Heckedy Peg

Title: Heckety Peg 

Author: Audrey Wood

Illustrator: Don Wood

I was already a fan of the (husband & wife) illustrator & author team of Don & Audrey Woods, from having used the Spanish version of The Napping House often in language therapy activities. We just accidentally stumbled on to Heckedy Peg at the library, from one quick look at it, I knew it was one we had to take home.

Heckedy Peg tells the story of a family whose world is turned upside-down when a witch visits their cottage, and turns the children into food. 

The beautiful illustrations are immediately enchanting, depicting life in a non-modern, agricultural world-- a nice change of rhythm for children being raised in an urban or sub-urban environment.  Don Wood also managed to perfectly capture the characters' emotions of joy, terror, and despair in his oil-paintings.


Here are some areas of expressive language that can be targeted with this story:

Basic academic concepts
The seven children are named after the days of the week, which makes for a nice, indirect way to incorporate this functional, academic concept.  And your child's teacher would also be pleased!  


Semantic associations
As the mother breaks the witch's spell by matching her children [turned into food] with the food each has asked for, there is a great opportunity for discussion with your child as to how the items go together.  For example:
-  "bread wants butter".  Why does bread go with butter?  Because we spread butter on bread.
-  "pie wants knife".  Why does pie go with a knife?  Because we use a knife to cut the pie.


Sequencing and prepositions of location
Audrey Wood, the author, divides Heckedy Peg's journey into distinct parts, which Don Wood illustrates beautifully.  It is beneficial expressive language practice for your child to use prepositional phrases in the correct order to describe the witch's journey home--  "... down the road, over the bridge, through the town, across the field, and deep into the woods."

Perspective-taking

For children who would benefit from practice with social language, adults can take time to discuss what the characters are thinking and feeling, and what each person or animal knows, in relation to the others.  Here are some ideas:

- First-order false beliefs-- The understanding of one person's beliefs about something.  For example, in Heckedy Peg, since the little bird was witness to the witch casting her spell, he knows where she has taken the children.  The mother does not know where her children are since she was out at the market.  Different characters think, know, and feel different things, and it can be worthwhile to actually discuss this with your children as you read the story.

- Second-order false beliefs-- The ability to understand one person’s beliefs about another person’s beliefs.  For example, the witch knows that the children in the story think that she is just an old lady in need of a light for her pipe.  Readers who have difficulty interpreting others' feelings and guessing their thoughts may really need an adult to talk about this in as simple terms as possible, even drawing simple pictures with "thought bubbles" to make it clearer.

Finally, mothers will especially love this one, since the main "moral" would be...

LISTEN TO YOUR MOTHER!!!!!

Find Heckedy Peg at the Singapore NLB under Fairy Tales, Witches Fiction.
Enjoy the story!

Written in Singapore, April 2013

Singaporean toddler refusal

American parents are well familiar with the NO phase-- a typical feature of toddler-hood.

My third experience of mothering a toddler is here in Singapore**. He has taken that step to be able to use verbal means to express REFUSAL. What's really funny is, he's learned to run right at the same time (as if he wants to refuse something and then run away from you).

But, Instead of "NO" what you'll hear over here is:

"DON'T WANT!"

Which with the unclear but ever so cute speech of a toddler sounds more like "duh-wan!"

WANT is typically considered an obligatorily transitive verb in English. Meaning, an explicitly stated direct object should follow if used in a grammatically correct manner, for standard English. Think of:
carry-- I carry [the bag].
take-- He takes [the bus].
wash, devour, wear, hold, say, etc etc
These verbs sound funny to an American ear if used without a direct object. It's like in Rocky Horror Picture Show, the open mouth there waiting with "Antici..........pation."

Other verbs are transitive, but not obligator-ily so. In other words, they can carry an object ("I'm eating candy") but they don't have to ("I'm eating"). That is, the direct object can be implied, and it's still considered grammatically correct.

When my little one says, "don't-want," part of the reason it sounds so cute is beccause want is usually one of those obligatorily transitive verbs. "I want it. I want that. I want some. I want [specific direct object]." But in Singaporean English, you will hear preschoolers eagerly repeating "I want! I want! I want!" with their hand up as they reach toward the desired object. Or, emphatically repeating "I don't-want! I don't-want!" arms crossed across the chest, a scowl on the face to refuse whatever is being offered or imposed.

Something else I notice about "don't want" is the use of PRO-drop. Singapore Colloquial English, like many other languages (ex. Spanish, Italian, and many more), uses PRO-drop, which is the dropping of the subject pronoun when the subject is obvious from the context. If I know you're talking about yourself, and you know that I know you're talking about yourself, you don't have to use I. PRO-drop can be truly confusing at times, and, I'll be frank, annoying when you hear older children do it (I'm like a broken record: "Let's try to talk using all the words. Let's say things in a way that our family will be able to understand when we go visit-- with all the words.").

But while the baby is still little and the novelty hasn't yet worn off, I think I will enjoy this cute little, Singaporean way to refuse things like wearing a diaper, eating dinner, or sharing toys with siblings.

** post written in Singapore, 2011