Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-nr4z6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-16T23:15:12.733Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comprehension of indirect answers: Developmental trajectory for preschool- and early elementary school-aged children with typical development

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 August 2023

Timothy HUANG Open the ORCID record for Timothy HUANG [Opens in a new window]  and
Lizbeth H. FINESTACK Open the ORCID record for Lizbeth H. FINESTACK [Opens in a new window]
Timothy HUANG*
Affiliation:
Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, West Chester University of Pennsylvania, USA
Lizbeth H. FINESTACK
Affiliation:
Department of Speech-Language-Hearing Sciences, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, USA
*
Corresponding Author: Timothy Huang; Email: chuang@wcupa.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Indirect answers are a common type of non-literal language that do not provide an explicit “yes” or “no” to a question (e.g., “I have to work late” indirectly answered “Are you going to the party?” with a negative response). In the current study, we examined the developmental trajectory of comprehension of indirect answers among 5- to 10-year-old children with typical development. Forty-eight children, 23 boys and 25 girls, between the ages of 5 years; 0 months and 10 years; 11 months (M = 8;2, SD = 19.77 months) completed an experimental task to judge whether a verbally presented indirect answer meant yes or no (Comprehension Task) and then explain their choice (Explanation Task). Responses were scored for accuracy and coded for error analysis. On the Comprehension Task, the 5- to 8-year-olds performed with approximately 85% accuracy, while the 9- and 10-year-olds achieved 95% accuracy. On the Explanation Task, the cross-sectional trajectory revealed three stages: the 5- and 6-year-olds adequately explained indirect answers 32% of the time, the 7- and 8-year-olds performed significantly higher at 55%, and the 9- and 10-year-olds made significant gains than the younger children at 66%. Error analysis revealed that when children fail to interpret speaker intentions appropriately, they repeat the speaker’s utterance or provide an insufficient explanation 80% of the time. Other responses, such as those irrelevant to the context, indicating “I don’t know” or no response, or that were made-up interpretations each accounted for 2%-10% of total inadequate explanations. Study findings indicate discrepancies between task performances and offer two separate sets of baseline data for future comparisons that investigate comprehension or explanation of indirect answers by children with different cultural and linguistic backgrounds and by those with varying cognitive and language profiles.

Keywords

indirect answersrelevance implicaturedevelopmental trajectory
Type
Article
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 51 , Issue 3 , May 2024 , pp. 526 - 549
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Attardo, S., Eisterhold, J., Hay, J., & Poggi, I. (2003). Multimodal markers of irony and sarcasm. Humor, 16(2), 243–260.Google Scholar
Bangert, K. J., Halverson, D. M., & Finestack, L. H. (2019). Evaluation of an explicit instructional approach to teach grammatical forms to children with low-symptom severity autism spectrum disorder. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 28(2), 650–663.10.1044/2018_AJSLP-18-0016CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bernicot, J., Laval, V., & Chaminaud, S. (2007). Non-literal language forms in children: In what order are they acquired in pragmatics and metapragmatics? Journal of Pragmatics, 39(12), 2115–2132.10.1016/j.pragma.2007.05.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Oxford, England: Harvard U. Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bucciarelli, M., Colle, L., & Bara, B. G. (2003). How children comprehend speech acts and communicative gestures. Journal of Pragmatics, 35(2), 207–241.10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00099-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caucci, G. M., & Kreuz, R. J. (2012). Social and paralinguistic cues to sarcasm. Humor, 25(1), 1–22.10.1515/humor-2012-0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chin, I. (2017). Variability in Pragmatic Abilities in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Doctoral Dissertation. University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
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 adolescents with autism spectrum disorders. Metaphor and symbol, 27(1), 70–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Colston, H. L., & Kuiper, M. S. (2002). Figurative Language Development Research and Popular Children’s Literature: Why We Should Know,” Where the Wild Things Are”. Metaphor and Symbol, 17(1), 27–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Constantino, J. N., & Gruber, C. P. (2012). Social Responsiveness Scale Second Edition (SRS-2). Western Psychological Services (WPS).Google Scholar
Deliens, G., Antoniou, K., Clin, E., Ostashchenko, E., & Kissine, M. (2018a). Context, facial expression and prosody in irony processing. Journal of memory and language, 99, 35–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deliens, G., Papastamou, F., Ruytenbeek, N., Geelhand, P., & Kissine, M. (2018b). Selective pragmatic impairment in autism spectrum disorder: Indirect requests versus irony. Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 48(9), 2938–2952.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Marneffe, M. C., & Tonhauser, J. (2019). Inferring meaning from indirect answers to polar questions: The contribution of the rise-fall-rise contour. In Questions in discourse (pp. 132–163). Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dennis, M., Lazenby, A. L., & Lockyer, L. (2001). Inferential Language in High Function Children with Autism, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 31: 47–54.10.1023/A:1005661613288CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dennison, H., & Schafer, A. J. (2017). Processing intonationally implicated contrast versus negation in American English. Language and Speech, 60(2), 174–199.10.1177/0023830917694066CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Villiers, P. A., de Villiers, J., Coles-White, D., & Carpenter, L. (2009). Acquisition of relevance implicatures in typically-developing children and children with autism. In Proceedings of the 33th annual Boston university conference on language development (pp. 121–132). Somerville, MA: Cascadilla Press.Google Scholar
Dews, S., Winner, E., Kaplan, J., Rosenblatt, E., Hunt, M., Lim, K., McGovern, A., Qualter, A., & Smarsh, B. (1996). Children’s understanding of the meaning and functions of verbal irony. Child Development, 67(6), 3071–3085.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Emerich, D. M., Creaghead, N. A., Grether, S. M., Murray, D., & Grasha, C. (2003). The comprehension of humorous materials by adolescents with high-functioning autism and Asperger’s syndrome. Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 33(3), 253–257.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In Speech acts (pp. 41–58). Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guasti, M. T., Chierchia, G., Crain, S., Foppolo, F., Gualmini, A., & Meroni, L. (2005). Why children and adults sometimes (but not always) compute implicatures. Language and Cognitive Processes, 20, 667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hancock, J. T., Dunham, P. J., & Purdy, K. (2000). Children’s comprehension of critical and complimentary forms of verbal irony. Journal of Cognition and Development, 1(2), 227–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Happé, F. G. (1993). Communicative competence and theory of mind in autism: A test of relevance theory. Cognition, 48(2), 101–119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Happé, F. G. (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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hockey, B. A., Rossen-Knill, D., Spejewski, B., Stone, M., & Isard, S. (1997). Can you predict responses to yes/no questions? yes, no, and stuff. In Fifth european conference on speech communication and technology. 10.21437/Eurospeech.1997-597CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howell, D. C. (2016). Fundamental statistics for the behavioral sciences. Nelson Education.Google Scholar
Kalandadze, T., Norbury, C., Nærland, T., & Næss, K. A. B. (2018). Figurative language comprehension in individuals with autism spectrum disorder: A meta-analytic review. Autism, 22(2), 99–117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (2004). Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test, Second Edition. Bloomington, MN: Pearson, Inc.Google Scholar
Keenan, T. R., & Quigley, K. (1999). Do young children use echoic information in their comprehension of sarcastic speech? A test of echoic mention theory. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 17(1), 83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerbel, D., & Grunwell, P. (1997). Idioms in the classroom: An investigation of language unit and mainstream teachers’ use of idioms. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 13(2), 113–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuperman, V., Stadthagen-Gonzalez, H., & Brysbaert, M. (2012). Age-of-acquisition ratings for 30,000 English words. Behavior research methods, 44(4), 978–990.10.3758/s13428-012-0210-4CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kurumada, C., Brown, M., Bibyk, S., Pontillo, D. F., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2014). Is it or isn’t it: Listeners make rapid use of prosody to infer speaker meanings. Cognition, 133(2), 335–342.10.1016/j.cognition.2014.05.017CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laval, V. (2003). Idiom comprehension and metapragmatic knowledge in French children. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 723–739.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loukusa, S., Leinonen, E., & Ryder, N. (2007). Development of pragmatic language comprehension in Finnish-speaking children. First Language, 27(3), 279–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mitchell, P. (1997). Introduction to theory of mind: Children, autism and apes. Edward Arnold Publishers.Google Scholar
Nippold, M. A. (1985). Comprehension of figurative language in youth. Topics in Language Disorders.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nippold, M. A., & Martin, S. T. (1989). Idiom interpretation in isolation versus context: A developmental study with adolescents. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 32(1), 59–66.10.1044/jshr.3201.59CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nippold, M. A., & Rudzinski, M. (1993). Familiarity and transparency in idiom explanation: A developmental study of children and adolescents. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36, 728–737.10.1044/jshr.3604.728CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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
Noveck, I. A. (2001). When children are more logical than adults: Experimental investigationsof scalar implicature. Cognition, 78(2), 165–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papafragou, A., & Musolino, J. (2003). Scalar implicatures: experiments at the semantics–pragmatics interface. Cognition, 86(3), 253–282.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pexman, P. M., & Glenwright, M. (2007). How do typically developing children grasp the meaning of verbal irony?. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 20(2), 178–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierrehumbert, J., & Hirschberg, J. B. (1990). The meaning of intonational contours in the interpretation of discourse.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rice, M. L., Smolik, F., Perpich, D., Thompson, T., Rytting, N., & Blossom, M. (2010). Mean length of utterance levels in 6-month intervals for children 3 to 9 years with and without language impairments. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 53(2), 333–349.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rundblad, G., & Annaz, D. (2010). Development of metaphor and metonymy comprehension: Receptive vocabulary and conceptual knowledge. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 28(3), 547–563.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Semel, E., Wiig, E. H., & Secord, W. A. (2003). Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals, fourth edition (CELF-4). Toronto, Canada: The Psychological Corporation/A Harcourt Assessment Company.Google Scholar
Semrud-Clikeman, M., & Glass, K. (2008). Comprehension of humor in children with nonverbal learning disabilities, reading disabilities, and without learning disabilities. Annals of Dyslexia, 58, 163–180.10.1007/s11881-008-0016-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Semrud-Clikeman, M., & Glass, K. (2010). The relation of humor and child development: Social, adaptive, and emotional aspects. Journal of child neurology, 25(10), 1248–1260.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Siegel, S., & Castellan, N. J Jr. (1988). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, Inc.Google Scholar
Stenstrom, A.-B. (1984). Questions and Responses in English Conversation. Lund: Lund University Press.Google Scholar
Vieiro, P., & García-Madruga, J. A. (1997). An analysis of story comprehension through spoken and written summaries in school-age children. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 9, 41–53.10.1023/A:1007932429184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vosniadou, S., & Ortony, A. (1983). The emergence of the literal-metaphorical-anomalous distinction in young children. Child Development, 154–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winkler, J. D., Kanouse, D. E., & Ware, J. E. (1982). Controlling for acquiescence response set in scale development. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67(5), 555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winner, E., Rosenstiel, A. K., & Gardner, H. (1976). The development of metaphoric understanding. Developmental psychology, 12(4), 289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woolson, R. F. (2007). Wilcoxon signed‐rank test. Wiley encyclopedia of clinical trials, 1–3.Google Scholar