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

Matthew Walenski, Tracy Love
Author Information
  1. Matthew Walenski: Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Northwestern University, USA.
  2. Tracy Love: School of Speech Language and Hearing Sciences, San Diego State University, USA.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We 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.
METHOD: Children 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.
RESULTS: TD 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.
CONCLUSIONS: TD 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.

Keywords

References

  1. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2001 Nov;42(8):1095-101 [PMID: 11806691]
  2. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2014 Feb;57(1):120-30 [PMID: 23882003]
  3. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 1998 Jan-Mar;33(1):23-44 [PMID: 9673217]
  4. J Autism Dev Disord. 2000 Jun;30(3):205-23 [PMID: 11055457]
  5. J Cogn Neurosci. 2005 Jul;17(7):1168-80 [PMID: 16138434]
  6. Res Dev Disabil. 2011 Nov-Dec;32(6):2045-54 [PMID: 21985987]
  7. Autism. 2013 Jul;17(4):449-64 [PMID: 22087041]
  8. Neuropsychologia. 1993 May;31(5):413-34 [PMID: 8502377]
  9. Brain Lang. 2002 Mar;80(3):556-75 [PMID: 11896657]
  10. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2004 Oct;47(5):1179-93 [PMID: 15603470]
  11. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2004 Jul-Sep;39(3):345-64 [PMID: 15204445]
  12. Cortex. 2005 Jun;41(3):399-433 [PMID: 15871604]
  13. J Exp Child Psychol. 2005 Feb;90(2):142-71 [PMID: 15683860]
  14. J Commun Disord. 2015 Mar-Apr;54:2-14 [PMID: 25638464]
  15. Front Psychol. 2014 Jul 21;5:764 [PMID: 25101030]
  16. Metaphor Symb. 2012;27(1):93-105 [PMID: 25339845]
  17. J Autism Dev Disord. 1994 Apr;24(2):129-54 [PMID: 8040158]
  18. J Psycholinguist Res. 2005 Sep;34(5):465-95 [PMID: 16177936]
  19. Lang Acquis. 2013 Apr;20(2):133-154 [PMID: 25170241]
  20. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2006;30(8):1182-205 [PMID: 17079014]
  21. Child Dev. 1996 Aug;67(4):1816-35 [PMID: 8890510]
  22. J Autism Dev Disord. 2005 Oct;35(5):557-73 [PMID: 16211332]
  23. J Psycholinguist Res. 1996 Jan;25(1):5-24 [PMID: 8789365]
  24. J Autism Dev Disord. 1994 Oct;24(5):659-85 [PMID: 7814313]
  25. J Psycholinguist Res. 2009 Jun;38(3):285-304 [PMID: 19343495]
  26. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2003 Oct;46(5):1138-53 [PMID: 14575348]
  27. Res Dev Disabil. 2012 Jan-Feb;33(1):274-82 [PMID: 22001558]
  28. Psychol Bull. 2008 Nov;134(6):944-63 [PMID: 18954162]
  29. Annu Rev Psychol. 2011;62:621-47 [PMID: 20809790]
  30. Cognition. 2011 Apr;119(1):96-113 [PMID: 21238952]
  31. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1992 Jan;33(1):3-66 [PMID: 1737831]
  32. J Autism Dev Disord. 2008 Mar;38(3):498-506 [PMID: 17668308]
  33. J Autism Dev Disord. 2001 Feb;31(1):47-54 [PMID: 11439753]
  34. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2012 Jun;55(3):710-25 [PMID: 22223886]
  35. Lang Cogn Process. 2001 Apr 1;16(2-3):287-308 [PMID: 16703115]
  36. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2000 Jan-Mar;35(1):1-29 [PMID: 10824222]
  37. J Exp Child Psychol. 1995 Oct;60(2):261-83 [PMID: 7561672]
  38. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2001 Oct;2(10):717-26 [PMID: 11584309]
  39. J Autism Dev Disord. 2008 Aug;38(7):1395-9 [PMID: 18163206]
  40. J Psycholinguist Res. 2007 May;36(3):191-206 [PMID: 17186385]
  41. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 1998 Jan-Mar;33(1):1-22 [PMID: 9673216]
  42. Autism Res. 2016 Aug;9(8):810-28 [PMID: 26688218]
  43. J Autism Dev Disord. 2005 Jun;35(3):361-76 [PMID: 16119477]
  44. Neuroreport. 2013 May 29;24(8):414-8 [PMID: 23629689]
  45. Dev Psychol. 2009 Nov;45(6):1774-86 [PMID: 19899931]
  46. Neuropsychologia. 2010 Dec;48(14):4012-9 [PMID: 20951710]
  47. Cortex. 2003 Sep-Dec;39(4-5):1129-38 [PMID: 14584570]

Grants

  1. R01 DC003885/NIDCD NIH HHS
  2. R01 DC009272/NIDCD NIH HHS

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0childrenChildrenliteralmeaningidiomTDSLIautismidiomaticpatternLanguagelanguageimpairmentmemoryhypothesisclaimsnon-literalmeaningsactivatedConfigurationmayidiomsprimingprimedshowedSpecificAutismOBJECTIVE:examinedon-lineauditorycomprehensiontypicallydevelopingspecificTheoriesprocessingadultsagreereliancelexical/semanticformsdifferspecificsLexicalRepresentationparallelwilltakeprecedenceallMETHOD:aged6-16yearslistenedsentencescontainingcross-modaltaskambiguouslookedoffsetRESULTS:n=14n=7n=5insteadCONCLUSIONS:adult-likeconsistentpredictionsHypothesistypicalwhereasatypicalobservedreflectparticulardeficitcomplexmaterialsemanticReal-TimeComprehensionIdiomsTypicalImpairmentdisorders

Similar Articles

Cited By