activity (Dunn & Wooding 1977, Fem 1975,. Nicohch 1977) In symbolic play the ..... teddy wath a cup that he or she previously used only for pretending to dnnk, ...
Toward Symbolic Functionmg: Structure of Early Pretend Games and Potential Parallels with Language Lorraine McCune-Nicolich Douglass College, Rutgers Untverstty McCuNE-NicoLiCH, LORRAINE Toward Symbolic Functtontng Structure of Early Pretend Games and Potenttal Parallels wtth Lane,uage CHILD DEVELOPMENT, 1981, 52, 785-797 The sequence of developments of pretend play hebaviors hetween 8 and 30 months exhibits a hierarchical order consistent with the theones of Piaget and Wemer and Kaplan Pnor to pretending, children demonstrate knowledge of the functions of real objects by gesture Next they pretend at their own everyday activities As the ahihty to symbolize advances, pretending hecomes decentered so that children pretend at others' activities and apply pretend schemes to dolls and other suhstitute participants Such play is tben integrated into sequences Early pretending IS context dependent, apparently suggested by available objects Late m tbe second year children begin to indicate verbally or nonverbally tbat pretend games are constructed mentally pnor to action, suggesting tbat play is becoming more independent of available objects and context A tbeoretical analysis proposing concurrent developments in symbolic play and language as aspects of tbe semiotic function, and evidence for certain correspondences are presented
Introduction Several theonsts have suggested that play and language development reflect the young child's emerging ability to manipulate symbols (eg, Piaget 1962, Sinclair 1970, Wemer & Kaplan 1963) Despite the burgeoning research literature concerning play and language in the past several years, progress in understanding possible interrelations between the two domams as indicative of symbolic understanding has been slow The present paper hnngs together existing literature concerning the early growth of symbolic play with a view to Ending a common theoretical base and suggestmg directions for future research First the definition of symbolic play and its relationship to cognitive developmental theory will be discussed A hierarchical analysis of successive developments IS proposed Existing data on symbolic play will then be examined to determine whether the evidence indicates such a sequence of agerelated changes The major portion of this evidence IS drawn from studies where symbolic play in children between 1 and 3 years of age was the focus of a formal research strategy Finally a structural analysis of early language.
analogous to that proposed for play, and evidence concerning the proposed correspondences, will be presented Definition Definitions of play are neither generally agreed upon nor precise (Sutton-Smith 1979, Weisler & McCall 1976) This is true of play in general and symholic play m particular Before play in general can he understood, intensive work IS needed in investigating more delimited aspects of the topic The juxtaposition of a real action and an intended fantasy provides the underlying structure of symholic play as considered in this review This dual quality is apparent from the criteria commonly used to infer that a child IS pretending (1) inanimate objects are treated as animate ( e g , caretaking of a doll), (2) everyday activities are performed m the absence of the necessary materials ( e g , drmk from an empty cup), (3) the child performs actions usually done hy someone else ( e g , cooking, telephoning), (4) activities are not carried to their usual outcome ( e g , purse over arm, wave, hut not go out), (5) one object is substituted for another ( e g , shell = cat), and
Author's address Department of Educabon, Douglass College, Rutgers Umversity, New Brunswick, New Jersey 08903 I wish to express my gratitude for comments on earlier drafts to Larry Fenson, Kurt Fischer, Mananne Lowe, Edith Neimark, Doug Ramsay, and Jane Raph Preparabon of this paper was parbally supported by grant no HD 11731 from the National Insbtute of Child Health and Human Development ICktld Development 1981, 52, 785-797 © 1981 by the Society for Research m Child Development Inc 0009-3920/81/5203-0013101 00]
786
Child Development
(6) affective and instrumental behaviors by the child signal the nonbteral quahty of the activity (Dunn & Wooding 1977, Fem 1975, Nicohch 1977) In symbolic play the child transforms activities from their real objectives and objects from their real counterparts This transformational quahty is the dennmg attribute of symbolic play (Fem 1975) Symbolic Play m Relatton to Cogntttve Developmental Theory The major cognitive accomplishment of the period between 12 and 36 months of age IS the transition from sensonmotor to representational cognition (Piaget 1962, Wemer & Kaplan 1963) Two major themes characterize this shift the decentration and differentiation of meanings from sensonmotor actions involving the child's body to abstract representations of meaning, and the integration of symbolic behaviors or meanings into sequences Piaget (1962) used the development of play as a model for describing this sequence, while Werner and Kaplan (1963) used the development of language for the same purpose These theorists stressed that both systems, language and play, develop in response to general progress m the semiotic function, the cognitive capacity which accounts for representation across such media as play, language, drawing, and mental imagery However they did not propose specific correspondences between domains In the early 1970s language researchers assumed that language acquisition and attamment of Piagetian sensonmotor stages were highly correlated ( e g . Bloom 1973, Brown 1973) Empirical work has failed to substantiate these claims (Comgan 1979) This is hardly surprising when one considers that major sensonmotor transitions have been made by the time the child becomes even margmaUy proficient at language In fact, the most stnkmg positive finding m the studies reviewed by Comgan is the rough correspondence between beginning language and the penod of transition from sensonmotor stage 5 to stage 6 of object permanence This co-occurrence of advanced sensonmotor behavior with lrutial linguistic behavior suggests that more advanced or more "symbolic" performances should be examined for potential correspondences with language development The thesis of the present paper is that correspondences exist between the domains of symbolic play and language Correlational results suggest that such compansons are of mterest ( e g . Bates, Benigni, Bretherton, Camai-
oni, & Volterra 1977, Lowe & Costello 1976, Fem, Note 1) While correlational analysis evaluates the extent to which general measures of development m two domams correspond, structural companson goes beyond this objettive to seek temporal correspondences between domains m the d"ansition from one specific lev el to the next Evaluation of the hypothesis of structural correspondence requires (1) descnp tion of the structure and sequence of develop ments common to the two domains and (2) evaluation of the timing of analogous transi tions (Bates 1976, Fischer 1980) The following section considers the developmental structure of play levels which I orig mallv proposed (Nicohch 1977) on the basis of Piaget's (1962) sequence The sequence is proposed as ordinal, reflecting the gradual tran sition from meaning fused with action to the point where actions are guided by autonomous intemal meanings (Wemer & Kaplan 1963) Evidence for ordmahty from a vanety of stud ies will then be presented Structure and Sequence in Symbolic Play Presymbolw Schemes Level 1 The first step m the transition from sen sonmotor to symbolic functioning m plav :s the meaningful use of sensonmotor actions apart from their usual objective Knowledge of the functions of real objects m real situations forms the basis for later pretending When the child performs a conventional gesture in response to an object, he or she demonstrates understand ing of the object For example, the drinking scheme is ongmally applied to a cupfilledwith beverage, but eventually an empty cup will also elicit the dnnkmg scheme These earlv gestures have a "naming" quahty (Escalona 1973, Wemer & Kaplan 1963), where a hnef gesture is used with serious affect, lmplvmg recognition through action Action and mean mg are fused at this level Autosymboltc Schemes Level 2 At the previous level the child attached sensonmotor meanings to objects Now the child shows his or her awareness of these mean^ mgs by using them playfully The "meaning" of the drmkme scheme is now more general, so that its realistic and pretend vaneties can be activated at will In pretend, realistic mo tions and sound effects are generated in the presence of a cuphke object A child who wants to pretend will reject a full cup for an emph one (or transform one into tne other, to a
Lorraine McCune-Nicolich parent's dismay) The limitation of this level 15 that these schemes are still bed to the child's own sensonmotor actions Only such actions as eabng, sleeping, toileting, that form the baby's daily routme, occur at this level, and they are played only with respect to the child's own body Decentered Symbolic Games Level 3 At the next symbohc play level, a decentration of meanings is apparent, such that the child's schemes become more abstract and more distanced from his or her own sensonmotor actions The child can now use dolls or other objects as participants in the schemes already demonstrated with respect to the self The same decentenng process allows the child to increase the repertoire of play schemes available bv lmitabng others' actions, such as telephoning, reading, or cleaning Despite this advance, the child remains limited to one symbolic scheme plaved at a time Combtnatorud Symbdtc Games Level 4 Eventually the child begins to combine these schemes mto sequences Level 4 1 involves combining actors with a single action scheme, so that the cup and the scheme of dnnkmg can be applied to several parbcipants in succession, for example, by the child dnnkmg, then givmg a dnnk to a baby doll Altematelv, level 4 2 plav involves combining of different acbon ichemes For example, both the dnnkmg scheme and the scheme for going to bed could be apphed to the baby doll m sequence Internally Dtrected Symbolic Games Level 5 The earher play levels are "symbohc" m the sense that a sensonmotor gesture is used m pretend play to "represent" the real occurrence of the same or a similar acbon, without indication of a pnor mental plan for the behavior Late m the second year, a fundamental shift in the child's approach to symbolic play allows games to be generated mentally, before performance, rather than elicited by the particular objects Previous symbolic play sequences were essentially linear, the play behaviors strung together in temporal sequence lwied on the present context In contrast, the structure of level 5 play is hierarchical,' requiring the coordination of at least two representational structures, a covert mental trans-
787
formation or intention which directs a separate but related pretend behavior Several types of symbolic play exhibit this hierarchical structure For example, when one object IS substituted for another, such as usmg a stick as a horse, an intemal definition (stick — horse) is implied, which may or may not be verbalized This definition essentially directs the subsequent treatment of the stick ( e g , feed stick now IS equivalent to "feed horse") In addition, planning a pretend behavior pnor to execution exhibits this hierarchical structure There is first an intention to act, mdicated by verbalizabon, search, or both This intention directs the subsequent pretend act For example, the child might encounter a baby doll, say "drmk," find a cup, and give the doll a drink Finally, plav behavior in which a doll or other object IS treated as an agent capable of performing actions mdependently also imphes this hierarchy An intemal plan or transformation identifies the object as agent, and it is only through this transformation that the child's behavior takes on its full significance Evidence concerning the Ordinal Development of Symbolic Play The evidence m support of this sequence IS drawn from the studies listed m table 1 Collectively, the studies listed have assessed the symbolic play of more than 500 subjects, although few spanned the entire relevant age range Studies which included no mtervenbon by the examiner to either demonstrate or suggest actions with the toys are considered naturalistic, those mcludmg such demonstration or suggestion are considered expenmental The Transition to Symbolic Tlay Levels 1 and 2 Evidence is consistent from all of the studies reviewed that lnibal pretending depends on knowledge of the functions and structures of real objects Such knowledge is no doubt denved from the detailed exploration of object properties charactensbc of the 8-11-month age penod (McCall 1974), as well as from observabon of adult acbvibes Level 1 involves realistic use of real objects rather than pretending Inhelder, Lezme, Smclair-de Zwart, and Stambak (1972)^ provided evidence that
J Fischer (in press) proposed a general theory of cognitive development involving the development of hierarchical structures Level 5 play corresponds to Fischer's lowest representational level, where a hierarchical structure is first implied hy the child s behavior 2 This French language report has been summanzed and interpreted hy Lezine (1973) and Sinclair (1970) Informabon in table 1 was denved from Lezine (1973)
TABLE 1 SYMBOLIC STRUCTURE OF EARLY LANGUAGE (Ages in Months) \
NATURALISTIC STUDIES BEHAVIORS OBSERVED
AGE IN MONTHS
12-13
Fenson & Ramsav 1980 (N = 72, Age = 13, 19, 24)
Largo & Howard 1979 (Ar=112, \ g e Range = 9-30)
Self-directed acts, object directed acts
Self-pretend
14 15
Self-pretend dominant
Lezme 1973 (A^ = 77, Age Range = 10-24) \ppropnate use of some objects Pretend selffeeding Doll is a passive partner in pretend— hugged. kissed, rocked
Ix)we 1975 (iV = 244, Age Range - 12-36)
Nicohch 1977 {N "5 [Longitudinal], \ge Range = 14-26)
Self-related pretend Pretend vvith doll or mother
Pretend selffeeding and grooming
16
Smgle action
18-19
20-22
24
DoU related pretend. smgle-acUon sequences
\U subjects, passive doll
Sequences involving several acUons m appropnate order
Sequences, active doll
30
Doll IS an active partner, fed, groomed. dressed Object substituUon, e g , paper = doll blanket Pretend doll is source of action, e g , place mirror in doll's hand so It can look. use of absent objects
Some substitute object use
sctjucncc*«
Doll related pretend begins Doll related plav grows, smgle acUon sequences Search for missing objects
Sequences involving severa' actions Planned sequences, object substitution Search for missing objects
l.se of absent objects, doll active
B EXPERIMENTAL STUDIES BEHAVIORS OBSERVED
AGE IN MONTHS
Jeffree & McConkey 1976 (iV = 2 Subjects :Each Age = 18, 24,30,36,42)
hein 1979 (JV = 66, Age Range = 22-27)
Fein, Branch, & Diamond, Note 1 (N = 28, Age - 20, 22, 26)
14 18
More pretend with prototvpical objects
20
More pretend dunng and after modehng
24
W atson & 1 ischer 1977 (iV = 36, Age = 14, 19 241 Self-related pretend m response to a model (14 months' Self-pretend, passive doll pretend, use of subsUtute object in pretend 4 12 ss, acUve doll (19 months)
Peed horse (after modeling)
After modeling. pretend increases
Prototypical (93), subsUtute cup ( 79), subsUtute horse (61), subsutute both ( 33)
Highly prototypical toys ehcit more frequent pretend. interpretable sex differences
20-26 months Self-pretend, passive doll, subsUtute object, acuve doll
Lorrame McCune-Nicolich objects were not incorporated into pretend games until their real use was recognized (table 1) Fenson, Kagan, Kearsley, and Zelazo (1976) reported that objects were related to one another m a meaningful way before pretend play was observed When pretend play begms, it is confined to the child's own acbons with respect to the self (e g, Fenson & Ramsay 1980, Lezine 1973, Lowe 1975, Nicohch 1977, Hmcu", Note 2, McConkev, Note 3) The beginning of such self-pretend (level 2 play) indicates the emerging ability to symbolize Role Substitution in Symbolic Play Level 3 and Beyond When the child pretends to feed a doll or teddy wath a cup that he or she previously used only for pretending to dnnk, a role substitution IS apparent The developmental sequence is from self as focus of pretend to doUs, other potenbally animate toys, or mother as play participants (Bates, Benigni, Bretherton, Camaioni, & Volterra 1979, Fem 1975, Fenson & Ramsay 1980, Jeffree & McConkey 1976, Lezine 1973, Lowe 1975, Nicohch 1977, Piaget 1962, Watson & Fischer 1977, Hmcu-, Note 2, Fem, Branch & Diamond, Note 4) It may appear that the child is pretending to be a "mother" (Fein 1975) However, a more conservative view IS that around 12—15 months, when this behavior can often be observed, the child is still insufficiently detached from the lnterpersmal matnx of mother-object-self (Wemer & Kaplan 1963) to differenbate these roles Rather than taking on a specific role such as "mother," children recreate the activities of their dailv lives m a global way, using the matenals and people immediately available Pretending at the activities of others is considered analogous to making other objects and people play at the child's usual activities (Nicohch 1977, Piaget 1962) Both indicate a decentenng of play from the self When the child pretends to feed a doll or the mother, or pretends to mop the floor as an adult might, he or she demonstrates that such schemes are now general and that a relationship between the child's body and the bodies of others is becoming established The child portrays schemes learned from others and projects his or her schemes onto other participants Following the initial development of symbolic games involving dolls, several mvesbgators have observed that by about 24 months, children have begun to give the doll a more active" role m the game That is, the doll appears to have its own potential for action ratri-
789
er than being merely the passive recipient of the child's pretend schemes For example, the doll IS made to hold the cup or bottle rather than the child placmg it to the mouth (Fenson & Ramsay 1980, Lezine 1973, Watson & Fischer 1977) Such play can be interpreted as hierarchical, m the sense that a pnor mtemal representational equivalence ( e g , doll = real person) IS established, which then directs the child's behaviors involving the doll Thus such plav may require a symbolic capacity similar to that required for object substitution, which IS discussed below Sequencing Pretend Acts Level 4 The next advance in pretending is joining two or more symbolic play behaviors m sequence (Bates et al 1979, Fenson & Ramsay 1980, Lezine 1973, Lowe 1975, Nicohch 1977, Hmcir, Note 2, McConkey, Note 3) Two types of symbolic play sequences have been described First, the child may use the same action scheme with several participants, for example, feed doll, feed self (level 4 1) This behavior suggests that the feedmg scheme has a general meaning of its own which can be applied across participants Second, the child may play several different pretend schemes m relation to an object, for example, feed doll, comb doll (level 4 2) Linking one scheme to another in this way implies integration of the meanings of several schemes m a single framework These combmabons seem analogous to the circular reacbons of the sensonmotor period (Piaget 1962) where procedures are at first repeated, then mtentionallv varied as the child acts on objects m the environment Combinations of both types generally develop during the second vear when smgle pretend acts are well established (table 1) Fenson and Ramsay (1980) report that singlescheme combinations occurred at the same session as the first decentered act for half of their longitudinal sample This may be a result of the 6-month span between observabons m the study, since both decentered pretend and sequences develop in the period between 12 and 18 months The ordinal relationship between development of single-scheme (4 1) and multischeme (4 2) combmabons has received some support (Bates et al 1979, Fenson & Ramsav 1980, Hill & McCune-Nicohch 1981, Nicohch 1977) Although most subjects used singlescheme sequences Rrst, often few exemplars of the behaviors were observed, so further research IS required to resolve the issue Piaget (1962) descnbes play combmabons that m-
790
Child Development
elude children mtegratmg several roles and incorporating absent objects mto the game The sequences described here seem to be the early steps toward this behavior Internally Dtrected Symbolic Play Level 5 Three forms of mtemally directed symbolic play have been proposed Use of dolls as "active" agents has been noted m the section on role substitution This active doll use has been observed to occur at approximately the same age as object substitution and planned pretend, toward the end of the second year Evidence concemmg planned pretend will be presented m this secbon, followed by an examination of object substitution Planned pretend—Plannmg can be inferred from a verbal announcement by the child or by observation of the child searching for an object needed to complete the game In each case it is apparent to the observer that the child has planned the symbolic act pnor to performance The tendency to search for absent objects needed to complete a game is first observed after the child has been pretending with avadable objects for several months, usuallv at about 2 years of age (Lezine 1973, Lowe 1975, Nicohch 1977) In the only longitudinal study which considered search as an indicator of planned play, its emergence ranged m age from 18 to 26 months for the five female subjects observed (Nicohch 1977) The search for absent objects indicates that the child's game is less a result of sbmulus properties of present objects and more a result of his or her own invention Such invention suggests that there is a relationship between a pnor mental act and subsequent overt symbolizing Object substitution—Object substitubon IS at once the most obvious and the most complex dimension for considering the matunty of symbolic play While object substitution is always considered "symbolic play," the literature suggests a lack of consensus m defining this vanable In some naturahstic studies, creditmg the child with object substitution required evidence that the subsbtution was intentional, based on double knowledge of the conventional meanmg of the objects mvolved and the meanings expressed m the substitution (Lowe 1975, Nicohch 1977) These cntena can be met by (1) verbalization, (2) use of the object both conventionally and m substitution, or (3) use of the same object as a substitute for several others So defined, object substitution is rarely observed before 20 months of age (Lezine 1973, Nicohch 1977) For example, Nicohch
observed use of a toy screwdriver as a "fish swimming," then as a baby bottle Lezme reported use of a sheet of paper as a doll blanket The significance of object substitution from this perspective is that the child can generate a pretend scheme which is not highly dependent on present objects, and then assimilate present objects to the game (El'konm 1966, Piaget 1962) In other naturalistic studies the use of objects marginally dissimilar to the convenbonal object has been considered object substitution objects that are perceptually or functionally similar to the conventional object are used m pretending as early as 12-14 months of age Thus Bates et al (1979) reported that sub jects at 12 and 13 months of age used a doll shoe as a hat for the doll (functional similanty) and pretended to dnnk from a variety of cupshajjed objects (perceptual similarity) Shimada, Sano, and Peng (Note 5) observed chil dren as young as 14 months usmg a twig as a pencil, a spoon, or a chopstick, reflecting the perceptual similanty of these objects Definition is less of a problem m expen mental studies, which have considered a contmuum of possible substitutions, varying m lev el of abstraction Object charactenstics were varied to determine their influence on the child's capacity and willmgness to accept one object as another when the transformation was suggested by an adult's behavior In these studies, objects were presented to the child one at a time, the adult then modeled a conventional gesture and encouraged the child to imitate WhJe this IS a somewhat different task from inventing an mtenbonal object substitution, this methodology has potential for clarifying the results of more naturalistic studies The pattem of performance of subjects at various ages m these studies suggests the following sequence for lmitatmg modeled conventional gestures with objects in the period from 10 to 24 months (1) realisbc toys, (2) objects that are less prototypical than ordinary realistic toys ( e g , appropriately shaped blocks for a telephone), (3) ambiguous objects, and (4) dissimilar objects, which have their own conventional function ( e g , toy car used as hair brush) (Elder & Pederson 1978, Jackowitz & Watson 1980, Watson & Fischer 1977, Killen & Uzgins, Note 6) lmitatmg a modeled conventional gesture with no object present is related to object sub stitution The point m this sequence at which
Lorraine McCune-Nicolich children imitate a convenbonal gesture with no object present is unclear Jackowitz and Watson (1980) reported that thi* was the most advanced behavior m their ordinal scale, with fewer than 50% of 23-month-olds (their oldest subjects) performing the task However, Elder and Pederson (1978) reported more pretence with no object than with a dissimilar object at age 30 months (their youngest subjects) and the reverse at 36 months This difference may be attnbutable to methodological differences, but additional research is needed, spannmg the age range of 20-36 months, to clarify this discrepancy More naturalistic studies involved presentation of sets of related objects, which were more or less prototypical of the conventional objects they represented In some cases two toy sets were used, one realistic, the other nonprototypical In others, objects in the same set vaned on this dimension These studies provide the followmg information (1) Children are apparently sensitive to some of the same prototypicality dimensions as adults Their frequency of use of ambiguous objects was correlated with adult judgments of how similar the ambiguous object was to the real object (Fem et al, Note 4) (2) Children are more likely to use a subsbtute object if other realistic objects provide a theme or context for pretending (Fem 1975, Shimada et al, Note 5) (3) In the first 3 years children prefer more realistic objects and pretend more frequently with them, even after they become capable of object substitution (McConkey, Note 3, Fem et al, Note 4) In other naturalistic studies, where sets of objects were almost all highly realistic, object substitution appeared as a late-emerging and infrequent behavior ( e g . Largo & Howard 1979, Lowe 1975, Nicohch 1977) This is congruent with findings from more expenmental approaches which have demonstrated a preference for using realistic objects and difiBculty in substituting an object with an established meaning for another object It is apparent that findings conceming object substitution will vary depending on the objects available and the methodology adopted Structural Relationship of Early Language and Symbolic Play If language and symbolic play both reflect the development of underlying symbolic ability, these processes would be expected to develop in parallel, with transitions to more
791
advanced levels occurring close in time (Bates 1976, Fischer 1980) Such correspondences have been proposed on theoretical grounds (Piaget 1962, Wemer & Kaplan 1963) Both vocalarticulatory behaviors m language and gestural behaviors m play are used to represent information about objects and events in the real world Several functions are also shared by language and play in the second year of Me First, both involve the communicative function of sharing objects with others (Dunn & Wooding 1977, Wemer & Kaplan 1963) Second, children use both plav and language to "try out" vanous representational equivalences and so leam about the range of acceptable symbolic transformations Recent correlational results have supported a general relationship between symbolic play and language Lowe and Costello (1976), in a large cross-sectional study of children between 12 and 36 months of age, reported partial correlations (age statistically removed) of approximately 30 between symbolic play and two language scores, Reynell Scale score (Reynell & Huntley 1971) and Mean Length of Utterance (MLU) Fein (Note 1) found that when a large number of play and language scores were factor analyzed, pretend play and language loaded on the same factor while other nonpretend play variables characterized a separate factor Children in the Fein study who were high m language comprehension at 18 and 24 months showed significantly more decentered pretending ( e g , feeding the doll with a bottle) than children with lower comprehension scores Rosenblatt (1977) reported that 12-24-month-oIds in her study whose language was advanced for their age engaged in more representational play than the others Bates et al (1979) found that between 9 and 13 months symbolic play measures were the best predictors of gesture and language More specific relationships between svmbolic play and language may exist than have been identified from correlational analysis As the basis for testing more specific hypotheses concemmg these relationships, the followmg sections outline stmctural developments in language which might correspond to the symbolic plav levels previously described Presytnbolic Behavior At the transition between sensonmotor and early symbohc behavior, the meanings expressed m both play and language are fused with acbon and are thus presymbolic In play, the child recognizes such objects as cup, comb.
792
Child Development
and baby bottle by using the conventional gestures associated with these objects In language, analogous presymbolic vocal and gestural behaviors, which precede referenbal words, have been identified (Carter 1978, Dore 1975, Dore, Franklin, Miller, & Ramer 1976, Wemer & Kaplan 1963) These include consistent sound pattems, often accompanied by reachmg or pointing, which serve to signal the child's desires or interests to caretakers (Carter 1978, Dore et al 1976) These "pseudo-names" (Clark 1978) are only partly correlated with the presence of particular objects and are thus not clearly referential Thus, Piaget (1962) reported that his daughter used the word "panane," originally a name for her rather accommodating grandfather, as a general request, whether the grandfather were present or absent Wemer and Kaplan (1963) described an additional prenammg category of vocalizations, onomatopoetic utterances, derived from imitation of the sounds of objects ( e g , "tick-tock" to designate a clock) The close association of communicative vocalization with action durmg this period is apparent from the observations that (1) gesture can substitute for vocalization at this time (Clark 1978), and (2) this period IS characterized by a high frequency of simultaneous co-occurrence of vocalization and gesture, which rapidly declmes thereafter (Carter 1978) In language comprehension the child begins to respond to parental requests sucb as "Wave by-by" and "Clap hands" with appropriate gestures Close temporal correspondence between these behaviors in play and language have been reported (Volterra, Bates, Benigni, Bretherton, & Camaioni 1979, Wemer & Kaplan 1963, Corman & Escalona, Note 7) Centered Symbolic Behavior Both pretend behavior and referential words indicate the begmnmg of a separation between the means of signifying a meanmg and the meaning itself In play, the child shows awareness of a meaningful acbon (eat, sleep) and the potential for using that action m play ( e g , pretend eat, pretend sleep) Such actions are centered on the child's own body and activities In language, the child shows awareness that words are meaningful and that such meanings can be used for communication Language IS referential at this level, in the sense that a consistent word is used to code a descnbable category of entities ( e g , "dog" might refer to the family pet, pictures of dogs, and stuffed animals) This suggests an mtemal component that IS separate from, but isomorphic with, the observed sensonmotor performance
( e g , word or play act) Considerable evidence exists for the co-occurrence of first words and first pretend behaviors (Bates, Camaioni, & Volterra 1975, Lezine 1973, Piaget 1962, Stem 1930, Volterra et al 1979, Wemer & Kaplan 1963) In both early language (Nelson 1973) and play (Nicohch 1977), a narrow range of meanings is expressed by a given child This set of meanings is fairly consistent across children (Volterra et al 1979) Single-Umt Differentiated Schemes In decentered play, the child recognizes the general meanmgs of various actions and their separation from the self by applying his or her own schemes to dolls ( e g , doll dnnk) and by borrowing pretend schemes from others ( e g , pretend telephone) Such play suggests that the world is cognized m more differentiated terms because actions are recognized as separate from participants in action Thus acbons and participants are paired with some flexibility in pretend games From this perspective, the Piagetian notion of decentenng overlaps with the process of differentiation described by Werner and Kaplan (1963) Wemer and Kaplan proposed that single words proceed from global to differentiated use, reflecting an underlying shift in the way the world is cognized Thev described early single words as referencing the total context in which they occur For example, the word "mommy" or "cookie" might be used with identical reference to an expenential context (cookies -|- mother -|- child's desire for a cookie) considered as a total tableau by the child Eventually the child differentiates tableaus such as this mto various entibes and "dynamic" aspects Two qualitabve changes in single-word language can be expected as a result of this differentiation First, words would begin to be used which refer more specifically to the dynamic aspect ( e g , "more" or "allgone") (Werner & Kaplan 1963) Such words are usually reported to occur later m the singleword penod than object words, person names, and social routme words (Comgan 1978, McCune-Nicohch 1981, Nelson 1973, Wemer & Kaplan 1963), although some children include such words in their earliest lexicons (Bloom 1973) Second, if the child sees the world in more differentiated terms, vocabulary words should be learned which refer to more differentiated aspects of the environment Nelson (1973) observed such a qualitative shift when she compared the contents of her subjects' first 10word and first 40-word vocabularies A differentiation effect IS suggested by the finding that
Lorraine McCune-Nicohch words for body parts and items of clothing occurred in the later, but not the earlier, vocabularies To name body parts and clothing the child must both recognize his or her own body as an object of reference and focus on a single part of the body, or item of clothing associated with it, and make reference to this as a differentiated entity Animal and food names, which frequently occurred m the earlier vocabularies, seem to reflect a more global analysis of perceptual experience Taking the thesis that both decentered play and a more differentiated approach to language acquisition might reflect a shift in the underlying ability to symbolize, one might predict that changes in language reflecting such differentiated use should occur close in time to the onset of decentered play While this question has not been investigated empirically, language changes occurring late in the single-word period suggest that this is a hypothesis worth testmg Nelson (1973) reported that even the earliest vocabularies contained words from several adult semantic categones which have the potential to be combined The child's failure to combine words at this period of development has been attributed to a lack of knowledge of linguistic strategies for combination ( e g , Bhom 1973, Brown 1973) However, a more general symbolic limitation mav also account for this delay Wemer and Kaplan (1963) provided a theoretical explanation for the delay between acquiring lexical items with combinatorial potential and actually combining words, which IS based on a symbolic rather than a specificallv linguistic limitation They proposed that symbolic differentiation and integration proceeded gradually, m complementary fashion For example, a child who uses the single word "more" to request a cookie at first intends reference to aspects of the entity "cookie" as well as to the dynamic aspect, "recurrence " Despite the child's ability to differentiate the world into a number of elements which can be cognized somewhat separately, Wemer and Kaplan (1963) proposed that further development of the symbolic function is needed before meanings are sufficiently differentiated to be integrated within a single utterance Study of symbolic play in relation to language can contribute evidence conceming the linguistic versus the symbolic basis for the child's limitation to single-word utterances Linear Symbolic Combinations Based on Context Both language and symbolic play proceed from single units to combinations It may be
793
that a shift in cognitive functionmg, such that svmbolic units can be combined, underlies the development of sequential behaviors in both domains Two levels of early word combinations, analogous to the two highest levels of play previously described (levels 4 and 5) are proposed The earliest combinations will be characterized as hnear, m the sense that the verbal elements are joined only by virtue of reference to a common context, rather than by linguistic rules A general capacity for svmbolic combination is proposed to account for this transition in both plav and language The later combinations which are apparently rule based will be descnbed in the following section as analogous to level 5 plav A fundamental cognitive development which allows the child to construct relations between symbols directly is proposed to account for these skills (McCall, Eichom, & Hogarty 1977) When word combinations begin to occur they are infrequent, and often convey a single adult concept (Dore 1975, Dore et al 1976, Wemer & Kaplan 1963) A group of vocal phenomena described by Dore et al (1976) suggest that the child recognizes the possibility of verbal combination before leaming how to accomplish it Thus initial or terminal sounds are added to single words, the same word is repeated twice, and/or apparently unanalyzed two-word expressions begm to occur Successive single words refemng to a given context but with a brief pause between the elements have also been observed ( e g . Bloom 1973, Dore 1975, Rodgon 1976) In the present paper two forms of transitional language combination are proposed as analogous to the simple play combinations observed in level 4 play unanalyzed phrases which refer to a single adult concept, and pairs of words juxtaposed with reference to aspects of the given context The first type exemplifies a combinatorial strategy, in that the child comprehends a two-unit phrase and is able to segment the pair from the adult's language and apply it later, by deferred imitation, in an appropriate context The second type exemplifies the strategy suggested by Wemer and Kaplan (1963) whereby the child's capacity for differentiating aspects of context proceeds to the point where these can be referenced separately within the same utterance frame Some language theorists have suggested that a penod of presyntactic combinations is an important developmental phenomenon (Clark, Hutcheson, & Van Buren 1974, Clerk 1974, Howe 1976), while others have suggested that
794
Child Development
word combinations represent semanbc-syntactic knowledge from the start ( e g , Branigan 1979) The evidence reviewed above suggests that there may be two forms of early language combmabons, a presyntactic penod followed by a period of rule-based utterances Although some progress has been made in lnterprebng recent language acquisition research within a single theoretical framework ( e g . Bloom & Lahey 1978), an integrative theory dealing with the penod from single words tbrough the acquisition of syntax has not received wide acceptance among psycholinguists Branigan (1979) reported that utterances previously termed "successive single words" ( e g . Bloom 1973, Dore 1975, Rodgon 1976) exhibit pauses between the elements but have terminal contour only on the final word, mdicating that thev should be considered as combinations rather than single words Such combinations exemplify the juxtaposition strategy descnbed above They are directly analogous to level 4 play where several symbohc gestures are earned out m relation to a constant context with bnef pauses between them A linear rather than a hierarchic symbolic ability can account for both performances, as the symbolic elements are joined only by their relationship to a common extemal context Available evidence supports a similar onset time for combinations m both symbolic play and language McCune-Nicohch (Note 8) reported the co-occurrence of such initial combinatorial language and play combinations m a longitudinal sample of five subjects The language combinations were infrequent and consisted either of unanalyzed phrases ( e g , "orange juice," "Aunt Marcy") or juxtaposed elements referring to a common context (e g, "bye-bye nose," "baby bath") HJl and McCune-Nicohch (1981) found that, in their sample of 36 Down's syndrome subjects, those who produced simple verbal combinations also exhibited level 4 play Hierarchical Symbolic Combinations Producing a "rule-based" utterance assumes a hierarchical structure because an internal "plan" relates the symbohc elements to one another Such plans (as the term is used here) may be as simple as the surface order rules suggested by Braine (1963) or as complex as those derived from a transformational grammar The essential element is that an mtemal stnictiire allows symbolic elements to be related to one another directly, m a more abstract fashion than that implied by juxtaposing
elements m relation to context Level 5 play has also been descnbed as hierarchical because the child uses symbolic correspondences generated mentally ( e g , stick — horse) to direct pretend behaviors ( e g , feed "horse") or plans a pretend behavior mentally before executing It Several rule-based and hence hierarchical systems have been proposed to account for children's multiword expressions ( e g . Bloom & Lahey 1978, Braine 1976, Brown 1973) McCune-Nicohch (Note 8) reported synchrony in age of emergence of two types of rule-based utterances and level 5 play Subjects first showed level 5 plav, then exhibited positional pattems (Braine 1976) in the surface structure of two-word utterances Positional pattems involved rules of surface order such that for utterances contaming, for example, "Mommy," the form "Mommy -(- X" would be either universal or statistically more frequent than the reverse pattem, "X -f Mommy" Utterances greater than two words in length were constructed by imbedding one posibonal pattem in another ( e g , "Mommy here fish," resulting from the imbedding of a "here -I- X" pattem in the "Mommy -(- X" pattem) An addibonal hierarchical type of combination, also observed to occur following onset of level 5 play, involved three-word utterances such as "I get it," "I do it," "Mommy do it" Such utterances may represent a case where the ability to leam sequences of words by deferred imitation is augmented by the more general cognitive ability to generate symbolic combinations, which IS observable in both play and language That is, the three-word "unit" leamed can be enriched by varying one or more symbolic elements Nelson (1973) reported that frequent use of such utterances was correlated with language maturity at 24—30 months Future Directions This paper has reviewed the evidence for a developmental sequence m symbolic play and has attempted to provide a theoretical rabonale for predicting correspondences between symbolic play and early language While the five play levels descnbed form an ordinal scale, the play sequence observed may represent the more obvious milestones of several parallel developmental trends (Jackowitz & Watson 1980) Clear trends are role adoption and substitution, developing from play centered on the self to flexibibty in both
Lorraine McCune-Nicohch actions and participants, object meanings which progress from mere recognition to transformations and the "creation" of objects needed m play, and sequencing, which proceeds from single units to linear and finally to hierarchical organization At about 2 years of age these three themes reach fruition m the three forms of level 5 play proposed Further research may serve to expand trie conception of play presented here and thus suggest additional research questions conceming the relationship of symbolic plav to language The evidence available suggests that symbolic play might provide a useful converging operation for identifying structural turning points m language Preliminary support has been presented for correspondences between (1) presymbolic behaviors in both domains, (2) initial pretending and first referential words, (3) the emergence of combmatonal behaviors in both domains, and (4) hierarchicalIv organized language and symbolic play Additional research is needed to confirm these findings Qualitative changes during the singleword period corresponding to the shift from level 2 to level 3 play remain to be investigated Large-scale longitudinal and cross-sectional studies must be undertaken to determine the generality of the sequences proposed in this paper Concurrent measures of play and language can be used to study the relationship between these systems during their penod of rapid development In addition to correlational studies, intervention studies can provide evidence for the underlvmg relationship between skills in these two domains Theoretically, if both systems are dependent on an underlying general structure, stimulation of one system should lead to improvement of the other as a result of changes in the underlying stmcture (Bates 1976) Additional theoretical questions concem the relationship of early symbolic play to later forms of pretending and to other aspects of symbolic functioning Prospective studies to correlate early symbolic play with later semiotic functioning and logical thought would be valuable in studying the generality of symbohc behavior and might also suggest what to look for in early play for predicting later development Reference Notes 1
Fein, G Imagination and play some relationships in early development Paper presented
2
3 4
5
6
7
8
795
at the meeting of the Amencan Psychological Association, Toronto, August 1979 Hmcir, E J Symbolic modes of actavitv m two-year-old children Paper presented at the ninth annual UAP Conference on Piagetian Theory and Its Implications for the Helping Professions, Fehruarv 1979 McConkey, R Working paper 2 pretend plav and language development Unpuhhshed manuscript, St Michael's House, Duhlin, 1978 Fem, G , Branch, A R , & Diamond, E Gognitive and social dimensions of pretending in two-year-olds Unpublished manuscript, Yale University, 1975 Shimada, S , Sano, R , & Peng, F A longitudinal study of symbolic play m the second year of life (Research Bulletin ISSNS 0385-9428) Tokyo Research Institute for the Education of Exceptional Ghildren, Tokyo Gakugei Universitv, 1979 KiUen, M , & Uzgins, I G Imitation of actions with objects the role of social meaning Paper presented at the International Gonference on Infant Studies, Providence, Rhode Island, March 1978 Gorman, H , & Escalona, S Gogmtion, symbolic action and language learmng Manuscnpt, Albert Emstem GoUege of Medicine, Yeshiva University, 1980 McGune-Nicohch, L The transition from sensonmotor to symbohc processes m play and language Paper presented at the New York Ghild Language Gonference, December 14, 1979
References Bates, E Language and context New York Academic Press, 1976 Bates, E , Bemgni, L , Bretherton, I , Gamaioni, L , & Volterra, V From gesture to the first word on cognitive and social prerequisites In M Levsas & L Rosenblum (Eds ), Interaction, conversation and the development of language New York Wiley, 1977 Bates, E , Bemgni, L , Bretherton, I , Gamaiom, L , & Volterra, V The emergence of symbols cognition and communication in infancy New York Academic Press, 1979 Bates, E , Gamaioni, L , & Volterra, V The acquisition of performatives pnor to speech MerrtU-Pdmer Quarterly, 1975, 21(3), 205-266 Bloom, L One uoord at a time the use of stngle word utterances before syntax The Hague Mouton, 1973 Bloom, L , & Lahey, M Language development and language dtsorders New York Wiley, 1978
796
Child Development
Braine, M The ontogeny of the English phrase structure the first phase Language, 1963, 39, 1-13 Braine, M Ghildren's first word combinations Monographs of the Society for Research «n Chtld Development, 1976, 41(1, Senal No
164) Branigan, G Some reasons why single word utterances are not Journal of Child Language, 1979, 6(3), 411^23 Brown, R A first language the early stages Gambndge. Mass Harvard Umversity Press, 1973 Garter, A From senson-motor vocalizations to words a case study of the evolution of attention-directing commumcation in the second year In A Lock (Ed ), Actton, gesture and symbol the emergence of language London Academic Press, 1978 Glark, R The transition from action to gesture In A Lock (Ed ), Action, gesture and symbol the emergence of language London Academic Press, 1978 Glark, R , Hutcheson, S , & Van Buren, P Gomprehension and production m language acquisition Journal of Ltngutsttcs, 1974, 10, 39-54 Glerk, R Performing without competence Journal of Chtld language, 1974, 1, 1-10 Gomgan, R Language development as related to stage 6 object permanence development Journal of Chtld Language, 1978, 5(2), 17S-189 Gomgan, R Gogmtive correlates of language differential cntena yield differential results Chtld Development, 1979, 50, 617-631 Dore, J Holophrases, speech acts and language universals Journal of Child Language, 1975, 2, 21-39 Dore, J , Frankhn, M , Miller, R , & Ramer, A Transitional phenomena in early language acquisibon Journal of Chtld Language, 1976, 3, 13-18 Dunn, ] , & Wooding, G Play in the home and its implicabons for learmng In B Tizard & D Harvey (Eds ), Biology of play Philadelphia Lippincott, 1977 Elder, J , & Pederson, R Preschool children's use of objects m symbohc play Child Development, 1978, 49(2), 500-505 El'Konm, D Symbolics and its functions in the play of young children Sovtet Education, 1966, 8(7), 35 Escalona, S K Basic modes of social interaction their emergence dunng the first two years of life MernU-Pdmer Quarterly, 1973, 19, 204232 Fein, G A transformational analysis of pretending Developmental Pychology, 1975, 11(3), 291296
Fenson, L , Kagan, J , Kearsley, R B , & Zelazo, P B The developmental progression of manipulative play in the first two years Chtld Development, 1976, 47, 232-236 Fenson, L , & Ramsay, D Decentration and integration of play m the second year of life Chdd Development, 1980, 51, 171-178 Fischer, K A theory of cogmtive development the control and construction of hierarchies of skills Psychologtcd Revtew, 1980, 87(6), 477-531 Hill, P , & McGune-Nicolich, L Pretend play and pattems of cognition in Down's syndrome children Chdd Development, 1981, 52(2), 611617 Howe, G J The meamngs of two-word utterances m the speech of young children Journal of Chdd Language, 1976, 3, 29-^7 Inhelder, B , Lezme, I , Sinclair-de Zwart, H , & Stambak, M Les debuts de la fonction symbolique Archives de Psychologte, 1972, 41, 187-243 Jackowitz, E , & Watson, M Development of object transformations m early pretend play Developmentd Psychology, 1980, 16, 543-549 Jeffree, D , & McGonkey, R An observation scheme for recording children's imaginative doll plav Journal of Chtld Psychology and Psychiatry, 1976, 17, 18»-197 Largo, R H , & Howard, J Developmental progression in play behavior of children between nine and thirty months, I Spontaneous pla\ and imitation Developmental Medtctne and Chdd Neurology 1979, 21, 299-310 Lezine, I The transition from sensonmotor to earliest symbolic function in early development Early Development, Research Pubhcation ARNMD, 1973, 51, 22-232 Lowe, M Trends in the development of representabonal play in infants from one to three years an observabonal study Joumd of Child Psychology and Psychtatry, 1975, 16, 33-47 Lowe, M , & Gostello, A Manual for the symbolic play test (expenmentd edition) London NFER, 1976 McGall, R B Exploratory manipulation and plav in the human infant Monographs of the Society for Research in Chdd Development, 1974, 33(2, Senal No 155) McCall, R B , Eichom, D H , & Hogarty, P S Transitions in early mental development Monographs of the Society for Research in Chtld Development, 1977, 42(5, Senal No 171) McGune-Nicolich, L The cogmtive bases of early relational words Jourrud of Chdd Language, 1981, 8(1), 15-36 Nelson, K Structure and strategy in learmng to
Lorraine McCune-Nicolich talk Monographs of the Society for Research tn Chdd Development, 1973, 38(1-2 Senal No 149) Nicohch, L M Bevond sensonmotor mtelhgence assessment of symbohc matunty through analysis of pretend play MerrtU-Palmer Quarterly 1977, 23(2), 89-101 Piaget, J Play, dreams and tmttatton New York Norton, 1962 Reynell, J , & Huntley, R M G New scales for the assessment of language in young children Joumd of Leaming Dtsahdtties, 1971, 4(10) 549-557 Rodgon, M Single-word usage, cognitive development and the begmmngs of combtnatorud speech Gambndge Gambndge University Press, 1976 Rosenblatt, D Developmental trends in infant play In B Tizard & D Harvey (Eds ), Biology of play London Hememan, 1977 Sinclair, H The transition from sensonmotor to
797
symbolic activity Interchange, 1970, 1, 119126 Stern, W Psychology of early childhood up to six years of age New York Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1930 Sutton-Smith, B Play and Learning New York Gardner, 1979 Volten-a, V , Bates, E , Benigm, L , Bretherton, I , & Gamaioni, L First words m language and action a qualitative look In E Bates (Ed ), The emergence of symbols cognition and communication in infancy New York Academic Press, 1979 Watson, M, & Fischer, K A developmental sequence of agent use in late infancy Chdd Development, 1977, 48(3), 828-836 Weisler, A, & McGall, R Exploration and play resume and redirection Amencan Psychologist, 1976, 31(7), 492-508 Wemer, H , & Kaplan, B Symbolic formation New York Wiley, 1963
