. ié“ PRIVATE SPEECH: THE EFFECT OF PRESENCE OF OTHERS, TASK, AND INTRAPERSONAL VARIABLES Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY JANE RATH DICKIE 1972 um mm m (WI III 11! II III II! IIIIIII 3 12 LIBRARY Michigan State University This is to certify that the thesis entitled PRIVATE SPEECH: THE EFFECT OF PRESENCE OF OTHERS. TASK, AND INTRAPERSONAL VARIABLES presented by Jane Rath Dickie has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degree in Psychology “€44“; fl fimw Major professor Date 2-23-73 0-7639 ’ Tremaine ‘ IIIIAB & SIINS'? BUDK mow [In E I ABSTRACT PRIVATE SPEECH: THE EFFECT OF PRESENCE OF OTHERS, TASK, AND INTRAPERSONAL VARIABLES By Jane Rath Dickie Sixty middle-class subjects (TO boys and 10 girls of ages 2 1/2-4, 4-5 l/Z, 6-8) were scored on measures of mental age, IQ, impulsivity, self-control, perSistence, and success at a task. All §s were video-taped under two conditions of person present in the room (mother and peer) and two conditions of activity (struc- tured tasks and free play). The video-tapes were then rated for frequency and form of private (egocentric) and social speech. The results showed that increasing chronological age and mental age correspond to a decrease in impulsivity, an increase in self- control and an increase in persistence and success at a difficult task. Analysis of private and social speech showed the major difference between young, impulsive, less controlled children and older, reflective, more controlled children was in the immature child‘s continued use of lower level private speech and social Jane Rath Dickie speech, especially in the task situation. Activity significantly affected the form and frequency of private and social speech: more social speech and lower-level private speech was recorded during free play, where as more higher-level private speech was recorded during structured tasks. Also person present signifi- cantly affected form and frequency of private and social speech: generally, more social and private speech was recorded with peers than with mothers. The strength and direction of the effect was dependent upon the age of the child. The results are interpreted in terms of their support for a developmental view which incorporates both Vygotsky's and Piaget's theories. PRIVATE SPEECH: THE EFFECT OF PRESENCE OF OTHERS, ’ TASK, AND INTRAPERSONAL VARIABLES By Jane Rath Dickie A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology 1972 DEDICATION To Larry, who has always encouraged me, and Jennifer whose private speech stimulated this research and made it fun. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research represents the cumulative effect of much intel- lectual stimulation and moral support from those working with me. I am especially indebted to members of my committee: To Ray Denny for his thoughtful insights into this research and for introducing me to Elicitation Theory . . . . To Hi Fitzgerald for his encouragement on the original proposal and for his teasing, which kept me thinking To Lucy Ferguson for the idea to use pretest measures and for her constant support . . . . To Bill Crano for his speedy statis- tical "savvy“ and interest in the research itself . . . . And espe- cially to Ellen Strommen; she permitted the freeddm to explore and gave constant encouragement so that I would continue the task. The students who worked with me made the research a Joy, in all phases. My sincere thanks to Mike Rassier and Dave Risk who could really do puzzles well and to Pat Murray and Larry Friedberg for the seemingly endless job of rating the tapes. Finally, I express my gratitude to the parents and children who participated eagerly in this study. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST or TABLES ......................... vi LIST OF FIGURES ........................ ”ix LIST OF APPENDICES ....................... x INTRODUCTION. . . .............. i ......... 1 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ...................... 2 Theory ........................... 2 Research on Topography ................... 6 l. Age and Other Intrapersonal Variables ....... 7 2. Forms or Categories of Egocentric Speech ...... ll 3. Situational Variables ............... 15 Presence of Others ................. l6 Activity Variables ................. l7 AIMS AND HYPOTHESES OF THE PRESENT STUDY. . .i ......... 20 METHOD. . . .......................... 26 Subjects .......................... 26 Procedure ................. ' ........ 26 Session I ....................... 27 Sessions 2 and 3--The Video-taped Sessions ....... 28 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) Page Test Measures ....................... 3l IQ, MA ................. ' ........ 32 Impulsivity ...................... 32 Self-contrOl--Excitatory ................ 33 Self-contrOl--Inhibitory ................ 34 Coding Egocentric Speech .................. 36 RESULTS ........................... . 37 Age ............................ 39 MA and IQ ......................... 4l Impulsivity ........................ 43 Self-contrOl--Excitation and Inhibition .......... 45 Persistence and Success on Task .............. 47 Sex ..... - ....................... 49 Pattern of Intrapersonal Variables ............. 50 Presence of Peer vs Adult ................. 52 Order ................ . . .- ........ 58 Activity .................. - ........ 59 Forms of Egocentric Speech ................. 64 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION ..................... .68 REFERENCES ........................... 77 APPENDICES ............ . ............... 8l V Table TO. LIST OF TABLES MEAN, RANGE, AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF SCORES ON THE INTRAPERSONAL VARIABLES. . .. ............. MEAN FREQUENCIES OF THE 6 CATEGORIES OF EGOCENTRIC AND SOCIAL SPEECH FOR THE 3 AGE GROUPS .......... CORRELATIONS BETWEEN MA AND 2 LEVELS OF PRIVATE SPEECH (MEASURED DURING TASKS) FOR SS WITH MA LESS THAN 5 ‘ AND MA GREATER THAN 5 ................. CORRELATIONS BETWEEN MEASURES OF IMPULSIVITY INCLUDING EGGS GAME, PICTURE ABSURDITIES GAME (PA): NUMBER CORRECT, REACTION TIME (RT) FOR CORRECT, ERRORS AND RT FOR ERRORS ......... , ............ CORRELATIONS BETWEEN MEASURES OF IMPULSIVITY AND FREQUENCY OF 3 LEVELS OF EGOCENTRIC SPEECH ...... INTER-CORRELATIONS BETWEEN SELF-CONTROL MEASURES AND THEIR CORRELATION WITH 3 LEVELS OF EGOCENTRIC SPEECH . INTERCORRELATIONS BETWEEN PERSISTENCE AND SUCCESS MEASURES AND THEIR CORRELATIONS WITH 3 LEVELS OF EGOCENTRIC SPEECH ................... MEAN FREQUENCY OF CATEGORIES--SELF-STIMULATION AND COMMANDING OBJECTS FOR MALES AND FEMALES ....... SIGNIFICANT CORRELATIONS BETWEEN INTRAPERSONAL VARIABLES: CA, MA, IQ, IMPULSIVITY, SELF-CONTROL (EXCITATION, INHIBITION) PERSISTENCE AND TASK SUCCESS. MEAN FREQUENCY OF THE 6 CATEGORIES OF EGOCENTRIC SPEECH WHEN WITH ADULT AND PEER ............... vi Page 38 4O 42 44 44 46 48 .49 51 53 LIST OF TABLES (cont.) Table Page ll. MEAN FREQUENCY OF 6 CATEGORIES OF EGOCENTRIC SPEECH AND SOCIAL SPEECH DURING TASKS AND FREE PLAY ..... , 60 12. CORRELATIONS BETWEEN LEVELS OF EGOCENTRIC SPEECH DURING A TASK AND DURING FREE PLAY .............. 66 Appendix F-l. ANOVA FOR LEVEL I PRIVATE SPEECH: SELF-STIMULATING. . . 88 F-2. ANOVA FOR LEVEL II PRIVATE SPEECH: COMMANDING OBJECTS AND DESCRIBING ACTIVITY ................ 89 F-3. ANOVA FOR LEVEL III PRIVATE SPEECH: DIALOG AND . SELF-GUIDING ..................... 9O F-4. ANOVA FOR LEVEL IV: INAUDIBLE MUTTERING ........ 9T F-5. ANOVA FOR SOCIAL SPEECH ................. 92 H-l. INTERACTION MEANS FROM THE ANOVA ............ 94 H-2. MEAN FREQUENCY OF DIALOG FOR AGES: 2 1/2-4, 4-5 1/2, 6-8; SEX; PERSON CHILD IS WITH: MOTHER, FRIEND; AND ACTIVITY: TASK, FREE PLAY .............. 94 H-3. MEAN FREQUENCY OF SELF-GUIDING SPEECH FOR AGE: 2 1/2-4, 4-5 I/Z, 6-8; ORDER: MOTHER-FRIEND, FRIEND-MOTHER; AND SEX ........................ 95 H-4. MEAN FREQUENCY OF SELF-GUIDING SPEECH FOR AGES: 2 1/2-4, 4-5 1/2, AND 6-8; AND PERSON CHILD IS WITH: MOTHER, FRIEND ........................ 95 H-5. MEAN FREQUENCY OF SELF-GUIDING SPEECH FOR SEX; ORDER: MOTHER-FRIEND (M-F), FRIEND-MOTHER (F-M); AND PERSON CHILD IS WITH: MOTHER, FRIEND . . . . ........ 96 H-6. MEAN FREQUENCY OF INAUDIBLE MUTTERING FOR SEX AND ORDER: MOTHER-FRIEND, FRIEND-MOTHER ......... 96 vii LIST OF TABLES (cont.) Appendix H-7. H-8. H-9. H-12. H-13. MEAN FREQUENCY OF INAUDIBLE MUTTERING FOR ORDER: MOTHER-FRIEND, FRIEND-MOTHER; AND PERSON: MOTHER, FRIEND .................... MEAN FREQUENCY OF INAUDIBLE MUTTERING FOR ORDER: MOTHER-FRIEND, FRIEND—MOTHER; AND ACTIVITY: TASK, FREE PLAY ....... . ................ MEAN FREQUENCY OF INAUDIBLE MUTTERING FOR AGES: 2 1/2-4, 4-5 1/2, 6-8; PERSON: MOTHER, FRIEND; AND ACTIVITY: TASK, FREE PLAY .............. MEAN FREQUENCY OF SOCIAL SPEECH FOR AGE: 2 1/2-4, 4-5 1/2, 6-8; SEX; AND ORDER: MOTHER-FRIEND, FRIEND-MOTHER ..................... MEAN FREQUENCY OF SOCIAL SPEECH FOR AGE: 2 1/2-4, 4-5 1/2, 6-8; ORDER: MOTHER-FRIEND (M-F); FRIEND- MOTHER (F-M) AND PERSON: MOTHER, FRIEND ....... MEAN FREQUENCY OF SOCIAL SPEECH FOR AGE: 2 1/2-4, 4-5 1/2. 6-8; SEX; AND ACTIVITY: TASK, FREE PLAY. . . MEAN FREQUENCY OF SOCIAL SPEECH FOR AGE: 2 1/2-4, 4-5 1/2, 6-8; PERSON: MOTHER, FRIEND; AND ACTIVITY: TASK, FREE PLAY .............. viii Page 96 97 97 98 98 99 99 LIST OF FIGURES Figure I. Effect of presence of other on amount of self-guiding speech for young (2 l/2-4), middle (4-5 1/2), and Old (6-8) children .................. 2. Effect Of presence Of other on amount of social speech for young (2 l/2- 4), middle (4- 5 l/2), and Old (6- 8) children ....................... 3. Effect of Activity on amount Of social speech for young (2 1/2-4), middIe (4-5 1/2), and 01d (6-8) children. . ix Page 55 57 63 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Page A. LETTER TO PARENTS .................... 8T B. LIST OF PUZZLES USED DURING TASKS ............ 82 C. PICTORIAL ABSURDITIES .................. 83 D. THE FARM GAME FOLLOWING INSTRUCTIONS .......... 84 E. DEFINITIONS OF THE CATEGORIES OF PRIVATE SPEECH AND SOCIAL SPEECH DEFINITIONS FOR RATING ......... 86 F. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE FOR 6 CATEGORIES OF PRIVATE SPEECH AND SOCIAL SPEECH ................... 88 G. SIMPLE CORRELATIONS ................... 93 H. INTERACTION MEANS FROM THE ANOVA ............ 94 INTRODUCTION The bulk Of theory and research pertaining to private speech suggests that it serves a critical role in the development of self- directed and self-controlled behavior, and it may be the early roots of thinking or problem solving. Clearly the ability to plan one's own actions is essential in any task. Meichebaum (l97l) has re- .Cently shown that private speech may be taught to impulsive children in order to help them become more reflective in problem solving. This sort Of training is exciting; however, without knowledge about the normal development of private speech and its correlates, further applied research may be difficult. The current study attempted to clarify the topography, de- velopment, and function of private speech. It also looked at the effect of situational and intrapersonal variables on the type and frequency Of private speech. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Background information on egocentric speech will cover, first, the function Of egocentric speech and second, the topography of such speech. The underlying organization of this review is to deal with theory first and then research. Theory Egocentric or private speech, referred to by Piaget (l926) and others (Vygotsky, l962; Flavell, T966; KOhlberg, Yaeger, and HjerthOlm, l968) is audible speech apparently not addressed to any listener either because (a) it occurs with the child's apparent satisfactiOn even if the listener gives no sign of understanding or (b) it occurs when the child is alone. Egocentric speech has been Observed and diScussed in terms Of its theoretical importance for cognitive and social development. Several theories have been pro- posed tO account for its Occurrence in the young child, its func- tion, if any, and its decline with increasing age. Piaget (l926) invoked the concept of egocentricity to explain private speech in the young child. He termed the child's early speech "egocentric" to reflect the inability Of the child to see beyond his own point of view. The young child, particularly in attempting to communicate information to others, has difficulty differentiating his own perspective from that of others (Flavell, l966; Flavell et al., 1968; Glucksberg, Kraus, and Weisberg, I966). Piaget differentiated between two aspects of egocentric speech: a) that in which the child speaks about himself or his own ideas with no communicative function i.e. withOut desiring feedback from the listener, and b) that in which the child appears to want to communicate but he lacks the skill to do so. An example of the latter case is when the child invites participation in some fantasy but neglects to explain the fantasy sufficiently well for the listener to underStand. These two aspects of egocentric speech involve the will Of the child to communicate and the skill Of the child to do so. Piaget (l956) then theorized about the decline of egocentric speech in the development of the child. He suggested two forcés twhich act to eliminate egocentric speech: a) cognitive development which makes the child aware of different perspectives (or gives him the skill to communicate) and b) social forces which occur via ex- tensive interaction primarily with peers (giving the child the will to communicate). Such interaction on an equal basis forces the child to integrate his goals with the goals Of other children. This is not true in interactions with adults where the adult either serves the child's goals or constrains him. The adult is viewed as omniscient by the child and the child is thus less able to differentiate his own goals from the adult's goals. Thus Piaget hypothesizes that the child produces more egocentric speech in situations with adults than in situations with peers. Vygotsky (l962) took issue with the "negative" connotations of Piagetis explanation of egocentric speech. Vygotsky felt that attributing to the child the lack Of will and skill to communicate suggested that egocentric speech was maladaptive, i.e. serves no cognitive function. He went on to suggest a positive raison d‘etre of private speech. Rather than the view of egocentric speech as "presocial“ (Piaget, l926) he proposed that egocentric speech serves the function Of cognitive self-guidance. From this perspective private speech occurs because the child is not capable of more A covert self-direction, thus he “thinks out loud." Since private speech in this view serves a self-directing function, or is commun- ication directed to the self, it can naturally be more abbreviated and thus less understandable to the listener. That is, since the function is to direct the self, it is not due to lack of skill that such speech is incomprehensible to the listener. In part, Vygotsky did agree with Piaget's concept of egocen- trism in the child. This agreement is reflected by Vygotsky's specification Of the difficulty that the young child has in commun- icating. The child fails tO differentiate between communication to himself and communication to others. Although the two serve dif- ferent functions, the structure Of each is similar. This makes his speech to others too abbreviated to create understanding, and his speech to himself too long (uneconomical) in the function of guiding his own behavior. For this reason, later development condenses the self-guiding speech and eliminates social aspects which are not necessary for self-direction. Further development differentiates the social from the self-guiding mode of communication. Therefore, in the later stages, self-guiding communication is most apt to occur at times when the social and self-guiding functions are difficult to discriminate, that is, times when the listener is maximally sim- ilar to the speaker. This led Vygotsky to a prediction Opposite Piaget's prediction: egocentric speech should be greater with peers than with adults. Vygotsky also differed from Piaget with regard to the devel- opmental decline Of private speech. Vygotsky suggested that the decline occurs because private speech moves from overt to covert thought, from external self-direction to internal self-direction, and thus declines with the cognitive growth of the child. A third theorist, Mead (l934) followed the Vygotsky line Of thought, but went further to give an idea Of the form Of private speech. He suggested that private speech is functionally and struc- turally a dialogue if not explicitly, then implicitly. This dia- logue, in which the child plays both speaker and listener, serves self-stimulation and self-orienting functions. It occurs to inform the self of what is occurring; that is, it serves a self-awareness function. Mead, like Vygotsky, stressed the fact that these dia- logues (actually monologues) are not very economical and suggested this as the reason for their decline. The monologue finally reaches a higher level as inner speech or thought. Thus, he suggested that development proceeds in the following way: I) the child will vocalize as though he were the listener, 2) he may then respond to himself in a dialogue, 3) finally he vocalizes only the active guiding response for his own behavior; that is, dialogue precedes self-direction, which in turn precedes internalized thought. Research on Topography - Recently KOhlberg, Yaeger, and Hjertholm (l968) have re- viewed the relevant research on egocentric speech. They combined Vygotsky's, Piaget's, and Mead's points Of agreement and disagreement to come up with four assumptions regarding egocentric speech. Ego- centric speech has developmental significance and therefore (a) it is particular to a specific age-developmental period; (b) it has functional and situational determinants; (c) it has limited and distinctive forms; and (d) it reflects the child's inability to differentiate his own perceptions from those of others. The rest Of this review will be directed toward these four assumptions, i.e., the variables of age and other intrapersonal variables and situa- tional variables which affect occurrence and form Of private speech. l. Age and Other Intrapersonal Variables All of the studies report age-development trends with regard to egocentric speech. Piaget (l926) found egocentric speech to comprise 40-70% of the 5-6 year olds' speech in spontaneous conver- sations. That children ages 3-7 show frequent private speech has been supported by naturalistic observations of children both in group situations (Katz and Katz, l921; Smith, l935; Vygotsky, l962; Meichenbaum and Goodman, l97l) and when alone (Klein, T963; Weir, l962). Flavell et al. (1966) studied the spontaneous use of private speech during a task. They discovered an increase from kindergarten to 5th grade in task-relevant use of private speech. They also suggested some support for internalization of egocentric speech, in that 25% of the 5th graders reported using "inner speech" whereas none of the kindergarteners did SO. Age increases in the spontan- eous use Of private speech have also been found by Gratch (1966) and Jensen (1963); and increases in covertness Of private speech were supported by Gratch. Cognitive development as reflected in IQ and MA may be strongly related to the development and decline of egocentric speech. Kohlberg et al. (l968) suggested that children with high 105 would show a peak in egocentric speech earlier than would children with average IQS: Supporting their hypothesis they found a decrease in egocentric speech between ages 4-6. They also found a significant interaction between age, IQ, and percentage Of egocentric speech. This was reflected in a greater percentage Of egocentric speech by bright 4 year olds than by average 4 year olds, and less egocentric speech by bright 6 year Old SS as compared with average 6 year old Ss. The authors interpreted this finding in support of Vygotsky's hypothesis Of a curvilinear relationship between cognitive develOp- ment and private speech. Egocentric speech increases with intel- lectual ability until such development leads to internalized private speech. The bright 4 year olds had already displayed a peak in ego— centric speech and showed a steady decline thereafter. The average SS showed an increase in egocentric speech from 4-5 and a decrease thereafter. The peak for each group occurred at a comparable mental age, suggesting that cognitive development as Opposed to other maturational and learning changes accounted for the curvilinear rela- tionship. The difficulty with interpreting Kohlberg et al.'s (l968) results is that only the average §§ showed a curvilinear relationship between age and egocentric speech. The authors suggested that the private speech Of the bright 4 year olds had already reached its peak and was thus on the decline. In order to establish that a curvi- linear relationship actually exists for the bright children a sample Of younger SS should have been used. Impulsivity-reflectivity has also been examined with regard to private speech. Meichenbaum and Goodman (in press) Observed preschool children in a naturalistic setting. They differentiated between reflective and impulsive children using Kagan's (I966) Matching Familiar Figures Test and matched the two groups on IQ. Kagan's measure differentiates between children who decide care- fully and slowly when a number Of response alternatives are simul— taneously available and those who decide quickly with a high number of errors. They found that impulsive children had twice as much egocentric speech as did reflective children (24% vs. l2%). The quality or function Of the private speech also differed between the two groups with impulsive children using more self-stimulating private speech and the reflective group using more self-guiding 10 private speech. This finding lends some support to Vygotsky's hypothesis that the role Of private speech is self-guidance. One interpersonal variable which has not yet been related to private speech is the child's level of verbal regulation. If private speech serves a cognitive, self-regulating function, as Vygotsky (I962) and Luria (l961) have suggested, than clearly a measure of the child's ability to regulate his own behavior should correlate with the child's private speech. The two aspects Of verbal regulation which have been measured are the child's ability to follow a series of commands (excitatory control) and the child's ability to stop himself from performing a response (inhibitory control). Presumably young children (less than five) have greater difficulty inhibiting a response than following a command (Luria, 1961; Strommen, l972). It may be that inhibiting a response in- volves greater self-regulation than does following a command. Strommen (l972) used the game of "Simon Says" as a measure Of self- regulation and found a developmental trend in the ability to in- hibit a response, although she did not find such a trend in ability to follow a simple command. However, ability to follow a more complex command may Show some relationship to chronological age '(CA). 11 2. Forms or Categories of Egocentric Speech Luria's (T96l) studies have pointed to some developmental qualitative changes in private Speech. With age the child becomes more capable of using private speech to guide or discriminate alter- natives and to plan action. Supporting studies by Traugott (1959) and Con Kova (T960) showed that children ages six and seven use verbalizations to plan action whereas children three and four only verbalize in acCompaniment or following action. Flavell's work (Flavell, Beach, and Chinsky, T966; Keeney, Canizzo, and Flavell, l967)-further supports increased self-guiding private speech and internalization Of private speech with age. However, Flavell also reported that much private speech Of the child appears unrelated to either social or cognitive function (Flavell, l966; Flavell et al., T968). This was supported by Weir (T962) and Klein (T963) who sug- gested that some private speech serves cognitive self-guidance and some serves the function of affective expression. Klein (T963) reported several categories of private speech in children ages three through seven. He found that the frequency of private speech did not change with age; however, the nature of private speech showed developmental changes. Audible-comprehensible (not task related) speech declined with age (r = -.44), inaudible muttering increased with age (r = .26), and task relevant 12 comprehensible speech increased with age (r = .38). Thus, private speech became more Covert and more task oriented. Kohlberg et al. (l968) systematized the categories of private speech and arrived at a developmental hierarchy based on Luria, Vygotsky, and Mead which assumes an increasing self-directing func- tion of private speech and increasing internalization. These cate- gories are as follows: Level I Presocial Self-stimulating Language 1. Word play and repetition-~repeating words for own sake (Ex. "Whats a, whats a, dooodooodoo.) Level II Outward-directed Private Speech 2. Remarks addressed to non-human objects (Ex. "Get back there." addressed to a piece of sticky paper.) 3. Describing own activity--Remarks about own activity which communicate no information to the listener not apparent from watching him, that is, describing aspects Of the self's activity which are visible to the other person whose attention does not need to be directed to it. The description is in a form which has no task-solving relevance or planning function. Level III 13 It is present rather than past tense; Ex. Piaget's "collective monologue." Inward-directed or Self-Guiding Private speech Questions answered by the self--for ex. "DO you know why we wanted to do that? Because I need it to go a different way." Self-guiding Comments--“The wheels 90 here. We need to start it all over again." (Somewhat similar to Piaget's (l926) category of monologue. "The child talks to himself as though he were thinking aloud. He does not address anyone.") The difference between this category and 3-—Describing own activity--is that these comments are task or goal oriented. Speech precedes and controls activity rather than follows it. Such speech Often involves cognitive analysis or inferring, for example, reasons for action, analysis Of the situation, or reference to nonvisible aspects of the activity. T4 Level IV External Manifestations of Inner Speech 6. Inaudible muttering--statements uttered in such a low voice that they are not decipherable to an auditor cloSe by. Level V Silent Inner Speech or Thought Kohlberg et al. (l968) studied changes in the above cate- gories of egocentric speech across ages five through nine. _Using a Guttman scale, they found support for the hierarchy Of developmental categories of private speech. Following their predictions "audible muttering" increased regularly with the highest incidence at ages eight and nine. "Self-guiding speech" was the next highest form with a curvilinear relationship, first replacing other forms around age six and then being replaced by muttering. "Self-answered ques- tions" were infrequently used by these Ss. The authors interpreted this as casting doubt on its importance in the shift from private to internal speech. Other infrequently used categories were "com- manding objects“ and "self-stimulation." "Describing own activity" steadily declined from age five to age nine. There are several difficulties with this researCh. First of all in order to better understand the total development of ego- centric speech younger children would be needed. This is partic- ularly true for the categOries "self-stimulation" and “commanding 15 Objects." However, it may also be true for "self-answered ques- tions," i.e. the authors' interpretation Of this as an unimportant category may be incorrect and it may be that developmentally this is a lower form of egocentric speech. Therefore, the present study used younger Ss. The authors mentioned another difficulty in this research; the raters had difficulty distinguishing the categories "describing own activity" from "self-guiding comments." It appears that this may be a methodological problem in that the rating was done from auditory tapes which would fail to provide information as to when in the sequence of action the verbalization occurred. This was remedied in the current study by the use of video-tapes rather than audio-tapes. 3. Situational Variables Piaget's and Vygotsky's theoretical frameworks lead to 'opposite predictions about the effect Of situational variables on the occurrence Of egocentric speech. The variables studied so far have been (a) the presence of others, and (b) activity or task. l6 Presence of Others Piaget's formulation Of the situational circumstances foster- ing high occurrence of egocentric Speech was based on his belief that the decline of egocentric speech is dependent upon social interaction with peers. Therefore, he hypothesized that more egocentric speech would occur with adults and less with peers. Vygotsky hypothesized that since young children have difficulty differentiating self as listener from other as listener that there should be more private speech when the distinction between self and other is most difficult, i.e. when the child is with peers. Vygotsky (1962) found support for this hypothesis with experimental manipulations in which he found egocentric speech to decline in situations where the possi- bility of social interaction decreased. These Situations included placing the child with deaf children, with children who spoke another language, or in a room where intruding noise prevented verbal com- munication. . Kohlberg et al. (l968)did not find support for Piaget's idea that there is a negative correlation between social participation and egocentric speech. After partialling out the effect of age, the correlation between social participation and egocentric speech was r = .Ol; the correlation between social and egocentric Speech was a positive r - .68. Kohlberg et al. did find some support for 17 Vygotsky's hypothesis. They found much more egocentric speech in a free play situation with peers (32%) than in a task situation with a minimally responsive adult (l8%). Katz and Katz (T928) and Smith (T935) also found high incidence of egocentric speech in a free play situation and Davis (T937) and McCarthy (T930) reported very little . egocentric speech in a task situation with a responsive adult (2-3%). These findings support Vygotsky's hypothesis that private speech occurs most with peers (when there is maximal awareness of similarity with those around) as Opposed to heightened private speech with adults as Piaget hypothesized (l926). However, the comparisons which suggest this support are between studies; i.e. these factors have not been examined systematically within one ~ study. Conditions other than presence of peers vs. adults are confounded within and between these studies, i.e. a familiar vs. an unfamiliar setting, task orientation, familiar vs. unfamiliar adults or children. The current study remedied this problem by controlling for these confounding variables. Activity Variables Kohlberg et al. (T963) found evidence to support the Vygotsky-Luria (l930) hypothesis that increasing task difficulty 18 produces more private Speech. Further, they found that cognitive difficulty as opposed to perceptual motor difficulty accounted for the increase in verbalization. Looking at the effect of task on private speech categories, they found that "self-guidance" and "self-answered questions" increased with task difficulty and as these increased, inaudible muttering decreased. Kohlberg did not report what effect private Speech had on performance on the task, which from a cognitive-development point Of view, would be a worth- while investigation. Klein (l963) reported that children who com- pleted a task successfully produced twice as many task-relevant Speech units as did those who failed to do so, although they did not differ in amount of task-irrelevant speech. Meichenbaum and Goodman (in press) and Meichenbaum (l97l) observed private speech of impulsive and reflective children ages 4-5 in a free play and in a specific task in which the child worked alone but in the presence of other children. The tasks were paint- ing, stringing beads, and puzzles. Impulsives' private speech was predominantly Level I--Self—stimulation and it did not decrease in the specific task Situation. The reflectives spoke significantly more at higher levels of speech (outer-directed, self-regulatory, and inaudible mutterings). Reflectives were also more responsive to the situational change; self-guiding private speech increased from ll% in a free play to 25% in the task Situation. These results, 19 as well as results in a Luria-type task (Bates and Katz, l970), suggest that impulsive children have less verbal control over motor behavior and use private speech less to control or direct their behavior than do reflective children. Also, the task affects the amount and form of private speech only in reflective children. AIMS AND HYPOTHESES OF THE PRESENT STUDY The aim of the present study was to elucidate the topography and function Of egocentric speech and to replicate and clarify the findings reported in the review of literature. Further, an attempt was made to examine the common assumptions and points of difference between the two major theorists on egocentric speech, Vygotsky and Piaget. The major questions for study were: A. What cognitive-developmental and intrapersonal characteristics Of the child influence the amount and form of private speech he displays? This question, answered partially by some of the previously mentioned studies, leads to the following empirical hypotheses: l. Age is a regular and major determinant of the frequency and type of egocentric speech. Egocentric speech should Show a curvilinear relationship with CA rather than a monotonically decreasing function as postulated by Piaget: a) 2 l/2-4 year old children should Show less of all types of private speech than the 4-5 l/2 year Old children but more than the 6-8 year old children (Vygotsky, 1962), b) 2 1/2-4 year 20 21 olds should display more of the lower levels of private speech (Self-stimulating and Outer-directed) than children over 4 years old (Kohlberg, et al., T968; Klein, T963), c) children over 5 l/2 years Old should display more of the higher levels of private speech (Inner-directed and Mutter- ing) than children less than 5 T/2 (Kohlberg et al., 1968; Luria, l96l; Traugott, l959; Gon Kova, T960; Flavell, Beach, and Chinsky, T966; Keeney, Cannizzo, and Flavell, 1967; Klein, 1963). Cognitive development as reflected in IQ and MA should be strongly related to the development and decline Of private speech: a) The peak for total egocentric speech should occur at approximately MA = 5, b) after MA = 5 lower levels of private speech should decrease while higher levels Of priVate speech should increase (Kohlberg et al., l968). Impulsivity-reflectivity should effect amount and form of private Speech: a) impulsive children should use more. Outer-directed private speech and more self-stimulating speech, b) the reflectives should use more Inner-directed speech (Meichenbaum and Goodman, in press). 22 If private speech comes to serve a cognitive self-regulating function, as Vygotsky (T962) and Luria (l96l) have suggested, then the child's ability to regulate his own behavior and his~ success in sticking with a task should be correlated with the child's level of private speech: a) the child's ability to follow a series Of commands (excitatory control) should be positively correlated with Inner-directed private speech and negatively related to Self-stimulation and Outer-directed speech, b) the child's ability to inhibit or stop a response should be positively correlated with Inner-directed private speech and negatively related to Self-stimulating and Outer- directed speech, c) children who are able to stay with a task and complete it successfully, particularly when this involves inhibiting strong competing responses, should use less self- stimulating Of Outer-directed private speech and more Inner- directed task—relevant speech (Klein, T963). Since young females have been found to be more verbal than young males (Davis, T937) there may be a difference in amount and type Of private speech depending upon sex. However, since no studies have examined this effect there is no basis for predicting the direction of the effect. 23 The intrapersonal variables measured should relate, not only to private speech, but also to one another. It is unlikely that each measure is pure, in that they probably share common factors. A prediction of the strength and direction of the intercorrela- tions may be derived from the theoretical analysis of Luria (l96l) and White (T965). MA, CA, Self-control (both excitatory and inhibitory) per- sistence and success at a task should all Show strong, positive intercorrelations and a negative correlation with impulsivity. IQS should Show the same trends, though less strongly. Is Vygotsky correct in his assumption that private speech is most likely to occur when the child is with a peer who is maximally like the child, as Opposed to Piaget's assumption that private speech is least likely to occur when the child is with a peer with whom the child needs to decenter in order to cooperate? This question raises the following hypotheses: More private speech Of all forms should occur in the presence Of a familiar child than in the presence of a familiar adult (Kohlberg et al., T968; Katz and Katz, l928; Smith, l935; Davis, T937; McCarthy, 1930). If young children are more egocentric——involved in their own world (Piaget, T963) private speech shOUld be less influenced 24 by the person present for younger children than for older children (i.e., there should be an interaction between age and person present). Is Vygotsky correct in his assumption that private speech develops with a cognitive, task-solving function as opposed to Piaget's assumption that it is merely a presocial form Of speech which is socialized out of the child? This question raises the following hypotheses: Activity in which the child is engaged should have a strong differential effect on the type of speech he displays: a) higher levels Of private speech (Inner-directed and Inaudible Muttering) should be greater during a structured, difficult task than during freeplay, b) lower levels of private speech (Self-stimulation and Outer-directed speech) should be greater during free play than during a structured, .difficult task (Kohlberg et al., 1968). Younger children in the two activities should Show much less differentiation in their private speech (both higher and lower levels) and social speech than do older children (i.e., there should be an interaction between Age and Activity). 25 Does egocentric speech represent a unitary concept in which all types of speech increase and decrease in a common pattern or are the different forms actually different in their occurrence depending Upon other variables? This question suggests two hypotheses: If the forms Of egocentric speech reflect the child's level Of cognitive-development (and other intrapersonal variables) there Should be a relatively high positive correlation be- tween the same forms across situations. If each level Of egocentric speech differs from each other level then they should each differ systematically in pat- terns Of occurrence dependent upon intrapersonal and situa- tional variables. Categories Of speech which fall in the same level should Show systematic similarities in their patterns of occurrence. METHOD Subjects Twenty subjects--l0 male and TO female--in each of three age groups--2 T/2-4, 4-5 T/2, 6-8--were secured through the Michigan State University Married Students Association (MSUA) Day Care Center and Michigan State University Married Housing. The youngest §§ were judged to be I'verbal" by the day care teacher and §_during an Obser- vation of the children. The criterion for being considered "verbal" was Observed ability to speak in 3-4 word sentences. Bilingual children were not included in the study. All subjects were children of students at the university. Parents were contacted by letter (see Appendix A) and by phone to enlist their cooperation. All but four were anxious to have their child participate. Procedure In order to insure cooperation during the first session, the Es (2 male and l female) spent 6 hours each at the day care center getting to know the children. _ 26 27 Each subject was then broUght by his parents tO a small con- ference room at Michigan State University for a total of three sep- arate sessions. The room was a TO x l4 carpeted room, equipped with microphones, a one-way mirror (which could be blocked by curtains) and 2 small windows (l-l/2' x l-l/2') which permitted video-taping of the last two sessions. The adjoining observation room housed the Ampex 6100 video-tape recorder, the 2 Ampex cameras, the sound equipment and a console permitting split screen recording. Before each session the child was allowed to select a trinket from a toy tray. This period was used as a warm-up period to allow the child to become familiar with the surroundings and E, Session l The first session was to adapt §_to the room and to admin- ister the test measures for the intrapersonal variables. The E and his parents were greeted by E, §_was told, "Today we will be playing some games together in this special room for children. Your Mom (and/or Dad) will be waiting for us in the waiting room." The child was then seated at a small table and allowed to play with some cardboard farm animals. The parents were directed to the Observation room to watch the test session. Usually one of the Es Observed with the parents to explain the procedure 28 and answer any questions. A brief period of about five minutes was used by E_tO get to know §_and put him at ease. (For two of the youngest Es the mother was present in the room during the first session.) Then E administered the test measures. Total testing time ranged from 25-60 minutes with the youngest children taking the longest time to complete the battery Of tests. Children who became restless were encouraged to continue but testing was termi- nated if the child Showed signs Of fatigue. The child was then i joined by his parents and told, "YOU will be coming back two more times." Sessions 2 and 3-—The Video-taped Sessions The second and third visits to the conference room were either with a parent or with a same sex, same age classmate with whom the child was good friends. Peer-parent and parent-peer visits were counterbalanced within groups. Using mothers and classmates for the adult and peer effects on egocentric speech was an attempt to control familiarity. Of course the author was aware that children are more familiar with their mothers than with their peers; however, the attempt here was to encourage speech. It was suspected that novel stimuli of any kind, especially new people, would tend to inhibit any speech, particularly in the younger Es. 29 The parent and peer sessions were each divided into two l0 minute sessions. One session was free play; the other session was "cognitive" tasks. The order Of free play and tasks was counterbalanced within groups. During free play §_was seated at a small desk with two shelves. Toys were arranged on the shelves. The toys included: three PlaySkool people, three pieces Of doll furniture, PTay-doh Modeling Compound, a toy telephone, a play car, and a crow hand puppet. During tasks the desk was turned so that the toy shelves were out of Efs sight. Two tasks were used: five minutes for puzzles and five minutes for coloring. §_was presented with two puzzles: one hard, the other easy. The easy puzzle had fewer pieces and was presented to §_assembled; the hard puzzle had more pieces and was presented to §_disassembled. The type Of puzzle used depended upon the age Of the child (see Appendix B). The easy puzzle was assessed at a difficulty level below the child's age by the manufacturer; the hard puzzle was assessed at a diffi- culty level at or above the child's age by the manufacturer. After working on the puzzles for 5 minutes, §_was presented with a large roll Of paper and a box of crayons and allowed to color for 5 minutes. The parent session began with instructions to the child and the mother. §_and Mother (M) were directed into the play room and told, "Today you will be in the conference room for 20 minutes to 30 play some games. E, here is your special seat and desk, and here is your mother's desk." E was seated at his desk and E_was seated at her desk. fl's desk was on E's right about four feet away. Both T_I_ and E faced the end of the room where the camera windows were sit- uated. E spoke to E, "See E, here are some toys for you to play with. You may play with any of the toys you like for T0 minutes, then I'll come back with some other games. Your Mom is working on a questionnaire. You work on your things and let your Mom work on her things." Then E spoke to E, "Here is a questionnaire that I'd like to have you fill out; it's about your interactiOn with E, Try not to interfere with what your child is doing. Generally ignore him, but if he asks a direct question 90 ahead and answer and direct him back to his activity." Then E_spoke to both, "I'll be back in TO minutes; have fun." Ten minutes later E returned with two puzzles. E spoke to E, "Now I would like for you to do two puzzles for me." E placed the two puzzles in a row on the table. "This first one is the easiest, the second is harder. I'd like you to do this one first“ (pointing to the easiest), "and then as much of the rest as you have time to do. You may work on these for 5 minutes" (E then removed pieces from easy puzzle) "then I will bring you some paper and crayons to draw. Work on these alone and let your Mom work on her questionnaire. I will be back in five minutes." E left the room and returned in five minutes. E_presented E with a large 31 roll of paper; you may rip off as much as you like to draw a picture. I will be back in five minutes." E_returned,‘thanked E and E_and terminated the session. A The peer session began with instructions to both Es. Each child was seated at his own desk.‘ The desks were about four feet apart, each facing the end of the room where the camera windows were situated. The instructions given E_were the same as those given during the parent session except that during free play they were told, "Each-of you has your own desk, so play by yourselves so that each one can dO just what he wants." For the tasks they were told, "You each have your own puzzles; work on them alone so that you can each do it alone"; for the coloring they were told, "Each of you has your own crayons; each work on your own picture so you can take it home when you're done." Both Parent and Peer sessions were video-taped for later analysis. Test Measures A battery of five tests was given to all Es individually during session T. Several measures were derived from each test. Table l shows the range, mean, and standard deviation of the scores. 32 19, MA .Measurement of cognitive development-~Mental Age (MA) and O IQ--were derived from the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Form B (Dunn, T965). The test was administered in the standard way, according to the instructions in the manual. Impulsivity Measures of impulsivity were taken in two ways. a) The Picture Absurdities sub-test from the Detroit Test of Learning Aptitude (Baker and Leland, T967) was administered to each E, Es were instructed: "I have some pictures here. Some of them have something foolish about them--something Silly. YOU tell me each time what is foolish; what is silly about the picture." Eighteen pictures (ranging in difficulty) were presented to E, (See Appendix C.) The test was scored following Kagan's scoring technique for differentiating impulsive from reflective children (Kagan, Rosman, Day, Albert, and Phillips, 1964). Number com- pleted, number correct and reaction time on correct trials, errors and reaction time on error trials were all recorded. b) The second measure of impulsivity was a game called Eggs to Market. This game was used by Stevenson and his associates to measure impulsivity (Friedricks, Hertz, Moynahan, Simpson, Arnold, 33 Christy, Cooper, and Stevenson, 1971). In this game E_showed E_a small truck containing “eggs" and a 29 inch road and told him: "In this game we are going to déliver eggs to the grocery store. We have a truck that is filled with eggs, and a road that leads to the store. I want you to drive the truck from this end of the road to the store at the other end. You must go very slowly SO. that the eggs don't break. Remember, try to go as slowly as you can so the eggs do not break. Begin." E_timed E, The score was the amount Of time taken to push the truck to the other end Of the track. Self-contrOT--Excitatorys Ability to follow commands or excitatory self-control was assessed by the Farm Game (Friedrichs et al., 1971). E was shown a flannel board on which was pasted a house, a barn, a shade tree, and a fence. The task was introduced as the Farm Game, and E was shown the flannel bOard cut-outs with which he would play the game (Farmer Jones, his truck, a tractor, pigs, a cow, a dog, and a bushel of apples). These pieces were placed along the edge of the table in front of E_and named by E, E_was then instructed, "Listen carefully and do just what I say." Two sample directions were given, and E was corrected if he made an error. Then E was asked 34 to carry out seven sets of directions. The directions (see Ap- pendix D) ranged from simple (e.g., "Put Farmer Jones by the house.") to complex (e.g., "Drive the tractor to the big shade tree. Put the dog by the barn. Drive the truck to the big house. Put the apples by the fence."). The directions differed both in number of elements and in the degree to which they were interrelated. The subject was required to listen to a complete set of directions before carrying out any Of its components. A total Of 32 points, one for each com- ponent, was possible. Self-contrOl--Inhibitory:- Ability to stop a response was measured in the game "Simon Says" (Strommen, 1972). To insure that the child understood the ten actions used during the game, E introduced the actions as exer- cises and E_and E_did them together (e.g., "Touch your tummy; wave your hand; stamp your feet; touch your nose; put arms up; touch your knee; put hands on head; step forward; step back; touch the floor"). The game was played two ways--a) with a signal to inhibit the re- sponse and b) without a signal to inhibit the response. It was assumed that responding with a signal would be easier than respond- ing without a signal. 35 a) For the game with a signal, E gave the following instruc- tions: "In this game I'll do all the exercises. Sometimes you do them with me and sometimes you don't. If I say 'Simon Says,‘ you do them; but, if I say 'Mickey Says,’ you don't do them. What would you do if I said, 'Simon says clap your hands?'" (The child indicated comprehension of the instructions by performing the action or by describing what he would do.) "But what if I said, 'Mickey says clap your hands,‘ what would you do?" (The child indicated comprehension by g9; performing the action or by explaining what he would do.) If the child made an error the instructions were re- peated and another test trial was given using "Touch your ear," as an example. If the child did not demonstrate understanding Of the instructions the task was terminated. Es were scored for number Of errors on the "Simon SaysU trials and number of errors on the "Mickey Says" trials (Inhibition). Only the inhibition errors were analyzed; a score of five errors was possible. b) For the game without a signal, E_said, "Now we are going to change the game a little. Mickey left and now only Simon is here. Now, if I say Simon Says, you still do the exercises, but if I don't say Simon Says, you don't do them. For example, if I said, 'Simon says clap your hands,‘ what would you do?" (The child responded.) As in the previous game only children who demonstrated understanding Of the instructions were included in the analysis. 36 [Es were scored fOr number of errors on the "Simon Says" trials and the "no-Simon Says" trials (inhibition). Only the inhibition errors wereflanalyZed; a score of five was possible. Coding Egocentricngeech Two raters unaware of the hypotheses were trained by the investigator to identify the 6 categories of private speech and social speech as outlined in the Kohlberg et al. (1968) article (See Appendix E for complete definitions Of categories). During training raters identified the categories Of private speech as they viewed pilot video-tapes. Training continued until inter- rater reliability reached at least .90. A check on inter-rater reliability between the investigator and the raters were conducted on the overall reliability of the rating during the actual ratings and was r = .92. Two raters viewed each video-tape. Any disagree- ment in rating was completely discussed and that segment of the tape viewed repeatedly until agreement could be reached. The rating Of any unusUal utterances or difficult-tO-rate speech was noted SO that raters could be consistent throughout the weeks of rating. RESULTS The private and social speech data were analyzed in seven 2x2x3x2x2 nested-factorial analyses Of variance (Winer, 1962) to analyze the effects of Order Of session (mother-peer, peer-mother), Sex, Age (2-1/2-4, 4-5-1/2, 6-8), Person present (mother, peer), and Activity (task, free play). The dependent variables were the 6 types of egocentric speech and social speech. The egocentric speech was divided in the following way: Level I--l. Self- stimulating; Level II--Outer-directed private speech--2. Command- ing Objects, 3. Describing own activity; Level III--Inward- directed private speech--4. Dialog, 5. Self-guiding comments; Level IV--6. Inaudible muttering. (See Appendix F for all ANOVA results.) For clear exposition the data will be reported by var- iable rather than by each ANOVA table. The intrapersonal variables were analyzed by a correlation matrix. The range, mean, and standard deviation of scores is re- ported in Table T. For the correlations private speech was col- lapsed intO 3 categories--Self-stimulation, Outer-directed (Command- ing Objects and Describing activity) and Inner-directed (Dialog, 37 38 TABLE 1 MEAN. RANGE, AND STANDARD DEVIATION 0F SCORES ON THE INTRAPERSONAL VARIABLES Variables - Mean. . Range . Standard Deviation CA (mos.) 59 35-98 ' 16.8 MA (mos.) 73 27—124 24.1 IQ 113 68-144 14.9 Impulsivity Eggs 22.2 3-ll7 23.6 Number Correct (PA) 5.5 O-l4 3.3 RT/Correct (PA) (sec.) 41.9 0-92 21.0 Errors (PA) 12 4-18 3.2 RT/Errors (PA) (sec.) 57 10-191 34.5 Self-Control Number Correct (FG) 24.8 13-32 4.4 Inhibit I errors 1.7 0-5 2.2 Inhibit II errors 2.3 0-5 2.2 Persistence and Success Success/mother1 5.1 0-21 5.3 Success/friend1 4.5 0-22 4.9 1Score is number of puzzle pieces completed. ‘39 Self-guidance and Muttering). These categories were analyzed within the two Activity conditions--free play and tasks. Only correlations of private speech during tasks are reported because generally the correlations follow the same trend in both tasks and free play with private speech during tasks showing the most sensitivity to intra- personal variables (i.e., correlations between private speech and the intrapersonal variables during free play were generally smaller). Further, the relationships between private speech and the intra- personal Variables derived under the free play condition were of less theoretical interest than were those derived under the tasks condition. (See Appendix G for complete correlation matrix.) Ase The first concern was to analyze age effects on egocentric speech. The hypotheses relating to age were partially supported ‘ as can be seen in Table 2. The curvilinear relationship predicted by Vygotsky and Kohlberg was not found even though younger subjects were used in this study. All curves were monotonic, supporting Piaget's hypothesis. As predicted, younger Es showed a signifi- cantly greater amount of Outer-directed private speech (Commanding objects and Describing activity) than did older Es. Further 40 .u xwvcoaa< mum mmpnmh <>oz< mumpasoo some .m.z o.PF E.op m.a sumaam _aEuom Po. m¢\m o.m m.~ o.~ F.P mcwcmupaz 8.8Euzacm. .m gummam cwccH mo mcowumumm$wcmz Fuccouxm >H Pm>m4 .m.z E.m m.m o.m nevupzw-cpmm .m .m.z ¢.m 0.4 m.m mopavo .4 uapumcvo acach HHH _m>m4 Foo. ma\~ o.m N.“ ~.N_ m.m_ xpw>wpu< mcwnELUGGQ .m mo. m¢\~ m.e o.m N.m m.m muumhao m=_u=aee°u .N amuuaawo uaazpso HH Fa>84 .m.z m.m ~.E m.~ »a_a ago: new =o_gvumamm ._ mcwpa_zeEpm.Cme-_anomaLa H _m>m4 m-m ~\F m-¢ e-N\F N a mu m masocw mm<. :ummam mo.mopgomwumu amazoaw mw< m mIH mom :ummmw 4m4 «Samm. 44mm. asmm.- empomewu-cmp:o HH Pm>04 444mm. «N. F_.- :owpmpse_um-wfimm H pm>m4 somomwiowcucmuomo mo mmwcomUEMU in teamm. skew... HHquw—EH in «samv.i Hugwnwzcm .. pumacou consaz Achm_m “secpwz A_m:mwm sow; Azowpmpwoxmv mcoccmv mcoccmv mafia scam HH p_nw::H H “_n_;cH uomccoo cmnszz mmczmwmz FocucoUIEme :ommmm onHzmuowm mo m4m>m4 m IHHz onF<4mmmou mHMIH oz< mmm3mmH HH.- Remm.- mo.- «Rmm.i empomcHuismuzo.HH Hm>m4 NH.- «Rmm.- «0.- mH.- :oHumstHpmimHmm H Hw>mH gummaw owcucmoomu mo mchommpmu .. Reece. saaHm. emu. H\mmmuo=m .. «aem. «Seam. H\pmwmemm .. «amm. z\mmmuu:m .. z\umwmcm¢ H\mmmuu:m H\pmwmcm¢ z\mmmuu:m z\umwmgmm mmgammwz mmmuuzm bcm mocmummemm :ummmm onhzmuomm.mo.mHm>uH m 1H“: monh on» no coHuuogHu on» uoonaL o» vouco>:H mogoum mmmng .. co. Hm. wow. amm.- «tNm.- emu. «5N. om vcoHc$\mmouu=m .. Stem. mm. we. «tom. we. a.¢e.- «Hm. mm. mm. mm ucmvcw\umHmcwa -- aamm. th. om Lozuoe\mmouusm in «mm. mc. comm.i town. camm. mm Lmzu0E\umwwLoa mmoooam uco oucoumHmcma .. mm. Race. mo.- mo.- «.Hm.u Hm. cu. Ne Hmcocco HH upnpch I- Kc. cm~.- m~.u mm.- acm. so. so. om Hmcocco H awawch .. mm.- wv.- awm. mm. mm. mm dev pooccou Logan: HocucouuuHom .. «tum. mm. Ne. mm HHHmH:mEH .. mm. mm OH in mm. mm (x -I on (u Hoav ucwHLH ucmHLH Lmzuoz cacao: _HH HH mcocem uumccou Huuoccou uumccou mcoccu H mom“ mmmuu: m mew mmmuu: m mew m u H a m u H a CHDHECH “_ancH Longs: Hm Hz Conan: H 3H «s <9 Nz mmouuzm use oucmumHmcoa HocucoUICHmm HuH>HmH3qu mmuuusm ¥mEH>HWH=azH .oH .az . HHpe< QEHeHeemen .m Ho.v me\H e.e e.m H.m meeeweo aeHeeeeEOQ .N umpomcHnucouzo _.Hoo.v m¢\H N.em m.m m.m era wee: nee eoHpHeeeem .H meHCGH=eHem.C_em-_aHeemeea >H Hm>mH HHH Fm>m4 HH Hm>mH H He>as a me a eeea eH=e< mum; oz< hHao< :hH3 zmzz :ummmm onhzmooom mo mmHmokauzwzommm zH Hm>mH Hoe. m4\H E.HH H.m m.o_ meHeHsu-4Hem .m mo. m4\H 4.4 m.m H.4 meHeHo .4 eeeueeHo-eeeeH HHH He>e4 mo. m4\_ 9.4 m.HH m.oH 444>4e04 4eHeHeemec .4 H09. m4\H e.m4 H.e H.m mpeeneo meHeeeeeoo .N eepeee_a-eee=o HH He>aH Hoo. m4\H 4.9N N.m m.m era nee: eee eoHuHeeaem .H mcwpmHsewpmimHmmuHmHuommcm H Hm>mH a we H .mea «men mxmm» ><4m mmmm oz< m¥muzuaommm zmH zmmzhmm up m4m<~ monP - on. No. Hm. mo.- «4.1 oo.- cu. m—.- o—.- mp. 50. mp. KN. om mzouzz -- oH. me. HP. m~.- mo. mm. ~m.- mH.- mm. mp. mm. vo. mp xmoxzh> - NH. MN. oN.- mo. mm. mm.- m~.- mm. mu. on. no.1 NH mowm - mH. mm.- mo. we. ¢¢.- ~¢.- mm. mm. mm. mo. m— mouzm monh