Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55b6f6c457-kv5sj Total loading time: 0.378 Render date: 2021-09-23T09:33:19.559Z Has data issue: false Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Quantity-based reasoning in the broader autism phenotype: A web-based study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2018

BOB VAN TIEL*
Affiliation:
Leibniz-Zentrum Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft (ZAS)
MIKHAIL KISSINE
Affiliation:
Université Libre de Bruxelles
*
ADDRESS FOR CORRESPONDENCE Bob van Tiel, Leibniz-Zentrum Allgemeine Sprachwissenschaft (ZAS), Schützenstrasse 18, 10118 Berlin, Germany. E-mail: bobvantiel@gmail.com

Abstract

We conducted a web-based study investigating whether the probability of deriving four types of pragmatic inferences depends on the degree to which one has traits associated with the autism spectrum, as measured by the autism spectrum quotient test (Baron-Cohen, Wheelwright, Skinner, Martin, & Clubley, 2001). In line with previous research, we show that, independently of their autism spectrum quotient, participants are likely to derive those pragmatic inferences that can be derived by reasoning solely about alternatives that the speaker could have used. However, if the derivation of the pragmatic inference draws upon more complex counterfactual reasoning about what the speaker could have said, the probability that it is derived decreases significantly with one’s autism quotient. We discuss the consequences for theories of pragmatics in autism and for linguistic theorizing in general.

Type
Original Article
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2018 

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

Altman, D. G., & Royston, P. (2006). The cost of dichotomising continuous variables. BMJ, 332, 1080.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 5th ed, Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
Andrés-Roqueta, C., & Katsos, N. (2017). The contribution of grammar, vocabulary and theory of mind in pragmatic language competence in children with autistic spectrum disorders. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 996.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barner, D., Brooks, N., & Bale, A. (2011). Accessing the unsaid: The role of scalar alternatives in children’s pragmatic inference. Cognition, 118, 8493.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baron-Cohen, S. (1988). Social and pragmatic deficits in autism: Cognitive or affective? Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 18, 379402.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baron-Cohen, S. (1995). Mindblindness: An essay on autism and theory of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Skinner, R., Martin, J., & Clubley, E. (2001). The autism spectrum quotient (AQ): Evidence from Asperger syndrome / high-functioning autism, males and females, scientists and mathematicians. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 31, 517.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., & Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68, 255278.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bates, D., & Maechler, M. (2009. lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using S4 classes. R package version 0.999375-32. Available from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=lme4.Google Scholar
Birnbaum, M. H. (2004). Human research and data collection via the internet. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 803832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloom, P., & German, T. (2000). Two reasons to abandon the false belief task as a test of theory of mind. Cognition, 77, B25B31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bott, L., & Noveck, I. A. (2004). Some utterances are underinformative: The onset and time course of scalar inferences. Journal of Memory and Language, 51, 437457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Breheny, R., Katsos, N., & Williams, J. (2006). Are generalized scalar implicatures generated by default? An online investigation into the role of context in generating pragmatic inferences. Cognition, 100, 434463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brock, J., Norbury, C. F., Einav, S., & Nation, K. (2008). Do individuals with autism process words in context? Evidence from language-mediated eye-mouvements. Cognition, 108, 896904.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chemla, E., & Bott, L. (2014). Processing inferences at the semantics/pragmatics frontier: Disjunctions and free choice. Cognition, 130, 380396.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chevallier, C., Kohls, G., Troiani, V., Brodkin, E. S., & Schultz, R. T. (2012). The social motivation theory of autism. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16, 231239.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chevallier, C., Noveck, I., Happé, F. G. E., & Wilson, D. (2011). What’s in a voice? Prosody as a test case for the Theory of Mind account of autism. Neuropsychologia, 49, 507517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chevallier, C., Noveck, I. A., Nazir, T., Bott, L., Lanzetti, V., & Sperber, D. (2008). Making disjunctions exclusive. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 61, 17411760.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chevallier, C., Wilson, D., Happé, F., & Noveck, I. (2010). Scalar inferences in autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 40, 11041117.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chierchia, G. (2004). Scalar implicatures, polarity phenomena and the syntax/pragmatics interface. In A. Belletti (Ed.), Structures and beyond (pp 39103). Oxford: Oxford University Press.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 adolescent with autism spectrum disorders. Metaphor and Symbol, 27, 7092.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crnič, L., Chemla, E., & Fox, D. (2015). Scalar implicatures of embedded disjunction. Natural Language Semantics, 23, 271305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeClerck, R. (1988). Studies on copular sentences, clefts and pseudoclefts. Leuven. Leuven University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Degen, J., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2016). Availability of alternatives and the processing of scalar implicatures: A visual world eye-tracking study. Cognitive Science, 40, 172201.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deliens, G., Papastamou, F., Ruytenbeek, N., Geelhand de Merxem, P., & Kissine, M. (2018. Selective pragmatic impairment in autism spectrum disorder: Indirect requests vs. irony. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. Advance online publication.Google Scholar
Dennis, M., Lazenby, A. L., & Lockyer, L. (2001). Inferential language in high-function children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 31, 4754.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
de Villiers, J., Fine, J., Ginsberg, G., Vaccarella, L., & Szatmari, P. (2006). Brief report: A scale for rating conversational impairment in autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37, 13751380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Vries, M., & Geurts, H. M. (2012). Cognitive flexibility in ASD; task switching with emotional faces. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 42, 25582568.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dufter, A. (2009). Clefting and discourse organization: Comparing Germanic and Romance. In A. Dufter & D. Jacob (Eds.), Focus and background in Romance languages (pp. 83121). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisher, N., Happé, F., & Dunn, J. (2005). The relationship between vocabulary, grammar, and false belief task performance in children with autistic spectrum disorders and children with moderate learning difficulties. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46, 409419.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fox, D. (2007). Free choice and the theory of scalar implicatures. In U. Sauerland & P. Stateva (Eds.), Presupposition and implicature in compositional semantics (pp 71120). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, D., & Katzir, R. (2010). On the characterization of alternatives. Natural Language Semantics, 19, 87107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franke, M. (2009). Signal to act: Game theory in pragmatics (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam).Google Scholar
Frith, U., & De Vignemont, F. (2005). Egocentrism, allocentrism, and Asperger syndrome. Consciousness and Cognition, 14, 719738.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frith, U., & Happé, F. (1994). Autism beyond “theory of mind. Cognition, 50, 115132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gazdar, G. (1979). Pragmatics: Implicature, presupposition, and logical form. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Geis, M. L., & Zwicky, A. M. (1971). On invited inferences. Linguistic Inquiry, 2, 6166.Google Scholar
Geurts, B. (2010). Quantity implicatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, E., Piantadosi, S., & Fedorenko, K. (2011). Using Mechanical Turk to obtain and analyze English acceptability judgments. Language and Linguistics Compass, 5, 509524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grant, C. M., Riggs, K. J., & Boucher, J. (2004). Counterfactual and mental state reasoning in children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 34, 177188.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grice, H. P. (1957). Meaning. Philosophical Review, 66, 377388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975a). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Vol. 3. Speech acts (pp 4158). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. (1975b). Method in philosophical psychology (from the banal to the bizarre). Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 48, 2353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grodner, D. J., Klein, N. M., Carbary, K. M., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2010). “Some,” and possibly all, scalar inferences are not delayed: Evidence for immediate pragmatic enrichment. Cognition, 116, 4255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Happé, F. G. E. (1993). Communicative competence and theory of mind in autism: A test of relevance theory. Cognition, 48, 101119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Happé, F. G. E. (1995). The role of age and verbal ability in the theory of mind task performance of subjects with autism. Child Development, 66, 843855.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Happé, F. G. E., & Frith, U. (2006). The weak coherence account: Detail-focused cognitive style in autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 36, 525.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hartmann, K., & Veenstra, T. (2013). Introduction. In K. Hartmann & T. Veenstra (Eds.), Cleft structures (pp 134). Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heavey, L., Phillips, W., Baron-Cohen, S., & Rutter, M. (2000). The awkward moments test: A naturalistic measure of social understanding in autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 30, 395406.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hill, E. (2004). Executive dysfunction in autism. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 2632.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horn, L. R. (1972. On the semantic properties of logical operators in English (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles).Google Scholar
Horn, L. R. (1981). Exhaustiveness and the semantics of clefts. Proceedings of the North East Linguistic Society, 11, 125142.Google Scholar
Huang, Y. T., & Snedeker, J. (2009). On-line interpretation of scalar quantifiers: Insight into the semantics-pragmatics interface. Cognitive Psychology, 58, 376415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hughes, C., & Russell, J. (1993). Autistic children’s difficulty with mental disengagement from an object: Its implications for theories of autism. Developmental Psychology, 29, 498510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingersoll, B., & Wainer, A. (2014). The broader autism phenotype. In F. R. Volkmar, R. Paul, S. J.Rogers & K. A. Pelphrey (Eds.), Handbook of autism and pervasive developmental disorders, 4th ed, pp 2856). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Jolliffe, T., & Baron-Cohen, S. (1999a). The strange story test: A replication with high-functioning adults with autism or Asperger syndrome. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 29, 395406.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jolliffe, T., & Baron-Cohen, S. (1999b). A test of central coherence theory: Linguistic processing in high-functioning adults with autism or Asperger syndrome: Is local coherence impaired. Cognition, 71, 149185.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kaland, N., Mortensen, E. L., & Smith, L. (2011). Social communication impairments in children and adolescents with Asperger syndrome: Slow response time and the impact of prompting. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 5, 11291137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katzir, R. (2007). Structurally-defined alternatives. Linguistics and Philosophy, 30, 669690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kissine, M. (2012). Pragmatics, cognitive flexibility and autism spectrum disorders. Mind & Language, 27, 128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kissine, M. (2013). From utterances to speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kissine, M. (2016). Pragmatics as meta-cognitive control. Frontiers in Psychology, 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kissine, M., Cano-Chervel, J., Carlier, S., De Brabanter, P., Ducenne, L., Pairon, M.-C., & … Leybaert, J. (2015). cpeech acts: Evidence from a semi-structured act-out task. PLOS ONE, 10, e0142191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kissine, M., De Brabanter, P., & Leybaert, J. (2012). The interpretation of requests in children with autism: The effect of the sentence-type. Autism, 16, 523532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2000). Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lilje, G. W. (1972). Uninvited inferences. Linguistic Inquiry, 3, 540542.Google Scholar
Lord, C., Risi, S., Lambrecht, L., Cook, E. H., Leventhal, B. L., DiLavoreP. C., … P. C., …, & Rutter, M. (2000). The Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule—Generic: A standard measure of social and communication deficits associated with the spectrum of autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 30, 205223.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loukusa, S., Leinonen, E., Kuusikko, S., Jussila, K., Mattila, M.-L., RyderN., … N., …, & Moilanen, I. (2006). Use of context in pragmatic language comprehension by children with Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37, 10491059.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nadig, A., Lee, I., Singh, L., Bosshart, K., & Ozonoff, S. (2010). How does the topic of conversation affect verbal exchange and eye gaze? A comparison between typical development and high-functioning autism. Neuropsychologia, 48, 27302739.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nation, I. S. P., & Beglar, D. (2007). A vocabulary size test. Language Teacher, 31, 913.Google Scholar
Nichols, S., & Stich, S. P. (2003). Mindreading: An integrated account of pretence, self-awareness, and understanding other minds. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norbury, C. F. (2005). Barking up the wrong tree? Lexical ambiguity resolution in children with language impairments and autistic spectrum disorders. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 90, 141171.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Norbury, C. F. (2014). Practitioner review: Social (pragmatic) communication disorder conceptualization, evidence and clinical implications. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 55, 204216.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Noveck, I. A. (2001). When children are more logical than adults: Experimental investigations of scalar implicature. Cognition, 78, 165188.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ozonoff, S. (1997). Components of executive function in autism. In J. Russell (Ed.) Autism as an executive disorder (pp 179211). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ozonoff, S., South, M., & Provencal, S. (2005). Executive functions. In F. R.Volkmar, R. Paul, A. Klin & D. Cohen (Eds.), Handbook of autism and pervasive developmental disorders, 3rd ed, pp 606627). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar
Paul, R., & Cohen, D. J. (1985). Comprehension of indirect requests in adults with autistic disorders and mental retardation. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 28, 475479.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Paul, R., Orlovski, S. M., Marcinko, H. C., & Volkmar, F. (2008). Conversational behaviors in youth with high-functioning ASD and Asperger syndrome. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 39, 115125.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pavey, E. L. (2004. The English it-cleft construction: A role and reference grammar analysis (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Sussex).Google Scholar
Perkins, M. R. (2007). Pragmatic impairment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perner, J., Rendl, B., & Garnham, A. (2007). Objects of desire, thought, and reality: Problems of anchoring discourse referents in development. Mind & Language, 22, 475513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pijnacker, J., Hagoort, P., van Buitelaar, J., Teunisse, J.-P., & Geurts, B. (2009). Pragmatic inferences in high-functioning adults with autism and Asperger syndrome. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 39, 607618.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prior, M., & Hoffmann, W. (1990). Neuropsychological testing of autistic children through an exploration with frontal lobe tests. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 20, 581590.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
R Development Core Team. 2006). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Recanati, F. (2003). Literal meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ritchie, D. (2013). Metaphor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Russell, J. (2002). Cognitive theories of autism. In J. E. Harrison & A. M. Owen (Eds.), Cognitive deficits in brain disorders (pp 295323). London: Dunitz.Google Scholar
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (2002). Pragmatics, modularity and mind-reading. Mind & Language, 17, 323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sprouse, J. (2011). A validation of Amazon Mechanical Turk for the collection of acceptability judgments in linguistic theory. Behavior Research Methods, 43, 155167.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Storto, G., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2005). Are scalar implicatures computed online?. In E. Maier, C. Bary & J. Huitink (Eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 9 (pp 431445). Nijmegen: Nijmegen Centre for Semantics.Google Scholar
Su, Y., & Su, L.-Y. (2015). Interpretation of logical words in Mandarin-speaking children with autism spectrum disorders: Uncovering knowledge of semantics and pragmatics. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 45, 19381950.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sucksmith, E., Roth, I., & Hoekstra, R. A. (2011). Autistic traits below the clinical threshold: Re-examining the broader autism phenotype in the 21st century. Neuropsychological Review, 21, 360389.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Surian, L., & Leslie, A. M. (1999). Competence and performance in false belief understanding: A comparison of autistic and normal 3-year-old children. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 17, 141155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tieu, L., Romoli, J., Zhou, P., & Crain, S. (2016). Children’s knowledge of free choice inferences and scalar implicatures. Journal of Semantics, 33, 269298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vallduví, E. (1993. The informational component (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania).Google Scholar
van Tiel, B., & Geurts, B. (2014). Truth and typicality in the interpretation of quantifiers. In U. Etxeberria, A. Flu, A. Irurtzun, & B. Leferman (Eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 18 (pp. 451–468). Bayonne and Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain, September 11–13, 2014.Google Scholar
van Tiel, B., & Schaeken, W. (2017). Processing conversational implicatures: Alternatives and counterfactual reasoning. Cognitive Science, 41, 11191154.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wheelwright, S., Auyeung, B., Allison, C., & Baron-Cohen, S. (2008). Defining the broader, medium and narrow autism phenotype among parents using the Autism Spectrum Quotient (AQ). Molecular Autism, 1, 110.Google Scholar
Yirmiya, N., Erel, O., Shaked, M., & Solomonica-Levi, D. (1998). Meta-analyses comparing theory of mind abilities of individuals with autism, individuals with mental retardation, and normally developing individuals. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 283307.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zelazo, P. D., Jacques, S., Burack, J. A., & Frye, D. (2002). The relation between theory of mind and rule use: Evidence from persons with autism-spectrum disorders. Infant and Child Development, 11, 171195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Quantity-based reasoning in the broader autism phenotype: A web-based study
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Quantity-based reasoning in the broader autism phenotype: A web-based study
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Quantity-based reasoning in the broader autism phenotype: A web-based study
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *