Khetrapal Neha, Thornton Rosalind
Department of Linguistics, Language Acquisition Research Group, Macquarie UniversitySydney, NSW, Australia; ARC Centre of Excellence in Cognition and its Disorders, Macquarie UniversitySydney, NSW, Australia.
Front Psychol. 2017 Mar 28;8:402. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00402. eCollection 2017.
A recent study questioned the adherence of children with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) to a linguistic constraint on the use of reflexive pronouns (Principle A) in sentences . This led researchers to question whether children with ASD are able to compute the hierarchical structural relationship of c-command, and raised the possibility that the children rely on a linear strategy for reference assignment. The current study investigates the status of c-command in children with ASD by testing their interpretation of sentences like (1) and (2) that tease apart use of c-command and a linear strategy for reference assignment. The girl who stayed up late will not get a dime or a jewel (C-command)The girl who didn't go to sleep will get a dime or a jewel (Non C-command) These examples both contain negation ( or did) and disjunction (). In (1), negation c-commands the disjunction phrase, yielding a conjunctive entailment. This gives rise to the meaning that the girl who stayed up late won't get a dime and she won't get a jewel. In (2), negation is positioned inside a relative clause and it does not c-command disjunction. Therefore, no conjunctive entailment follows. Thus, (2) is true if the girl just gets a dime or just a jewel, or possibly both. If children with ASD lack c-command, then (1) will not give rise to a conjunctive entailment. In this case, children might rely on a linear strategy for reference assignment. Since negation precedes disjunction in both (1) and (2), they might be interpreted in a similar manner. Likewise, children who show knowledge of c-command should perform well on sentences governed by Principle A. These hypotheses were tested in experiments with 12 Australian children with HFA, aged 5;4 to 12;7, and 12 typically-developing controls, matched on non-verbal IQ. There was no significant difference in the pattern of responses by children with HFA and the control children on either (1) and (2) or the Principle A sentences. The findings provide preliminary support for the proposal that knowledge of c-command and Principle A is intact in HFA children.
最近的一项研究对自闭症谱系障碍(ASD)儿童在句子中使用反身代词时是否遵循语言限制(原则A)提出了质疑。这使得研究人员质疑ASD儿童是否能够计算成分统领(c-command)的层级结构关系,并提出了儿童可能依赖线性策略进行指称分配的可能性。本研究通过测试ASD儿童对句子(1)和(2)的理解来探究成分统领在他们中的情况,这两个句子区分了成分统领的使用和指称分配的线性策略。熬夜的女孩不会得到一分钱或一颗宝石(成分统领)没睡觉的女孩会得到一分钱或一颗宝石(非成分统领)这些例子都包含否定词(或did)和析取词()。在(1)中,否定词成分统领析取短语,产生合取蕴含。这就产生了这样的意思:熬夜的女孩既得不到一分钱也得不到一颗宝石。在(2)中,否定词位于关系从句内,它不成分统领析取词。因此,不会产生合取蕴含。所以,如果女孩只得到一分钱或只得到一颗宝石,或者可能两者都得到,那么(2)就是真的。如果ASD儿童缺乏成分统领能力,那么(1)就不会产生合取蕴含。在这种情况下,儿童可能依赖线性策略进行指称分配。由于否定词在(1)和(2)中都先于析取词,它们可能会以类似的方式被解释。同样,表现出成分统领知识的儿童在受原则A支配的句子上应该表现良好。这些假设在对12名年龄在5岁4个月至12岁7个月的澳大利亚高功能自闭症(HFA)儿童和12名在非言语智商上匹配的发育正常的对照组儿童进行的实验中得到了检验。HFA儿童和对照组儿童在(1)和(2)或原则A句子上的反应模式没有显著差异。这些发现为高功能自闭症儿童具有成分统领知识和原则A知识这一观点提供了初步支持。