Sensory and Physico-Psychological Metaphor Comprehension in Children with ASD

13 Pages·2017·0.83 MB·English

brain
sciences
Article
Sensory and Physico-Psychological Metaphor
Comprehension in Children with ASD: A Preliminary
Study on the Outcomes of a Treatment
SergioMelogno1,*,MariaAntoniettaPinto1andGloriaDiFilippo2 ID
1 DepartmentofDevelopmentalandSocialPsychology,“Sapienza”UniversityofRome,ViadeiMarsi78,
00185Rome,Italy;[email protected]
2 FacultyofPsychology,“NiccolòCusano”TelematicUniversity-Rome,ViaDonCarloGnocchi,3,
00166Rome,Italy;gloria.difi[email protected]
* Correspondence:[email protected]
Received:26May2017;Accepted:11July2017;Published:17July2017
Abstract: RecentresearchintodifficultiesinfigurativelanguageinchildrenwithASDhighlighted
thatitispossibletodevisetraininginterventionstoovercomethesedifficultiesbyteachingspecific
strategies. This study describes how children with ASD can improve their capability to explain
metaphors with a treatment. Two types of metaphors, in the “X is Y” form, were addressed:
sensory and physico-psychological. To face the difficulties posed by these metaphors, the adult
taughttwostrategies: insertingtheconnective“islike”between“X”and“Y”,whichtransformsthe
metaphorintoasimile;comparing“X”and“Y”bymeansofthinkingmaps. Twotestsofmetaphor
comprehensionwereused,onebasedonsensoryandtheotheronphysico-psychologicalmetaphors.
Sixteen10year-oldchildrenparticipatedintothestudy,includinganexperimentalgroupformedby
8childrenwithASD(n=4)whichhadreceivedthetreatment,andacontrolgroup(n=4)whichhad
not,and8typically-developing(TD)children. Atthepost-test,theexperimentalgroupsignificantly
outperformedthecontrolsinexplainingbothtypesofmetaphors,butonlyinthesensorymetaphors
didtheirperformancesreachTDchildren’slevels. Theseresultsilluminatehowclinicaltreatment
canpositivelyinfluencethedevelopmentaltrajectoriesofmetaphorcomprehension.
Keywords: children with ASD; metaphor comprehension; sensory and physico-psychological;
treatment;assessment
1. Introduction
AutismSpectrumDisorder(ASD,henceforth)isaneurodevelopmentaldisordercharacterized
byimpairmentsininteractionandsocialcommunication, andrestricted, repetitivebehaviourand
interests [1]. Actually, it refers to an extremely heterogeneous condition whose atypical cognitive
profiles are still the object of extensive discussion among researchers (see, on this point, [2–5]).
Forinstance,linguisticcompetenciesinchildrenwithASDcanrangefromtotalabsenceoflanguageto
fluentlanguagewithsomedifficultiesinpragmaticusages[6,7],typicallyinfigurativelanguage.
Recent research has highlighted that it is relevant [8], and possible [9–12], to devise training
interventions to overcome these difficulties by teaching ad hoc strategies. In addition to being
clearlyhelpfulforpracticalreasons,researchontreatmentcanappropriatelyaddresssometheoretical
questionsraisedbydevelopmentalandclinicalresearchonfigurativelanguageinchildrenwithASD.
Forinstance,concerningmetaphor,researchers[13]recentlywonderedwhetherdifferencesbetween
childrenwithandwithoutASDdecreasewithage,andalsowhetherchildrenwithASDcanimprove
theircompetencies,withorwithouttreatment.
BrainSci.2017,7,85;doi:10.3390/brainsci7070085 www.mdpi.com/journal/brainsci
BrainSci.2017,7,85 2of13
In order to understand the nature of the difficulties posed by metaphors, in at least some
subgroups of children with ASD [8,14,15], we must recall the prototypical structure of metaphor,
which is “X is Y”. In the example “My daddy is a volcano”, the first term, namely, “X-daddy”, is
calledthe“tenor”[16]andisassociatedonapurelymetaphoricalplanetothesecondterm,namely
“Y-volcano”,whichiscalledthe“vehicle”ofthemetaphor. AsXcannotbeY,neitheronlogicalnoron
factualgrounds,thisassociationposesasemanticconflict,which,nevertheless,canbesolvedifwe
thinkthatXresemblesY,insomeway.
Inotherwords,somesemanticfeaturesofXcanbeviewedassimilartosomesemanticfeatures
ofY,andacommonsemanticgroundcan,therefore,beestablished. Ontheotherhand,tobeableto
detectacommongroundisonlyafirststeptowardsasatisfactorysolutionofthesemanticconflict,
because commonalities have to be adjusted to the characteristics of the tenor. For instance, in the
aboveexample“Mydaddyisavolcano”, theexplosivecharacterofthevolcanomustbeadjusted
tothebehaviouralcharacteristicsofahumanbeing[17],suchashyperactivityorhyperproductivity,
andthelike,dependingonthediscoursecontext. Intypicaldevelopment,childrengraduallycome
to elaborate strategies to solve this type of semantic conflict, and distinguish between statements
based on strictly logical or factual grounds from statements based on general similarities, such as
metaphors [18,19]. Nevertheless, this capability may vary as a function of the semantic nature of
differenttypesofmetaphors. Forexample,intheso-called“sensorymetaphors”[20],Xisassociated
toYonthebasisofperceptualfeatures,suchascolour,shape,movement,function,andthelike(e.g.,
“Hair is spaghetti”), whereas in the so-called “physico-psychological” metaphors, a person (X) is
associated to an objet (Y) on the basis of more or less abstract features (like in the above example:
“Daddy-volcano”).
Some children with ASD [14,15,21–30], instead, tend to adhere to literal meanings. When
requestedtoexplaintheirposition,theyoftensaythattheassociationbetweenXandYisjustimpossible
andmustberefused. Nevertheless,itispossibletoshowthesechildrenthat,betweenthetwoextremes
oftotallytrueandtotallyfalsestatements,thereexistsanacceptableintermediatesolution,represented
bysimilarities. Inordertodetectsimilaritiesbetweenthetenorandvehicle,andfindanappropriate
solutiontothesemanticconflict,asystematicanalysisofthemeaningsofthetenorofvehiclemustbe
implemented. Thistypeofanalysiscanbetransformedintospecificstrategiesthatadultscanteach.
Forinstance,MashalandKasirer[9]usedthinkingmapsasatooltoenableagroupof20children
withASD(agerange:12–15years)tovisualizethesemanticrelationsinmetaphors.Forinstance,forthe
metaphor“trainofthought”,childrenhadtowritethetwoterms“train”and“thought”intwobubbles,
andtheirsemanticassociationsinsurroundingbubbles. Tomakechildrenunderstandthemetaphor,
theresearchersinstructedthemtowritetheappropriateassociationsbetweentrainandthought,which,
inthiscase,couldpointtotheideaof“continuity”orof“connectedthoughts”. Thechildrenhadto
excludeirrelevantassociationsbetween“train”andotherwords(forexample,“car”or“engines”,etc.)
aswellasbetween“thought”andotherwords(forexample,“brain”or“inthehead”). Inamultiple
case-study,Persickeandcolleagues[10]usedaguidedproceduretotrainthreechildrenwithASD
(agerange: 5–7years)tocomparethetermsofthemetaphors,which,inthiscase,wereembeddedin
stories. Stepbystep,eachchildwasguidedtowardsabstractingtherelevantsharedsemanticfeatures
whilerejectingtheirrelevantones. Melogno,Pinto,andOrsolini[12]reportontrainingusedwith
a single child with ASD (8–10 years) aimed at enhancing metaphor comprehension. The training
consistedinteachingtwostrategies,implementedbymeansofthreemainactivities. Inthefirstactivity,
twostrategiesweretaught. Thefirst,calledthe“XislikeYheuristic”,consistingofexercisestraining
thechildtoinhibitaliteralinterpretation,changingametaphorintothecorrespondingsimile(“Xislike
Y”). Thesecondstrategy,orcomparativestrategy,wasbasedontheuseofthinkingmapstosearchfor
semanticsimilaritiesbetweenXandY.Inthesecondactivity,thechildwasaskedtouseunconventional
labelstorenameobjects,orimages,orpeopleinametaphoricalsense(forexample,“flour”renamedas
“snow”). Thethirdactivity,“story-matching”,requiredthechildtofindtheappropriatemetaphorical
endingtoastory,bychoosingbetweentwopre-codedalternatives. Itisworthnotingthatallofthe
BrainSci.2017,7,85 3of13
studiesthatdescribedtrainingprocedurestoimprovemetaphorcomprehensionwereportedsofar
highlightedbeneficialeffectsbeyondthedifferencesintheageoftheparticipants.
The present study expanded the type of training described in the abovementioned
Melognoetal.’sarticle [12] and was implemented in a small group formed by an adult and four
children. Thegroupmodalitywaspreferredtotheindividualoneinthatithighlightsthestimulating
roleofdifferentperspectivesinexplainingmetaphors. Inotherwords,eachinterpretationproposed
bychildrenaddressesadistinctfacetofthesamemetaphorandstimulatestheconstructionofnew
meanings. However,inthisstudyweonlyreportedontheoutcomesofthetreatment,asmeasuredat
pre-andpost-test,whilethequalitativeanalysisoftheadult–children’sinteractionscanbetheobject
ofafurtherwork.
2. MaterialsandMethods
2.1. Participants
Sixteenchildrenparticipatedintothisstudy,eightdiagnosedwithAutismSpectrumDisorder
(ASD;agerange: 9–10yearsold)andeighttypically-developingchildren(TD;agerange: 9–10years
old). The children with ASD received their diagnosis in a neuropsychiatry center (University of
Rome“Sapienza”,accordingtoDSMIV’s[31](Autisticdisorder)criteria(Atthetimeofthediagnosis,
these were the criteria that were in force) by using the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule
(ADOS) [32,33] and Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised (ADI-R) [34,35]. Four of these children
(conventionallynamedChildF,L,A,andG)formedtheexperimentalgroupandtheotherfour(Child
1,2,3,and4),thecontrolgroup. Theassignmentofthechildrentoeachgroupwasmadeonarandom
basis. Allweremales.
The eight TD children (four males and four females) were recruited in a school attended by
children of average SES families. Based on teachers’ statements, none of them had any type of
behaviouraldisorderorlearningdisability. TheeightchildrenwithASDwererecruitedfromalarger
grouponthebasisofthefollowingcriteria: agerange(9–10);bothFullScaleIQandVerbalIQ≥85
(WISCIII(Atthetimeofthisstudy,WISCIIIwastheonlyversionoftheWechslerscalesavailablein
Italy.)[36,37];lexicalperformances(PeabodyPictureVocabularyTest,PPVT),[38,39]andgrammatical
performances (Test of Reception of Grammar, TROG 2) [40,41] within norms; a drop in figurative
languagecomprehensiongreaterthan1.5standarddeviationbelowthemean,asmeasuredbyasubtest
ofabattery(APLMedea; it: AbilitàPragmatichenelLinguaggioMedea; en: PragmaticLanguage
AbilitiesMedea)[42]. Thissubtestrequiresthechildtolistentometaphors(ex: “Markisalion”)and
idioms(“Healwayshashisheadintheclouds”),andexplainthemeaning(fouritems),andindicate
thepicturethatmatchestheappropriatemeaningbychoosingamongfourpossibilities(fouritems).
Table 1 provides descriptive statistics for IQ scores (full scale, and verbal and performance
scales),vocabulary(PPVT),grammar(TROG2),andfigurativelanguage(APL).Student’sttestsfor
independentgroupswereappliedtoallthemeasuresjustdescribed,forboththeexperimentaland
controlgroups. Thetwogroupsdidnotdifferinage(t: –0.8703;df:6;p: 0.4175),FullScaleIQ(t: 0.4155;
df: 6; p: 0.6922), Verbal IQ (t: 0.4285; df: 6; p: 0.6831), Performance IQ (t: 1.3727; df: 6; p: 0.2189),
vocabulary(t: 0.4931;df: 6;p: 0.6394),grammar(t: –0.3624;df: 6;p: 0.7294),andfigurativelanguage
comprehension(t: –0.4902;df: 6;p: 0.6413).
BrainSci.2017,7,85 4of13
Table1. DescriptivestatisticsforIQscores(Fullscale,Verbal,Performance). Peabody,TROG2,APL.,intheexperimentalandcontrolgroups(mean,standard
deviation,range).
Age FullScaleIQ VIQ PIQ Peabody TROG2 MetaphorsAPL
Mean SD Range Mean SD Range Mean SD Range Mean SD Range Mean SD Range Mean SD Range Mean SD Range
Exp.G. 121.75 2.2173 119–124 99.25 3.8622 95–103 90.75 2.0615 89–93 108.25 4.5734 103–113 103.00 5.3541 98–109 101.00 5.2281 97–108 –1.8425 0.1286 –1.65–1.92
Contr.G. 123.00 1.8257 121–125 98.25 2.8722 95–102 90.00 2.8284 86–92 102.00 7.8740 95–113 101.50 2.8867 98–105 102.25 4.5000 97–108 –1.9025 0.2082 –1.65–2.16
BrainSci.2017,7,85 5of13
2.2. TheResearchDesign
After approval from the Ethics Committee of the Department of Pediatrics and Child
Neuropsychiatry,“SapienzaUniversityofRome,weaskedforinformedconsentfromthechildren’s
parents,whoacceptedtohavingtheirchildreninvolvedinthisstudy.
Thestudyappliedabefore-afterdesign,withanexperimentalgroupopposedtoacontrolgroup,
bothassessedatpre-andpost-test. Attime1(pre-test),sensoryandphysico-psychologicalmetaphors
comprehensionwasassessed. Attime2,thetreatmentwasimplementedonlywiththeexperimental
group,andattime3(post-test),thesameabilitieswereassessedagaininbothgroups. Thestudywas
conductedfromJunetoJuly.
2.3. Measures
To assess metaphor comprehension, we chose two tests measuring the capability to explain
the meaning of metaphors, one devised for young children (4–6 years), the Junior Metaphor
ComprehensionTest(henceforth,JnrMCT)[43],andtheother,theMetaphorComprehensionTest
forolderchildren(9–14years;henceforth,MCT)(ApsychologisttrainedtoadministerthejnrMCT
and the MCT was responsible for the administration and blind to all the issues concerning the
intervention.)[44]. BothtestshavebeenvalidatedonTDItalian-speakingchildren. TheJnrMCTis
composedof12metaphorsembeddedinsentences,and13metaphorscontextualizedinfourstories.
Nearlyallofthesemetaphorsare“sensory”,e.g.,“Themoonisalightbulb”,where“moon”pertains
tothedomainof“celestialbodies”and“lightbulb”tothatof“electricdevices”. TheMCTiscomposed
of12physico-psychologicalmetaphoricalsentences,suchas“Theguardianoftheprisonisarock”,
where “guardian” pertains to the domain of “human beings” and “rock” to the physical domain.
Inbothtests,questionsandanswersarepurelyverbal;theadministrationisprecededbyanexample
theexaminerconsiderstogetherwiththechildinordertomakehim/herunderstandthattheitemscan
beanalysedonexplicitandconsistentgrounds. Nofurtherfeedbackisgiventothechild’sanswers.
Inbothtests,thecodingsystemisbasedonqualitativelevels,transformedintoquantitativescales,
athree-stepscalefortheJnrMCT,andafour-stepscalefortheMCT.Eachqualitativelevelrepresents
astepintheprocessofsolvingthesemanticconflictinherentinmetaphors.
2.3.1. JnrMCT
• Ascoreof0isassignedwhenthechilddeclareshe/shejustdoesnotknow(elusionoftheconflict),
orrefusesthepossibilityofusingwordsmetaphorically(refusaloftheconflict),orinterpretsthe
metaphorliterally(literalinterpretation).
• A score of 1 is assigned when one semantic feature common to both terms of the metaphor
is identified. This represents a relevant common ground, based on functional or perceptual
characteristics,whichpartiallysolvestheconflict.
• A score of 2 is assigned when the explanation considers both differences and resemblances
between the two terms of the metaphor. This represents an elaborated common ground,
whichsolvestheconflictinamoreaccomplishedway.
ThemaximumscorefortheJnrMCTis50.
2.3.2. MCT
• AsintheJnrMCT,ascoreof0isassignedwhenthechilddeclareshe/shejustdoesnotknow
(elusionoftheconflict),orrefusesthepossibilityofusingwordsmetaphorically(refusalofthe
conflict),orinterpretsthemetaphorliterally(literalinterpretation).
• Ascoreof1isassignedwhenthechildprovidesacommongroundbetweentenorandvehicle
basedonphysicalfeatures.
• Ascoreof2isassignedwhenthechildprovidesamoreelaboratedcommongroundbetween
tenorandvehicle,wherethepsychologicalfeaturesareexplicitlyindicated.
BrainSci.2017,7,85 6of13
• Ascoreof3isassignedwhenthepsychologicalfeaturesthatjustifythecommongroundbetween
Brain Sci. 2017, 7, 85 6 of 14
tenorandvehiclearefurtherrefined.
• A score of 3 is assigned when the psychological features that justify the common ground
beTthweemena txeinmoru amndsc voerheicfoler atrhee fMurCthTeri sre3f6in.ed.
JnrMCThashighreliability,asmeasuredbyCronbach’salpha(860),hightest-retestcorrelations
The maximum score for the MCT is 36.
(r–tt: 0.848),andhighinter-rateragreement,asmeasuredbyCohen’sK(68forthefouryear-olds;0.73
Jnr MCT has high reliability, as measured by Cronbach’s alpha (860), high test-retest correlations
forthefiveyearolds,and0.74forthesixyearolds).
(r–tt: 0.848), and high inter-rater agreement, as measured by Cohen’s K (68 for the four year-olds; 0.73
MCThashighreliability,asmeasuredbyCronbach’salpha(70),hightest-retestcorrelations: r–tt:
for the five year olds, and 0.74 for the six year olds).
0.83,andhighinter-rateragreement,asmeasuredbyCohen’sK(75forthe9–10year-olds;0.74forthe
MCT has high reliability, as measured by Cronbach’s alpha (70), high test-retest correlations: r–
tt1: 10.y8e3a, ar-nodld hsi;g0h. 6in7tefor-rrathteer 1a2gryeeeamr-eonltd, sa;s0 m.8e1afsourretdh eby13 Cyoehaern-’osl dKs ()7.5 for the 9–10 year-olds; 0.74 for
the 11 year-olds; 0.67 for the 12 year-olds; 0.81 for the 13 year-olds).
2.4. Treatment
2.4. Treatment
Theexperimentaltrainingwasbasedonthetheoreticalgroundsandhypothesesputforward
inthTehea ebxopveermimeennttiaoln teradinsitnugd wyabsy bMaseedlo ognn othae nthdecoorellteicaagl ugerosu[1n2d]s. aOnnd hthyepoatshseusmesp ptuiot nfotrhwaatrmd einta phors
thaer eabboavseedmeonntiaonseemd satnutdicy cboyn Mflieclto,gthneoy apndro cpoollseeatgoueasp [p1r2o]a. cOhnt thhies atysspuemopftcioonn flthicatt amseatapprhoobrlse mar-es olving
baacsetidv iotyn. aT soemthaisnteicn dco,nthfleicyt, atchteiyv eplyroapnoasely tzoe atphperomaechan tihnigs styopfeb ooft hcotnefnliocrt aasn da vpreohbiclelemi-nsoslveianrgc h for a
ascetimviatyn.t iTcoc othmism eonndg, rthoeuyn da.ctTivheelyy aalnsoalhyzyep oththe emsiezaentihnagtsc hofi ldborethn wteintohrA aSnDd cvaenhibcelet ainu gsheatrtcohi nfohri bai tliteral
seinmtearnptirce tcaotmiomnso,ns wgriotcuhndfl.e xTihbelyy farlosom hoynpeotsheemsiazne ttichafet acthuilrderteon awnoitthh eArSwDh ceann abnea tlayuzginhgt ttho einmheibaint ingsof
litteenraolr ianntedrpvreehtaictiloen.s, switch flexibly from one semantic feature to another when analyzing the
meanings of tenor and vehicle.
DifferentlyfromMelognoetal.’sstudy[12],onlythefirsttwoactivitieswereimplemented. The
Differently from Melogno et al.’s study [12], only the first two activities were implemented. The
first activity aimed at teaching strategy 1 (“X is like Y heuristic”) by means of cards (see Table 2).
first activity aimed at teaching strategy 1 (“X is like Y heuristic”) by means of cards (see Table 2). The
Theobjectivewastoinducechildrentorephrasetheexpression“XisY”as“XislikeY”. Thefirst
objective was to induce children to rephrase the expression “X is Y” as “X is like Y”. The first activity
activityalsoincludedstrategy2orcomparativestrategy(thinkingmapswereusedasatooltosearch
also included strategy 2 or comparative strategy (thinking maps were used as a tool to search for
forsemanticsimilaritiesbetweenXandY).Bothstrategiesweremodelledbytheadult,thenpractised
semantic similarities between X and Y). Both strategies were modelled by the adult, then practised in
injointactivity,andthenthechildrenhadtoapplythemontheirown.Attheendofeachphaseofthese
joint activity, and then the children had to apply them on their own. At the end of each phase of these
activities,theadultstimulatedarecapitulationofwhathadbeensaidintheformofametalinguistic
activities, the adult stimulated a recapitulation of what had been said in the form of a metalinguistic
reflection. Table2illustratesstrategy1and2inthesethreephases.
reflection. Table 2 illustrates strategy 1 and 2 in these three phases.
TTaabbllee 22. .EExaxmamplpelse osf oafctaicvtiitvieist iwesitwh istthrastetrgayt e1g (y“X1 i(s“ lXikeis Yli hkeeuYrishteicu”r),i satnicd” 2), (aCnodm2pa(Craotimvep satrraattievgey)s. trategy).
Example of Modelling
Exampleofmodelling
Adult: “When you listen at someone saying ‘a daisy is an umbrella’, you certainly know that a daisy cannot be an
Adult:“Whenyoulistenatsomeonesaying‘adaisyisanumbrella’,youcertainlyknowthatadaisycannotbe
umbrella. A daisy is a flower and an umbrella is an object. To understand the meaning of this sentence, I will use my
anumbrella.Adaisyisaflowerandanumbrellaisanobject.Tounderstandthemeaningofthissentence,I
first strategy. I will put “Is like” between “daisy” (X) and “umbrella” (Y) and the sentence becomes “A daisy is like an
willusemyfirststrategy.Iwillput“Islike”between“daisy”(X)and“umbrella”(Y)andthesentencebecomes
u“mAbrdeallias”y. islikeanumbrella”.
Strategy 1: “Is like strategy”
Strategy1:“Islikestrategy”

NNowow, I, wIwilli lulsues meym syecsoencdon sdtrasttergayte. gI’yl.l bI’ell tbheintkhiinngk oinf gthoef cthhaeracchtaerraiscttiecsr iostfi tchseo dfatihsey danaids ywarinted twhermite dtohwemn hdeorew inn my
thhinekreinign mmaypt. hTihneknin, Ig’llm warpit.eT thheant d,Ia’ilsliwesr aitree tfhloawtderasi,s tiheasta trheefly ohwaveer sa, sthteamt,t ha ecyorhoallvae, tahestye amre, awchoitreo…lla.e,ttch. e yare
Nwowhi,t iet’.s .u.m.ebtcre.lla’s turn. I’ll be writing its characteristics down in my map. An umbrella has a dome, a handle, a tube,
Now,it’sumbrella’sturn.I’llbewritingitscharacteristicsdowninmymap.Anumbrellahasadome,a
ribs, and it protects us from the rain. Right.
handle,atube,ribs,anditprotectsusfromtherain.Right.
Now, I’ll see which characteristics are appropriate for both daisies and umbrellas. For instance, “Are they both flowers?
Now,I’llseewhichcharacteristicsareappropriateforbothdaisiesandumbrellas.Forinstance,“Aretheyboth
No. Then I’ll reject ‘flowers’. “Daisies have a stem”. Umbrellas don’t have stems, they have tubes. Still, we can say that
flowers?No.ThenI’llreject‘flowers’.“Daisieshaveastem”.Umbrellasdon’thavestems,theyhavetubes.
stems look like tubes. And also, the open dome of an umbrella looks like the corolla of a daisy….Then, I got it: a daisy
Still,wecansaythatstemslookliketubes.Andalso,theopendomeofanumbrellalookslikethecorollaofa
has a shape that looks like an open umbrella.”
daisy... .Then,Igotit:adaisyhasashapethatlookslikeanopenumbrella.”
Strategy 2: Comparative strategy
BrainSci.2017,7,85 7of13
Table2.Cont.
Brain Sci. 2017, 7, 85 7 of 14
Strategy2:Comparativestrategy

MMeteatlainlignugiustiisct ircefrleeflcteicotnio n
TThehne,n w,we memaya sytasttea ttehatht tahtet hgeuyg uwyhwo hsaoids a“iAd d“Aaisdya iiss yani suamnburemllbar”e allcatu”aalclytu malelaynmt tehaant tththeaset tohbejescetso bshjeacrtes tshhea sraemthee
shsaapmee.”s hape.”
ExEaxmamplpel oefo jfoijnoti natctaicvtiitvyi ty
(1) Adult: “What does it mean that ‘My classmate is a butter and jam sandwich’?”
(1) Adult:“Whatdoesitmeanthat‘Myclassmateisabutterandjamsandwich’?”
(2) Child G: “But it’s absolutely fake! A classmate is a living being. Butter and jam are food for breakfast”.
(2) ChildG:“Butit’sabsolutelyfake!Aclassmateisalivingbeing.Butterandjamarefoodforbreakfast”.
(3) Child F: “It’s impossible. It’s a grammatical error. The right sentence is: ‘My classmate has a butter and jam
(3) ChildF:“It’simpossible.It’sagrammaticalerror.Therightsentenceis:‘Myclassmatehasabutterand
sandwich’”.
jamsandwich’”.
(4) Adult: “Ok, ok. Put this way, the sentence looks like an error. Let’s try to use our first strategy…….”
(4) Adult:“Ok,ok.Putthisway,thesentencelookslikeanerror.Let’strytouseourfirststrategy... ... .”
(5) Child L: “let’s put ‘is like’ between “classmate” and “butter and jam”, and then the sentence becomes ‘My
(5) ChildL:“let’sput‘islike’between“classmate”and“butterandjam”,andthenthesentencebecomes
classmate is like a butter and jam sandwich’”.
‘Myclassmateislikeabutterandjamsandwich’”.
(6) Adult: “That’s it: ‘My classmate is like a butter and jam sandwich’“.
(6) Adult:“That’sit:‘Myclassmateislikeabutterandjamsandwich”’.
Now, let’s use our second strategy (Comparative strategy).
Now,let’suseoursecondstrategy(Comparativestrategy).
(7) Adult: “In this bubble I’ll write ‘classmate’.
(7) Adult:“InthisbubbleI’llwrite‘classmate’.
Which characteristics can you tell me about ‘classmate’?”.
(8W) hCichhildch La:r “aLctiverinisgt ibcesicnagn”.y outellmeabout‘classmate’?”.
(9()8 )ChCildh iGld: “LH:e“ Lisi vsiinttginbge ninexgt” t.o you”
(1(09)) ChCildh iLld: “GH:e“ hHaes ais bsaitctkinpagcnke lxiktet oyoyuo”u. ”
(1(11)0 )AdCulht:i l“dALn:d“ nHoewh, ateslal mbaec akbpoauctk thliek cehyaorauc”te.ristics of ‘butter and jam sandwich’”.
(12) Child F: “‘food’, ‘sticky’, ‘sweet’”.
(11) Adult:“Andnow,tellmeaboutthecharacteristicsof‘butterandjamsandwich’”.
(13) Child A: “‘flour’, ‘sugar”.
(12) ChildF:“‘food’,‘sticky’,‘sweet’”.
(14) Adult: “Ok. Now, let’s see which characteristics we’ll keep and which ones we’ll reject.” (Children reject all the
(13) ChildA:“‘flour’,‘sugar”.
characteristics except two: ‘sticky’ and sweet’).
(14) Adult:“Ok.Now,let’sseewhichcharacteristicswe’llkeepandwhichoneswe’llreject.”(Childrenreject
(15) Child G: “He is sitting next to you, so he’s is sticky just as jam sticks to bread”.
allthecharacteristicsexcepttwo:‘sticky’andsweet’).
(16) Adult: “Very good! Now, we only need to find something for ‘sweet’. When we say ‘this classmate is ‘sweet’,
(15) ChildG:“Heissittingnexttoyou,sohe’sisstickyjustasjamstickstobread”.
what do we mean?”
(16) Adult:“Verygood!Now,weonlyneedtofindsomethingfor‘sweet’.Whenwesay‘thisclassmateis
(17) Child A: “That he eats bread and jam.”
‘sweet’,whatdowemean?”
(18) Child G: “That he is kind because he lends his things. If you forget your eraser, he will lend it to you and you
(17) ChildA:“Thatheeatsbreadandjam.”
must thank him. He is your best friend.”
(18) ChildG:“Thatheiskindbecausehelendshisthings.Ifyouforgetyoureraser,hewilllendittoyouand
Metalinguistic reflection
youmustthankhim.Heisyourbestfriend.”
The adult recapitulates and proposes the following solution: “When one says ‘my classmate is like a butter and jam
saMndewtailcihn’g iut aiscttiucarlleyfl mecetaionns this classmate is a close friend.”
ExTahmepaldeu oltf raeuctaopniotumlaotuess aacntdivpitryo posesthefollowingsolution:“Whenonesays‘myclassmateislikeabutterand
Cjhaimldrseann darwe igcihv’eint aa cwturiatltleyn mseenatnenscteh: is classmateisaclosefriend.”
“IEnx saummpmleero, fmaeuatdoonwoms aorue sblaacntkiveittsy”. Then, they individually use strategy 1 and 2, and at the end, the adult asks each
ofC thhielmdr:e “nWahreatg divoeesn iat mweraitnt,e tnhesenn, tthenatc e‘I:n“ sIunmsummerm, mere,amdoeawdso awres balraenbkelatsn’k?”e.t s”.Then,theyindividuallyuse
strategy1and2,andattheend,theadultaskseachofthem:“Whatdoesitmean,then,that‘Insummer,
Metalinguistic reflection
meadowsareblankets’?”.
The adult makes the children notice that various answers are acceptable, as, for instance: ”Meadows can be used like
Metalinguisticreflection
blankets because they cover the earth with a soft surface, and you can play on it in various ways.”
Theadultmakesthechildrennoticethatvariousanswersareacceptable,as,forinstance:”Meadowscanbe

usedlikeblanketsbecausetheycovertheearthwithasoftsurface,andyoucanplayonitinvariousways.”
BrainSci.2017,7,85 8of13
BraTinh Seci.s 2e0c1o7,n 7d, 85a c tivity, called“renaming”hadtwovariants, onewithobjectsandtheoth8e orf 1w4 ith
persons. Inthefirstvariant(SeeTable3,Columna),theadultpresentedanobjectoranimageandasks
The second activity, called “renaming” had two variants, one with objects and the other with
thechildrentorenameit(a). Thenheisaskedtojustifythereasonsforchoosingthenewlabel(b),and
persons. In the first variant (See Table 3, Column a), the adult presented an object or an image and
toselectanimagethatmatchesthelabelchosenfortherenaming(c). Intheend,heaskedtophrase
asks the children to rename it (a). Then he is asked to justify the reasons for choosing the new label
theassociationbetweentheobject(X)andthenewlabelthathadbeenchosen(Y)forrenaminginthe
(b), and to select an image that matches the label chosen for the renaming (c). In the end, he asked to
form“XisY”(d). Inthesecondvariant(seeTable3, Columnb), thesamepatternapplied, except
phrase the association between the object (X) and the new label that had been chosen (Y) for renaming
fortheselectionoftheimage(pointc,above). Renamingaddressedthreecategories: animals,fruit,
in the form “X is Y” (d). In the second variant (see Table 3, Column b), the same pattern applied,
andobjects.
except for the selection of the image (point c, above). Renaming addressed three categories: animals,
fruit, and objects.
Table3.Examplesofrenamingactivities.
Table 3. Examples of renaming activities.
(a)ObjectRenaming (b)PersonRenaming
(a) Object Renaming (b) Person Renaming
Inacircletime,theadultshowsatennisballandsays: Inacircletime,theadultproposestherenaming
In a circle time, the adult shows a tennis ball and In a circle time, the adult proposes the renaming game
gameinthefollowingterms:
says: in the following terms:
(1)(1) “L“eLte’ts’sp plalayyo ouurrr reennaammiinngg ggaammee.. WWee wwiillll llooookk at(1) (1A)dulAt: d“uLlett:’s“ Lperet’tsenpdr eat epnedrsoanp cearnso bne craennabmeerde naas med
thaits tahnisd atnrdy ttroy gtoiv geivitea itn ae wnewna nmaem.e. an anaismaanl. a(Anidmdarel.ss(Aindgd crheisldsi Fn)g. Icfh yioldu Fw).erIfe yaonu were
(2)(2) CChihlidldF F::“ “AAs smmaallll bbaallll””.. animaanl, awnhimat awl,owulhda btew yoouulrd nbaemyeo?u” rname?”
(3)(3) CChihlidldG G::“ “TTeennnnisis””.. (2) (2C)hildC Fh:i l…d…F:“.A.. li.o.n.”“. Alion”.
(4)(4) AAdduultl:t:“ “OOkk.. BBuutt nnooww lleett’’ss ttrryy ttoo ininvveennt taa nnewew (3) (3A)dulAt: d“uLlett:s“’ Lasekts c’haisldk Fc hwilhdyF hwe rheynahmeerden haimmseedlf
nanmameef oforrt hthisiso obbjjeecctt““.. as a lhioimn”s.e lfasalion”.
(5)(5) CChihlidldL L::“ “AAl elemmoonn””.. (4) (4C)hildC Fh:i l“dBeFc:a“uBseec aa ulisoen aisl isotrnonisgs”t.r ong”.
(6)(6) AAdduultl:t:“ “TThheenn,, aa tteennnniiss bbaallll iiss aa lleemmoonn. .WWhhyy?”? ” (5) (5C)hildC Lh:i l“dAL l:io“nA isli ao ncairsnaivcoarronuisv omraomusmmala”m. mal”.
(7)(7) CChihlidldL L::“ “ItI’ts’sy yeellllooww””.. (6) (6C)hildC Ghi:l “dItG’s: a“ Ifte’lsinaef”e…lin.beu”t .th..e .lbiount tish edilfifoenreinst
(8)(8) AAdduultl:t:“ “OOhh,,t thheenn iitt’’ss ffoorr tthhee ccoolloorr??”” fromd tihfefe lrieonntesfsro bmecathuesel iiot nheasss ab mecaanues”e. ithasa
(9)(9) CChihlidldG G::“ “AAy yeellllooww ssttoonnee””.. (7) Adulmt: a“nTeh”e.n, a lion is strong, carnivorous, a feline
(10()10A) Adduultl:t:“ “WWhhyy??”” (7a)nd hAads ual mt:a“nTeh. eTnh,eanl, iiof nwies ssatyro ‘nhge ,isc aar lnioivno’ rwoeu s,a
(11) Child G: “Because they both roll”. are nfoetl itnaelkainngd ahbaosuat amn aanneim.Tahl ebnu,t iaf pweerssoany. A‘hnedi sa
(11) ChildG:“Becausetheybothroll”.
(12) Child F: “Because it’s a bit hairy”. whatl idoone’sw ite maereann tohtatta ‘lhkein isg aa blioonu’t?a” nanimalbuta
(12) ChildF:“Becauseit’sabithairy”.
(13) Child A: “Then, it’s the sun….The sun is a (8) Childp eGr:s “oHn.e Ahansd mwuhcaht hdaoire sanitdm a ebaenartdh alitk‘eh ae isa
(13) ChildA:“Then,it’sthesun... .Thesunisa
planet”. maneli”o. n’?”
planet”.
(14) Child F: “No! The sun is a star!” (9) (8A)dulCt:h “iOldkG, le:t“’Hs geoh oans. m(Audcdhrehsasiirnagn cdhialdb Le)a rAdnldik ea
(14) ChildF:“No!Thesunisastar!”
(15) Child A: “It’s a planet because of the shape!” you, mif aynoeu” w. ere an animal?”.
(15) ChildA:“It’saplanetbecauseoftheshape!”
(16) Child F: “No, it’s because of the color”. (10)( 9C)hildA Ld:u “lOt:h“,O I kg,olte itt’.s Sguoreo, nno. (dAodudbrt,e Is swinogulcdh biled aL )
(16()17C) AhidldulFt :(A“Nddor,eists’sinbge cchauildse Fo):f “tYhoeuc osaloidr” t.he horseA.”n dyou,ifyouwereananimal?”.
(17) Atdeunnltis(A bdaldl ries sas ibnitg hcahiirlyd. FH)o:w“Y coouusldai wdeth etennis(11)( 1A0)dulCt:h “iTldryL t:o“ eOxhp,laIing outsi”t.. Sure,nodoubt,Iwould
barellniasmaeb iitt?”h airy.Howcouldwerenameit?” (12) Childb eL:a “hWohrseen. ”it’s small, it’s a foal. Then it grows
(18()18C) ChihlidldF F::“ “AAb baallll ooff ccoottttoonn..”” (1u1p) anAdd buelct:o“mTersy at ohoerxspel. aIi anduosr”e .horses.”
AtAthti sthpiso pinoti,ntth, ethaed audlutlat sakssksc hchilidldrerennt otom maattcchh tthhee (13)( 1A2)dulCt:h “iBldutL w:“hWenh wene sita’ys ssmomaello,nite’ sisa af ohaolr.sTe,h wenhaitt
imagesrelatedtothenewlabelstotheappropriate do wger moweasnu?p” andbecomesahorse.Iadorehorses.”
images related to the new labels to the
object. (14)( 1C3h)ildA Ad:u “ltT:h“aBt uhtew cahne nprwacetissae ymsaonmy esopnoertsis aandh orse,
appropriate object.
gamews”h.a tdowemean?”
(15)( 1A4)dulCt:h “iCldanA y:o“uT heaxtphlaeinc aitn bpetrtaecrt?i”s emanysportsand
(16) Childg aAm: “eAs” h.orse can swim, run and jump. Then,
(1i5t’)s aA spdourltts:m“aCna.n” youexplainitbetter?”
(16) ChildA:“Ahorsecanswim,runandjump.
Then,it’sasportsman.”
Lastly, he invites children to phrase the outcome
Lastly,heinviteschildrentophrasetheoutcomeof
of the renaming in the form “X is Y”. Ex: “A
therenamingintheform“XisY”.Ex:“Atennisball
tennis ball is a lemon”.
isalemon”.

Thetreatmenthasbeenimplementedforthreeweeks,twiceaweek(sixsessionsinall),forabout
90minpersession. Table4showsthescheduleoftheactivitiesineachsession.
BrainSci.2017,7,85 9of13
Table4.Scheduleoftheactivitiesineachsession.
1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th
Onejointactivitywith Twoautonomous
Twoactivities
“Xislike Twojoint asensorymetaphor Twojointactivities Twojointactivities activities,onewitha
modeledbythe
heuristics”and activities andonemodeled withtwo withtwo sensorymetaphor,
adultwith
comparative withsensory activitywitha physico-psychological physico-psychological andtheotherwitha
sensory
strategy metaphors physico-psychological metaphors metaphors physico-psychological
metaphors
metaphor metaphor
Object
Fourobjects Fourobjects Fourobjects
renaming
Person
Animals Fruit Objects
renaming
Inthewhole,childrenhavebeeninvolvedin12“XislikeY”exercises,12objects,andthreeperson
renamingactivities. Twelvemetaphorshavebeenused,sixsensoryandsixphysico-psychological.
Noneofthemetaphorsusedfortheassessmentwasincludedintheexercises.
3. Results
RawandtscoresobtainedbytheexperimentalgroupwiththeJnrMCTandtheMCT,atpre-and
post-test,havebeencomparedtothoseobtainedbythecontrolgroup(Table5).
TocomparetheperformancesoftheexperimentalandcontrolgroupswithJnrMCTandMCT,
atbothpre-andpost-test, twoStudent’sttestshavebeenappliedtothestandardizedtotalscores
obtainedbyeachgroup.
Table6showsthattherewerenodifferencesatpre-test,whereas,atpost-test,theexperimental
groupperformedsignificantlyhigheratbothJnrMCT(t: 6,9413;p<0,0004)andMCT(t: 5,4369;p<
0,0016). Itistobenotedthat,attheMCT(post-test),onlyonechild(ChildL)reachedaTscorewithin
theaveragerange(40–60)whiletheotherswerepositionedatlower-averagelevel(30–40).
Table5.RawandtscoresattheJnrMCTandMCT,pre-andpost-test.Experimentalandcontrolgroups.
JnrMCTPre-test JnrMCTPost-Test MCTPre-test MCTPost-Test
RawScore tScore RawScore tScore RawScore tScore RawScore tScore
ExpChildL 27 60 43 89 3 29 12 49
ExpChildA 20 47 35 74 2 27 8 40
ExpChildG 20 47 44 91 3 29 8 40
ExpChildF 14 36 37 78 2 27 7 38
ConChild1 16 40 17 41 1 25 2 27
ConChild2 21 49 22 51 2 27 2 27
ConChild3 24 54 24 54 3 29 3 29
ConChild4 20 47 20 47 2 27 3 29
Table6. Student’sttestsforindependentgroups(experimentalversuscontrol)appliedtoJnrMCT
andMCT.
Jnr.MCT MCT
Pre-Test Post-Test Pre-Test Post-Test
Mean t p DS Mean t P DS Mean t p DS Mean t p DS
Exp.G 47.50 0.00 1.00 9.8149 83.00 6.9413 0.0004 8.2865 28.00 1 0.3559 1.1547 41.75 5.4369 0.0016 4.9244
Contr.G 47.50 5.8022 48.25 5.6199 27.00 1.6329 28.00 1.1547
AstheupperagefortheJnrMCTissixyears,whereasallourparticipantswerebetweennineand
10years,theperformancesoftheexperimentalchildrenwerecomparedtothoseofeightTDchildren
ofthesameage. Inthiscase,asthestandardizedscoresonlyapplyuptosixyears,weperformedthe
Student’sttestontherawscores(Exp: m.: 39,75;sd: 4,4253;TD:m.: 43,25;sd: 2,3145). Atpost-test,
childrenwithASDperformedverysimilarlytotheTDchildren,andthedifferencewasonlycloseto
significance(t: –1,8422;p<0,09552).
BrainSci.2017,7,85 10of13
4. Discussion
In this article, we presented a preliminary study on training whose aim was to enhance the
comprehensionofsensoryandphysico-psychologicalmetaphorsinchildrenwithASD.Thedistinction
betweenthesetwotypesofmetaphorsisbasedondevelopmentalliterature,whereitappearsthat
explaining metaphors in childhood may vary as a function of the semantic complexity of these
metaphors,withanadvantageforthesensorytype[20,28].
EightchildrenwithASD,internallyhomogeneousforage(agerange:9–10years):intellectuallevel,
basiclexicalandgrammaticalcompetencies,andaweaknessinfigurativelanguagecomprehension,
participatedintothisstudy. Anexperimentalgroupandacontrolgroupwerecreatedonarandom
basis,theexperimentalgroupbeingchoseninviewofthetreatment. Bothgroupswereassessedin
metaphorcomprehensionbeforeandafterthetreatment(pre-andpost-test)bymeansoftwometaphor
comprehension tests, the Jnr MCT [43], which measures sensory metaphors, and the MCT [44],
whichmeasuresphysico-psychologicalmetaphors.
Thetrainingconsistedofthreemainactivitiesledbyanadulttogetherwiththechildren. These
activitieswere: (a)the“XislikeYheuristic”,wherechildrenweretaughttoinserttheconnective“like”
betweenthetwotermsofametaphorinordertoconvertitintoasimile;(b)the“comparativestrategy”,
usingthinkingmapstostimulatecomparisonsbetweenthefeaturesofeachtermofthemetaphor;and
(c)renamingobjectsandindividualswithmetaphoricallabels[12].
Aftersixsessions,theexperimentalchildrensignificantlyimprovedtheircapabilitytoexplain
bothtypesofmetaphors,asmeasuredbyeachtestofmetaphorcomprehension. Ontheotherhand,
therewerenosignificantimprovementsinthecontrolgroupwhencomparingtheirperformancesat
pre-andpost-test. Itmightbearguedthattherepetitionofthesametestsafterarelativelyshorttime
mighthavefacilitatedtheretrievalofcorrectanswers. However,inbothmetaphorcomprehension
tests,therequestisnottoidentifyapre-codedanswerbuttoexplainthemeaningofthemetaphorsin
one’sownwords. Inaddition,aspointedoutintheMaterialsandMethodssection,childrenreceived
nofeedbackontheiranswersduringtheadministrationsothattheycouldnotmemorizeaparticular
solution. Lastly,iftheimprovementsoftheexperimentalgroupatpost-testwereduetotherepetition
ofthetests,wecouldnotexplainwhythecontrolgroupdidnotimproveatall,althoughitreceived
exactlythesametests.
The experimental group was also compared to a TD group, matched by age, in order to see
whethertheadvanceinsensorymetaphors,whichcouldbeattributedtothetraining,raisedthemto
thelevelshownby10year-oldTDchildren. Atpost-test,theexperimentalchildren’sperformances
at the Jnr MCT were just slightly lower than those of the TD children. It is to be noted that, after
the training, the performances at the MCT were still at a lower-average level for three out of four
children. This outcome can be explained by the greater semantic complexity of the metaphors of
theMCT,astheserequiretwodistinctdomainstobebridged,oneouterandtangible,andtheother,
inner and immaterial, as in the above “daddy-volcano” example. In other words, to interpret a
physico-psychologicalmetaphor,itisnotsufficienttoidentifythecommonfeaturesbetweentenor
andvehicle,itisalsonecessarytoadjustthemtothecharacteristicsofthetenor. Somecharacteristics
mustbeinhibitedasirrelevant,inordertoshiftfromoneofthemeaningsofawordtootherpossible
meanings [45,46]. In addition, physico-psychological metaphors require to handle psychological
knowledgeandmentallexicon,which,forchildrenwithASD,representatypicalweakness,andthis
mightaccountfortheirgenerallyfuzzyandincompleteexplanations[47].
On qualitative grounds, it is worth noting that, in our study, children sometimes showed an
interestingevolutioninthecourseofthesameactivity—beitmetaphorexplanationorrenaming—from
literalanswerstomoreflexibleandappropriateinterpretations. Forinstance,duringajointactivity,
Child G and Child F (Table 2, turn 2 and 3) initially refused the metaphor very firmly (“But it’s
absolutelyfake!”;“It’simpossible!”). Inalaterturn(turn12),ChildFstartedanalyzingsomerelevant
featuresofthemetaphorathand. ChildGsynthesizedelementscomingfromChildF’sanalysis(turn
15)andhisowncomment(turn9): “Heissittingnexttoyou,sohe’sstickyjustasjamstickstobread”.