The Real-Time Comprehension of Idioms by Typical Children, Children with Specific Language Impairment and Children with Autism

Abstract

ObjectiveWe examined on-line auditory idiom comprehension in typically developing (TD) children, children with specific language impairment (SLI), and children with autism. Theories of idiom processing in adults agree on a reliance on lexical/semantic memory for these forms, but differ in their specifics. The Lexical Representation hypothesis claims that literal and non-literal meanings are activated in parallel. The Configuration hypothesis claims that a non-literal meaning will take precedence, such that a literal meaning may not be activated at all.MethodChildren aged 6–16 years listened to sentences containing idioms for a cross-modal priming task. The idioms were ambiguous between an idiomatic and a literal meaning. We looked at priming for both meanings at the offset of the idiom.ResultsTD children (n=14) and children with SLI (n=7) primed for the idiomatic but not literal meaning of the idiom. Children with autism (n=5) instead primed for the literal but not idiomatic meaning.ConclusionsTD children showed an adult-like pattern, consistent with predictions of the Configuration Hypothesis. Children with SLI showed the typical pattern, whereas the atypical pattern observed for children with autism may reflect a particular deficit with complex material in semantic memory.

Accounting for the preference for literal meanings in autism spectrum conditions

“…In general, testing for online performance seems preferable. For instance, Walenski and Love's (2017) priming study on idiom comprehension found that both TD and DLD individuals contrast with ASC subjects in that both TD and DLD groups do not interpret idioms literally. While they predicted that high-functioning (HF), linguistically able, ASC children would perform like typically-developing children, their processing style was quite different compared to the other two groups, including the DLD group, which, on average, had less developed structural language than the ASC group.…”

“…Impairments in such pragmatic reasoning abilities, that is, difficulties with appropriate use and interpretation of language, are considered a hallmark of autism spectrum conditions (ASC) (Tager-Flusberg, Paul & Lord, 2005). In particular, individuals diagnosed with ASC are said to be excessively literalists, in the sense that they tend to prefer literal interpretations of words and utterances, even when speakers have non-literal intentions (Chahboun, Vulchanov, Saldaña, Eshuis & Vulchanova, 2016Vulchanova, Talcott, Vulchanov & Stankova, 2012;Walenski & Love, 2017; see Section 2.4 for discussion of the evidence). 1,2 Recently, however, some studies have suggested that the largely heterogenous population of ASC individuals may not be characterised by global pragmatic impairments (Hochstein, Bale & Barner, 2018), and that many high functioning ASC individuals are able to understand scalar implicatures (Van Tiel & Kissine, 2018) metaphors (Kasirer & Mashal, 2016), and even irony (Glenwright & Agbayewa, 2012).…”

“…However, it is still true that most individuals on the spectrum have difficulties understanding non-literal uses of language, the underlying causes of which are debated (Norbury, 2014). Moreover, when a literalist bias is tested (as in Chahboun et al, 2016Chahboun et al, , 2017Walenski & Love, 2017), the suggestion is that such difficulties relate to such literalist bias, and not just to difficulties with non-literal uses of language that may also appear in other conditions, such as in developmental language disorders (DLD: see below). Hypotheses include an impairment in "theory of mind" abilities (Baron-Cohen, Leslie & Frith, 1985) and consequent difficulties in understanding the speaker's intention (Happé, 1993;Rundblad & Annaz, 2010a), "weak central coherence," which biases towards local, detail-focused rather than global information processing and makes the integration of contextual information difficult (Happé, 1999), executive dysfunction (Hill, 2004) which impedes inhibition of the literal meaning and flexibility in going beyond rigid, literal interpretations, and lack of sufficient semantic/world knowledge (Norbury, 2014).…”

“…Impairments in such pragmatic reasoning abilities, that is, difficulties with appropriate use and interpretation of language, are considered a hallmark of autism spectrum conditions (ASC) (Tager‐Flusberg, Paul & Lord, 2005). In particular, individuals diagnosed with ASC are said to be excessively literalists, in the sense that they tend to prefer literal interpretations of words and utterances, even when speakers have non‐literal intentions (Chahboun, Vulchanov, Saldaña, Eshuis & Vulchanova, 2016, 2017; Vulchanova, Talcott, Vulchanov & Stankova, 2012; Walenski & Love, 2017; see Section 2.4 for discussion of the evidence). ,…”

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

“…This would explain both why ASD individuals are able to improve over time, as this provides a greater number of reinforcements, and why they perform better with supportive contexts, which may act as an aid to memory. One study suggesting this view was that of Walenski and Love (2017). This study explored online auditory idiom comprehension among three groups of children, one consisting of ASD individuals, one of individuals with specific language impairment (SLI) affecting morphology and syntax, and one control.…”