Advertisement

Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders

, Volume 48, Issue 9, pp 2938–2952 | Cite as

Selective Pragmatic Impairment in Autism Spectrum Disorder: Indirect Requests Versus Irony

  • Gaétane Deliens
  • Fanny Papastamou
  • Nicolas Ruytenbeek
  • Philippine Geelhand
  • Mikhail KissineEmail author
Original Paper
First Online:

Abstract

Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is often described as being characterised by a uniform pragmatic impairment. However, recent evidence suggests that some areas of pragmatic functioning are preserved. This study seeks to determine to which extent context-based derivation of non-linguistically encoded meaning is functional in ASD. We compare the performance of 24 adults with ASD, and matched neuro-typical adults in two act-out pragmatic tasks. The first task examines generation of indirect request interpretations, and the second the comprehension of irony. Intact contextual comprehension of indirect requests contrasts with marked difficulties in understanding irony. These results suggest that preserved pragmatics in ASD is limited to egocentric processing of context, which does not rely on assumptions about the speaker’s mental states.

Keywords

Autism Pragmatics Communication Irony Indirect speech acts Request Eye-tracking Executive function Social motivation 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

First and foremost, we warmly thank all our participants, as well as participating institutions. We greatly benefited from comments and suggestions made on previous versions of this paper by the acting editor, Joshua J. Diehl and three anonymous reviewers. We also thank Véronique Ginsburg for her help in data acquisition. Finally, we are very grateful to the Foundation Jean-François Peterbroeck and to the Foundation ULB for their continuous support of the ACTE research group.

Author Contributions

GD designed the experiment, recruited participants, ran testing sessions, took part in the result analyses and in the redaction of the paper. FP recruited participants and ran testing sessions. NR designed the experiment and took part in the result analyses. PG recruited participants and ran testing sessions. MK designed the experiment, analysed the results and wrote the paper.

Funding

The present research has been funded through the F.R.S.-FNRS Research Incentive grant F.4502.15, a Fédération Wallonie-Bruxelles ARC-Consolidator grant ‘Context in Autism’, and a Foundation Jean-François Peterbroeck grant ‘La pragmatique dans l’autisme de haut niveau’.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethical Approval

All procedures in this study were approved by the ethics committee of Erasme Hospital in accordance with the 1964 declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments. All adult participants provided informed consent. Adolescent participants provided informed assent with their parents providing informed consent.

References

  1. Adams, N. C., & Jarrold, C. (2009). Inhibition and the validity of the Stroop task for children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 39(8), 1112–1121.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-5). Wasington: American Psychiatric Association.Google Scholar
  3. Andrés-Roqueta, C., & Katsos, N. (2017). The contribution of grammar, vocabulary and theory of mind in pragmatic language competence in children with autistic spectrum disorders. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 996.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Attwood, A. (2015). The complete guide to asperger’s syndrome. London: Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar
  5. Baron-Cohen, S. (1992). Out of sight or out of mind? Another look at deception in autism. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 33(7), 1141–1155.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baron-Cohen, S. (2000). Theory of mind and autism: A fifteen year review. Understanding other minds. Perspectives from developmental cognitive science. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Baron-Cohen, S., & Wheelwright, S. (2004). The empathy quotient: An investigation of adults with asperger syndrome or high functioning autism, and normal sex differences. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34(21), 63–75.Google Scholar
  8. Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Skinner, R., Martin, J., & Clubley, E. (2001). The autism-spectrum quotient (AQ): Evidence from Asperger syndrome/high-functioning autism, males and females, scientists and mathematicians. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 31, 15–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3), 255–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 11–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Berg, E. A. (1948). A simple objective technique for measuring flexibility in thinking. Journal of General Psychology, 39(1), 15–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bramham, J., Ambery, F., Young, S., Morris, R., Russell, A., Xenitidis, K., et al. (2009). Executive functioning differences between adutls with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autistic spectrum disorder in initiation, planning and strategy formation. Autism, 13, 245–264.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Breheny, R. (2006). Communication and folk psychology. Mind and Language, 21(1), 74–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Brock, J., Norbury, C. F., Einav, S., & Nation, K. (2008). Do individuals with autism process words in context? Evidence from language-mediated eye-mouvements. Cognition, 108, 896–904.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bryant, G. A. (2012). Is verbal irony special? Language and Linguistics Compass, 6, 673–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chevallier, C., Kohls, G., Troiani, V., Brodkin, E. S., & Schultz, R. T. (2012). The social motivation theory of autism. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 164, 231–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Chevallier, C., Noveck, I., Happé, F. G. E., & Wilson, D. (2011). What’s in a voice? Prosody as a test case for the theory of mind account of autism. Neuropsychologia, 49(3), 507–517.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chevallier, C., Wilson, D., Happé, F. G. E., & Noveck, I. (2010). Scalar inferences in autism spectrum disorders scalar inferences in autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 40, 1104–1017.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Clark, H. H., & Lucy, P. (1975). Understanding what is meant from what is said: A study in conversationally conveyed requests. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 14, 56–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Climie, E. A., & Pexman, P. M. (2008). Eye gaze provides a window on children’s understanding of verbal irony. Journal of Cognition and Development, 9(3), 257–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Colich, N. L., Wang, A.-T., Rudie, J. D., Hernandez, L. M., Bookheimer, S. Y., & Dapretto, M. (2012). Atypical neural processing of ironic and sincere remarks in children and adolescent with autism spectrum disorders. Metaphor and Symbol, 27(1), 70–92.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Currie, C. E., Elton, R. A., Todd, J., & Platt, S. (1997). Indicators of socioeconomic status for adolescents: The WHO Health Behaviour in School-aged Children Survey. Health Education Research, 12(3), 385–397.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Deliens, G., Antoniou, K., Clin, E., Ostashchenko, E., & Kissine, M. (2018). Context, facial expression and prosody in irony processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 99, 35–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. de Villiers, J., Fine, J., Ginsberg, G., Vaccarella, L., & Szatmari, P. (2006). Brief report: A scale for rating conversational impairment in autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37(7), 1375–1380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Filippova, E., & Astington, J. W. (2008). Further development in social reasoning revealed in discourse irony understanding. Child Development, 79(1), 26–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Gerrig, R. J., & Goldvarg, Y. (2000). Additive effects in the perception of sarcasm: Situational disparity and echoic mention. Metaphor and Symbol, 15(4), 197–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Geurts, H. M., Corbett, B., & Solomon, M. (2009). The paradox of cognitive flexibility in autism. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 13(2), 74–82.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gibbs, R. W. (2002). A new look at literal meaning in understanding what is said and implicated. Journal of Pragmatics, 34(4), 457–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Glucksberg, S., Gildea, P., & Bookin, H. B. (1982). On understanding nonliteral speech: Can people ignore metaphors? Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 21(1), 85–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  31. Happé, F. G. E. (1993). Communicative competence and theory of mind in autism. A test of relevance theory. Cognition, 48(2), 101–119.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Happé, F. G. E. (1995). The role of age and verbal ability in the theory of mind task performance of subjects with autism. Child Development, 66(3), 843–855.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Heavey, L., Phillips, W., Baron-Cohen, S., & Rutter, M. (2000). The awkward moments test: A naturalistic measure of social understanding in autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 30(3), 395–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hermann, I., Haser, V., Van Elst, L., Ebert, D., Müller-Feldmeth, D., Riedel, A., et al. (2013). Automatic metaphor processing in adults with Asperger syndrome: A metaphor interference effect task. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 263, S177–S187.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hill, E. (2004). Executive dysfunction in autism. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8(1), 26–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Jary, M., & Kissine, M. (2014). Imperatives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Joliffe, T., & Baron-Cohen, S. (1999). The strange story test: A replication with high-functioning adults with autism or Asperger syndrome. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 29(5), 395–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kaland, N., Moller-Nielsen, A., Callesen, K., Mortensen, E. L., Gottlieb, D., & Smith, L. (2002). A new ’advanced’ test of Theory of Mind: Evidence from children and adolescents with Asperger syndrome. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 43(4), 517–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kim, S. H., Paul, R., Tager-Flusberg, H., Lord, C., Volkmar, F. R., Paul, R., et al. (2014). Language and communication in autism language and communication in autism. In F. R. Volkmar, R. Paul, S. J. Rogers, & K. A. Pelphrey (Eds.), Handbook of autism and pervasive developmental disorders (4th ed., pp. 230–262). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  40. Kissine, M. (2012). Pragmatics, cognitive flexibility and autism spectrum disorders. Mind and Language, 27, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kissine, M. (2013). From utterances to speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kissine, M. (2016). Pragmatics as metacognitive control. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 2057.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kissine, M., Cano-Chervel, J., Carlier, S., De Brabanter, P., Ducenne, L., Pairon, M.-C., et al. (2015). Children with autism understand indirect speech acts: Evidence from a semi-structured act-out task. PLoS ONE, 10, e0142191.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kissine, M., De Brabanter, P., & Leybaert, J. (2012). The interpretation of requests in children with autism: The effect of the sentence-type. Autism, 16, 523–532.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Kowatch, K., Whalen, J. M., & Pexman, P. M. (2013). Irony comprehension in action: A new test of processing verbal irony. Discourse Processes, 50, 301–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Kreuz, R. J. (2000). The production and processing of verbal irony. Metaphor and Symbol, 15(1–2), 99–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Kreuz, R. J., & Link, K. E. (2002). Asymmetries in the use of verbal irony. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 21(2), 127–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Lai, C. L. E., Lau, Z., Lui, S. S. Y., Lok, E., Tam, V., Chan, Q., et al. (2017). Meta-analysis of neuropsychological measures of executive functioning in children and adolescents with high-functioning autism spectrum disorder. Autism Research, 10(5), 911–939.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Landry, O., & Al-Taie, S. (2016). A meta-analysis of the wisconsin card sort task in autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 46(4), 1220–1235.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Le Couteur, A., Lord, C., & Rutter, M. (2003). The autism diagnostic interview-revised (ADI-R). Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.Google Scholar
  51. Lenth, R. (2016). Least-squares means: The R package lsmeans. Journal of Statistical Software, 69(1), 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lord, C., Rutter, M., DiLavore, P., Risi, S., Gotham, K., & Bishop, S. (2012). Autism diagnostic observation schedule (ADOS) (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Western Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  53. Loukusa, S., Leinonen, E., Kuusikko, S., Jussila, K., Mattila, M.-L., Ryder, N., et al. (2006). Use of context in pragmatic language comprehension by children with Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37(6), 1049–1059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. MacKay, G., & Shaw, A. (2005). A comparative study of figurative language in children with autistic spectrum disorders. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 20(1), 13–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Martin, I., & McDonald, S. (2003). Weak coherence, no theory of mind, or executive dysfunction? Solving the puzzle of pragmatic language disorders. Brain and Language, 85, 451–466.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Martin, I., & McDonald, S. (2004). An exploration of causes of non-literal language problems in individuals with Asperger syndrome. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34(3), 311–328.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Mary, A., Slama, H., Mousty, P., Massat, I., Capiau, T., Drabs, V., et al. (2016). Executive and attentional contributions to theory of mind deficit in attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Child Neuropsychology, 22(3), 345–365.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Monetta, L., & Champagne, M. (2004). Processuscognitifs sous jacents déterminant les troubles de la communication verbale chez les cérébrolésés droits. Réeducation orthophonique, 42(219), 27–41.Google Scholar
  59. Norbury, C. F. (2005). Barking up the wrong tree? Lexical ambiguity resolution in children with language impairments and autistic spectrum disorders. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 90, 141–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Norbury, C. F. (2005). The relationship between theory of mind and metaphor: Evidence from children with language impairment and autistic spectrum disorder. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 23(3), 383–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ozonoff, S. (1997). Components of executive function in autism and other disorders. In J. Russell (Ed.), Autism as an executive disorder (pp. 179–211). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  62. Ozonoff, S., & Miller, J. N. (1996). An exploration of right-hemisphere contributions to the pragmatic impairments of autism. Brain and Language, 52, 411–434.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Ozonoff, S., Pennington, B. F., & Rogers, S. J. (1991). Executive function deficits in high-functioning autistic individuals: Relationship to theory of mind. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 32(7), 1081–1105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Ozonoff, S., South, M., & Provencal, S. (2005). Executive functions. In F. R. Volkmar, R. Paul, A. Klin, & D. Cohen (Eds.), Handbook of autism and pervasive developmental disorders (3rd ed., pp. 606–627). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  65. Paul, R., & Cohen, D. J. (1985). Comprehension of indirect requests in adults with autistic disorders and mental retardation. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 28(4), 475–479.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Paul, R., Orlovski, S. M., Marcinko, H. C., & Volkmar, F. (2008). Conversational behaviors in youth with high-functioning ASD and Asperger syndrome. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 39(1), 115–125.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Perkins, M. R. (2007). Pragmatic impairment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Perner, J., & Winner, E. (1985). “John thinks, that Mary thinks that…” attribution of second-order belief by 5- to 10-year-old children. Journal of Child Experimental Psychology, 39, 437–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Persicke, A., Tarbox, J., Ranick, J., & St. Clair, M. (2013). Teaching children with autism to detect and respond to sarcasm. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 71, 193–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Pexman, P. M., Rostad, K. R., McMorris, C. A., Climie, E. A., Stowkowy, J., & Glenwright, M. R. (2011). Processing of ironic language in children with high-functioning autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 41(8), 1097–1112.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Pijnacker, J., Hagoort, P., Buitelaar, J., Teunisse, J. P, & Geurts, B. (2009). Pragmatic inferences in high-functioning adults with autism and Asperger syndrome. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 39, 607–618.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. R Core Team. (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
  73. Recanati, F. (2004). Literal meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  74. Russell, J., & Hughes, C. (1994). Evidence for executive dysfunction in autism. Neuropsychologia, 32(4), 477–492.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Ruytenbeek, N., Ostashchenko, E., & Kissine, M. (2017). Indirect request processing, sentence-types and illocutionary forces. Journal of Pragmatics, 119, 46–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Searle, J. R. (1975). Indirect speech acts. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Speech acts (Vol. 3, pp. 59–82). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  77. Senju, A., Southgate, V., Miura, Y., Matsui, T., Hasegawa, T., Tojo, Y., et al. (2010). Absence of spontaneous action anticipation by false belief attribution in children with autism spectrum disorders. Development and Psychopathology, 22, 353–360.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Shallice, T. (1982). Specific impairments of planning. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences, 298(1089), 199–209.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Shintel, H., & Keysar, B. (2009). Less is more: A minimalist account of joint action in communication. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 260–273.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (2002). Pragmatics, modularity and mind-reading. Mind and Language, 17, 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Surian, L., Baron-Cohen, S., & Van der Lely, H. (1996). Are children with autism deaf to Gricean maxims? Cognitive Neuropsychiatry, 1(1), 55–71.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Wang, A. T., Lee, S. S., Sigman, M., & Dapretto, M. (2006). Neural basis of irony comprehension in children with autism: The role of prosody and context. Brain, 129(4), 932–943.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Wearing, C. (2010). Autism, metaphor and Revelance theory. Mind and Language, 25(2), 196–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Wechsler, D. (2008). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-IV) (4th ed., Vol. 22). San Antonio: NCS Pearson.Google Scholar
  85. Yirmiya, N., Erel, O., Shaked, M., & Solomonica-Levi, D. (1998). Meta-analyses comparing theory of mind abilities of individuals with autism, individuals with mental retardation, and normally developing individuals. Psychological Bulletin, 124(3), 283–307.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Zelazo, P. D., Jacques, S., Burack, J. A., & Frye, D. (2002). The relation between theory of mind and rule use: Evidence from persons with autism-spectrum disorders. Infant and Child Development, 11, 171–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ACTE at LaDisco & ULB Neuroscience InstituteUniversité libre de BruxellesBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options