Testing the Labeling Effect in Autistic Children.

PURPOSE: Our objective was to test the labeling effect in autistic children. The effect has been robustly tested in typically developing (TD) individuals. TD children expect that any two objects that receive the same linguistic label will have similar properties, which suggests that they generate concepts based on acts of labeling. The labeling effect has not been tested on autistic children, who may not be equally attuned to the relevance of linguistic clues or may not generalize as swiftly as TD children. METHODS: We reproduced Graham et al.,'s (Frontiers in Psychology 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00586, 2013) design on 30 autistic children of different ages. Participants were divided into two groups depending on whether objects presented to them were named alike or differently (Same or Distinct Label between-individuals condition). The dependent variable was the number of target actions the child performed on an object, depending on whether that object made the same sound as a previously shown test object. RESULTS: We did not reproduce results similar to those reported in Graham et al., (Frontiers in Psychology 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00586, 2013). Children in the Same Label group did not perform significantly more actions than children in the Distinct Label group when the objects that were handed to the children did not make the same sound as the test object. CONCLUSIONS: Autistic children do not seem to be sensitive to the labeling effect to the same extent as TD children. If these results are confirmed, intervention programs for autistic children should consider trainings on this way of generating concepts shared by their linguistic community.

That kid is a grasshopper! Metaphor development from 3 to 9 years of age.

Two major trends on children's skills to comprehend metaphors have governed the literature on the subject: the literal stage hypothesis vs. the early birds hypothesis (Falkum, 2022). We aim to contribute to this debate by testing children's capability to comprehend novel metaphors ('X is a Y') in Spanish with a child-friendly, picture selection task, while also tracking their gaze. Further, given recent findings on the development of metonymy comprehension suggesting a U-shaped developmental curve for this phenomenon (Köder & Falkum, 2020), we aimed to determine the shape of the developmental trajectory of novel metaphor comprehension, and to explore how both types of data (picture selection and gaze behavior) relate to each other. Our results suggest a linear developmental trajectory with 6-year-olds significantly succeeding in picture selection and consistently looking at the metaphorical target even after question onset.

Linguistic, concept and symbolic composition in adults with minimal receptive vocabulary.

In this paper, we examine some basic linguistic abilities in a small sample of adults with minimal receptive vocabulary, whose receptive mental verbal age ranges from 1;2 to 3;10. In particular, we examine whether the participants in our study understand noun phrases consisting of a noun modified by an adjective. We use stimuli that they can recognise by name. Except for one participant, we find that, while all of them understand the noun and adjective in isolation, none seems to understand these noun phrases, which means that they seem to not do linguistic composition. In order to test whether the difficulty is linguistic or conceptual, we ran two other studies, one on concept composition, and the other on iconic symbolic composition (composition of pictograms). Results suggest that linguistic composition is particularly difficult in this population, and that vocabulary breadth may not predict compositional abilities.

Language in autism: domains, profiles and co-occurring conditions.

This article reviews the current knowledge state on pragmatic and structural language abilities in autism and their potential relation to extralinguistic abilities and autistic traits. The focus is on questions regarding autism language profiles with varying degrees of (selective) impairment and with respect to potential comorbidity of autism and language impairment: Is language impairment in autism the co-occurrence of two distinct conditions (comorbidity), a consequence of autism itself (no comorbidity), or one possible combination from a series of neurodevelopmental properties (dimensional approach)? As for language profiles in autism, three main groups are identified, namely, (i) verbal autistic individuals without structural language impairment, (ii) verbal autistic individuals with structural language impairment, and (iii) minimally verbal autistic individuals. However, this tripartite distinction hides enormous linguistic heterogeneity. Regarding the nature of language impairment in autism, there is currently no model of how language difficulties may interact with autism characteristics and with various extralinguistic cognitive abilities. Building such a model requires carefully designed explorations that address specific aspects of language and extralinguistic cognition. This should lead to a fundamental increase in our understanding of language impairment in autism, thereby paving the way for a substantial contribution to the question of how to best characterize neurodevelopmental disorders.