a preschooler's generalizations in his explanation of the reason, a limitation which has already been noted a number of times in the literature (A.N. Gvozdev, 1961b; A.V. Zaporozec, 1948b; A.A. Ljublinskaja, 1948, 1954, 1959). The child, as is evident from the last remark of Vasja K., in explaining the reason, limits himself to reference to a narrowly concrete example: "...in nursery school we say KUKLA, and not KU and KLA\" The meaning for the child of such reasoning is indicated by the fact that after this example for Vasja K. there is encountered in this experiment only one case when he pronounces the word by syllables, but he isolates it as an entire word. Let us note that in the first group, for which the isolation of prepositions and conjunctions was treated, we did not encounter similar developments with regard to the active and conscious orientation in the action being formed. When the experimenter asked some of the children of the first group questions which required the reproduction of the criteria of the word, the answers of these children, although attesting that the child was in general following the path indicated to him by the experimenter, at the same time showed his low level of realization of the criteria of the word which were given to him. given to him. IRA I. (5;2). E.: "Papa kupil detjam novye udocki 'Papa bought the children new fishing poles'." (She repeats it.) "What is the first word we will write on a square? the second? third? fourth?" - S.: 1 -"Papa", 2-"kupil 'bought'", 3 - " d e t j a m 'the children'", 4 - " n o v y e 'new'"... - E.: "Why is novye a separate word?" - S.: "Because it's a different word and then the fishing poles were in the store." Let us now examine the errors characteristic for the children of the second group — division of words into syllables. There should first be noted the considerable decrease of their number in comparison to stage I. At stage I these mistakes constituted more than a half of the total number of sentences given to the child. In this experiment they occur in isolated instances. Moreover, they are then encountered in only one word of the sentence being analyzed and no longer have a stable nature, they

82 do not require expanded explanations, as in the preceding experiment, but, as a rule, are easily corrected with the aid of the experimenter's leading question. Thus, positive improvements in the mastering of the criteria of the word on the basis of more complex material are observed in this case as well. And in the experiment with the squares the child most frequently begins to divide into syllables the word following a preposition, which thus functions as an inducing stimulus. In other cases the child, apparently owing to the arrangement formed for him, begins to divide into syllables the first word of the sentence. It is not difficult to notice that in all cases of division into syllables the child is quite passive; his action is governed by the material given to him. When having difficulty understanding the meaning of a preposition or conjunction, he imperceptibly falls under the sway of natural articulatory division, which does not require of him any intellectual efforts, and begins to divide words into syllables. Precisely because of this, as in the preceding experiment, here the division of words into syllables is of a purely formal nature: the syllables being isolated are in no way understood by the child. He isolates them, having fallen under the sway of the rhythm of the word. If the experimenter asks the child a question about the elements of the word which are being isolated, the child answers more adequately than in the preceding case and quickly corrects his mistake. LID A I. (4;8). E.: "Katja kataetsja na kon'kax 'Katja is riding on ice skates'." (We write the words down on squares.) "What is the first, second, third, fourth w o r d ? " - S . : 1 -"Katja", 2 - " k a t a e t s j a 'is riding'", 3-"na 'on'", 4~"kon'...kax." - E.: "How many words is kon'-kaxT' - S.: "It's two words." - E.: "Does the word KAX say something? What is KAXV' - S.: "It's half of the word kon 'kax 'ice skates'." — E.: "If it's half, then this is not a word." - S.: "Na kon'kax"... - E.: "show me what the words on the squares are!" - S.: \-"Katja", 2-"kataetsja", 3-"na", A-"kon'...kax, kon'kax." It should be noted that for our oldest subject, Natasa I., in two cases of dividing words into syllables there can still be seen an attempt to relate more actively to the isolation of words, an attempt to comprehend an isolated sound as a conjunction. N A T A S A I. ( 6 ; 1 ) . E.: "Ira i Katja igrajut v mjac 'Ira and Katja are playing ball'." (She repeats the sentence.) "What is the first, second, third, fourth word?" - S.: l - " / r a " , 2 - ' 7 'and'", 3-"Katja",4-'T\.. - E . : "What is the word here?" - S.: "Igrajut 'are playing'." - E.: "And what is the fifth word?" - S.: "Vmjac lit. 'in ball'"... In conclusion let us cite a few more typical examples of dividing words into syllables. LID A I. S.: "Za-sto" (E.: Vitja i papa sidjat za stolom 'Vitja and his papa are sitting at the table').

83 NATASA p. S.: (E.: Kukla sidit na stole 'The doll sits on the table'). VASJA K. S.: "S de-re-va (E.: Belka sprygnula s dereva 'The squirrel jumped from the tree'). NATASA I. S.: 'We (instead of Na)" (E.: Nadja kormit kur i petuxa 'Nadja is feeding the hens and the rooster'). The above-cited analysis makes it possible for us to draw a few conclusions with regard to the nature of the orientation of our children in the criteria of the word. First of all there should be noted the improvements in the means by which it is possible to organize or correct the child's orientation in speech reality. As opposed to stage I, for the children of both the first and the second groups repeated expanded explanations in the case of a mistake are no longer necessary. Single expanded explanations are still necessary for the younger children, and also to children of the second group, but they begin to be supplanted all the more by the experimenter's reactions, which are only fragments of clarifications, but sometimes are also simply a disapproving remark concerning the result obtained by the child. Further we see that the initiative in correcting a mistake begins to shift to the subject. The successive features of such a transition are traced in special detail for the children of the second group, whose orientation in speech reality is of an especially expanded and externally borne nature. At first the child, having reached in the process of the analysis a word that causes him difficulty, interrupts his action in uncertainty. But after a pause he nevertheless isolates the word for the most part incorrectly. If he understands the gesture or glance of the experimenter, which indicates his negative attitude toward the result obtained by the child, the child, having controlled his action, corrects the mistake. In rare instances the child, having incorrectly carried out the isolation, then recalls and corrects his mistake. Finally, only for the children of the second group (for whom the isolation of prepositions and conjunctions was treated) do there appear cases when the child, in the process of isolation and sometimes before it, isolates intonationally the words causing him difficulty, pronouncing them more loudly and intensely, which ensures the correctness of his further analysis. All of these instances attest to the increasing perfection of the child's active independent orientation in speech reality, a perfection which results in most instances in the correct isolation of all the words in a sentence. However, in spite of the existence of an actual orientation in speech reality, even for children of the second group there is not, as a rule, a clear realization and reflection in speech of the fact of orientation and of the criteria of the word, from which the child proceeds. There are only isolated instances of the child's speech formulations which indicate certain improvements in his consciousness in this respect. Thus, in this experiment the nature of the orientation changes increasingly

84 in the direction of its independence and thereby there are opened the possibilities of the child himself controlling the results of his action. The orientation of the children of the second group begins to have not only a more independent, but also a more active nature than the orientation of the children of the first group. The quantitative and qualitative analysis of the errors of the subjects enables us to establish the direction of their orientation in this experiment. It must first be noted that for all the children, including the youngest, there completely disappear the mistakes which signify a direct, situational relation to the content of the sentence (giving the sentence as a separate word). This implies that speech reality is now already consistently distinguished by them as a special activity which differs from objective reality. True, for the youngest subjects there are still errors which attest to an orientation on the objective components of the situation reflected in the sentence (isolation of only the subject and object of the action). But, in passing over such a transitional form of analysis in the experiment with the squares, at the end of the experiment these children have decidedly gained a foothold in the isolation of words as elements of speech reality, although the different variants encountered in the answers of the omissions of words, their replacements by others, and instances of transpositions of words to positions not characteristic for them still attest to the difficulties experienced by them. In this experiment the older children, in their action, differentiate speech reality from objective reality. Characteristic for them, especially at the end of the experiment, is the correct analysis of the greater part of the sentences. Among their mistakes the weaker variants of the mistakes of the fourth category dominate: replacement of a word by its synonym, its inversion, i.e., mistakes which indicate certain difficulties of the child, especially in analyzing more abstract words, but which no longer give one grounds to believe that the child, in performing the task given to him, has difficulty in isolating the word as an element of speech reality. Consequently, the children's orientation on the criteria of the word has here a more perfect nature than in the preceding experiment. Its vacillations for the younger children decrease. Its stability for the older children increases. When introducing prepositions and conjunctions into the sentences given to the children, in the first half of the experiment the quality of the child's action decreases somewhat: the number of mistakes increases; the mistakes of the fourth category begin to have a more crude nature (the child omits and replaces with other words not only the more abstract categories of words, but also substantives). In the course of the experiment the number of instances of dividing words

85 into syllables, which is evidence of the child's orientation of the formal, intonational-rhythmic aspect of the word, decreases. There is an increase in the correctness of the isolation of prepositions and conjunctions, while the mistakes made are corrected all the more easily. Consequently, the orientation of these children begins to have a broader and more adequate nature in comparison to the children of the first group. Such categories of words as prepositions and conjunctions are included in its scope. What is the correspondence between the direction of the child's orientation and its nature (the degree of independence, reduction, and activity)? In the conclusions about stage I we have already noted that repeated, expanded clarifications are required if the child's orientation is of an inadequate nature. The psychological meaning of such explanations is that in the course of controlling the results obtained by the child the experimenter organizes the child's active orientation in speech reality. With the formation for the child of an adequate orientation as an effective means aiding the child to correct his mistake, fragments of the clarifications (semantic questions, appropriate examples) begin to appear. A condition of influencing the child who has made a mistake by fragments of the expanded clarifications is the existence for him of notions about the object of the actions - the word. On the basis of these notions the experimenter can organize a combined control with the child over his action, and in this action of control a greater role begins t o belong t o the child. With the subsequent formation for the child of a stable orientation on the criteria of the word, which is reflected in the still greater decrease in the number of errors and in the shifts in the direction of their weaker variants (synonyms, inversions), there is a change in its nature and the means which induce the child to correct his mistakes. Namely, it becomes possible in some cases to influence the child with evaluative remarks ("Wrong!", " N o ! " , "Think!", etc.), which, without clarifying anything for the child, nevertheless induce him at this level of development of orientation to control by himself the result he obtained. In some cases a gesture or even a disapproving glance of the experimenter appears in this role. Then control of the action finally shifts t o the child. This is reflected in the pauses before especially difficult variants of the action, in cases when having made a mistake the child recalls and corrects it, etc. But for this experiment such cases are no longer characteristic. In this experiment it already appears that the organization of the broader orientation of the child in the material being analyzed (the introduction of prepositions and conjunctions into the sentences being given t o him) not only makes the child's orientation more expanded and externally borne, but also imparts to it a more active and dynamic nature. Proceeding from the improvements observed in the course of this exper-

86 iment in the action of our children, we shifted them to analysis with the aid of objective supports which designated words in a generalized manner, to analysis with the aid of plates.

b) Analysis with the Aid of Plates. As we have already noted when describing the methods, the action with the plates was presented to the child in three successive variants. At the beginning of the experiment with the plates the child, in carrying out the analysis, moved the plates by turns. Then we gradually shifted him to a shorter, reduced means of action, in which, when carrying out the analysis, he was only to point at them with his finger, and in conclusion it was suggested to him that in the analysis he only fix his glance on them. Beginning with the experiment with the plates, we continued to treat the isolation of prepositions and conjunctions only for three of our subjects: Jura I. (4;3), Lida I. (4;8), and VasjaK. (5;4). As a result of this the experiment with the plates was characterized by a difference in the quantity and quality of the sentences presented to the various subjects. The subjects of the first group, into whose sentences prepositions and conjunctions were not introduced, each analyzed from 18 to 31 sentences. The subjects of the second group, for whom the isolation of prepositions and conjunctions had been treated, analyzed from 40 to 53 sentences, which were distributed among the variants of the experiment depending on the success with which a particular variant proceeded. For Lida I. and Vasja K. prepositions and conjunctions were included in almost every sentence. For Jura I. only occasional attempts were made in this experiment at isolating prepositions and conjunctions, and therefore of the 40 sentences presented to him only in seven were prepositions and conjunctions included. In moving on to the peculiarities of mastering the action in this experiment, let us first note that the connection 'plate—word' is established immediately for the majority of children and remains stable throughout the experiment. But for some of the children certain difficulties are encountered in establishing this connection. Sometimes, especially at the beginning of the experiment, there are observed for the younger children tendencies to manipulate the plates, to play with them, which is the reflection of a definite break between the action with the plates and the action with words; however, for the most part this manipulation occurs already after the analysis is carried out by the child. J U R A I. (4;3). E.: "Mal'ciki delajut bol'soj samolet 'The boys are making a big airplane'." - S.: (He repeats. Then he moves the plates.)-1 -"Mal'ciki

87 'the boys'", 2~"delajut 'are making'", 3 - " b o l ' s o j 'big'", 4-"samolet 'airplane'." (He points with his finger.)-"One, two, three, four." - E.: "That means there are four words. And what is the third word? You remember how you did it — say the first and second words in a whisper, and then the third one out loud." (I repeat the sentence. In a whisper, pointing in succession with his finger.) - S.: 1 -"Mal'cikt"', 2-"delajutr (Out loud.) "Bol'sojl" (He builds with the plates.) "I can make a window!" It must also be noted that for the youngest children in such a relatively independent action as the action with the plates there appears the special task of arranging them properly. The first time when analyzing they place the plates not from left to right, but the other way around, or in general they move them together, so that it is necessary to specially demonstrate and explain to these children the order of arranging the plates. On the other hand, for some of our subjects, especially for Jura I. and Ljusja there appeared a definite dynamics of the relations between the action with the plates and the action with words. At the beginning of the experiment there is observed for them a certain gap between the action with the plates and the action with words. In answer to the question: "What is the first, second, third... (word)?", the child quickly pulled the appropriate plate and only then, often with some intensity, gave the appropriate word. The numbers 'first', 'second', etc., were related by tae child to the plate, he counted the plates perse. He named the word after the action with the plate. In this case the child realizes the counting of the plates as an independent action, and then, now with some difficulty using this counting, as a means for isolating the words. In the course of the experiment, in answer to the same questions the child begins to pull the plate and at the same time to give the word; sometimes, by the end of the experiment he even initially gives the word and only then pulls the plate. In the first case the counting of the plates has now become a means of analysis, and later (if the child initially gives the word and then pulls the plate) this counting is transformed mainly into a means of fixing the results of the analysis of the words, a means opening possibilities for controlling the results of the action. It should be noted that the analysis with the aid of the plates initially served as an additional stimulus for the shift of the child of the second group to the division of words into syllables. We observed analogous examples and in a much greater number in our preliminary study, when we tried to make easier for our children the analysis of words by introducing the plates into their action (by-passing the preliminary introduction of concrete supports — the squares — into the action). However there, as opposed to the experiment being formulated here, division into syllables was overcome with great difficulty or not overcome at all.

88 It can be conjectured that the generalized external supports (the plates) direct the child's orientation primarily to the formal — phonetic and intonational-rhythmic — aspect of speech reality. Hence with the vagueness for a child of the notion of the word, especially under the complicated conditions of the experiment (the introduction of prepositions and conjunctions into the sentence given to the child), the use of plates in the analysis of the sentences facilitates the child's shift to the isolation of syllables. JURA I. (4;3). E.:"Segodnja idet sil'nyj dozd"Today there is heavy rain'." — S.: (He repeats it correctly. He moves the plates.)—\—"Segodnja 'today'", 2—'idet 'there is'", 3-"sil'nyj 'heavy'", 4 - " d o z d ' 'rain'. One, two, three, four plates." -- E.: "And how many words?" — S.: (He points to the plates.) —1—"Se", 2-"go", 3-"dnja", 4-"(", 5-"det", 6 - "sil'nyj", l~"dozd\" E.: "Show me the words on the plates." — S.: (He moves the plates.)—1 — "Segodnja", 2 - " i d e t " , 3-"sil'nyj", 4-"dozd'. Four"... The difficulties experienced by the child in the shift to a more generalized form of action — the analysis with the aid of the plates, are sometimes reflected in his direct statements. For example, Vasja K. in dividing the first sentence tries to refuse the plates and to shift to analysis with the aid of his fingers. VASJA K. (5;4). E.: "Deti zapasajut drova na zimu 'The children are storing firewood for the winter'." (I repeat it twice. He moves the plates.) — S.: 1 "Deti 'the children'", 2-"zapasajut 'are storing'", 3 - " d r o v a 'firewood'", A-"na 'for'", 5-"zi", 6-"mu" - E.: "Wrong!" (I repeat the sentence. He silently immediately pulls several plates. Then moving them.)—S.: 1 -"Deti", 2—"zapasajut", 3 - " d r o v a " , 4-"na", 5 ~ " z i " , 6 - " m u . I can't do it with the plates and that's all." — E.: "Na zimu 'for the winter' is how many words?" - S.: (He runs his finger across the t a b l e . ) - l - ' W a " , 2-"zi", 3"mu. Three. Right?" - E.: "No!" - S.: "No, this is hard, Give me a different one!" Later, in the middle of the experiment, having had difficulty in isolating the preposition, he suddenly begins again to demand the squares. VASJA K. (5;4). E.: "Utjata guljajut v pole 'The ducklings are walking in the field'"... - S.: (He moves the plates.)-l-"i/i/tfta 'the ducklings'", 2 "guljajut 'are walking'", 3-"v pole 'in the field'. Right?" - E.: "Think! V pole, v lesu 'in the woods', v sadu 'in the garden'. Where are they walking? V 'in' is a little separate word." — S.: "Then write it for me! I want it written!"... But it must be said that in the forming experiment these difficulties are characteristic only for the very beginning of the experiment (mainly the first two or three sentences). Later all our children successfully master the action with the aid of the plates. In the absence of an anticipating action with the squares, as was the case in

89 our earlier study, the connection 'plate—word' was far from always evident for the child and in some cases (at an earlier level of the child's development) was not established at all, and the child substituted for the action of the analysis the manipulation of the plates, while in other cases (at later and higher levels) it was established with certain, at times considerable, difficulty. A sufficient degree of mastery by our subjects of the scheme of the analysis appears in this experiment primarily in the adequacy of their answers to the experimenter's appropriate questions. The experimenter's prompting, leading questions, i.e., questions with the help of which the experimenter correctly directed the action of the subject at stage I, are now encountered here in isolated instances and only for the youngest children. For example, in answer to the control questions in the first variant of the experiment Jura I. in two instances has to be reminded of the method of analysis in a whisper, since he has shifted to a repeated reproduction of the ordinal analysis. But later he uses this method without difficulties. But soon there arises in this experiment the possibility of a still greater simplification and shortening of the experimenter's questions concerning the action of the analysis, than in the experiment with the squares. The questions "What words did I say?", "What is the first, second, third...(word)?" are, as a rule, not needed here. At the beginning of the experiment the experimenter still asked during the ordinal analysis: "Show me on the plates what the words are?", "What is the first word?" (the child now isolated by himself the rest of the words), etc. But then these questions also become unnecessary, and in the overwhelming majority of cases the child independently repeats the sentence; then in the course of the experiment instances begin to dominate when the children, without repeating the sentence, immediately shift to its ordinal analysis, i.e., on their own initiative they shorten their action. The ordinal analysis in the overwhelming majority of cases was also carried out by the child without inducements on the part of the experimenter. Even in the first variant of the experiment with the plates the children most frequently carry out the ordinal analysis by themselves, without waiting for the experimenter's questions. Moreover, as opposed to the preceding stage, the ordinal analysis is carried out by the child, as a rule, not partially independently, in a combined action with the experimenter, but completely independently. IRA I. (5;2). E.: "Vova ocen' ljubit krasivye cvety 'Vova likes very much the beautiful flowers'." — S.: (Without repeating, she pulls the corresponding plates and s a y s . ) - l - " K o v a " , 2 - " o c e n ' 'very much'", 3-"ljubit 'likes'", 4 "krasivye 'beautiful'", 5 - " c v e t y 'flowers'." (After the repeated analysis in answer to the experimenter's question: "How many words are there in all?", she counts the plates, pointing to each one.)—"There are five words in all." More gradually, and in a number of cases only with the aid of the experimenter, the child is able to shift to an independent cardinal analysis.

90 There are instances when the child still does not carry out the cardinal analysis independently, but if the experimenter asks him a leading question, he immediately gives the resultant number. KOLJA M. (4;5). E.: "Lenocka ljubit pit' moloko 'Lenocka likes to drink milk'." - S.: (He repeats it. He looks at the plates in order.)-"The first word is Lenocka, the second is ljubit 'likes', the third is pit' 'to drink', the fourth is moloko 'milk'." (Pause.) - E.: "And what else did you forget?" — S.: "To count—there are four words!" Later it becomes sufficient to look at the child in order for him to remember and give the resultant number. TAN J A S. ( 5 ; 3 ) . E.: "Deduska pilit drova stal'noj piloj 'Grandfather is cutting firewood with a steel saw'." — S.: (She repeats it. Further, looking at the plates, she analyzes it.)-"The first word is deduska 'grandfather', the second is pilit 'is cutting', the third is drova 'firewood', and the fourth is stal'noj 'steel', the fifth is piloj 'saw'." (Pause. The experimenter looks at the girl.) "A-ah! There are five words in all!" In some cases it can be noted that although the child still does not give the resultant number himself, he does expect the experimenter's appropriate question and is prepared to answer. K A T J A N . ( 5 ; 5 ) . E.: "Utrom deti delajut zarjadku 'In the morning the children do exercises'." - S.: (Drawing the plates to herself in succession.)\-"Utrom 'in the morning'", 2-"deti 'the children'", 3-''delajut 'do'", 4 "zarjadku 'exercises'." (She again counts the plates, she looks expectantly at the experimenter.)-E.: "How many words are there in all?" - S . : "Four!"... Finally, primarily now in the third variant of the experiment with the plates, the children all the more frequently begin immediately after the ordinal analysis to give by themselves the resultant number. V O V A M. ( 5 ; 6 ) . E.: "Lenocka ljubit pit' teploe moloko 'Lenocka likes to drink warm milk'." (Looking at the corresponding plates, he analyzes it.) — S.: "The first word is Lenocka, the second is ljubit 'likes', the third is pit' 'to drink', the fourth is teploe 'warm', the fifth is moloko 'milk'. There are five words in all!"... In table 13 there is presented the distribution of the independent answers of our subjects and their omissions of repetitions. It must be emphasized that in the experiment with the plates the increase of the child's activity and independence in the process of the analysis is especially striking. The action itself with the plates opens broad possibilities for such activity and independence, since, as distinct from the action with the squares, it is to a much greater extent the child's own action. The increasing activity and independence of the child are an indicator of his ever more perfect mastering of the scheme of the action. The child's gradual mastering of the scheme of the analysis, which initially opens possibilities for transforming the experimenter's questions from direct

91 TABLE 13. The number of Independent Answers of the Subjects and of their Omissions of Repetitions at Stage II, Action with the Aid of Plates (in % of the total number of sentences) Repetition

Subjects £ 3

z 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Jura I. (4;3) KoljaM. (4 ;5) Anja S. (4;6) Lida I. (4;8) Ljusja S. (4;10) NatasaP. (5;0) Ira I. (5;2) Dzamilja R. (5;3) Tanja S. (5;3) Vasja K. (5;4) Katja N. (5;5) VovaM. (5;6) Marina A. (5;10) Natasa I. (6;1)

2 Sp

«

•ga. gs o e3 J5 ««

O

•h eO o ,e —

.2 >>

° o " g

3 S?

o § " 10o

>> 2 S.g

•as sS ®-2, « •C SO Î3 o

O

H 71 25 48

71 25 48

J= - § c . c S -2 2 t» c O % S tiC — U^ 1 41 m( n — a.SS 29 75 52

As is evident from this table, Lida I. immediately divides correctly three quarters of the sentences containing prepositions and conjunctions. Vasja K. immediately divides correctly a little more than half of the sentences with prepositions and conjunctions. The data for Jura I. indicated that in isolating the prepositions and conjunctions he still experiences considerable difficulties. In the analysis of the results it appears that even after making a mistake the children correct it in all cases with the help of the experimenter and, as a rule, no longer repeat it in answering the control questions. What type of help from the experimenter do the subjects need in the experiment? In order to clarify this question let us cite table 17, in which are reflected the quantitative correlations of the experimenter's explanations which differ in degree of expansion. From the cited table it is evident that for correcting an error that has been made the child requires either once repeated expanded explanations or even only fragments of such explanations: a semantic question, examples, a short

107

statement. In some cases a disapproving remark ("No!", "Think!", "Wrong!", etc.) can help the older children. TABLE 17. The Quantitative Correlation of the Experimenter's Explanations, which Differ in Degree of Expansion, with Regard to the Isolation of Prepositions and Conjunctions in the Experiment with the Plates (Stage II) (The data are cited as percentages of the total number of sentences containing prepositions and conjunctions.)

V ) C O 'tn

O O. 0t-i >

Subjects

•O

S 3 Z

1 2 3

Jural. (4;3) Lidal. (4;8) VasjaK. (5;4)

•a cea a x 0) -a o vi « e o o 0--T1 « § S-3

u •a crt o, X c. •o U „ 2o a"> cd

sx M c •c ^o 1 oc f/i uo 'c31 c oo c4) c ed

£O u*

o 2

7 36 44

-

71 17 18

co a) C O.

X c ia

11 18

E

oi00 c '>

sa>l -P eS

oM

aa. «

5 12

71 25 48

As the analysis of the material shows, the once repeated explanations are required for the child primarily at the beginning of the experiment, a sufficient stability of the child's action is not immediately achieved, and in the course of the action it is necessary to resort to additional, although more reduced, explanations. LIDA I. (4;8). E.: "Zajac sprjatalsja ot lisy pod kustom 'The rabbit hid from the fox under a bush'." - S.: (She repeats it correctly. She moves each plate.)-1 -'Zajac 'the rabbit'", 2- 'sprjatalsja 'hid'", 3 , 4 - " o t lisy 'from the fox'", 5 - " p o d 'under'", 6 - " k u s t o m 'a bush'." (She again puts one plate back.)—"Pod kustom." - E.: "Let me write the words on squares, and you say what to write." (We write down on the squares.) - S.: \-"Zajac", 2— "sprjatalsja", 3 - " o t lisy" - E.: ( E x p l a n a t i o n . ) - " ^ lisy, ot volka 'from the wolf, ot medvedja 'from the bear'. Ot 'from' is a separate little word." (We write down on the squares.) - S.: 3 - " O t " , 4-"lisy 'fox'", 5-"podkustom 'under a bush'." - E.: (Explanation.)-"Under what did it hide? Pod kustom, pod derevom 'under a tree', pod stolom 'under a table', pod stulom 'under a chair'. There are two words here. The second one changes, but the first one — POD 'under' — remains. It shows that the rabbit did not hide on the bush or above the bush, but POD 'under' it." - S.: 5 - " P o d " , 6-"kustom." - E.: "Repeat what the words on the squares are." - S.: 1 - " Z a j a c " , 2-"sprjatalsja" 3 - " o t " , 4—"lisy", 5 - " p o d " , 6-"kustom." - E.: "What is the second

108 word?" - S.: "Of lisy." - E.: "Think!" - S.: "The second? Sprjatalsja." E.: "And the fifth?" - S.: (Pause. She whispers while moving the plates.)— "Pod." By the end of the experiment with the plates the experimenter can now limit himself to fragments of explanations or even to a disapproving remark which negatively evaluates the result obtained by the child. However, even in the third variant of the experiment instances are encountered when the experimenter's disapproving remark alone does not help the child to correct the mistake: in order for him to correct it, it is necessary to turn to short explanations. Let us cite an example when the experimenter's disapproving remark helped the child to correct an error. VASJA K. (5;4). E.: "Po zemle polzet zuk 'Along the ground crawls a beetle'." - S.: (He repeats it. He points at each p l a t e . ) - 1 - ' T o zemle 'along the ground'", 2 - " p o l z e t 'crawls'", 3-"zuk 'beetle'." - E.: "Wrong, think!" - S.: (He points at each p l a t e . ) - 1 - ' T O 'along'", 2 - " z e m l e 'the ground'", 3-"polzet", A—"zuk." In conclusion it is possible to infer that the importance of the experimenter's reduced remarks for the child's correction of his mistake increases in this experiment relative to the preceding one. Of still greater interest is the analysis of the subjects' own reactions which are connected with the isolation of prepositions and conjunctions. The child's correct isolation of prepositions and conjunctions is in a number of cases conditioned precisely by the features of these reactions. Among the subjects' own reactions we first of all find the cases already known from the last experiment, when the child begins to carry out the isolation of a preposition or conjunction incorrectly, but then recalls and corrects his mistake. VASJA K. (5;4). E.: "Tolja na zemle risuet dom 'On the ground Tolja is drawing a house'." - S.: (He points at the plates.)-l-"7o//Vz", 2 - " n a zem... na 'on'", 3 - " z e m l e 'the ground'", A-"risuet 'is drawing'", 5 - " d o m 'a house'." - E.: "How many words are there?" - S.: "Five." - E.: "What is the third word?" - S.: "Tolja-na-zemla-risuef... - E.: "What is the third word?" - S.: "Tolja-na-zemle... Zemle. Right?" Such cases, in contrast to the preceding experiment, are encountered here several times for each child. Also frequently encountered are the cases already known to us from the preceding experiment, when the children emphatically isolate with their voice the preposition or conjunction, noting in this manner the word that is difficult for them. Such isolation with the voice of the elements of speech reality that are most difficult for the child invariably ensure their correct isolation. It must be said that isolation with the voice of the words causing the child difficulty occurs at this stage only in the process of isolating. For Lida I. and Vasja K. it is encountered in only one case each, when the child is isolating a

109 word with his voice prior to the division, realizing in this manner the preliminary planning of his action, which had been put aside. Such manifestations of the child's active orientation in speech reality, which ensure the correctness of his analysis, are encountered here for Vasja K. in more than half of the sentences analyzed by him, and for Lida I. in approximately a third of them. For Jura I. such cases are isolated. JURA I. (4;3). E.: "Xoroso igrajut mal'ciki s devockami 'The boys play well with the girls'." - S.: (He moves each plate.)—1 -"Xoroso 'well'", 2 "igrajut 'play'", 3—"mal'ciki 'the boys'", 4 - " s devockami 'with the girls'." (Expanded explanation of the preposition S 'with' according to the methods. He moves each p l a t e . ) - ] - " X o r o s o " , 2-"igrajut", 3 "mal'ciki", 4—"v 'in'... but why not VY [=v]?... s 'with'", 5-"devockami 'girls'." (By himself! He moves the p l a t e s . ) - l - " X o r o s o " , 2-"igrajut", 3 - " S ' \ A-"mal'ciki", 5-"s devockami." (Recalling.) - 1 -"Xoroso", 2-"igrajut", 3-"mal'ciki", 4-"S"', 5 - ' d e v o c k a m i " . . . - E.: "What is the fourth word?" - S.: (Whispers, then out loud.)—"5 devockami." - E.: "Take a look the way you should, what is the fourth word?" - S.: (Once again he counts in a whisper.)-"5!" Finally, two of the older children in a number of sentences, sometimes quite complicated ones, immediately, without fixing the prepositions and conjunctions externally with the voice, correctly isolate them. LIDA A. (4;8). E.: "Papa citaet gazetu, a Vitja i Van/a igrajut v saxmaty 'Papa is reading the newspaper, while Vitja and Vanja are playing chess'." (I repeat it twice. Each time she repeats it correctly. She moves the plates.) — S.: I- "Papa", 2-"citaet 'is reading'", 3-"gazetu 'newspaper'", 4-"a 'while'", 5-"Vitja", 6 - " z 'and'", 1-"Vanja", 8-"igrajut 'are playing'", 9 "VY [=v 'in', not translated into English-trans.]", 1 0 - " s a x m a t y 'chess'." E.: "Everything is right! How many words are there?" — S.: (She counts the plates out loud.)—"There are ten words! We haven't taken that many before!" — E.: "What is the third word?" — S.: (Pointing at the plates, she whisp e r s . ) - " ^ ! " - E.: "No, that's wrong!" - S.: "Why not?" (Pause. She whispers)~"Gazetu\" - E.: "Right. What is the sixth word?" - S.: "The sixth? Just a minute." (She counts in a whisper, moving the plates a little.)—"/!" All these cases attest that for the older children the actual orientation on prepositions and conjunctions becomes all the more stable and extensive. Very soon these cases begin to interact closely with instances of another type, which are striking for their expressiveness and brightness. As we already said, in explaining the cases that were difficult for the children we gave them a number of examples which included the word giving the child trouble in different sentences, and further we explained to him in an elementary fashion the meaning of the given word. Here the experimenter tried to stimulate the child's activity by asking him the appropriate questions, asking him to cite examples, to substantiate his division, etc.

110 At first the child answered shyly, with tension and irrelevantly. If he tried to substantiate his division, then he did so quite helplessly. Beginning in the middle of the second variant of the experiment with the plates both for Lida I. (beginning with the ninth sentence) and for Vasja K. (beginning with the eighth sentence) there arise without the inducement on the part of the experimenter a great number of verbal reactions which attest to their ever more realized mastery of the criteria of the word, to the ever more conscious use of these criteria in the difficult case for the correct organization of his action. Thus, there appear for the children questions concerning the words that caused the difficulties; in some cases even questions having the aim of understanding the concept of the word. Sometimes these children argue with the experimenter concerning the correctness of a particular isolation. Finally, when there are difficulties in the analysis (primarily difficulties in analyzing prepositions and conjunctions), these subjects begin for their own benefit to reproduce aloud the features of the word that were given to them earlier, reinforcing them with their own examples. It is important to emphasize that as a result of such active and conscious attempts to understand the essence of the matter the isolation is carried out by the child, as a rule, without mistakes. For Lida I., in the course of the experiment with the plates there are 29 such verbal reactions. For Vasja K. we have 18 verbal reactions. Such verbal reactions are not observed at all for Jura I. in this experiment. LIDA I. (4;8). E.: "Leva polivaet cvety iz lejki 'Leva is watering the flowers from a watering-can'." — S.: (She repeats it correctly. She moves the plates.)-l-"Leva", 2-"polivaet 'is watering'", 3 - " c v e t y 'the flowers'", 4 "iz... lejki... iz 'from'", 5-"lejki 'a watering-can'. I forgot, I said iz lejki. It is possible to say iz lejki, iz vedra 'from a bucket'." - E.: "Right, iz stakana 'from a glass', iz caski 'from a cup'." — S.: "One can say iz kruzki 'from a mug'. Everything is said differently, but IZ remains." E.: "Tri pticki sidjat na provode 'Three birds are sitting on the wire'." (She repeats it correctly.) "What is the first, second, third, fourth, fifth word?" S.: (Moving the p l a t e s . ) - l - " 7 n 'three'", 2-"pticki 'birds'", 3-"sidjat 'are sitting'", 4—"na 'on'... You see, you can say na dereve 'in the tree', NA remains all the same", 5—"provode 'wire'." — E.: "How many words are there?" — S.: (She counts out loud, pointing with her finger.)—"One, two, three, four, five. Five words." In spite of the fact that the speech reactions of each of the children examined by us bear the imprint of some distinctiveness, a fundamental similarity is easily discerned among them. Let us analyze the speech reactions of the children from the viewpoint of THE DEGREE OF THEIR INDEPENDENCE, THE CONTENT OF THE STATEMENTS AND THE POSITION which each occupies in the child's statements in the process of analyzing the corresponding sentence.

Ill From the viewpoint of THE DEGREE OF INDEPENDENCE the reactions of the children can be divided into those which are directed right at the experimenter's address and, consequently, appear as a manifestation of the child's action together with the experimenter, and into the reactions which are the child's independent arguments concerning the case causing him difficulty. The instances of action together with the experimenter on the child's initiative are represented in variants which differ according to the degree of the child's independence. The smallest degree of independence is expressed in that the child himself begins to break into the experimenter's explanation, cites his own examples, or takes up the experimenter's formulation. After such a combined discussion he corrects his mistake without difficulty. VASJA K. (5;4). E.: "Misa upalsgory 'MiSa fell from the hill'." - S.: (He moves each plate.)- I-"Misa", 2-"upal 'fell'", 3 - " s gory 'from the hill'. There are three words in all!" - E.: "Is s gory really one word?" (I accompany the explanation with action with the plates.) "Where from? S dereva 'from the tree', s krovati 'from the bed', S is a separate little word. All the words can be changed, but S remains." - S.: "Sgorska] 'from the pot!" (He moves each p l a t e ) - \ - " M i s a " , 2 - " « " , 3 - " p a l " , 4 - " s 'from'", 5 - " g o r y 'the hill'." - E.: "What did Misa do?" - S.: " U - p a l . " (I repeat the sentence. He moves each plate.) - S.: 1 -"Misa", 2-"upal", 3 - " s g o r y . " - E.: "How's that, for S is a little word!" - S.: (Hastily, he moves each plate.)-l—"M&", 2-"upal", 3-"S", 4-"gory." Beginning with the second variant of the experiment with the plates the child's reactions in the action together with the experimenter begin to bear a more independent, reduced, and generalized nature. After hearing a number of the examples cited by the experimenter, the child interrupts him, formulates a conclusion relative to the concrete word, and subsequently easily corrects his mistake, intonationally emphasizing in the process of the analysis the preposition or conjunctions being isolated. VASJA K. (5;4). E.: "Misa xodit v novom pal'to 'Misa is wearing a new overcoat'." - S.: (He points at each plate.)—"The first word is Misa, the second is xodit, the third is v novom [xodit' v 'to wear'] 'new', the fourth is pal'to 'overcoat'." - E.: "V novom lit. 'in new', v starom 'in old'." - S.: "A-ah! V is a separate word." (He looks at each p l a t e . ) - l - " M i s a " , 2-"xodit", 3 - " F " , 4 - " n o v o m " , S-"pal'to." - E.: "How many words are there in all?" - S.: "Five"... A still greater degree of the child's independence is manifested in the case when he begins to ask the experimenter questions concerning the words being isolated. There questions in the overwhelming majority of instances concern the isolation of prepositions and conjunctions, as well as of the elements of the word, which the child takes for these parts of speech (we will dwell in de-

112 tail on the last case when we move on to the analysis of the division into syllables in this experiment). But there are also encountered questions concerning other parts of speech. VASJA K. (5;4). E.: "Rebjata katajutsja s gory 'The children are sledding from the hill'." - S.: (He moves the p\ates.)-l-"Rebjata 'the children'", 2 "katajutsja 'are sledding'", 3—"s gory 'from the hill'." (Explanation of S 'from' according to the methods. He moves the p l a t e s . ) - l - " R e b j a t a " , 2— "katajutsja", 3 - " s go... A-ah!", 3 - " S 'from'", 4- "gory 'the hill'", 5-"na sankax 'on sleds'." - E.: "(Is na sankax one word?" - S.: "No!" (He adds another plate.) — E.: "Show me again!" — S.: (He moves each plate.)— I—"Rebjata", 2—"katajutsja", 3 - " S " , 4 - " g o r y " , S-"NA ' o n ' " , 6 - " s a n k a x 'sleds'." In some cases the child even enters into a discussion with the experimenter, wishing to investigate more deeply the bases for the isolation of particular elements of speech as words. LIDA I. (4;8). E.: "Lenja upalsgory 'Lenja fell from the hill'." - S.: (She points at each plate.)-1 -"Lenja", 2-"upal 'fell'", 3 - " s gory 'from the hill'." — E.: "Wrong!" (Explanation of S 'from' according to the methods.) — S.: "SY [=iS] is a letter, and not a word!" (She indecisively moves aside the fourth plate. Explanation: I juxtapose S 'from', V 'in', / 'and'. Conclusion: this means there are words consisting of one letter.) VASJA K. (5;4). E.: "Kotenok xocet kusat' 'The kitten wants to eat'." S.: (He moves each phte*)—I—"Kotenok 'the kitten'", 2 - " x o c e t 'wants'", 3—"kusat' 'to eat'. I can say how many words there are." — E.: "How many?" - S.: "Three." - E.: "And what is the third word?" - S.: (He points at the plates, whispers.)—"ATMsai'. Right?" - E.: "Right." - S.: "Kotenok xocet kusat'. Is kotenok one word?" - E.: "Yes." - S.: "Is xocet one word?" - E.: "Yes." - S.: "Is kusat' one word?" - E.: "Yes." - S.: "Is ko-te-nok many letters?" — E.: "Each word is written with letters, but a letter says nothing. (I write.)—Kotenok. See, there are many letters, but instead you read the word: kotenok. That's what they call this little animal." (I point out the kitten in the picture.) In one case'the polemic of Vasja K. assumes a more complex form of argument about the individual word in general, without any relation to the example presented to him. VASJA K. (5;4). E.: "¿eltye cypljata kljujut zema 'The yellow chicks are pecking grain'." - S.: (He moves the p l a t e s . ) - l - " ¿ e l t y e 'yellow'", 2 - " c y p l jata 'chicks'"... "And what is a separate word 1 Magazin 'store'. Is IN a separate word?" (The experimenter's explanation follows.) Finally, in a number of cases the child no longer asks, does not doubt, but, having encountered a difficult example, more or less verbosely discusses the words being isolated and as a result carries out the correct isolation. The child's independent arguments arise primarily and most frequently with regard to the isolation of prepositions and conjunctions. LIDA I. (4;8). E.: "Deti sprjatalis' v salas ot dozdja 'The children hid in

113 the hut from the rain'." (Pause.) — S.: "I forget!" (I repeat the sentence. She points at the plates.)-l-"Z>efz 'the children'", 2-"sprjatalis' 'hid'", 3-"v sal... v 'in'", 4-"salas 'the hut'", 5-"OT 'from'... You can say OT volka 'from a wolf, OT medvedja 'from a bear'"... — E.: "Right! They hid from something!" — S.: "They were frightened by a dog and hid 0 7 " f r o m ' the dog. The last word is (pause) dozdja 'rain'." It is characteristic that the active orientation, having arisen originally with regard to prepositions and conjunctions, is further generalized by the child and carried over to the other parts of speech. Therefore, for these children we have not only a great number of different speech reactions which are connected with the isolation of prepositions and conjunctions, but also a series of statements relative to the other parts of speech. LID A I. (4;8). E.: "Papa stoit okob novoj masiny 'Papa is standing by the new car'." (I repeat it twice. She repeats it correctly. She moves the plates.) — S.: 1 -"Papa", 2-'stoit 'is standing'", 3 - " o k o b 'by'. Okob is a separate word. You can say okob cvetov 'by the flowers',okob okna 'by the window', okolo doma 'by the house', okob dveri 'by the door', okob dereva 'by the tree'." A-"Novoj 'new'", 5-"masiny 'car'. Novoe is a separate word. You can say novyj tramvaj postroili 'they built a new trolley'." At the experimenter's request the child can argue in an expanded fashion, true, still with some help from the experimenter, the correctness of his isolation. V A S J A K. ( 5 ; 4 ) . E.: "Po stene polzet muxa 'Across the wall crawls a fly'." — S.: (He starts to point at the plates, he is stopped. He bends his fingers.)— 1 -"Po stene 'across the wall'", 2 - " p o l z e t 'crawls'"... - E.: "Think, what is the first word?" - S.: (He looks at the plates.)-'To 'across'-stene 'the wall'polzet 'crawls'-muxa 'a fly'." - E.: "How many words are there?" - S.: "There are four words." — E.: "Po stene 'across the wall'—what else can you say?" - S.: "Po potolku 'across the ceiling', po polu 'across the floor', po kryse 'across the r o o f . " - E.: "Right. All the words change"... - S.: "But PO 'across' remains. If there were the cards, it would be easier for me." — E.: "What cards?" - S.: "Well, the ones that are written on, some little word!" (About the squares.) For both Lida I. and Vasja K. there are speech reactions of a different degree of independence. But for Vasja K. two thirds of his reactions are a manifestation of an action together with the experimenter, and among them questions about concrete words or their elements predominate. For Lida I., on the other hand, two thirds of the reactions are independent arguments concerning the isolation of words, which are accompanied by a series of examples or the reproduction, in confirmation of her analysis, of a series of examples. However, as we saw above, the manifestations of an action together with the experimenter are characterized by an increase of the child's activity and independence in the process of the experiment.

114 Now let us turn to THE CONTENT OF THE STATEMENTS of Lida I. and Vasja K. According to the features of the content there can be isolated for both children the following groups of speech reactions. The first group of speech reactions, which is dominant for Vasja K. and constitutes a quarter of the reactions of Lida I., is connected with the conclusion "This is a separate word". Here Lida I., having encountered a difficult word, draws the conclusion "This is a separate word", and then cites a number of examples. Thus she reproduces the concluding part of the experimenter's explanation. The first part of his explanation—"All the words change, but such-and-such remains"— is only implied here. LIDA I. (4;8). E.: "Natasa i Katja igrajut v mjac 'NataSa and Katja are playing ball'." - S.: "Where is NataSa in the picture?" - E.: "Here is Natasa, and here is Katja." - S.: (She moves the p l a t e s . ) - l - ' W a t a s a " , 2 - " / 'and'. This is a separate word. We say: I Katja 'and Katja', I Svetlana 'and Svetlana'. Here we have I Katja", 2 - " / " , 3-"Katja", A-"igrajut 'are playing'", 5 - ' V ' [lit. 'in', not translated into English-trans.], 6 - " m j a c 'ball'"... For Vasja K. there are connected with this conclusion not only assertions but primarily questions for the experimenter and polemics with him. VASJA K. (5;4). E.: "Udetej segodnja veselo 'For the children today is enjoyable'." - S.: (He points at the p l a t e s . ) - l - " i / 'for'", 2 - " d e t e j 'the children'", 3—"segodnja 'today'", 4—"veselo 'is enjoyable'." - E.: "How many words are there?" — S.: "Four." — E.: "What is the first word?" — S.: "£/." - E.: "Right. For whom?" - S.: "One can say u skol'nikov 'for the school boys', u portnyx 'for the tailors', u hsadok 'for the horses'... For horses can also have a good time. Uis a separate word." E.: "Vane dali tri jabloka 'They gave Vanja three apples'." - S.: (He repeats it. He points at the p l a t e s . ) - l - " P ' , 2 - " a n e " . . . - E.: "What is the boy's name?" — S.: "Vanja. But didn't you say yourself that V 'in' is a separate word?" (Explanation of the experimenter.) The second group of speech reactions is encountered in this experiment only for Lida I. and forms for her a third of the total number of her speech reactions. This group of reactions is connected with the formula "All the words change, but such-and-such remains", which is accompanied by the appropriate examples. The second part of the formula, the conclusion "Subsequently this is a separate word", is implied. It must be noted that for Lida I. such speech reactions predominate at the end of the experiment, in its third variant. LIDA I. (4;8). E.: "Volodja i Vera katajutsja na lyzax 'Volodja and Vera are riding on skis'." (She repeats the sentence.) "What is the first, second,

115 third word?" - S.: \-"Volodja", 2-"i 'and'... I forget!" (I repeat the sentence. She does not look at the plates, at each word she passes her finger over the table.)-1 - " V o l o d j a ' ' , 2 - " / " , 3 - " V e r a " , 4-"katajutsja 'are riding"', 5 "NA 'on'", 6-"lyzax 'skis'. You can say NA kon'kax 'on ice skates'. All the words change, but NA remains." - E.: "Right! On what? -7Va kon'kax 'on ice skates'." - S.: "You can say NA sankax 'on sleds', NA nogax 'on feet'. That's possible too, I saw them slide down a hill".... Thus, on both types of explanations the child reproduces the experimenter's formula, but in its different parts. We encountered it in full only in one example for Lida I. LIDA I. (4;8). E.: "Na zemle lezit sobaka 'On the ground lies a dog'." S.: (She points at the plates.)-l-"Afc ' o n ' " , 2 - " z e m l e 'the ground'", 3 "lezit 'lies'", 4-''sobaka 'a dog'. NA is a separate word. You can say NA polu 'on the floor', NA kryse 'on the r o o f . You can say NA podokonnike 'on the window-sill', NA trube 'on the chimney', NA stule 'on the chair',NA skam'e 'on the bench'. All the words change, but NA remains." Instances are observed when Lida I. limits her arguments with regard to the words being isolated to citing an example or a series of examples which present the word causing her difficulty in different word combinations. LIDA I. (4;8). E.: "Lidocka guljaet v sadu 'Lidocka is walking in the garden'." - S.: "But which Lidocka?" - E.: "I said the words to you. Repeat them." - S.: (She repeats them with long pauses,)-"Lidocka-guljaet 'is walking'—VY [=V 'in']—sadu 'the garden'. That means there are four words. You can say V lesu 'in the woods'. You can say Vpole 'in the field', you can say Vdvore 'in the yard'." Arguments of this type are also advanced at the end of the experiment and are encountered in approximately the same number of cases as are the preceding arguments. By the end of the experiment there is observed for Vasja K. a sharp decrease of statements about the criteria of the word (in the third variant of the experiment there are three statements in all in eighteen sentences). However, this situation does not attest to a decrease in his activity, but can be understood as an indicator of his more reduced orientation in the criteria of the word. By the end of the experiment the intonational isolation of the words critical for him, which is no longer accompanied by questions or arguments concerning the criteria of the word, becomes all the more characteristic of the independent reactions of Vasja K. VASJA K. (5;4). E.: "Mama s papoj posli guljat' 'Mama and papa went for a walk'." - S.: (Moving the appropriate plates. By himself!)-"Mama-5 'with' [='and']-papoj 'papa'-posli 'went'-guljat' lit. 'to walk'. One, two, three, four, five!" (I repeat the sentence. He points with his finger at the plates.) - 1 -"Mama", 2-"S"', 3 - " p a p o j " , 4-"posir, 5-"guljat\" - E.: "How many

116 words are there?" - S.: "Five!" - E.: "What is the third word?" - S.: (He points at the plates.)—"Mzma S... Papojl" Finally, at the end of this experiment there was encountered for Lida I. a single instance when in the course of her statement she suddenly asked herself a semantic question which helped her to explain the purpose of the word being isolated. LIDA I. (4;8). E.: "Zajcik prygaet v lesu 'The rabbit is jumping in the woods'." - S.: "But how is the rabbit jumping in the picture?" - E.: "Listen to the words -Zajcik prygaet v lesu." - S.: (She points at the p l a t e s . ) - l "Malen'kij 'little'" (the child adds her word), 2-'"zajcik 'rabbit'", 3 - " p r y gaet 'is jumping'", 4-"V 'in'", 5-''lesu 'the woods'. You can say Vsadu 'in the garden', you can say V cem 'in what?', you can say v pole 'in the field', you can say V derev'jax 'in the trees'." - E.: "How many words are there in all?" - S.: (She counts the plates.)-"Five!" This case is a predecessor of a more profound generalized and realized level of the child's mastery of the content of the criteria of the word. Thus, throughout the experiment our children frequently reproduce by themselves, in some form, fragments of the experimenter's clarifications and are directed by them in their action. Here it need be noted that for both Lida I. and Vasja K. the speech reactions in this experiment are of an extremely concrete nature; this is a qualification of the given concrete word, which does not have yet the slightest hint of generalization. The child's indispensable illustration of the conclusion with a number of examples which insert the word being explained in different word combinations emphasizes still more the concrete nature of his statements, which is timed to the given case. Now let us acquaint ourselves with how the POSITION, which the child's statements occupy in the process of analyzing a sentence, changes. The change in the position of the child's statements will be for us an objective marker which reveals the change in the psychological function of these statements in the course of the experiment. Verbal statements which are inserted into the child's analysis predominate in the first half of the experiment for both of our subjects (Lida I. and Vasja K.). On reaching the word causing him difficulty, the child suspends the analysis while reasoning, ascertains for himself whether the criteria of the word which are given to him by the experimenter are applicable to this word, and only then continues the division. Let us call verbal statements of this type REACTIONS IN THE COURSE OF DIVISION. LIDA I. (4;8). E.: "¿eltye cypljata kljujut zerna na zemle 'The yellow chicks are pecking the grain on the ground'." — S.: (She repeats it. She moves the p l a t e s . ) - l - " ¿ e l t y e 'yellow'", 2 - " c y p l j a t a 'chicks'", 3 - " k l j u j u t 'are pecking'", A-"zerna 'the grain'", 5 - " n a 'on'... You can say na trave 'on the grass'", 6 - " z e m l e 'the ground'." - E.: "How many words are there in all?"

117 — S.: (She counts out loud, pointing at each plate with her finger.)—"There are six words." — E.: "Well, enough?"—"No, we can do more. Can we?" VASJA K. (54;). E.: "Valja ucitsja prygat' cerez verevocku 'Valja is learning to jump rope'." — S.: (He repeats it. He points at the plates.)— l—"Vy", 2-"alja... Right?" - E.: "No!" - S.: "Is V perhaps not a separate word?" (Explanation. He points at the plates.) - S.: 1 -"Valja", 2-''ucitsja 'is learning'", 3-"prygat' 'to jump'", 4-"cerez verevocku 'rope' [cerez 'across, over' is not translated into English-trans.]. Right?" - E.: "No!" - S.: "But didn't you say that Fhere is not a separate word?"... Apparently, here the criteria given to the child are no longer sufficiently realized and stable for him, and therefore, in order to orient himself in the cases causing him difficulty and to plan his action relative to them, immediately before the action he must necessarily reproduce these criteria in a loud voice and in a sufficiently expanded manner, frequently illustrating them with examples. Thus, the child's orientation in the criteria of the word is initially still closely interconnected with his action. On the other hand, throughout the experiment there are encountered for our subjects, and by the end of it there even dominate instances when the child carries out the analysis to the end and only then undertakes to substantiate the isolation of some word. Let us call the verbal statements of this type REACTIONS AFTER THE DIVISION. LID A I. (4;8). E.: "Masen'ka odevaet svoju kuklu 'Masen'ka is dressing her doll'." — S.: (She repeats it correctly. She points at the plates.)—I—"Masen'ka", 2—"0", 3 - " d e . . . Odevaet 'is dressing'. You said it. Here, look!" (She points at the p l a t e s . ) - l - " M a s e n ' k a " , 2-"o-de-vaet", 3-"svoju 'her'", 4 "kuklu 'doll'. Svoju kuklu! You can say svoju docku 'her daughter', you can say svoego medvezonka 'her teddy bear'." VASJA K. (5;4). E.: "Vsadu guljala mama s dockoj 'Mama was walking in the garden with her daughter'." - S.: (He repeats it. He points at the plates.) -1 -"V sadu 'in the garden'", 2-"guljala 'was walking'", 3 - " m a m a " , 4 - " s dockoj 'with her daughter'. Right?" - E.: "Completely wrong!" - S.: (He points at the p l a t e s . ) - l - " K s a d u " , 2-"guljala", 3-"mama", 4 - " S 'with'", 5-"dockoj 'daughter'." (By himself! He points at the p l a t e s . ) - l - " K ' i n ' " , 2 - " s a d u 'the garden'", 3-"guljala", 4 - " m a m a " , 5-"S", 6-"dockoj. S is a separate word." (He points to the corresponding plates.) "S-dockoj." -E.: "Now it's right!" These cases can be regarded as a symptom of the child's further mastering and understanding of the criteria given to him. Apparently, now in planning his action the child is already guided by the criteria given to him as external ones; but these criteria are still not realized for him to a sufficient extent, and therefore he experiences the need, while basing himself on the analysis already done, to further motivate in an expanded manner his action for the

118 purposes of better realizing and understanding it, and of subsequently controlling it. We already observed analogous instances of expanded control, which follows the cited action, in the formation of the relations between the ordinal counting and the establishment of the total number of words, when the child, having determined by the last ordinal number the total number of words, further on duplicated again the ordinal count. An indicator of the following step of mastering the criteria are the cases when the child tries to substantiate and understand the isolation of a word before the analysis of the sentence. Let us call the verbal statements of this type REACTIONS BEFORE THE DIVISION. LIDA I. (4;8). E.: "Ljusja stroit poezd iz kubikov 'Ljusja is building a train out of blocks'." - S.: (She repeats it.)-"You can say IZ stroitel'nogo materiala 'out of building material'. All the words change, but IZ 'out o f remains." (By herself she takes the plates. She points at the plates.)-\ -'Ljusja", 2-'stroit 'is building'", 3 - " p o e z d 'a train'", 4 - " i z " , 5-"kubikov 'blocks'." - E.: "How many words are there in all?" - S.: (She counts the plates.)-"Five." - E.: "What is the fourth word?" - S.: (Pause, she whispers while pointing at the plates.)-"Wait... / Z ! " VASJA K. (5,4). E.: "Petja ocen'gromko zasmejalsja 'Petja laughed very loudly'." - S.: (He repeats.)-'Te?/a ocen'... But is O a separate word?" - E.: "Here, no. The word ocen' 'very' begins with O. How did he laugh? O-cen' gromko 'very loudly', o-cen' tixo 'very quietly'." (I repeat the sentence.) — S.: "A-ah! Ocen'gromkol" (He points at the p l a t e s . ) - l - " P e t j a " , 2 - " o c e n ' gromk... ocen'", 3-"gromko 'loudly'", 4-"zasmejalsja 'laughed'. There are four words. Right?" These instances are encountered for Lida I. in the third variant of the experiment, and for Vasja K. one in the first variant and the other in the second variant. It may be thought that now the criteria given to the child have become even more stable and realized, so that in some (here still rare) instances, by following them, the child now can beforehand plan out loud his future action. The question arises, was not the isolation of prepositions and conjunctions for all its successes extremely difficult and burdensome for the child? It was, of course, difficult, but primarily to the moment when the child was supplied with means that help him to isolate the words causing him difficulty, and especially when he fixed in his speech the criteria of the word, so that by orienting himself on them he was able to understand consciously the material given to him. From this time the child found confidence in himself, and the difficult task, no longer being extremely difficult for him, raised his intellectual activity, while its successful solution gave rise to a feeling of satisfaction. In some of the above-cited examples the child's joy and satisfaction in the cases of the successfulness of his action appeared quite clearly. The child's

119 personal interest is also expressed in his desire to continue the experiment, even if the experimenter suggests ending it. Thus, after Lida I. had analyzed the sentence "Natasa i Katja igrajut v mjac 'Natasa and Katja are playing ball'", the experimenter said: "Well, should I ask you more, or are you tired?" "You can ask more, I never get tired," answered Lida. In his turn Vasja K., at the end of the analysis of the sentence "Deti igrajut v poezd 'The children are playing train'", which proceeded for him with mistakes and was accompanied by the experimenter's explanations, exclaims joyfully: "At least I understand!" Similar reactions are not encountered for the children of the first group. Let us dwell on the division of words into syllables. First let us note that the isolation of syllables as words remains only for those children to whom sentences with prepositions and conjunctions were introduced (Jura I., Lida I., and Vasja K.). For these children, who in the experiment with the plates are representatives of the second group, such mistakes constitute a third, and for Vasja K. even three quarters, of the total number of errors. Of the remaining children only for Natasa I., by force of habit, is there encountered a single mistake, easily corrected by her, which is connected with the isolation of a syllable as a word. For all the other children, as soon as we stopped givtu them sentences containing prepositions and conjunctions for analysis, the isolation of syllables as words disappeared entirely - extra evidence that it is the introduction of prepositions and conjunctions that provokes the child to isolating syllables as words. The number of instances of division into syllables with respect to the total number of sentences is insignificant here, and these mistakes are not stable. The qualitative peculiarities of these errors are of the greatest interest to us. First of all in this experiment, as in the preceding ones, there are encountered cases when the child divides into syllables the words following the preposition, sometimes slurring the first syllable together with the preceding preposition. Such a division, as we have already noted, is explained by the close semantic bond between the preposition and the word following it, which is fixed in the form of the word (the bond 'a preposition plus an inflexional ending'). LIDA I. (4;8). E.: "Katja i drugie deti katajutsja s gory 'Katja and the other children are sledding down the hill'." (She repeats it.) "What is the first word?" - S.: "I forget!" (I repeat the sentence. She points at the plates.) 1 -"Katja", 2—"i 'and'", 3-"drugie 'other'", 4 - " d e t i 'children'", S-"katajutsja 'are sledding'", 6 - " s go...", l—"ry. You can say katajutsja s klumby 'are sledding down the flowerbed'." - E.: "What kind of word is RYT - S.: "Katajutsja-sgory 'down the hill'." - E.: "At first you incorrectly said RY." - S.: (She points at the plates.)-l-"Katja", 2 - " / " , 3 - " d r u g i e " , A-"deti", 5-"katajutsja", 6-"s gory"...

120 Frequently the child also begins to carry out the isolation correctly, but, having reached a particular word, especially a polysyllabic one, he thoughtlessly starts to divide the word into syllables, emphasizing each syllable by moving a plate. For Vasja K. there are six mistakes of this type out of sixteen, and for Jura I. all of them are except one, which is an attempt to begin the division into syllables with the first word of the sentence. JURA I. (4;3). E.: "Segodnja idet sil'nyj dozd"Today there is heavy rain'." - S.: (He repeats it correctly. He moves the plates.)-l -'Segodnja 'today'", 2 - " i d e t 'there is'", 3 - " s i l ' n y j 'heavy'", 4-"dozd' 'rain'. One, two, three, four plates." - E.: "And how many words?" - S.: (He moves the plates.)\-"Se", 2—"go", 3 - " d n j a " , 4-"/", S-"det", 6-"sil'nyj", l-"dozd\" - E.: "Show me on the plates what words are here!" — S.: (He moves the plates.)— 4-"dozd'. Four"... 1 -"Segodnja", 2-"idet", 3-"sil'nyr, As we have already noted, when analyzing the material of the preceding experiment, in all such cases the child acts more like a passive object which the specific material influences, than like a subject which actively wields this material. In carrying out the analysis he imperceptibly slides to the isolation of the natural articulatory units of the word — the syllables — without reflecting on the meaning of each of them. Only the experimenter's question is capable of dispelling this magic of the rhythm. However, for the two oldest children such instances are characteristic only in the first half of the experiment. Then in a number of cases the division into syllables begins to attest to a more active search by the child for the correct solution. The trials lead him to the division into syllables as one of the variants of the solution to the task. Such instances are observed primarily when the experimenter classifies the isolation carried out by the child as incorrect because he did not isolate the preposition or conjunction, and the child does not entirely understand what is required of him. However, the more or less expanded explanations immediately help him to carry out a correct isolation. LIDA I. (4;8). E.: "V sadu guljala mama s dockoj 'Mama was walking in the garden with her daughter'." — S.: (She repeats it. She points at the plates.) - 1 -"V sadu 'in the garden'", 2-"guljala 'was walking'", 3 - " m a m a " , 4-"s doc... s 'with'", 5—"dockoj 'daughter'. You can say S podrugami 'with girl friends'." - E.: "But you did it wrong!" - S.: "How's that?" (I repeat the sentence. She repeats the sentence. She moves the plates.)—1 —"Vsadu", 2— "guljala"... — E.: "Think! Put the plates back and do it again. How many words is v sadul" - S.: (She moves the p l a t e s . ) - l - " F sa", 2 - " d u . " - E.: "There's no such word as v sa, it doesn't say anything. There is also no such word as du." (Pause.) - S.: "One can say: V-lesu 'in the woods', V-pole 'in the field'." - E.: "Right. V sadu, v lesu, v pole. Where? V sadu. V 'in' is a separate word." - S.: (She moves the p l a t e s . ) - l - " F y [=F]", 2 - " s a d u 'garden'", 3 - " g u l j a l a " , 4-"mama", 5 - " s " , 6-"dockoj."

121 It is not difficult to see that such a division into syllables has a different psychological meaning than the above-described variants of division into syllables. But all the different variants are united by the fact that the child, when isolating syllables, does not make the slightest attempt to understand the isolated element. There are examples of a strictly formal division, indicators of the difficulties experienced by the child. Somewhat later in the course of the experiment there appear for Lida I. and Vasja K. instances of division into syllables, which not only attest to the difficulties experienced by these children in isolating prepositions and conjunctions, but also indicate the positive features in their analysis, which are directly connected with the presence of prepositions and conjunctions in the sentences being analyzed. We have in mind the instances when the child, after hearing in some word the sounds V, S, I, etc., or prefixes similar in sound to certain prepositions, hastens to isolate them as separate words by analogy with the corresponding prepositions or conjunctions, while in some cases they even enter into a discussion with the experimenter concerning this point. For Lida I. three such instances are encountered, and for Vasja K. there are seven. LIDA I. (4;8). E.: "Vse deti igrajut v poezd 'All the children are playing train'." — S.: "Rebjata 'the children'"... (I repeat the sentence. She repeats it correctly. She points at the p l a t e s . ) - l - " F F ' , 2 - " s e " . . . - E.: "Is se a word? What does it say?" - S.: "Vy-se." - E.: "How many words is vse 'all'?" - S.: "Two." (Explanation of VSE. She points at the plates.) - S.: I-"Vse", 2"deti 'the children'", 3-"igrajut 'are playing'", 4 - " v [lit. 'in', not translated in English—trans.], 5—"parovoz 'steam-engine'" VASJA K. (5;4). E.: "Valja ucitsja prygat' cerez verevocku 'Valja is learning to jump rope'." - S.: (He repeats it correctly. He points at the plates.)— 2-"alfa... Right?" - E.: "No!" - S.: "Is Vperhaps not a separate 1 ~"VT\ word?" (Explanation. He points at the p l a t e s . ) - l - " F a / / a " , 2-"ucitsja 'is learning'", 3 - " p r y g a t ' 'to jump'", 4-"cerez verevocku 'rope' [cerez 'across, over' is not translated into English-trans.]. Right?" - E.: "No!" - S.: "But didn't you say that V here is not a separate word?" (With uncertainty, he points at the plates.)— \—"Valja", 2—"u", 3—"citsja"... — E.: "You said it correctly. What is Valja doing?" - S.: "Ucitsja." (Explanation of the preposition CEREZ 'over, across'. He points at the plates.) - S.: 1 -"Valja", 2— "ucitsja", 3 - ' ' p r y g a t ' " , 4-"c... ci... cerez", 5-"verevocku 'rope'"... In those instances when the division into syllables is accompanied by the child's attempt to understand the elements being isolated, the sentence is, of course, also analyzed incorrectly. Here, too, the division into syllables is an indicator of the weakness of the child's analysis, but these errors can also be called 'good mistakes', for they are symptoms of the child's shift to an active orientation in speech reality. Now the child listens attentively to speech, tries to differentiate it more subtly, attempts to understand better, to realize for himself the features of the word.

122 If the errors, which are a strictly formal division into syllables, are designated as errors of group A, while the errors which attest to the child's tendencies to understand the elements being isolated are designated as errors of group B, then it can be noted that in this experiment we find for Jura I. only errors of group A. Sego-dnja i-det ("Segodnja idet sil'nyj dozd' 'Today there is heavy rain'") or Tra-kto-rov ("Moj papa sdelal mnogo traktorov 'My papa made many tractors'"). In one instance Jura I. begins to divide a word of the sentence into syllables, but then recalls himself and corrects his error. For Lida I. there are three errors of group A and two errors of group B. Moreover, in one case she begins to divide the word into syllables, trying to isolate the sound O, but then recalls and corrects herself the error she made. Group A. S go-ry ("Katja i drugie deti katajutsja s gory 'Katja and the other children are sledding down the hill'"). Group B. I-grajut ("Devocki igrajut v koski i myski 'The girls are playing cat and mouse'"). Recalls: S.: O-de... odevaet ("Lidocka odevaet svoju kuklu 'Lidocka is dressing her doll'"). For Vasja K. we have eleven errors of group A and two instances of recall, which are also connected with errors of this group. We encounter for him rather many errors of group B — five in all. The child stubbornly persisted in some of these errors. His remarks apropos of this attest unequivocally to his attempt to actively analyze and understand the elements of the word. Group A. S.: De-ti u-ca-tsja v-sko-le (E.: "Deti ucatsja v skole 'The children are studying in school'"). - S.: Na-kon'-kax (E.: "Volodja i Natasa katajutsja na kon'kax 'Volodja and Natasa are ice skating'"). Recalls. S.: vo-dy (E.: "Mama kupila butylku vody 'Mama bought a bottle of water'"). Group B. S.: I-grajut (E.: "Deti igrajut v poezd 'The children are playing train'"). (S.: "But isn't I a separate word?") S.: V-ane (E.: "Vane dali trijabloka 'They gave Vanja three apples'"). (S.: "But you said yourself that Fis a separate word!") The cases when the child, in recalling, corrects the division into syllables, cases which are occasionally encountered here, serve as additional proof that for the children of the second group more adequate criteria of the word are formed than for the children of the first group, owing to which there arises for them the possibility of internal independent control even over the correctness of the isolation of such abstract parts of speech as prepositions and conjunctions. Let us draw some conclusions concerning the peculiarities of the orientation of our subjects in the criteria of the word in this experiment. In the experiment with the plates there are finally consolidated the shifts ascertained by us in the previous experiment by which it is possible to organize or correct the child's orientation in speech reality. The need for the experimenter's repeated

123 expanded explanations disappears entirely. The expanded explanations in the course of the experiment begin to be replaced all the more by the experimenter's short explanations and even by his strictly evaluative remarks which, owing to the ever greater stability of the child's notions about the word, are now capable of compelling the child to examine critically the result he has obtained. There become more frequent the instances when the child orients himself on a gesture, the mimicry, or even simply a glance of the experimenter and under their influence corrects his mistake. Moreover, further progress is observed in the child's self-regulation and selfcorrection of his action. Instances when the child, after making a wrong answer, himself recalls and corrects the error, become considerably widespread. Such instances are now encountered for all the children without exception, and Repeatedly for some. The formation of the child's self-regulation in the course of forming the action has been traced in particular detail for the children of the second group, for whom the isolation of prepositions and conjunctions was treated. Thus, only for them, and in this experiment repeatedly, is there encountered isolation with the voice in the process of isolating, and in separate instances before isolating, of the word causing the child difficulty, which is one of the forms of the child's actual and all the more removed planning of his action. Along with the factual orientation for these children the symptoms of the realizaton of the criteria of the word given to them gradually appear, subsequently increase all the more, and are complicated. These criteria are reproduced in some form and used by the child for the more or less removed planning of his action in the instances causing him difficulty. The child's verbal reactions concerning the features of the word become all the more independent in the course of the experiment. Initially these reactions are encountered in the process of analysis, being interconnected with them; furthermore they arise after the experiment, realizing the subsequent control over the action. Finally, but in this experiment in isolated instances, such reactions arise now before the analysis, being a form of the child's realized preliminary planning of his action. However, in this experiment the child's verbal reactions pertain only to a given, particular word, and bear in mind only a narrow concrete case. Thus, they are of a concrete nature and do not now contain elements of generalization. Thus, the orientation of all the children begins to have an ever increasingly independent nature. The orientation of the children of the second group is distinguished not only by independence, but also by an increased activity and realization. To these properties of the orientation, as the analysis of the children's mistakes shows, corresponds its completely determined direction. In this experiment for all the children, including the youngest of them,

124 there dominate the mistakes connected with the omission, replacement, or transposition of the words being analyzed, and among these mistakes one of the weakest variants — the replacement of a word by its synonym — occupies an important position. The child correctly analyzes the overwhelming majority of the sentences. These facts attest that for all the children, including the youngest ones, there is a decisive differentiation of speech reality from objective reality, and speech reality as such, its elements - words - are steadfastly represented as the object of their activity. With the introduction of prepositions and conjunctions into the sentences given to the children (the second group) the quality of the children's action both here and in the preceding experiments decreases somewhat: a special category of mistakes appears - division into syllables — the indicator of the shifting of the child's orientation in difficult cases to the formal intonationalrhythmic aspect of the word. However, a careful analysis of these mistakes reveals that by the end of the experiment division into syllables is now not a symptom of the child's passive shifting to an articulatory division, but an indicator of the ever increasing tendencies toward the child's active and realized dismemberment of speech reality. Simultaneously with this there increases for the children the number of instances of the correct isolation of prepositions and conjunctions. Thus, for the children of the second group the orientation on speech reality and its elements.— words — bears a broader and more adequate nature than the orientation of the children of the first group. As we have seen above, by the end of this experiment there are observed in the children's action a number of shifts which make possible their transition to the following stage, to action on the plane of loud speech. Let us now examine the peculiarities of the action of our subjects at the stage of action on the plane of loud speech.

Stage III. Action on the Plane of Loud Speech The fundamental importance of this stage has been emphasized many times in the works of P.Ja. Gal'perin. Here the function of speech undergoes a fundamental change. P.Ja. Gal'perin writes: "At the first and second stages speech served primarily as a system of indications of such phenomena which were revealed directly in perception; the pupil's task was to understand not the words, but the phenomena, to understand them and master them. "Now speech becomes an independent bearer of the entire process: of both the task and the action... Not only the action itself, but also its reflection in the social consciousness, the established speech formulas of the action

125 for the first time become the direct object of the consciousness of the given pupil; and together with this the social understanding of this action for the first time becomes the immediate object of his mastery, his own consciousness" (Gal'perin, 1959, pp. 454-455). In our experiment the treatment of the action on the plane of loud speech reveals the means of the child's realization of the object of the analysis (words) as a specially existing reality, and also of his realization of the order of the action (the scheme of the action). The stage of action on the plane of loud speech included two successive variants of the ordinal analysis of words, which are stages of the child's transition to a shorter independent and realized action: a) the analysis with reliance on the experimenter's questions, and b) the analysis with reliance on the ordinal numbers which the subject himself gives. In the last instance the child initially carried out the analysis out loud, and then in a whisper. Let us note that beginning with this experiment we finally stopped giving our subjects in the course of the experiment the pictures which depict the content of the sentences given to them. And in this experiment we had some differences in the number and quality of the sentences which were given to the children, differences which were conditioned by the fact that for three of the fourteen children the isolation of prepositions and conjunctions had been treated. The subjects of the first group, for whom there had not been treated the isolation of prepositions and conjunctions, each analyzed from 20 to 32 sentences, depending on the difficulties experienced by them in mastering the action at this stage. The subjects of the second group each analyzed from 43 to 55 sentences. For Lida I. and Vasja K. prepositions or conjunctions were included in almost every one of the sentences. For Jura I. prepositions and conjunctions were included in 29 of the 43 sentences given to him. How did our subjects' mastering of the scheme of action on the plane of loud speech proceed? The transition to the first variant of the action on the plane of loud speech — the analysis in answer to the experimenter's questions — was reflected in different ways in the different types of analysis of the child. The ordinal analysis did not cause major difficulties for our subjects. All of them continued to carry it out with sufficient speed and freedom. However, for some children (Kolja M., Ljusja S., Vova M.) there are observed at the beginning of the experiment attempts to carry out the ordinal analysis with their fingers. In the first sentences of this variant of the experiment pauses are observed for a number of children, especially before the isolation of more abstract words, and omissions of them — a symptom of certain difficulties experienced by the child in the transition to a strictly speech action.

126 VOVA M. (5;6). E.: "Papa kupil mne cvetnye karandasi 'Papa bought me colored pencils'." — S.: (When isolating each word he passes his finger over the t a b l e . ) - l - " / t y w " , 2-"kupil 'bought'", 3 - " m n e 'me'", 4 "cvetnye 'colored"', 5-"karandasi 'pencils'." - E.: "Once more, what is the first, second, third, fourth, fifth word?" - S.: l-"Papa", 2-"kupil", 3-"mne", 4—"cvetnye", 5—"karandasi. There are five words in all!" However, these difficulties are overcome quite soon by the children, and the first variant of the speech analysis is mastered to a sufficient degree by all of our subjects. From the very beginning of the experiment all of the children carry out by themselves, without the experimenter's corresponding question, the repetition of the sentences given to them; some of them omit the repetition entirely. For a number of children, for whom in the preceding experiment it proved possible to elaborate well the ordinal analysis in answer to their own questions (by fixing a glance on the plates), very soon after the beginning of the experiment it is possible to observe an independent transition to the ordinal analysis in answer to their own questions, i.e., an independent transition to the second variant of the experiment. TANJA S. (5;3). E.: "Papa kupil mne cvetnye karandasi 'Papa bought me colored pencils'." (She repeats it.)-"What is the first word?" - S.: "I know by myself! The first word is papa, the second is kupil 'bought', the third is mne 'me', the fourth is cvetnye 'colored', the fifth is karandasi 'pencils'." E.: "How many words are there in all?" - S.: "A-ah! There are five words in all!" All of the children shift to an independent cardinal analysis much more quickly than in the preceding experiment. The experimenter's leading question or expressive glance is needed here only in rare cases. D2AMILJA R. (5;3). E.: "Babuska xoroso rasskazyvaet skazku 'Grandmother tells the story well'." (She repeats it.) "What is the first word?" - S.: "Babuska 'grandmother', the second is xoroso 'well', the third is rasskazyvaet 'tells', and the fourth is skazku 'story'." (Pause. The experimenter looks at the girl, she glances at the experimenter.) "And there are four words!" The cases of the independent ordinal analysis and independent cardinal analysis are indicators of the mastery and shortening of the action within this experiment. It can be suggested that the means of the ordinal analysis by using his own verbal supports is prepared for the child not only in the process of his mastering of the ordinal analysis by fixing a glance on the plates; it is prepared also in the process of the analysis being realized by him in answering the control questions and for the younger children in answering the question about the number of words, when they begin to duplicate the ordinal analysis, using their own verbal supports. It must be kept in mind that at all stages the last two types of analysis are more complex in comparison with the ordinal analysis and require a higher degree of formation of the action.

127 Thus, in the experiment being examined the ordinal analysis is carried out by the child with the aid of the verbal supports given by the experimenter, i.e., with the aid of the scheme of analysis which is verbally expressed but still given from without. Therefore the transition to it, as we have already noted, did not cause the children, especially the older ones, difficulties. The analysis in answering the control questions and the younger children's duplication of the ordinal analysis in answering the question about the number of words are carried out by the child independently with the aid of the verbal scheme of the analysis, which he gives to himself, and otherwise they cannot be carried out. Naturally, the transition even under easier conditions from the objective supports directly to their own verbal supports initially causes some children difficulty, and this new action is only gradually mastered by them. Hence at first these types of analysis, especially for the younger children, proceed slowly, with difficulty and with mistakes, and are, as we will see below, more expanded than in the action with the aid of plates, and at times they require external supports. But in the process of the experiment they are mastered to a sufficient degree and begin to be carried out more quickly and more freely. Taking into consideration the children's achievements in the mastering and shortening of their action, we transferred each of them to the second variant of this experiment, to analysis with reliance on the ordinal numbers given by the subject himself. In spite of a definite mastering, in the process of the cardinal analysis and in answering the control questions, of the scheme of analysis given in this variant of the experiment, the shift to the second variant at first caused considerable difficulty for the younger children, and primarily those of them for whom we were unable to work out an ordinal analysis by fixing a glance on the plates (Jura I., Ljusja §., Lida I.). Initially they carried out the action more slowly than in the preceding experiment. In the analysis of the first sentences it was necessary to give the child supplementary explanations. He became confused, made mistakes, and turned to the aid of external supports, on which we will dwell in more detail below. Some of the younger children even tried to refuse to analyze with reliance on their own questions ("I can't!" announced Kolja M. (4;5), for example, at the beginning of the experiment). At the same time in answer to the experimenter's questions these children carried out the analysis quite successfully. JURA I. (43)- E.: "Papa poselguljat' 'Papa went for a walk'." (He repeats it correctly. Pause.) "The first word is papa, the second is posel 'went', and what is the third?" - S.: "Guljat' lit. 'to walk'. Directly, directly to bed!" (I repeat the sentence. He repeats it correctly.) "Pa... the first word is pa." — E.: "The first word is papa. Well, say it!" - S.: "The first word is papa." - E.:

128 "And the second?" - S.: "The second is..." (I again explain the means of the analysis.) - S.: "The first word is papa, the second is posel, the third is guljat'r LJUSJA §. (4;10). E.: "Deti idut domoj 'The children are going home'." (She repeats it correctly.) "Well, say, what is the first word?" - S.: "Deti 'the children'." - E.: "Say by yourself: the first word is deti" - S.: "The first word is deti." - E.: "And then?" - S.: "Idut 'are going'." - E.: "Say: the second word is idut." — S.: "The second word is idut." — E.: "And then?" — S.: "I forget!" - E.: (I repeat the sentence.)—"Say it from the beginning. What is the first word?" - S.: "Deti." - E.: "Further." - S.: "The second is idut, the third is domoj 'home'." — E.: "How many words are there?" — S.: "Three." - E.: "What is the second word?" - S.: "Idut." Having encountered such difficulties, our younger children, and Lida I. with particular persistence, resort to the already tried means of expanded action with external supports: they bend their fingers, nod their head when isolating each word, etc. What is the cause of the younger children's difficulties when shifting to the verbal ordinal analysis in answer to their questions? To understand this it is necessary to take into consideration that the ordinal numbers named in sequence by the experimenter appear for the child as external verbal supports, as a scheme of analysis given from without, and by relying on it he carries out the analysis. Thus, this analysis is the combined action of the experimenter and the subject, which is regulated by the experimenter. When analyzing out loud, but without reliance on the experimenter's questions, the child's action is considerably complicated psychologically. He must simultaneously reproduce in speech the scheme of analysis (the first..., the second..., etc.) and reproduce the very action of the analysis. Thus, the cause of the child's difficulties is not the verbal nature itself of this action, since the first (also the verbal) variant of the experiment did not cause the children particular difficulties; and it is not its independent nature by itself, since the action with the plates was also the subject's independent action and nevertheless was carried out by him quickly and without difficulty. The cause of the child's difficulties is that the action suggested to him is an independent verbal action, i.e., an action which requires maximum realization, maximum arbitrariness on the part of the subject. The difficulty of the simultaneous reproduction of the scheme of analysis and the analysis according to this scheme is directly emphasized in a remark of one of the subjects. VASJA K. (5;4). E.: "Po beregu idet bol'saja caplja 'Along the shore walks a big heron'." - S.: (Whisper.)-"The first word is po 'along', the second is beregu 'the shore', the third is idet 'walks', the fourth is bol'saja 'big'... caplja 'heron'. It is the fifth, right?" - E.: "Do it out loud!" - S.: "The first word

129 is po, the second is beregu, the third is idet, the fourth is bol'Saja... It's too hard for me: the first is such-and-such, the second is such-and-such. I won't do it that way!" However, our subjects, some earlier and some later, also master this variant of the action and begin to carry it out quite successfully, and the analysis in answering the control questions and the duplication of the ordinal analysis (where it occurred) by degree of mastery no longer differ from the ordinal analysis and for some children are now better mastered and even more reduced. As to the majority of the subjects, as we saw above they shift to a verbal analysis in answer to their questions without difficulty and most frequently on their own initiative, and in the course of the subsequent experiment they do not experience appreciable difficulties in connection with this. The transition to analysis in a whisper added new difficulties to the analysis of the younger children. Their action again slowed, and mistakes appeared. Their whisper gradually gave way to loud pronunciation. As for Kolja M., he repeatedly refused to carry out a whispered analysis, although the experimenter again and again showed him this action and tried to bring him to a whispered analysis through easier variants of the action (it was suggested to the child to carry out initially a whispered analysis in answer to the experimenter's questions). It is characteristic that Kolja M. gives answers to the control questions on the basis of the whispered analysis. Consequently, under easier conditions — after the ordinal analysis and on the basis of it - the whispered analysis becomes possible for him. For Jura I. there is also a remark which attests to the difficulty for him of the whispered speech analysis. After the analysis of the sentence "Po kryse polzet koska 'The cat is crawling across the r o o f " , which proceeded with mistakes and difficulties, he announces: "Now just by threes, give me such words three at a time, because it's so hard for me to speak!" A remark of Vasja K. is even more expressive. VASJA K. (5;4). E.: "Vera sama sobiraet igruski 'Vera herself is picking up the toys'." - S.: (A whisper.)-"Vera-sama 'herself-so... The first word is Vera, the second is so... sama, oh! I'm confused! I'll speak out loud! There are two separate words here!" (Vasja names prepositions or conjunctions as separate words. Here, apparently, the prefix SO and the pronoun SAMA are such words for him.) For the older children the transition to a whispered analysis does not cause particular difficulties. By the end of this variant of the experiment the whispered analysis is more or less adjusted for the younger children as well, although it is more like a half whisper, while in other instances it shifts to a loud pronunciation of the words.

130 Thus, throughout the three variants of the experiment an ever more thorough mastering by the child of this type of action takes place on the plane of loud speech. Hence in the course of the experiment a growth in the activity and independence of our subjects is observed. Along with the independent repetition of sentences, beginning with the second variant of the experiment there is a significant increase in the cases when the child, by by-passing the repetition, immediately shifts to the ordinal analysis, i.e., he shortens his action by himself. In the course of the second and third variants of the experiment the independent ordinal and independent cardinal types of analysis increasingly become the norm. This is in many ways facilitated by the fact that, as opposed to the first variant of the experiment (the ordinal analysis in answer to the experimenter's questions), now when analyzing the child must rely on the ordinal numbers which he himself has given, and, consequently, this analysis as a whole becomes his own actions. It is evident from this table that the independence and activity of our analysis (e.g. he accompanied the naming of the words with movement of his fingers, etc.), his action continues to remain independent on this level as well, i.e., there has been worked out for him a scheme of analysis for different levels of action and the different degrees of its expansion, and if necessary he can use the different variants of the action. In table 18 there is given the distribution among our subjects of independent answers and omissions of repetitions. It is evident from this table that the independence and activeness of our children's action is on a very high level. As to the ordinal analysis, the children's independence as compared to the experiment with the plates nevertheless decreased: apparently, the difficulties of the transition to a strictly verbal action have had an effect. But in return, as a rule, the degree of independence of the cardinal analysis increased considerably. LJUSJA S. (4;10). E.: "Kukla sovsem slomalas"The doll broke completely'." - S.: "Into tiny pieces?" (She repeats it correctly. A whisper.)-"^«Wa 'doll' is one word, sovsem 'completely' is number two, slomalas' 'broke' is three." — E.: "How many words are there?" — S.: "Three words!" TANJA S. (5'3)- E.: "Belye medvedi ljubjat xolodnuju vodu 'White bears like cold water'." - S.: "Belye medvedi... The first word is belye 'white', the second is medvedi 'bears', the third is ljubjat 'like', the fourth is (pause) xolodnuju 'cold', the fifth is vodu 'water'. In all there are (pause) five words!"... Let us dwell now on the data which characterize the extent of shortening or the degree of expansion of the action at this stage of the experiment. Let us begin our examination with the ordinal analysis. In the ordinal analysis in answer to the experimenter's questions (the first

131 TABLE 18. The Number of Independent sions of Repetitions at Stage III (in % of the total number of sentences)

Answers

of the Subjects and Their Omis-

Repetition

Subjects I-.

o

1 3 z 1 2

3 4

5 6 7 8

9 10 11 12 13 14

o c u 00 "c3 o

£

Jura I. (4;3) Kolja M. (4 ;5) Anja S. (4;6) Lida I. (4;8) Ljusja S. (4; 10) Natasa P. (5;0) Ira I. (5;2) Dzamilja R. (5;3) Tanja S. (5;3) Vasja K. (5;4) Katja N. (5;5) VovaM. (5;6) Marina A. (5; 10) Natasa I. (6;1)

43 21 20 46 32 28 21 21 21 55 21 21 20 30

•J-. Ol

c 0> •o c ?c Grtrti" en ed CO

SS

e o

o H 38 5 16 4 19 10 5 5 5 5 13

62 95 84 96 81 90 95 95 95 95 87

25 13 12

75 87 88

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Kolja M. (4;5) Anja S. (4;6) Ljusja §. (4;10) Natasa P. (5;0) Ira I. (5;2) Dzamilja R. (5 ;3) Tanja S. (5;3) Katja N. (5;5) Vova M. (5;6) Marina A. (5;10) Natasa I. (6;1)

21 20 32 28 21 21 21 21 21 20 30

10

-

28 5 16 4 19 10 5 5 5 5 13

12 13 14

Jural. (4;3) Lidal. (4;8) Vasja K. (5;4)

43 46 55

2

25 13 10

-

-

that for some of the children, especially the younger ones, there again appear instances when several mistakes are encountered for the child in a single sentence. Since the composition of the sentences given to the child has not changed significantly, this circumstance should be connected with the difficulties of the child's shift to the speech analysis. It is characteristic in connection with this that a large proportion of the in-

144 correct answers falls here to the second and third variants of the experiment, which are the most arbitrary and realized ones. For the rest of the children in each incorrectly analyzed sentence, as a rule, there is encountered altogether a single, quickly correctable mistake. Therefore, the finite data of tables 19 and 20 begin to coincide for them. On the whole the overwhelming majority of children come ever more closely to a practically errorless analysis. In this experiment the number of errors increases somewhat when answering the question about the number of words and when answering the control questions. Some of the mistakes when answering about the number of words are clearly caused by the difficulties of the transition to the speech and especially the whispered speech analysis. Others can be explained by an incorrect ordinal analysis, by the child's remark that is inserted between the ordinal and cardinal analyses, as a result of which he forgets the last ordinal number, etc. All these mistakes are easily corrected (the corresponding examples were cited above, when discussing the question of the relation between ordinal and cardinal analyses). TABLE 20. Distribution

of the Subjects' Errors at Stage III Categories of Errors

"O

¿2 8 g a r^ g O S3 e c , •3 S H

o , * -3 »> g § a> .c .2 e c E 3 Z 1 2 3 4 5

6 7

8

-

Total Errors

| -

a

obezal." - E.: "The fourth?" - S.: (She whispers the sentence, then out loud.) —"DomojV — E.: "The second?" — S.: (Pause, she moves her lips. Then out loud.)—"Pobezal] No, it's not pobezal] (Pause.) Bystrol" In such cases dependence on the experimenter's reaction is entirely excluded. The subjects experience no need to listen to his evaluations or to read in his face an attitude towards the result they have obtained. The children themselves control their action and correct the mistakes made quite confidently, without superfluous doubts.

149 Thus, along with the mastering of the action there is for the child an increase in the independent control over it, an increase in criticism with regard to it, which presupposes the existence for the child of sufficiently clear notions with which he correlates his action and the obtained results. Let us move on to the peculiarities of the isolation of prepositions and conjunctions. In table 21 are presented the quantitative data on the isolation of prepositions and conjunctions by the children of the second group at stage III. (The data are cited as percentages of the number of sentences containing prepositions and conjunctions.) TABLE 21. Sentences, in the course of whose analysis the nonisolation of prepositions or conjunctions is encountered

o a

Subjects

o

M pj 4) C5/ c

•2

o S§ kH G S u° o •2 c ^ ai c cc SC o •a a «

•O S

>> S2

S .2

13 c o e S -2. ° S

a

.c, Ç2

S.o

.5 3

"3 t>

w â) "c £ft"o U « a . -S

S 5 ° S

O. X to •a 'Si U § o s

•O E

3

z

1 2 3

Jura I. (4 ;3) Lida I. (4;8) Vasja K. (5;4)

30 44 53

•a •a c ed

3 -

k e u ed

c "cd eed &

X

s