Extending the Field of Extended Language: A Literature Review on Figurative Language Processing in Neurodevelopmental Disorders

Abstract

Figurative and extended uses of language are nonliteral utterances such as irony, sarcasm, and idioms and comprise a core part of social interaction. Children with typical development (TD) show a progressive adultlike understanding of figurative language around the age of ten. In contrast, individuals with neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism spectrum disorder (ASD), attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), or developmental language disorder often display difficulties with figurative language. However, these difficulties are a puzzle in that the actual underlying causes remain unclear. Those individuals who struggle with understanding figurative language need support through effective interventions. These should be based on solid research findings, which is often problematic as research in this field is characterized by conflicting and incomplete findings. The intention of this study is to conduct a literature review of both available studies and those intervention programs that seek to improve figurative language abilities in these atypical populations. This review will not only provide an overview of available intervention programs but also reveal the research gaps through critically appraising earlier studies. This is done as, in a manner of speaking, research reflects our theoretical understanding of the topic at hand, while interventions reflect the ways in which they are manifested into practice. This will serve to give the reader a more complete overview of the state of knowledge on figurative language and neurodevelopmental disorders. This article may be read for an overview of the field, but it also aims to point out the areas where additional research is needed. For instance, while figurative language takes many forms, there is a disproportionate scholarly focus on metaphors compared to other types. We will ultimately highlight promising approaches and make suggestions for future directions in terms of research and practice.

Understanding nonliteral language abilities in children with neurofibromatosis type 1.

“…To understand sarcasm, an individual is required to appreciate the nonliteral nature of a phrase and its incongruence with the context in which it is occurring (Chahboun et al, 2021). Moreover, an individual might be required to interpret multiple implied contextual factors (e.g., the situation at hand, interpersonal dynamics, social cues), attribute mental states to others (i.e., theory of mind), and decode social communication cues based on speech (e.g., pitch, intonation, exaggeration, prosody), body language, and facial expressions (e.g., an eye-roll, dead-pan expression, open/closed body; Beauchamp & Anderson, 2010; Chahboun et al, 2021). Metaphor comprehension also requires an individual to think beyond the literal interpretation of a phrase, in conjunction with applying theory of mind and semantic knowledge (i.e., consider relevant and irrelevant semantic features) to the context (Happe, 1995; Norbury, 2005), and derive overall meaning (i.e., “central coherence;” Melogno et al, 2017).…”

“…Collectively, the reduced sarcasm and metaphor comprehension skills we identified in this study suggest children with NF1 experience difficulties interpreting and understanding language, which requires an additional level of abstraction, as well as social and emotional interpretation, to understand the nonliteral, intended message. To understand sarcasm, an individual is required to appreciate the nonliteral nature of a phrase and its incongruence with the context in which it is occurring (Chahboun et al, 2021). Moreover, an individual might be required to interpret multiple implied contextual factors (e.g., the situation at hand, interpersonal dynamics, social cues), attribute mental states to others (i.e., theory of mind), and decode social communication cues based on speech (e.g., pitch, intonation, exaggeration, prosody), body language, and facial expressions (e.g., an eye-roll, dead-pan expression, open/closed body; Beauchamp & Anderson, 2010; Chahboun et al, 2021).…”

Development of nonliteral interpretations in typically developing Spanish speaking children: light verb constructions and figurative expressions

“…However, according to criterion (c), rabbit would literally mean animal, while according to criterion (b), it may be undecided, since it is unclear what the conventional meaning of rabbit may be in such a community. Now, when we move from words to complex expressions, we have to also consider a fourth way of characterizing literal interpretations, according to which the literal meaning of an expression e is that meaning of e that is derived from composing the literal meaning of words following grammatical rules (Chahboun et al 2021). There will be some indeterminacy as to what is the literal meaning of any expression thus considered, since it will depend on what we take to be the literal meaning of constituent expressions.…”

Irony Understanding in Children With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: A Comparative Analysis

“…The underlying mechanisms of both spoken and written expressions of irony remain a subject of controversy. Six distinct processing theories have emerged: the standard pragmatic view (SPV), echoic mention theory (EMT), pretense theory (PT), allusion pretense theory (APT), the echoing-contrasting cognitive operation (ECOP) model, and the parallel constraint-satisfaction (PCS) approach [ 11 ].…”