Assessing Pragmatics and Theory of
Mind in Children with Autism
Peter A. de Villiers
Jill G. de Villiers
Smith College
D’Jaris Coles-White
State University of South Carolina
Molly Helt
University of Connecticut
Some Reported Characteristics of the
Language of Children with Autism (e.g.,
Lord & Paul, 1997; Tager-Flusberg, 2000)
• Pervasive pragmatic language problems:
– Gestures and language used more for requesting objects
and actions than for obtaining or imparting information
– Difficulties in topic initiation, maintenance, elaboration
and closing
– Difficulties interpreting intended from literal meaning
• Distinguishing what is meant from what is said
• Figurative and non-literal language forms (e.g. metaphors,
irony, jokes)
– Impaired narrative skills
• Not adapting narrative for listeners’ needs
• Little reference to mental states of the characters (the
“landscape of consciousness” of narratives -- Bruner (1986))
Language Acquisition in
Children with Autism
Wide range of functional levels:
• Some children have very little productive
language or just echolalia
• Others show a general language impairment -Delayed but steady acquisition of syntax and
semantics -- with rather more impaired pragmatic
skills
• Higher functioning children with autism or
Asperger’s Syndrome may have normal or even
advanced vocabulary and syntax but problems
with conversations and extended discourse.
Connection of Language Impairments
to Theory of Mind
Many of these difficulties with language and communication
have been connected (both theoretically and empirically) to
the children’s problems with theory of mind development
(Tager-Flusberg, 1993, 2000; Happe, 1995; Joliffe &
Baron-Cohen, 1999)
• From early failure to establish joint attention and reading
of communicative intention in infancy (Baron-Cohen,
1995)
– Important for early vocabulary and syntactic development (Bloom,
2001; Tomasello, 1995)
• To lack of reference to mental states in narrative (TagerFlusberg, 2000)
• To problems in distinguishing what is meant from what is
said (Happe, 1995)
1
Theory of Mind Development
• Theory of mind refers to the ability to predict and explain
human behavior in terms of mental states such as
intentions, emotions, desires, beliefs and states of
knowledge and ignorance (Astington, 1993)
• In typical developing children it begins in early infancy
and continues into the early school years
• Culminates in being able to understand the truth and falsity
of the content of another’s beliefs and knowledge states,
and even to being able to think about thinking in a
recursive way (thinking about X thinking about Y’s
thinking).
• Most children with autism show pervasive problems in all
of these facets of theory of mind understanding (BaronCohen, 1995, 2000)
A Few Recent Standardized Assessment
Instruments Relevant for Assessing Autistic
Children’s Pragmatic Skills
• Children’s Communicative Checklist-2 (CCC-2)
(Bishop, 2006)
• Pragmatics subtests on the Comprehensive
Assessment of Spoken Language (CASL)
(Carrow-Woolfolk, 1999)
• Diagnostic Evaluation of Language Variation -Norm Referenced (DELV-NR) (Seymour, Roeper
& de Villiers, 2005)
Assessing Pragmatic Language Skills
•
•
Pragmatics refers to the functional use of language in communication
to convey meanings -- i.e. the appropriate interpretation and production
of messages in relation to the communicative context
It includes several different facets:
– Conversational interaction skills
• e.g. turn taking, topic initiation, maintenance and change, and verbal and nonverbal features of that interaction
– Speech acts -- doing things with words and sentences
• Requesting, reporting, denying, prohibiting etc.
– Making clear reference to things and actions and events
• This may involve being able to see things from either the speaker or the
listener’s perspective (point of view)
– Interpreting and communicating subtle meanings for social effect by
means of non-literal language forms
– Extended discourse to tell a story, give an explanation, provide
directions etc.
Goals of the Present Research
• To develop materials and a language interaction
protocol for standardized assessment of pragmatic
skills in 3 through 11 year old children
• The current presentation focuses on materials
exploring the children’s reading of meaning and
communicative intentions from context and
assessing their theory of mind understanding.
• We will talk about 4 areas:
–
–
–
–
Theory of mind
Understanding irony and sarcasm
Relevance implicatures
Quantitative inferences from context
2
Typically Developing Children
-- Subject Sample
Age
Group
3;6 - 4;6
N
10
4;6 - 5;9
11
6;4 - 7;4
8
8;1 - 10;11
9
• 38 Children from
Preschool and
Elementary School
(Grades 2 to 5)
• Aged 3;6 to 10;11
Theory of Mind Understanding
Theory of Mind Score /12
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1
2
3
4
Age in Years
5
6
7
• The theory of mind assessment focused on the children’s
understanding of states of knowledge and belief argued to
be crucial for their interpretation of speakers’ intended
meaning.
• Each child received a Theory of Mind score (varying from
0 to 12) measuring reasoning and explanations about first
order and second order false beliefs as well as production
of mental state terms (desires and thoughts) based on:
– The DELV-NR short narrative subtest
– The Bake Sale narrative
– The Chocolate Candy narrative
Understanding Irony and
Sarcasm
Theory of Mind Scores
0
Theory of Mind Assessment
8
Different kinds of ironic or sarcastic utterances:
• Saying a praising or positive thing about someone, but
meaning just the opposite. Marked by sarcastic intonation.
• Repeating a boast someone said but in sarcastic intonation
to mean just the opposite.
• Use of ironic requests where one certainly doesn’t want the
action performed.
• Ironically stated compliments -- production of apparently
negative statements, but in a teasing or joking way.
• Use of hyperbole (exaggeration) or understatement in an
ironic way to tease.
3
Assessment of the Understanding
of Irony and Sarcasm
Understanding Irony and
Sarcasm -- TD Children
Understanding Irony and Sarcasm
100
90
80
Percent Correct
•
•
•
•
The children responded to 16 short scenarios (each
supported by two pictures) that tested
Understanding of sarcastic “comeback” statements
Understanding of ironic compliments
Understanding of ironic requests
Interpretation of hyperbole and understatement
70
60
50
Did X think that...?
What did X mean?
40
30
20
10
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Age in Years
Relevance Implicatures
• Making inferences from what is literally said to
what is intended to be communicated -- i.e.
reading the communicative intention of the
speaker.
• Bridging the gap between two utterances by
making contextual inferences that are relevant to
the situation and the topic or “Question under
discussion (QUD)” shared by the two speakers
(Sperber & Wilson (1986) -- Relevance Theory of
Pragmatics).
Assessment of Interpretation of
Relevance Implicatures
• The children responded to 12 brief
scenarios (each supported by a single
picture) in which they had to explain what a
speaker meant by their response to a
question or statement made by another
person in the scenario.
4
Interpreting Relevance Implicatures
Interpreting Relevance Implicatures
100
90
Percent Correct
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Age in Years
Assessment of the Understanding
of Quantitative Inferences
The meaning of quantitative
expressions depends on context
• Sometime quantitative terms (numbers) mean exactly the
number that is specified and more or fewer than the
number would be wrong.
• But sometimes a quantitative expression actually means “at
least X”, and a few more would be fine.
• And at other times a quantitative expression actually
means “at most X”, and fewer than the exact number
would be fine.
• The listener has to interpret quantitative expressions in
context to be able to infer from the context whether they
mean “exactly” the number or not.
Understanding Quantitative
Inferences from Context
Quantitative Inferences
Percent Correct
The children responded to 10 scenarios (each
supported by two pictures) that involved the
interpretation of statements about quantities.
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Age in Years
5
What are these phenomena?
All are judgments of meaning in context, but each slightly
different:
• Irony/sarcasm requires:
– Recognizing that the literal meaning is not compatible with the
likely intentions of the speaker, and overriding it.
• Relevance implicatures:
– Understanding the “Question-under-Discussio” (Sperber & Wilson,
1986) that unites two apparently unrelated sentences.
• Quantitative inferences:
– Understanding that the context influences the exact meaning
assigned to the numeral.
Subject Sample
• 10 children aged 5;2 to 12;6
• 8 boys and 2 girls
• 4 diagnosed as PDD-NOS (Pervasive
Developmental Disorder - Not Otherwise Specified)
• 6 diagnosed as High Functioning Autism
• 8 of the 10 children were of normal range non-verbal
IQ (>85)
Vocabulary Scores
Subject Sample
• All of the children were given the following standardized tests:
• Their mothers also filled out the 40-item Social Communication
Questionnaire (SCQ) (Rutter et al, 2003) (range 13 to 31 -- cut off for
screening of autism typically = 15)
Vocabulary Age by Chronological Age
18
Vocabulary Age (Years)
– The PPVT-III
• Mean receptive vocabulary age = 7;9 (range = 4;4 to 12;8)
– The EVT
• Mean expressive vocabulary age = 8;3 (range = 4;3 to 17;8)
– The K-BIT (Verbal and Non-verbal)
• Mean Verbal IQ = 86 (range = 63 to 94)
• Mean Non-Verbal IQ = 96 (range 74 to 142)
16
14
12
10
PPVT Age
EVT Age
8
6
4
2
0
0
5
10
15
Chronological Age (Years)
So the PDD children were mostly at age level or even
above age level in their vocabulary scores.
6
Comparison of Typically-Developing
and Children with PDD/Autism on
Theory of Mind Scores
Predictors of the PDD Children’s
Theory of Mind Scores
Theory of Mind Understanding
Theory of Mind Score /12
12
10
8
Autistic
TD
6
4
2
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
The children’s Theory of Mind scores were significantly
correlated with:
• Age (p<.001)
• EVT and PPVT vocabulary (both p<.001)
But not with Verbal or Non-Verbal IQ on the K-BIT
14
Age in Years
The children with PDD/Autism were significantly
delayed relative to the TD children.
Comparison of Typically-Developing
and Children with PDD/Autism on
Irony/Sarcasm -- Did X think that…?
Comparison of Typically-Developing
and Children with PDD/Autism on
Irony/Sarcasm Interpretations
Irony/Sarcasm -- What did X mean?
Autistic
TD
0
2
4
6
8
Age in Years
10
12
14
Percent Correct
Percent Correct
Irony/Sarcasm -- Did X think that...?
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Autistic
TD
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Age in Years
7
Correct judgments about what the speaker
thought were significantly correlated with:
• PPVT vocabulary comprehension (p<.05)
Correct interpretations of the speakers’
intended meaning were significantly
correlated with:
• Age (p<.001)
• EVT and PPVT vocabulary (both p<.001)
• Theory of Mind Score (p<.001)
Predictors of Interpretation of
Relevance Implicatures
Comparison of Typically-Developing and
PDD/Autistic Children on Interpretations
of Relevance Implicatures
Relevance Implicatures
100
Percent Correct
Predictors of Understanding of
Irony and Sarcasm
80
60
Autistic
40
TD
20
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Age in Years
Comparison of Typically-Developing
and Children with PDD/Autism on
Understanding Quantitative Inferences
Percent Correct
Quantitative Inferences
For the children with PDD/Autism, correct
interpretations of the speakers’ intended
meaning were significantly correlated with:
• Age (p<.001)
• EVT and PPVT vocabulary (both p<.001)
• Theory of Mind Score (p<.001)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Autistic
TD
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Age in Years
8
Predictors of Understanding of
Quantitative Interpretations
from Context
Correct judgments about quantitative
inferences from context were significantly
correlated only with:
• Non-Verbal IQ on the K-BIT (p<.05)
Conclusions
• These materials and procedures discriminated
clearly between the typically developing children
and the children with PDD/Autism.
• They also provided a rich profile of the children’s
strengths and weaknesses in using context,
relevance and apparent communicative intention
for interpreting the meaning expressed by an
utterance.
• Interesting differences were found between the
tasks that were closely related to theory of mind
skills and the inference from context task that was
more closely tied to the children’s general
reasoning skills.
Suggested Readings
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Adams, C. (2002). Practitioner’s review: The assessment of language
pragmatics. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43, 973-987.
Baron-Cohen, S. (1995). Mindblindness.
Baron-Cohen, S. (2000). Theor of mind and autism: A fifteen year
review. In S. Baron-Cohen et al. (Eds.), Understanding Other Minds.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bishop, D.V.M. (2006). Children’s Communication Checklist-2 (CCC2). San Antonio, TX: PsychCorp.
Carrow-Woolfolk, E. (1999). Comprehensive Assessment of Spoken
Language (CASL). MN: American Guidance Service (AGS).
Hale, C. & Tager-Flusberg, H. (2003). Social communication in
children with autism. Autism, 9(2), 157-178.
Happe, F. (1995). Understanding minds and metaphors: Insights from
the study of figurative language in Autism. Metaphor and Symbolic
Activity, 10, 275-295.
Happe, F. (1995). The role of verbal ability in the theory of mind task
performance of subjects with autism. Child Development, 66, 843-855.
Suggested Readings
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Lord, C. & Paul, R. (1997). Language and communication in autism. In D.
Cohen & F. Volkmar (Eds.), Handbook of Autism and Pervasive
Developmental Disorders. 2nd Edition. NY: Wiley.
Perner, J. & Wimmer, H. (1985). John thinks that Mary thinks that: Attribution
of second-order beliefsby 5 to 10 year old children. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 39, 437-471.
Pexman, P. & Glenwright, M. (2007). How do typically developing children
grasp the meaning of verbal irony. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 20, 178-196.
Seymour, H., Roeper, T., & de Villiers, J. (2005) Diagnostic Evaluation of
Language Variation – Norm Referenced (DELV-NR). San Antonio, TX:
PsychCorp.
Sperber, D. & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance: Communication and cognition.
Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Tager-Flusberg, H. (2000). Understanding the language and communicative
impairments in Autism. In L.M. Glidden (Ed.), International Review of
Research on Mental Retardation. Special Issue on Autism. NY: Academic
Press.
Winner, H. et al. (1987). Making sense of literal and nonliteral falsehood.
Metaphor and Symbolic Activity, 2, 13-32.
9