Embodied Imagination and Metaphor Use in Autism Spectrum Disorder

Abstract

This paper discusses different frameworks for understanding imagination and metaphor in the context of research on the imaginative skills of children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). In contrast to a standard linguistic framework, it advances an embodied and enactive account of imagination and metaphor. The paper describes a case study from a systemic therapeutic session with a child with ASD that makes use of metaphors. It concludes by outlining some theoretical insights into the imaginative skills of children with ASD that follow from taking the embodied-enactive perspective and proposes suggestions for interactive interventions to further enhance imaginative skills and metaphor understanding in children with ASD.

Devising Trainings to Enhance the Capabilities of Children With Autism Spectrum Disorder to Cope With Metaphor: A Review of the Literature

“…This result is in line with Kasirer and Mashal's studies Mashal, 2014, 2016;Kasirer et al, 2020), which explored the capability of children with ASD to generate novel metaphors, and found that these children were more creative than their typically-developing peers. Interestingly, a study conducted in a totally different theoretical framework, namely the embodiedenactive (Rucińska et al, 2021) analyzed the connection between metaphor production and comprehension during a conversation between an adult and a young child with ASD. The verbal exchange highlighted how the spontaneous production of a metaphor by the child triggered a redefinition of the same metaphor by the adult, which, in turn, rebounced on the child's comprehension and new production.…”

“…The results obtained in all the studies implemented with this treatment modality appeared promising, although some differences emerged in relation to the nature of the metaphors, sensory (e.g., "A loaf is a stone") or physico-psychological (e.g., "Mark is a safe") (for this distinction, see Winner, 1998;Lecce et al, 2019), the latter seeming more complex to process. This result suggests to diversify the discursive strategies in joint adultchild activities in relation to the semantic typology of metaphors (Cameron, 2003;Rucińska et al, 2021).…”

Enacting Metaphors in Systemic Collaborative Therapy

“…The metaphor is thus seen as a gateway to uncover psychopathology ( Rhodes and Jakes, 2004 ; Coll-Florit et al, 2021 ) or unconscious thoughts and feelings ( Borbely, 2008 ). However, a more process-oriented approach, like systemic collaborative therapy, emphasizes the importance of bracketing one’s own interpretations and adhering as much as possible to the client’s process and meaning making ( Kopp and Craw, 1998 ; Sims, 2003 ; Rucińska et al, 2021 ). From the systemic collaborative therapeutic perspective, metaphors can be generated by both the client and the therapist ( Rober, 1999 ).…”

“…It steps away from the view of metaphors as linguistic symbols that only “rename” one thing as another. Instead, it suggests that metaphors can emerge in participatory sense-making activities ( De Jaegher and Di Paolo, 2007 ), act as means for further engagement, and should be treated as useful tools for interaction and communication ( Rucińska et al, 2021 ). Furthermore, we highlight the idea that we can enact metaphors.…”

Smart Environments for Diverse Cognitive Styles: the Case of Autism

“…However, the theory of mind approach, which is often used to explain autism, has faced criticism with researchers calling for a shift from 'normal science' to neurodiversity in autism (Rosqvist, Chown and Stenning, 2020;Hipólito, Hutto and Chown, 2020;Pellicano and den Houting, 2022;van Es and Bervoets, 2022); while others call for re-thinking autism research tools (Jones, 2022). In E-Cognitive Science (ECS) and phenomenology, critics have argued that mindreading theories oversimplify cognition by reducing it to mental ascriptions of states and ignoring other potential factors involved in the emergence of meaningful cognitive behaviour, such as embodied and situated cognition, affective processes, and social affordances (Sass, Whiting, and Parnas, 2000;Parnas, Bovet, and Zahavi, 2002;Klin, 2003;De Jaegher, 2013Nešić, 2023).…”