Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T14:05:49.445Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comprehension of reflexive and personal pronouns in children with autism: A syntactic or pragmatic deficit?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 March 2012

ALEXANDRA PEROVIC ,
NADYA MODYANOVA  and
KEN WEXLER
ALEXANDRA PEROVIC*
Affiliation:
University College London
NADYA MODYANOVA
Affiliation:
Massachussetts Institute of Technology
KEN WEXLER
Affiliation:
Massachussetts Institute of Technology
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Alexandra Perovic, Developmental Science Department, Division of Psychology and Language Sciences, University College London, Chandler House, 2 Wakefield Street, London WC1N 1PF, UK. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Although pragmatic deficits are well documented in autism, little is known about the extent to which grammatical knowledge in this disorder is deficient, or merely delayed when compared to that of typically developing children functioning at similar linguistic or cognitive levels. This study examines the knowledge of constraints on the interpretation of personal and reflexive pronouns, an aspect of grammar not previously investigated in autism, and known to be subject to differential developmental schedules in unimpaired development. Fourteen children with autism (chronological age = 6–17 years, M = 11) showed some difficulties comprehending personal pronouns, no different from those observed in two groups of younger controls matched on nonverbal IQ or receptive grammar, but in line with the reported pragmatic deficits and general language delay in this population. However, their interpretation of reflexives was significantly worse than that of the control children. This pattern is not evidenced at any stage of typical development, revealing an impaired grammatical knowledge in our sample of children with autism, and is argued not to be due to a general language delay or cognitive deficits.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 34 , Issue 4 , July 2013 , pp. 813 - 835
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). The diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text revision). Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
Avrutin, S., & Thornton, R. (1994). Distributivity and binding in child grammar. Linguistic Inquiry, 25, 165–171.Google Scholar
Avrutin, S., & Wexler, K. (1992). Development of principle B in Russian: Coindexation at LF and coreference. Language Acquisition, 2, 259–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bannard, C., & Matthews, D. E. (2008). Stored word sequences in language learning: The effect of familiarity of children's repetition of four-word sequences. Psychological Science, 19, 241–248.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bartolucci, G., Pierce, S., & Streiner, D. (1980). Cross-sectional studies of grammatical morphemes in autistic and mentally retarded children. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 10, 39–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bishop, D. V. M. (2003a). Autism and specific language impairment: Categorical distinction or continuum? In Bock, G. & Goode, J. (Eds.), Autism: Neural basis and treatment possibilities. Novartis Foundation Symposium (Vol. 251). Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Bishop, D. V. M. (2003b). The Test for Reception of Grammar—2 (TROG-2). London: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Bloom, P., Barss, A., Nicol, J., & Conway, L. (1994). Children's knowledge of binding and conference: Evidence from spontaneous speech. Language, 70, 53–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boster, C. T. (1991). Children's failure to obey Principle B: Syntactic problem or lexical error? Master's dissertation, University of Connecticut, Storrs.Google Scholar
Chien, Y.-C., & Wexler, K. (1990). Children's knowledge of locality conditions in binding as evidence for the modularity of syntax and pragmatics. Language Acquisition, 1, 225–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin and use. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Churchill, D. W. (1972). The relation of infantile autism and early childhood schizophrenia to developmental language disorders of childhood. Journal of Autism and Childhood Schizophrenia, 2, 182–197.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clahsen, H., & Almazan, M. (1998). Syntax and morphology in Williams syndrome. Cognition, 68, 167–198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Conroy, A., Takahashi, E., Lidz, J., & Phillips, C. (2010). Equal treatment for all antecedents: How children succeed with Principle B. Linguistic Inquiry, 40, 446–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1997). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test—Third Edition (PPVT-III). Circle Pines, MN: AGS Publishing.Google Scholar
Eigsti, I.-M., & Bennetto, L. (2009). Grammaticality judgments in autism: Deviance or delay. Journal of Child Language, 19, 1–23.Google Scholar
Elbourne, P. (2005). On the acquisition of principle B. Linguistic Inquiry, 36, 333–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Everaert, M. (1986). The syntax of reflexivization. New York: Foris Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fombonne, E., Bolton, P., Prior, J., Jordan, H., & Rutter, M. (1997). A family study of autism: Cognitive patterns and levels in parents and siblings. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38, 667–683.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friedmann, N., Novogrodsky, R., & Balaban, N. (2010). The effect of crossing dependencies on the acquisition of pronoun comprehension. In Castro, A., Costa, J., Lobo, M., & Pratas, F. (Eds.), Language acquisition and development: Generative approaches to language acquisition (pp. 146–156). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Press/CSP.Google Scholar
Gelman, A., & Hill, J. (2007). Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Golinkoff, R. M., & Markessini, J. (1980). “Mommy sock:” The child's understanding of possession as expressed in two-noun phrases. Journal of Child Language, 7, 119–136.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grodzinsky, Y., & Reinhart, T. (1993). The innateness of binding and coreference. Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 69–101.Google Scholar
Guasti, M. (2002). Language development: The growth of grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hendriks, P., & Spenader, J. (2005/2006). When production precedes comprehension: An optimization approach to the acquisition of pronouns. Language Acquisition, 13, 319–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirsch, C., & Wexler, K. (2007). The late acquisition of raising: What children seem to think about seem. In Dubinsky, S. & Davies, B. (Eds.), New horizons in the analysis of control and raising. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N. (2001). Move! A minimalist theory of construal. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N. (2009). A theory of syntax: Minimal operations and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Jaeger, T. F. (2008). Categorical data analysis: Away from ANOVAs (transformation or not) and towards Logit Mixed Models. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 434–446.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jakubowicz, C. (1984). On markedness and binding principles. Proceedings of the North Eastern Linguistics Society, 14, 154–182.Google Scholar
Jakubowicz, C. (1993). Linguistic theory and language acquisition facts: Reformulation, maturation or invariance of binding principles. In Reuland, E. & Abraham, W. (Eds.), Knowledge and language: From Orwell's problem to Plato's problem. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (1990). Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test. Circle Pines, MN: AGS Publishing.Google Scholar
Koster, J. (1987). Domains and dynasties. Dordrecht: Foris.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, A., Hobson, R. P., & Chiat, S. (1994). I, you, me and autism: An experimental study. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 24, 155–176.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lord, C., & Paul, R. (1997). Language and communication in autism. In Cohen, D. J. & Volkmar, F. R. (Eds.), Handbook of autism and pervasive development disorders. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Modyanova, N. (2009). Semantic and pragmatic development in typical acquisition, autism spectrum disorders, and Williams syndrome with reference to developmental neurogenetics of the latter. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Neeleman, A., & van de Koot, H. (2002). The configurational matrix. Linguistic Inquiry, 33, 529–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perovic, A. (2004). Knowledge of binding in Down syndrome: Evidence from English and Serbo-Croatian. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University College London.Google Scholar
Perovic, A. (2006). Syntactic deficit in Down syndrome: More evidence for the modular organization of language. Lingua, 116, 1616–1630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perovic, A. (2008). A crosslinguistic analysis of binding in Down syndrome. In Guijarro Fuentes, P., Larrañaga, M. P., & Clibbens, J. (Eds.), First language acquisition of morphology and syntax: Perspectives across languages and learners (pp. 235–267). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perovic, A., Modyanova, N., Hanson, E., Nelson, C., & Wexler, K. (2007). Investigations of language in autism: Evidence for a grammatical deficiency. Poster presented at Autism Research in the UK (ARUK): From Diagnosis to Intervention, Open University, Milton Keynes.Google Scholar
Perovic, A., Modyanova, N., & Wexler, K. (2009, September). Comparison of the knowledge of binding in autism spectrum disorders and William syndrome. Talk presented at the Generative Approaches to Language Acquisition (GALA) Conference, Lisbon.Google Scholar
Perovic, A., & Wexler, K. (2007). Complex grammar in Williams syndrome. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 21, 729–745.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Philip, W., & Coopmans, P. (1996). The double Dutch Delay of Principle B Effect. In Stringfellow, A., Cahana-Amitay, D., Hughes, E., & Zukowski, A. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th Annual Boston University Conference on Language Development. Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Quene, H., & van der Bergh, H. (2008). Examples of mixed effects modeling with crossed random effects and with binomial data. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 413–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinhart, T. (1983). Anaphora and semantic interpretation. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Reinhart, T., & Reuland, E. (1993). Reflexivity. Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 657–720.Google Scholar
Reuland, E. (2001). Primitives of binding. Linguistic Inquiry, 32, 439–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reuland, E., & Everaert, M. (2001). Deconstructing binding. In Baltin, M. & Collins, C. (Eds.), The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Rice, M. L., & Wexler, K. (1996). Toward tense as a clinical marker of specific language impairment in English-speaking children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 39, 1239–1257.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Riches, N. G., Loucas, T., Charman, T., Simonoff, E., & Baird, G. (2009). Sentence repetition in adolescents with specific language impairments and autism: An investigation of complex syntax. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 45, 47–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ring, M., & Clahsen, H. (2005). Distinct patterns of language impairment in Down syndrome, Williams syndrome and SLI: The case of syntactic chains. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 19, 479–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, J. A., Rice, M. L., & Tager-Flusberg, H. (2004). Tense marking in children with autism. Applied Psycholinguistics, 25, 429–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruigendijk, E., Friedmann, N., Novogrodsky, R., & Balaban, N. (2010). Symmetry in comprehension and production of pronouns: A comparison of German and Hebrew. Lingua, 120, 1991–2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sigurjónsdóttir, S. (1992). Binding in Icelandic: Evidence from language acquisition. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California.Google Scholar
Tager-Flusberg, H. (1981). On the nature of linguistic functioning in early infantile autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 11, 45–56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tager-Flusberg, H., Calkins, S., Noin, I., Baumberger, T., Anderson, M., & Chadwick-Denis, A. (1990). A longitudinal study of language acquisition in autistic and Down syndrome children. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 24, 577–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornton, R., & Wexler, K. (1999). Principle B, VP ellipsis and interpretation in child grammar. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. (1998). One child's early talk about possession. In Newman, J. (Ed.), The linguistics of giving. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Tomblin, J. B., Hafeman, L. L., & O'Brien, M. (2003). Autism and autism risk in siblings of children with specific language impairment. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 38, 235–250.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vernes, S. C., Newbury, D. F., Abrahams, B. S., Winchester, L., Nicod, J., Groszer, M., et al. (2008). A functional genetic link between distinct developmental language disorders. New England Journal of Medicine, 359, 2337.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, E. (1980). Predication. Linguistic Inquiry, 11, 208–238.Google Scholar
Wexler, K., & Chien, Y.-C. (1985). The development of lexical anaphors and pronouns. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development, 24, 138–149.Google Scholar
Wexler, K. (1993). Optional Infinitives, head movement and the economy of derivations. In Lightfoot, D. & Hornstein, N. (Eds.), Verb movement. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar