Disentangling syntactic, semantic and pragmatic impairments in ASD: Elicited production of passives

Abstract

Children with ASD and an IQ-matched control group of typically developing (TD) children completed an elicited-production task which encouraged the production of reversible passive sentences (e.g., “Bob was hit by Wendy”). Although the two groups showed similar levels of correct production, the ASD group produced a significantly greater number of “reversal” errors (e.g., “Wendy was hit by Bob”, when, in fact Wendy hit Bob) than the TD group (who, when they did not produce correct passives, instead generally produced semantically appropriate actives; e.g., “Wendy hit Bob”). These findings suggest that the more formal elements of syntax are spared relative to more semantic/pragmatic/narrative aspects (e.g., manipulating thematic roles) in at least high-functioning children with ASD.

Passive sentence reversal errors in autism: Replicating Ambridge, Bidgood, and Thomas (2020)

“…Correct actives, meanwhile, were coded when the child produced responses such as Wendy surprised Bob; that is, when there was little evidence of a priming effect and the child defaulted to the more frequent active form. Ambridge et al (2020) study -and in the current replication -was the rate of reversal errors children made, in which a passive response exhibited an error in thematic role assignment. For instance, in response to the animation in which Wendy surprised Bob -that is, Wendy is the [AGENT] and Bob is the [PATIENT] -the child produced the passive Wendy was surprised by Bob; mis-assigning Wendy as [PATIENT] and Bob as [AGENT].…”

“…Given that many children affected by autism have difficulty with the referential, inferential, and narrative building aspects of language, it was hypothesised that this group would produce a higher rate of passive reversal errors than IQ-matched children without autism. Ambridge et al (2020) note that prior work testing passive sentence comprehension among children with autism reports mixed results. For instance, Tager-Flusberg (1981) reported that children with autism (aged M = 8;1) were no more likely than younger (M = 3;10) IQ-matched controls to mis-comprehend passive structures, as evidenced in an act-out task.…”

“…The aim of the current study was to separate out syntactic and semantic-pragmatic factors contributing to language deficits in a group of children with what may be described as 'high-functioning' autism (although the question of whether syntactic versus semanticpragmatic factors is the most appropriate characterisation of the distinction is one that we address in the Discussion, section 4). We report a replication of work by Ambridge, Bidgood, and Thomas (2020), who tested the ability of children aged 6-9 years, with and without autism, to accurately describe an animation using primed passive sentences such as Bob was surprised/chased/pulled by Wendy. In this task, one experimenter described an example video animation using a model passive sentence, before a second experimenter provided the participant with a cue verb with which to describe a novel animation.…”

“…Allen, Haywood, Rajendran, & Branigan, 2011). Ambridge et al (2020) report a modest though reliable pattern of higher reversal errors among children with autism relative to IQ-matched peers. These results were interpreted as further evidence that semantics, pragmatics, and narrative, rather than 'pure syntax', constitute key areas of language difficulty for children affected by autism (though other interpretations are possible; a point to which we return at length in the Discussion, section 4).…”

“…In contrast, Paul, Fisher, and Cohen (1988), who used stimuli matched to those used by Tager-Flusberg (1981), reported evidence that children with autism do make more reversal errors than IQ-matched controls. Ambridge et al (2020) was the first production study to look at reversal errors in children with autism, with prior production studies in this area excluding reversal errors from analyses (e.g. Allen, Haywood, Rajendran, & Branigan, 2011).…”