LEXICAL DEVELOPMENT FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF GENETIC-DRAMATISM 1

Roy D. Pea Bernard Kaplan Bank Street College and & Clark University

Clark University Heinz Werner Institute ~einz Werner Institute for Developmental Psychology

for Developmental Psychology

Our current information regarding the acquisition of language in children is recognizably extensive. At the same time it is admittedly fragmented and isolated. We view this as unwholesome, and our paper is intended to promote four aims instrumental to the goal of dissolving this state of affairs.

One aim is to make manifest a widespread, if unarticulated, sentiment that understanding any isolated aspect of linguistic activity cannot be achieved without a concurrent appreciation of many other aspects of language functioning: thus, an understanding of "lexical development" is unattainable without the consideration of syntax, morphology, and phonology, on the one hand, and pragmatics and even politics (Kress &

Hodge, 1979) on the other. A second aim, really an extension of the first, is to emphasize that

the study of the child's linguistic activity may only be adequately formulated, undertaken, and interpreted in the context of conceptualizations of linguistic functioning in later life. One cannot comprehend child language in isolation from an understanding of adult linguistic functioning, both at its highest levels, and at its most primitive levels (e.g. in pathology) .

A third goal is to argue for the need for an overarching perspective, not only for lexical and for language development, as considered in isolation, but for human development, of which linguistic functioning is, although a large part, only a part. A perspective is required that will integrate lexical and language development with the struggle of human beings to perfect themselves; in Whitehead's (1929) phrase, "to live, live well, and live better".

The fourth purpose is to outline and exemplify such an overarching perspective.

Even as the Zeitgeist has vacillated from a preoccupation - now, with syntax; now, with semantics and cognition; now, with pragmatics and comanunication; and now, perhaps again, with syntax (Kessel, 1981), there is a pervasive sentiment that the study of isolated aspects of language behavior is inadequate not only to the understanding of language development as a whole, but even for a grasp of those abstracted aspects themselves.

Yet we all operate in our research as if we can, with impunity, violate "the Humpty Dumpty principle"; we break down the human child into the language-acquiring child, the word-acquiring child, and so on, and assume that someday, somehow, someone will come along and put all the pieces back together again. Not that we are unaware of the possible impact of these segregated aspects on one another. To take but a few examples, we know that newly-acquired verbs tend to be used in

Pea & Kaplan 2

structurally less-complex sentences than are earlier-acquired verbs (Bloom, Miller & Hood, 1975); that "bursts" of higher than usual syntactic complexity may occur in settings (such as arguments) where the child is persistent in purpose (Ervin-Tripp, 1977); that scenes of utterances (e.9. absent versus present objects; peer-peer role-play versus adult-child dialogue) may affect the words, sentence structures, and types of speech acts that are used; and that ease of articulation and auditory salience may contribute to the avoidance or exploitation of specific words by yo ng children (Barton, 1976; Ferguson & Farwell, 1975; Menyuk & Menn, 1979).

Y But being aware of the inappropriateness of assuming isolability of

aspects of language has not directed us to the adoption of holistic approaches; to the contrary, we continue to breed "experts" on elements and minutiae.

In contrast, workers in cognitive science studying learning, memory, and problem-solving have recognized that performances in any one of these domains are subject to complex interactions among the agent's goals, the tasks imposed by the experimenter, the nature of the materials (content) to be dealt with, the contexts of performance, and the like. They have begun to drop the search for "general laws" of isolated psychological functions (cf. Bransford, 1979; Brown, 1980; Jenkins, 1979). To comprehend lexical development, we may need to embrace the paradox of dependencies of such development upon a multitude of factors seemingly external to words.

Yet another type of segregation has been promoted by an exclusive focus on child language. To take the case of "lexical development", do we not find that the study of child language (in general) and the child's dealings with words (in particular) is typically divorced, not only in practice but in theory, from the diverse ways of employing words among adults? More striking yet, do we see students of child language prepared to deal with the most advanced manifestations of linguistic functioning? We act as if the understanding of linguistic development in the child were possible, even likely, without any clarity as to the telos of linguistic development as realized in the poet, the rhetorician, the master "lexicographer". More rarely yet do students of child language and "lexical development" in children relate their studies of changes in word-meaning in children to collective phenomena in the history of languages, as, for example, Heinz Werner (1954) has done. Thus, our focus -

on a circumscribed population rather than on universal processes has blinded us to a full appreciation and extension of the comparative nature of our (presumably) developmental discipline.

But even if the "walls of Jericho" insulating language studies of child from those of adult, and individual from collective representations, were to tumble and fall, a neutral and putatively value-free account of linguistic or lexical change over time, whether concerning the old and the young, poets as well as plebians, cultural phenomena in addition to individual ones, would not constitute a developmental account. This is because "development" for us, as contrasted with "ontoqenesis" or "history", belongs in the domain of ideals, norms, and standards; in a word, it is a VALUE concept (Werner, 1948, p. 46; Kaplan, 1966a; 196613; 1967/1974; 1981a; 1981b; 1982a; l982b).

What does this mean? First, that "development" must be distinguished from "change". Second, that "development", as a desideratum, something we

Pea & Kaplan 3

seek to achieve for ourselves and to assist others to achieve, cannot be derived from facts, nor based on empirical findings (Kaplan, 1902h). Rather, it is a standard by which we assess or evaluate the innumerable changes during life. "Development" is a concept of stipulation, not a concept derived through induction.

Although this truism is often masked in psychological discussions of development, as in the name-game of personality development, cognitive development, metamemory development ..., reflection will reveal its necessity. Piaget did not arrive at his notion of "development of intelligence" by drawing inductive generalizations from changes in the behaviors of his three children. Nor did Freud arrive at his conceptions of "psychosexual development" from i~ductive reasoning based on representative samples of children at different ages. We shall never find out what the "development" of language or any of its selected aspects "is", merely through empirical observations or experimental analyses. Before determining the "stages" of lexical or language development, we must already have some implicit conception of what we - mean by "development" in the domain we study. What do we take as criteria that allow the judgement that someone is highly developed, linguistically or lexically, relative to someone else? Surely, not that they are older. And no doubt not that they so happen to do the same things that older persons do. We would not infer a leap in moral development if children who had never cheated began to cheat like many of their elders.

The point here is that development is a movement toward perfection; that one must know what the general lineaments of perfection would be in any performance domain in order to ascertain whether developmental advances have or have not occurred. Moreover, one must have such lineaments in mind to determine whether certain conditions in the lives of individuals facilitate, or are inimical to development.

For us, therefore, the study of lexical development is not a value-free inquiry, but an axiological as well as empirical enterprise, linked to intervention. We are concerned with lexical acquisition, whether that of individuals, cultural thesauri, or other "agents", because words are instrumentalities of great power; the full mastery of words is a desideratum. One will recognize that such mastery is not revealed simply by the use and understanding of words as conveying conventional meanings in customary contexts, such as are represented in the dictionaries of our time. Lexical development, in its more advanced reaches, entails the ability to exploit words in metaphor, metonymy, synechdoche, irony, and all the other figures of speech which are also figures of thought (Burke, 1945; Kaplan, 1361/1981). It entails the extension of words beyond their usual denotata to novel configurations and situations, a process some may stigmatize as "overgeneralization" among the young an3 illiterate, and glorify as "creativity" in themselves and their friends. It entails the ability not only to decontextualize words, and to define them in isolation, but to recontextualize words, morphologically modifying their external forms so that they can take on different grammatical functions (Brown, 1973; Werner & E. Kaplan, 1950; Werner & B. Kaplan, 1963). It entails the ability, or "communicative competence" (Habermas; Hymes), to select the right words and locate them in the right places at the right time for the optimal realization of all speech acts or functions, and even to knoii when silence is the right "word". Thus lexical development can only advance pari passu with syntactic and pragmatic (or rhetorical)

Pea & Kaplan 4

development. The "master lexicalist" is at once also a master syntactician and a master rhetorician (Cirillo & Kaplan, 1981).

4

From this perspective, lexical developmentalists would not only, or even largely, confine their efforts to describing the a tualities of human 5: functioning during the first few years of childhood. They would deal with human beings throughout the span of life, as they immerse themselves in the lexicons of different professions--jurisprudence, mechanics, theology, or linguistics--; as they write poetry and drama; as they function under transient stress or the enduring stress occasioned by brain-damage or schizophrenia (Kaplan, 1966b). Each of these inquiries into lexical functioning would need to integrate syntactic, pragmatic, phonological, and morphological considerations. And such studies would have to be guided by the standard or telos of lexical development - a perfect mastery, never even remotely achieved, which one might call "competence" in the fullest sense.

A sharp theoretical distinction between "development" and "ontogenesis" enables us to see that ontogenesis, the actualities of existence over the life span, does not entail development. It is, indeed, because "development" is at least tacitly distinguished from ontogenesis --the ideal from the actual-- that it makes any sense to talk about "dips" in performance (Bever, l98l), or to refer to "systematic errors" (Bowerman, 1981) occurring in the history of children's uses of words. "Dips", "errors", regressions", and "arre ts" imply norms or standards, imply some ideal for assessing the actual. 2

We have already suggested that lexical change and lexical development interpenetrate with change and development of phonology, morphology, syntax, and pragmatics. It should come as no surprise if we go further and emphasize the "interfunctional relations" (Vygotsky, 1978) of linguistic activity with other aspects of human behavior and experience. For certain purposes, one may prescind linguistic functioning and development from their natural embeddedness in the multifarious goal-directed actions of persons in society. But the evidence is overwhelming that the manner in which one uses language, the way in which one handles words, is affected by and affects a human being's cognitive, moral, and interpersonal functioning, and so on.

Yet such influences and interconnections are by and large neglected by students of child language or child lexicality, relegated to yet other experts, or taken to be of marginal interest to the enterprise of understanding linguistic development. Such insulatios is testimony to the need for a general developmental perspective , an overarching developmental orientation that would encompass, in one system, comparative studies of a diversity of phenomena: ontogenetic, cultural, psychopathological, neuropathological. A developmental point of view that would encompass phenomena taking place with respect to different time-scales: historical, biographical, diurnal, ~ n d microgenetic. A developmental perspective that wo Id allow for, and encourage, a diversity. '4 of methods: phenomenological , naturalistic, hermeneutic , and experimental, and which WOW seek to integrate the findings from all of these different procedures . Such an approach was advanced by Heinz

Pea & Kaplan 5

Werner and h i s s t u d e n t s (Kaplan, 1966b; Kaplan, 1961/1981; Werner, 1948, 1978; Werner, 1956/1978; Werner, 1954; Werner & E. Kaplan, 1950, 1952: Werner & B. Kaplan, 1956; 1963) .

I t i s t h i s organismic-developmental approach of Werner & Kaplan ( s e e Werner, 1948, 1957; Werner & Kaplan, 1956, 1963; Kaplan, 19663, 1966b, 1967; Wapner, Kaplan 6 Cohen, 1973; Wapner, Kaplan, & C i o t t o n e , 1981; Pea & R u s s e l l , 1980; R u s s e l l & Pea, 1980) i n t e g r a t e d w i t h t h e d r a m a t i s t i c o r i e n t a t i o n o f t h e renowned s t u d e n t of symbol ic a c t i o n i n l i f e and l i t e r a t u r e , Kenneth Burke (1945; 1950; 1966; 1 9 7 2 ) , t h a t we r e f e r t o a s Genetic-Dramatism ( s e e C i r i l l o & Kaplan, 1981; Kaplan, 1981a, 1981b; Kaplan & Pea, 1981; R u s s e l l , 1982) .

Genetic-Dramatism s e e k s t o p r o v i d e an e x p l i c i t account o f t h e p e r e n n i a l p e r s p e c t i v e , one which v i r t u a l l y a l l o f u s a d o p t i n o u r everyday l i v e s , and u s e i n o u r t r a n s a c t i o n s w i t h o t h e r s (Kaplan, l 9 8 l a ) . Leav ing o u t , i n t h i s c u r s o r y p r e s e n t a t i o n n e c e s s a r y q u a l i f i c a t i o n s and r e f i n e m e n t s , i s it n o t t h e c a s e t h a t we a l l c o n s t r u e o u r s e l v e s and o t h e r s a s a g e n t s o p e r a t i n g i n c o n t e x t s o r s c e n e s t o a c h i e v e c e r t a i n e n d s o r r e a l i z e c e r t a i n purposes? And t h a t , i n s o d o i n g , we u s e i n s t r u m e n t a l i t i e s o r means i n t h e e x e c u t i o n o f o u r a c t i o n s ? Do we n o t i n everyday l i f e , and even i n a l a b o r a t o r y , o r a c lass room, o r a c o n f e r e n c e , e v a l u a t e o u r performances and t h o s e o f o t h e r s , a s " p r i m i t i v e " o r "advanced", by u s i n g t a c i t norms of p e r f e c t i o n i n o r d e r t o make such assessments? Do we n o t b o t h c h a r a c t e r i z e and a s s e s s an a g e n t ' s a c t i o n , l i n g u i s t i c o r o t h e r w i s e , w i t h r e s p e c t t o c o n t e x t and e x p l i c i t ( o r imputed) g o a l s ? And do we n o t a l s o c o n s t r u e t h e s c e n e i n which an a g e n t i s o p e r a t i n g a s w e l l a s t h e g o a l s , c o n s c i o u s o r o t h e r w i s e , o f t h e a g e n t on t.he b a s i s o f o u r unders tand ing of t h e a c t i o n s h e o r h e performs?

I n r a i s i n g t h e s e k i n d s o f q u e s t i o n s , we have a l r e a d y i n t r o d u c e d t h e famous pen tad o f B u r k e ' s Grammar o f Motives and R h e t o r i c of Motives -- a g e n t , a c t , s c e n e , i n s t r u m e n t a l i t y , and purpose -- and have i n d i c a t e d t h e i r r e t i c u l a t e o r o r g a n i c r e l a t - i o n s h i p s ( s e e F i g u r e 1). I t s h o u l d b e

---------------------------.--

( I n s e r t F i g u r e 1 h e r e )

obv ious t h a t a c t s o r pe r fo rmances , l i n g u i s t i c , l e x i c a l , o r o t h e r w i s e , are e a s i l y s u s c e p t i b l e t o v a r i a t i o n , g i v e n v a r i a t i o n s i n any of t h e o t h e r components o f human t r a n s a c t i o n s i n s i t u a t i o n s . Cor responding ly , any "assessment" o f an i n d i v i d u a l ' s l e v e l o f f u n c t i o n i n g o r deve lopmenta l s t a t u s w i t h r e g a r d t o a domain of a c t i o n , such a s l e x i c a l b e h a v i o r , i s " w i l d developmentalism" (on analogy t o F r e u d ' s "wi ld psychoana lys i s" ) i f i t is based on one o r a few performances i n c i r c u m s c r i b e d e x p e r i m e n t a l o r o b s e r v a t i o n a l c o n t e x t s (see Kaplan, Pea & F r a n k l i n , 1981) .

I n pos ing o u r q u e s t i o n s , we a l s o a l l u d e d t o t h e normative s t a t u s o f t h e concept o f development , a norm t h a t e n t e r s i n t o deve lopmenta l a ssessments . I n t h e i r f o r m u l a t i o n of a c o n c e p t o f development, d i s t i n c t from o n t o g e n e s i s , Werner & Kaplan (1956; 1963) i n t r o d u c e t h e o r t h o g e n e t i c p r i n c i p l e ( i . e . , a p r i n c i p l e p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e g e n e s i s o f p e r f e c t i o n ) : "Wherever development o c c u r s , it i n v o l v e s an i n c r e a s i n g d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n and h i e r a r c h i c i n t e g r a t i o n " . Development i n any domain, t h e r e f o r e , i s d e f i n e d as e n t a i l i n g t h e d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n o f c o n f l a t e d o r f u s e d p a r t s , f a c t o r s , o r e l e m e n t s , and c o r r e l a t i v e l y , t h e i n t e g r a t i o n o f t h e s e d i f f e r e n t i a t e d components i n t o a f u n c t i o n a l u n i t y .

We have a p p l i e d t h i s c o n c e p t i o n o f development t o l e x i c a l development when we e a r l i e r p o i n t e d o u t t h a t developed l e x i c a l i t y i n t e r p e n e t r a t e s w i t h

Pea & Kaplan 6

syntactic, pragmatic-rhetorical, morphological, and phonological development. Let us elaborate this point. A lexical master, one who shows a high level of lexical development, will be able to differentiate verbal concepts from each other (recognizing, in Goodman's phrase, that there is no "likeness of meaning"); she or he will have established the various modes of interrelationships among verbal concepts, e. g. hyponymy , synonymy, homonymy, antonymy; she or he will know how to organize and reorganize words into well-f ormed utterances, and even ill-f ormed utterances for special comrnunicational contexts; she or he will know how to select words and modulate them morphologically and phonologically with respect to different utterance contexts, and so on (e.9. Fillmore, 1971; Halliday, 1975; Lyons, 1977; Menn & Kaselkorn, 1977; Miller, 1978; Miller & Johnson-Laird, 1976; Werner & E. Kaplan, 1950). Of course, the fully competent, perfected lexicalist would be the master of all lexicons, past, present, and potential; capable of taking on any agent-status, of utilizing all lexical instrumentalities, in any scenes, with the full range of purposes, etc.

Now, no individual agent or social agent has ever remotely approached such perfection because, as embodied beings, we are limited, at best, to relative perfection with regard to very limited parts of very few lexicons. And even where we have attained a relatively high level of performance, the level of performances may drop, when we have no opportunity to plan (Ochs, 19791, or when we are fatigued, injured, frightened, depressed, or under the influence of other subversive contingencies (e.g. Werner & Kaplan, 1963; Kaplan, 1966b) . How and when to intervene in order to overcome such "regressions" or "arrests" is of course one of the tasks of developmental psychology as a practico-theoretical discipline (Kaplan, 1982a).

As with critical theorists (Habermas: Horkheimer; Jay), those who espouse the perspective of Genetic-Dramatism take the perspective to be "reflexive". Its presuppositions, categories, and modes of analysis and intervention, insofar as they are taken to be applicable to other human beings, must also be applicable to those who theorize about and investigate human beings. We must assess our symbolic actions as we do those of others. Thus if we take lexical development, in one of its aspects, as entailing clarity and precision in the use of verbal concepts in scientific discourse, we must assess ourselves, and welcome assessment by others, as to where we are with respect to the tacit standards. We ask you to do the same. Only through such cooperative critical reflection on our own lexical activity in the study of lexical functioning, can we hope to advance the study of lexical development, language development, and, most importantly, human development.

NOTES

Paper presented at The Second International Congress for the Study of Child Language, August 9th to 14th, 1981, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. To appear in the Proceedings (Univeryty Park Press: Baltimore, Maryland) .

We speak in terms of possibility rather than certainty because many such manifestations of "functional dependence" may not occur with other agents, other scenes, other purposes, and other instrumentalities than those involved in the different studies.

Pea & Kaplan 7

3 Such seemingly n e u t r a l c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o ~ s a r e c l e a r l y v a l u a t i v e i n

n a t u r e , and p resuppose norms and s t a n d a r d s of t h e i n v e s t i g a t o r s . They a r e a l s o l i k e l y t o be p o l i t i c a l i n n a t u r e - s u g g e s t i n g t h a t some s t a t e o f a f f a i r s be a l t e r e d , a n o t h e r promoted. We do n o t r e j e c t t h e u s e o f s u c h terms; o n l y t h e p r e t e n s e t h a t t h e y a r c n e u t r a l d e s c r i p t i o n s .

Tha t one i s a m a s t e r l e x i c a l i s t , o r h i g h l y advanced i n l e x i c a l development, no more e n t a i l s t h a t c n e i s h i g h l y advanced a s a p e r s o n t h a n does be ing a m a s t e r - c a r p e n t e r o r m a s t e r - k i l l e r . Development -- "movement toward p e r f e c t i o n " -- i n one domain d o e s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y e n t a i l development i n o t h e r domains, a l though some developments , a s s u g g e s t e d h e r e , may presuppose o t h e r s . One s c a r c e l y needs t h e t h e o r e t i c a l a p p a r a t u s o f " s t a g e s " o r " d e c a l a g e s " t o make t h i s obv ious p o i n t . For d i s c u s s i o n , s e e Kaplan, Pea & F r a n k l i n (1981) .

I t w i l l be u n d e r s t o o d , from t h i s developmental p e r s p e c t i v e , t h a t c u r r e n t d e b a t e s and e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n i n s t u d i e s of " l e x i c a l " o r " s e m a n t i c development", f o c u s s i n g on whether " f u n c t i o n s " o r " f e a t u r e s " a r e t h e predominant , f i r s t , o r c e n t r a l a s p e c t o f e a r l y word-meaning a c q u i s i t i o n (e .g . C l a r k , 1979; Nelson e t a l . , 1 9 7 8 ) , a r e c o n f i n e d t o a na r rowly d e s i g n a t e d t h e o r e t i c a l c o r r i d o r .

The p o l i t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e o f u s i n g " a c t u a r i a l " o r " s t a t i s t i c a l " norms a s s t a n d a r d s -- "whatever most i n d i v i d u a l s o f an age do i s r i g h t f o r t h a t age" -- is d i s c u s s e d i n Kaplan (1982a) and White (1978, 1982) .

Although Vygotsky open ly acknowledged t h e p i o n e e r i n g r o l e o f Werner ' s work i n i n t e g r a t i n g developmental a n a l y s i s and e x p e r i m e n t a l t e c h n i q u e s , t h i s r o l e i s r a r e l y mentioned i n p s y c h o l o g i c a l w r i t i n g s t o d a y ( b u t s e e Wertsch & S t o n e , 1 9 7 8 ) .

Some i n d i c a t i o n o f t h e impact of Werner ' s work o u t s i d e t h e - p r e s e n t l y c i r c u m s c r i b e d d i s c i p l i n e o f psychology may be found i n : W . Shumaker, L i t e r a t u r e and t h e I r r a t i o n a l ; J . Love, Worlds i n Consciousness : A Study of V i r g i n i a Wool f ' s Novels; R.D. Sack , Concept ions of Space i n S o c i a l Thought: A Geograph ica l P e r s p e c t i v e ; S. A r i e t i , I n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f Sch izophren ia ; H. S e a r l e s , C o l l e c t e d Papers i n s c h i z o p h r e n i a .

The r e l a t i o n o f o u r p e r s p e c t i v e t o t h a t o f t h e phenomenologist o f s o c i a l r e a l i t y , A l f r e d S h u t z , shou ld be a p p a r e n t from t h e s e comments. See Shu tz , C o l l e c t e d P a p e r s ( 3 v o l s . ) .

10 We r e c o g n i z e t h a t t h e f u t u r e p r o s p e c t s o f developmental r e s e a r c h

from such a developmental p e r s p e c t i v e depend upon i ts e m p i r i c a l v i a b i l i t y . Such v i a b i l i t y i s c o n t i n g e n t on c o n c e r t e d e f f o r t s , by o u r s e l v e s and many o t h e r s , a t c o l l a b o r a t i v e r e s e a r c h which i s t r u l y i n t e g r a t i v e i n n a t u r e , and d i r e c t e d toward t h e h o l i s t i c n a t u r e (Werner & Kaplan, 1963) o f human p s y c h o l o g i c a l f u n c t i o n i n g . Such l a r g e - s c a l e a t t e m p t s a t a d d r e s s i n g t h e s e i s s u e s have r e c e i v e d s c a n t a t t e n t i o n t o d a t e . T h i s p a p e r may be viewed as a i n v i t a t i o n t o d i a l o g u e , a b o u t methods and e f f e c t i v e ways o f promoting t h e i n t e g r a t i o n o f t h e d i v e r s e " d i s c i p l i n e s " c a l l e d upon by t h e p e r s p e c t i v e . A s one a s p e c t o f such a r e o r i e n t a t i o n t o psychology, we a im i n an expanded p a p e r t o r e a n a l y z e r e s u l t s from a d i v e r s i t y o f s t u d i e s , from a wide range o f " f i e l d s " , which b e a r on 3 e x i c a l development from t h i s

Pea & Kaplan 8

developmental perspective. Kaplan & Pea (1981) provide a re la ted ana lys i s of reasoning a c t i v i t i e s , and Kaplan & C i r i l l o a r e current ly engaged i n a p ro jec t on metaphor.

SCENE

Pea d Kaplan

AGENT

PURPOSE

ACT INSTRUMENTALITY

Figure 1. Burke's pentad of categories 1

REFERENCES

B a r t o n , D.P. The r o l e o f p e r c e p t i o n i n t h e a c q u i s i t i o n o f s p e e c h . Ph.D. t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y o f London, 1976.

Reve r , T.G. ( E d . ) , R e g r e s s i o n s i n Men ta l Development: B a s i c phenomena and T h e o r i e s . H i l l s d a l e , N . J . : Er lbaum, 1981 .

Bloom, L., M i l l e r , P. h Hood, L. V a r i a t i o n a n d r e d u c t i o n a s a s p e c t s o f competence i n l a n g u a g e development . I n A.D. p i c k ( E d . ) , Minneso ta Symposium on C h i l d P s y c h o l o g y , Vol. 9 . ~ i n n e a p o l i s : U n i v e r s i t y o f Minneso ta P r e s s , 1975.

Bowerman, M. S t a r t i n g t o t a l k worse : C l u e s t o l a n g u a g e a c q u i s i t i o n from c h i l d r e n ' s l a t e s p e e c h e r r o r s . I n S . S t r a u s s ( E d . ) , U-Shaped B e h a v i o r a l Growth. N e w York: Academic P r e s s , 1 9 8 1 ( i n p r e s s ) .

B r a n s f o r d , J . D . Human C o g n i t i o n : L e a r n i n g , U n d e r s t a n d i n g , a n d Remembering. Ee lmon t , Ca.: Wadsworth, 1979.

Brown, A.L. L e a r n i n g a n d development : The p r o b l e m s o f c o m p a t i b i l i t y , a c c e s s , and i n d u c t i o n . Human Development, 1980.

Brown, R. A F i r s t Language: The E a r l y S t a g e s . Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1973.

Burke , K . A Grammar o f Mot ives . B e r k e l e y : U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a P r e s s , 1945.

Burke , K. A R h e t o r i c o f Mot ives . B e r k e l e y : U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a P r e s s , 1950.

Burke , K . D e f i n i t i o n o f man. Hudson Review, 1963-1964, - 5 6 ( R e p r i n t e d i n Burke , 1966. )

Burke , K. Language as Symbc l i c A c t i o n : E s s a y s on L i f e , L i t e r a t u r e , a n d Method. B e r k e l e y : U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a P r e s s , 1966.

Burke , K. D r a m a t i s m and Development. W o r c e s t e r , Ma.: C l a r k U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1972.

C i r i l l o , L. & Kaplan , B. F i g u r a t i v e a c t i o n f rom t h e p e r s p e c t i v e o f g e n e t i c - d r a m a t i s m . P a p e r d e l i v e r e d a t t h e F i r s t B i e n n i a l Confe rence o f t h e He inz Werner I n s t i t u t e o f Deve lopmen ta l Psycho logy , C l a r k U n i v e r s i t y , J u n e 1 -2 , 1981.

C l a r k , E.V. B u i l d i n g a v o c a b u l a r y : Words f o r o b j e c t s , a c t i o n s , a n d r e l a t i o n s . I n P. F l e t c h e r & M . Garman ( E d s . ) , Language A c q u i s i t i o n . Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1979. --.

E r v i n - T r i p p , S. From c o n v e r s a t i o n t o s y n t a x . P a p e r s and R e p o r t s i n C h i l d Language Development , 1977 , - 1 3 .

Ferguson , C.A. & F a r w e l l , C.B. Words and s o u n d s i n e a r l y l a n g u a g e a c q u i s i t i o n . Language , 1975, - 51 , 419-439.

F i l l m o r e , C.J. Types o f l e x i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n . I n D.D. S t e i n b e r g & L.A. J a k o b o v i t s ( E d s . ) , S e m a n t i c s : An I n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y Reader i n P h i l o s o p h y , L i n g u i s t i c s , and Psycho logy . Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1971.

H a l l i d a y , M.A.K. L e a r n i n g How t o Mean: E x p l o r a t i o n s i n t h e Development o f Language. London: Edward A r n o l d , 1975.

J e n k i n s , J.J. F o u r p o i n t s t o remember: A t e t r a h e d r a l model and memory e x p e r i m e n t s . I n L.S. Cermak & F.I.M. C r a i k ( E d s . ) , L e v e l s o f P r o c e s s i n g i n Human Memory. H i l l s d a l e , N . J . : Er lhaum, 1979.

Kaplan , B. R a d i c a l m e t a p h o r , a e s t h e t i c a n d t h e o r i g i n o f l a n g u a g e . To a p p e a r i n B. K a p l a n , C o l l e c t e d P a p e r s , i n p r e p a r a t i o n , 1981. ( O r i g i n a l l y p r e s e n t e d a s a paper a t a m e e t i n g o f t h e American P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n i n 1 9 6 1 i n a symposium on Metaphor . )

Kap lan , B. The l a t e n t c o n t e n t o f Heinz W e r n e r ' s deve lopmen ta l psychology. I n S . Wapner & R. Kaplan ( E d s . ) , Heinz Werner: P a p e r s i n memoriam. W o r c e s t e r , Mass.: C l a r k U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1966 ( a ) .

Kaplan , B. The s t u d y o f l a n g u a g e i n p s y c h i a t r y : The c o m p a r a t i v e a p p r o a c h a n d i t s a p p l i c a t i o n t o s y m b o l i z a t i o n and l anguage i n psychopa tho logy . I n S . A r i e t i ( E d . ) , American Handbook o f P s y c h i a t r y , Vol . 3 . New York: B a s i c Books, 1966b.

Kap lan , B. edita at ions o n g e n e s i s . Human Development , 1967 , - 1 0 , 65-87.

Kaplan , B. S t r i f e o f s y s t e m s : T e n s i o n be tween o r g a n i s m i c and d e v e l o p m e n t a l p o i n t s o f v iew. (1967 /1974) . I n Kaplan , B. R a t i o n a l i t y and I r r a t i o n a l i t y i n Development. W o r c e s t e r , Mass.: C l a r k U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1 9 8 2 ( b ) .

Kap lan , B. Gene t i c -d rama t i sm. P a p e r d e l i v e r e d a t t h e F i r s t B i e n n i a l Confe rence o f t h e Heinz Werner I n s t i t u t e o f Developmenta l Psycho logy , C l a r k U n i v e r s i t y , J u n e 1 -2 , 1 9 8 1 ( a ) .

K a p l a n , B . R e f l e c t i o n s o n c u l t u r e and p e r s o n a l i t y from t h e p e r s p e c t i v e o f g e n e t i c - d r a m a t i s m . P a p e r d e l i v e r e d a t t h e F i r s t B i e n n i a l C o n f e r e n c e o f t h e Heinz Werner I n s t i t u t e o f D e v e l o ~ m e n t a l Psycho logy , C l a r k U n i v e r s i t y , J u n e 1-2 , 1 9 8 1 ( b ) .

Kap lan , B. A t r i o o f t r i a l s . To a p p e a r i n R. L e r n e r ( E d . ) , Developmenta l Psycho logy : H i s t o r i c a l and P h i l o s o p h i c a l P e r s p e c t i v e s . Cambridge , Mass.: Harva rd U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1962 ( a ) .

Kaplan , B. & P e a , R . D . Reasoning f rom t h e p e r s p e c t i v e o f g e n e t i c - d rama t i sm. Heinz Werner I n s t i t u t e f o r Deve lopmen ta l Psycho logy , Working P a p e r , 1981 .

Kap lan , B . , P e a , R . D . & F r a n k l i n , M.B. M u l t i p l y i n g e n t i t i e s . He inz Werner I n s t i t u t e f o r Developmenta l Psycho logy , Working P a p e r , 1981.

Kessel, F. ( C h a i r ) Symposium: The deve lopmen t o f l anguage and l a n g u a g e r e s e a r c h e r s : Whatever happened t o l i n g u i s t i c t h e o r y ? ( C o n t r i b u t i o n s by Bowerman, Cazden, M a r a t s o s , P i n k e r , S l o b i n ) . P r e s e n t e d a t t h e B i e n n i a l Meet ing o f t h e S o c i e t y f o r R e s e a r c h i n C h i l d Development , A p r i l 2-5, 1981 , B o s t o n , M a s s a c h u s e t t s .

Kress, G. & Hodge, R. Language a s I d e o l o g y . London: Rou t l edge & Kegan P a u l , 1979.

Lyons , J . S e m a n t i c s ( 2 v o l s . ) . Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1977.

Menn, L. & H a s e l k o r n , S . Now you see i t , now you d o n ' t : T r a c i n g t h e development o f communica t ive competence . I n J . Keg1 ( E d . ) , P r o c e e d i n g s o f t h e S e v e n t h Annual Mee t ing o f t h e N o r t h e a s t L i n g u i s t i c S o c i e t y , 1977.

Menyuk, P. & Menn, L. E a r l y s t r a t e g i e s f o r t h e p e r c e p t i o n and p r o d u c t i o n o f words and sounds . I n P. F l e t c h e r & M . Garman - ( E d s . ) , Language ~ c q u i s i t i o n . Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1979.

M i l l e r , G.A. S e m a n t i c r e l a t i o n s among words . I n M. Halle, J . B r e s n a n , & G.A. Miller ( E d s . ) , L i n g u i s t i c Theory and P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e a l i t y . Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. P r e s s , 1978.

M i l l e r , G.A. & J o h n s o n - L a i r d , P.N. Language and P e r c e p t i o n . Cambridge, Mass.: Harva rd U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1976.

N e l s o n , K . , R e s c o r l a , L . , G r u e n d e l , J . & B e n e d i c t , H. E a r l y l e x i c o n s : What d o t h e y mean? C h i l d Development, 1 9 7 8 , -- 4 9 , 960-968.

Ochs , E . P l a n n e d and u n p l a n n e d d i s c o u r s e . I n T. Givon ( E d . ) , S y n t a x and S e m a n t i c s . Vol . 1 2 . D i s c o u r s e and S y n t a x . N e w York: ~ c a d e m i c P r e s s , 1979.

P e a , R.D. & R u s s e l l , R.L. F o u n d a t i o n s f o r a s c i e n t i f i c t h e o r y o f communica t ive deve lopmen t . Pape r p r e s e n t e d a t t h e F i f t h Annual Bos ton U n i v e r s i t y C o n f e r e n c e on Language Development, O c t o b e r , 1980.

R u s s e l l , R.L. P s y c h o t h e r a p e u t i c d i s c o u r s e : No tes on a framework f o r i t s f u t u r e i n v e s t i g a t i o n . I n R.L. R u s s e l l ( ~ d . ) , Language i n Psycho the rapy : S t r a t e g i e s o f ~ i s c o v e r y . N e w York: I r v i n g t o n , 1982.

Russell, R.L. & Pea, R.D. Communicative interaction and its development: An organismic-developmental approach to 'doctor-

Vygotsky, L.S. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner & E. Souberman (Eds.). Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1978.

Wapner, S., Kaplan, R . & Cohen, S. An organismic-developmental perspective for understanding transactions of men in environments. Environment and Behavior, 1973, 5, 255-289. -

Wapner, S., Kaplan, B. & Ciottone, R. Self-world relationships in critical envircnment transitions: Childhood and beyond. In L. Liben, A. Patterson & N. Newcombe (Eds.), Spatial and Behavior across the ~ i f e Svan. New ~ork: Aca

Representation demic Press,

Werner, H. The Comparative Psychology of Mental Development. 2nd ed. New York: Harper, 1948.

Werner, H. Change of meaning: A study of semantic processes through the experimental method. J. General Psychology, 1354, - 50, 181-208.

Werner, H. The concept of development from a comparative and organismic point of view. In D.B. Harris (Ed.), The Concept of Development: An Issue in the Study of Human Behavior. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1957.

Werner, H. Developmental Processes: Heinz Werner's Selected Writings. 2 vols. S.S. Barten & M.B. Franklin (Eds.). New York: International Universities Press, 1978.

Werner, H. & Kaplan, B. The developmental approach to cognition: Its relevance to the psychological interpretation of anthropological and ethnolinguistic data. American Anthropologist, 1956, - 58, 866- 880.

Werner, H. & Kaplan, B. Symbol Formation: An Organismic-Developmental Approach to Language and the Expression of Thought. New York: Wiley, 1963.

Werner, H. & Kaplan, E. Development of word meaning through verbal context. J. of Psychol., 1950, 29, 251-257. -

Werner, H. & Kaplan, E. The acquisition of word meaning: A developmental study. Mono. Soc. Res. Child Devel., 1952, No. 51.

Wertsch, J.V. & Stone, C.A. Microgenesis as a tool for developmental analysis. Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition, 1978, 1, 8-10. -

White, S.H. Psychology in all sorts of places. In R. Kasschau & F.S. Kessel (Eds.) Psychology and Society: In Search of Symbiosis. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1978.

White, S.H. The idea of development in developmental psychology. In R. Lerner (Ed.), Developmental Psychology: Historical and Philosophical Perspectives. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1982.

Whitehead, A.N. The Function of Reason. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1929.