Early Child Development and Care 483 is still too tall, in relation to the mother. That is what motivates the second adjustment, noticeable to whoever looks at the drawing: here too Mom's legs have been erased. The second part of Ell, 'except that' marks a renewed awareness on Emmas part. The mother is still too small compared to the father. This time, no negotiation will take place Emma, reaching for her own eraser(f. note 5), removes the lower part of the representa tion of her moms legs and redraws them longer. This erasing and this tracing are done without consulting her brother, without justification, without comment. The conversational exchange taking place parallel to this activity relates to secondary technical aspects, the eraser's scraps(Im taking away my things here(L16)) and the fact that the sheet moves or not('don't move the sheet don' t move the sheet(E15). Leo concludes this exchange by asking why his Mom s feet are glued together. By doing so, he does not question at all the validity of the transformation made by his sister. On the contrary, questioning one of the parameters not relevant to the modification(the fact that the feet are glued together and not the fact that they are big, as he nicely states it since the beginning with his six-year old childs approximation), he confirms the adjustment Emma just made. It has to be said that she finally achieved what Leo requested little before the beginning of the extract: hey look at her, isn't she skinny mom you should've put on a skirt, she looks like a little girl (laughs)mom looks like a little girl doesn't she do them bigger her feet(3 seconds)er put her some earrings on(from 3 min 59 s to 4 min 14 s). The earrings have indeed been drawn and she has become taller. Mom is no longer short; Mom is no longer a child. Emma has satisfied the potential request contained in the statement expressed in the conditional tense and repeated: ' she looks like a little girl. The mother became an adult The differentiated point of view of the two children We can see here that both children have contrasting views about their parents'size. We have already mentioned this earlier. A justification is found in the actions carried out jointly by the siblings. The negotiation started with an agreement linked to the relation between both sizes. The gestural language makes this very clear. Emma does not see her father as being too tall, she sees him as being taller than the mother(the virtual line descends to the right of the drawing). She wants to get her brother to shorten the father. We notice a resistance on Leo's part, who made a tall representation of the father. We have shown that his feeling is not about the relation between both sizes but their symbolic value Cbut who cares). The fact that the mother appears to be small is mainly perceived by Leo as the fact that she resembles a little girl. On the contrary, for Emma, it is the realistic nature of the relation between the sizes that prevails. The proof of it being that the fathers shortening is not enough. She starts immediately and without consultation to lengthen the size of the mother(further elements appearing as they negotiate the size of both children support this hypothesis), Leo validating the mothers lengthening On the interaction scale we see a subtle play of convergence of interests and signs of autonomy. Both may accept the final state. Leo may do so because he was able to complete the drawing of his Dad(admittedly less tall but tall nevertheless)and because he obtained that his Mom resembles a mom and not a little girl, meaning an adult. Emma may do so too because she managed to make the size relation more realistic (in the end, the father is taller than the mother, but only slightly). This intense negotiation took place in several ways. It leads to a jointly accepted decision, which updates itself in a non-reversible tran- sitional permanent way (let us not forget that the drawing is done with a pencil and is as such erasable). The interaction between both children, mediated through the use of tracing instruments, led to a graphic production for which they clearly share responsibilityEarly Child Development and Care 483 is still too tall, in relation to the mother. That is what motivates the second adjustment, noticeable to whoever looks at the drawing: here too Mom’s legs have been erased. The second part of E11, ‘except that’ marks a renewed awareness on Emma’s part. The mother is still too small compared to the father. This time, no negotiation will take place. Emma, reaching for her own eraser (cf. note 5), removes the lower part of the representa￾tion of her mom’s legs and redraws them longer. This erasing and this tracing are done without consulting her brother, without justification, without comment. The conversational exchange taking place parallel to this activity relates to secondary technical aspects, the eraser’s scraps (‘I’m taking away my things here’ (L16)) and the fact that the sheet moves or not (‘don’t move the sheet don’t move the sheet’ (E15)). Leo concludes this exchange by asking why his Mom’s feet are glued together. By doing so, he does not question at all the validity of the transformation made by his sister. On the contrary, questioning one of the parameters not relevant to the modification (the fact that the feet are glued together and not the fact that they are big, as he nicely states it since the beginning with his six-year￾old child’s approximation), he confirms the adjustment Emma just made. It has to be said that she finally achieved what Leo requested little before the beginning of the extract: ‘hey look at her, isn’t she skinny mom you should’ve put on a skirt, she looks like a little girl (laughs) mom looks like a little girl doesn’t she do them bigger her feet (3 seconds) er put her some earrings on’ (from 3 min 59 s to 4 min 14 s). The earrings have indeed been drawn and she has become taller. Mom is no longer short; Mom is no longer a child. Emma has satisfied the potential request contained in the statement expressed in the conditional tense and repeated: ‘she looks like a little girl’. The mother became an adult. The differentiated point of view of the two children We can see here that both children have contrasting views about their parents’ size. We have already mentioned this earlier. A justification is found in the actions carried out jointly by the siblings. The negotiation started with an agreement linked to the relation between both sizes. The gestural language makes this very clear. Emma does not see her father as being too tall, she sees him as being taller than the mother (the virtual line descends to the right of the drawing). She wants to get her brother to shorten the father. We notice a resistance on Leo’s part, who made a tall representation of the father. We have shown that his feeling is not about the relation between both sizes but their symbolic value (‘but who cares’). The fact that the mother appears to be small is mainly perceived by Leo as the fact that she resembles a little girl. On the contrary, for Emma, it is the realistic nature of the relation between the sizes that prevails. The proof of it being that the father’s shortening is not enough. She starts immediately and without consultation to lengthen the size of the mother (further elements appearing as they negotiate the size of both children support this hypothesis), Leo validating the mother’s lengthening. On the interaction scale we see a subtle play of convergence of interests and signs of autonomy. Both may accept the final state. Leo may do so because he was able to complete the drawing of his Dad (admittedly less tall but tall nevertheless) and because he obtained that his Mom resembles a mom and not a little girl, meaning an adult. Emma may do so too because she managed to make the size relation more realistic (in the end, the father is taller than the mother, but only slightly). This intense negotiation took place in several ways. It leads to a jointly accepted decision, which updates itself in a non-reversible tran￾sitional permanent way (let us not forget that the drawing is done with a pencil and is as such erasable). The interaction between both children, mediated through the use of tracing instruments, led to a graphic production for which they clearly share responsibility