FIGURE 7a (S310F): Pseudoconceptual reasoning within a syncretic representation

The three-year-old participant in Figures 7a and b (S310F) would start off with a stated intention (ie, to find “All the white ones”), but then some other idea (ie, to arrange the blocks according to a vague notion of symmetry) would interrupt her initial intention, which would in turn further be interrupted by an increasingly random selection, and the first two intentions appeared to have been forgotten completely. For example, a long train of blocks would begin with repeating the word “same”, which meant putting the triangles together (but not the lag triangle), and then some new element would be noted and the idea of “same” would be forgotten.

Before the photographs in Figures 7 a and b were taken, this three-year-old started to build what became a “truck” with “all of the big ones” but the selection became less clear as she progressed: the sequence of selection changed to “colour people, colour people” and then a “driver” of the truck appeared and later underwent several identity crises. Her fluid and syncretic approach was evident throughout her session: as in the “truck”, her initial approach to “big” included both big and tall (lag) as well as tall and small (mur) blocks, but then the subjective idea of the truck gained importance, which lead to the inclusion of coloured people and a changeable driver.

In Figures 7 a and b, this participant (S310F) twice created identical groups of “big blocks” and “little blocks” (they were mixed up in between sorting): although no lag blocks (tall and big) were included in her groups of little blocks, and no cev blocks (flat and small) were included in her groups of big blocks, bik blocks (large and flat) were included in both (making her selection criteria broader and more flexible in the case of bik blocks). Interestingly, all of the mur blocks (tall and small) were included in her group of big blocks.

FIGURE 7b (S310F)

This participant’s use of “big” and “little” was not entirely accurate, but was still meaningful enough for adults’ and children’s word meanings to meet sufficiently for mutual understanding. It was most interesting to see that, on three occasions, this participant used the same method for big and little: it could be argued that the participant’s visual acuity was not well developed enough for her to distinguish between diameter and height at the same time. However, this would not necessarily be the most valid explanation, as this participant had grouped the blocks according to the same visual cues three times, with this last being an exact duplication of the grouping preceding it.