180 SECTIONAL ADDRESSES. 



The prognostic value of early observations is, however, more remark- 

 able, I think, if we confine ourselves to some fairly specific capacity. Let 

 us take the development of speech. In the case of several of my children, 

 I made observations from the first days on the making of sounds and 

 beginnings of speech. When spontaneous ' cooing ' first revealed itself, 

 I tested carefully for the first appearance of ' responsive cooing,' i.e. cooing 

 in response to cooing. 



The next graph shows various stages in the development of speech in 

 three of my children and the ages at which they revealed the particular 

 accomplishment. The lowest (i.e. youngest) line is that of Y who first 

 showed sjDontaneous cooing at the age of four weeks. The second lowest 

 line is that of B, who showed spontaneous cooing at the age of just under 

 five weeks ; the third line is that of A, who did not show it till seven 

 weeks and is behind the others in all the other speech phenomena — 

 practising new noises, first understanding of a simple word of command, 

 onomatopoeic noises, imitation of word-sounds, use of negative, two word 

 sentences and so on.' 



This may be a mere coincidence, or rather three series of coincidences. 

 But it does not stand alone. Apart from the evidence afforded by Gesell, 

 there are other functions in which I was able to trace similar parallel 

 developments though not as detailed, and some early suggestions of clues 

 to later type of temperament. Thus, I noted within the first three 

 months of life that one of my boys was definitely more active in reflex 

 responses than the other and generally less placid : and throughout 

 boyhood he continued the more mobile, more excitable of the two. 



Undoubtedly many similar examples are needed for confirmation ; 

 but if these phenomena are more than coincidences, we may well have, 

 some day, not merely means of prophesying the future general intelligence 

 of a child when it is six months of age, at least with a high degree of 

 probability, but also of getting at this early age a fair idea of its future 

 capacity for linguistic development, manipulative skill, and possibly even 

 of its characteristic temperament, and so on. 



I wish to emphasise the fact that we are still in the position of the 

 mental testers of older children, say, 25 to 30 years ago. The main work 

 is still the testing of tests. Excellent, for example, as Dr. Gesell's general 

 lists of tests are, I am sure he claims no finality for them. Some of them 

 are, I have suggested, too dependent on the passing mood of the child to 

 be reliable for general clinical purposes at one or two sittings, though 

 they may be used successfully if applied frequently by a psychologically 

 trained parent in the home. 



Even reflexes are not so reliable as tests as they might seem. This 

 point may be illustrated by the facts gained from some experimental 

 tests of the eye-blink reflex in response to a sudden loud noise, made on 

 one of my little girls at six months. First, standardising the stimulus 

 (a stone falling on a tin tray from a height of 3 feet) is essential, as is the 

 leaving of time interval enough to avoid fatigue of the reflex. The 



' I have not comparative records of all the various new speech developments. 

 There may be material in my records for more, though the above were not^ of course, 

 specially selected. As language becomes more and more expressive of complex 

 thought processes, the lines of B and Y intermingle. 



I 



