مقایسه درک استعاره‌های شنیداری و دیداری بدنمند در کودکان مبتلا به اوتیسم خفیف و کودکان عادی

مقالات آماده انتشار

نوع مقاله : علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان
مهدی مدنی فرد 1
سحر بهرامی خورشید 2
صغرا اکبری چرمهینی 3
حیات عامری 2
1 دانشجوی گروه دکتری زبان شناسی، دانشکده علوم انسانی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران
2 دانشیار گروه زبان شناسی، دانشکده علوم انسانی، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران، ایران
3 دانشیار روان‏شناسی شناختی، گروه روان‏شناسی و مشاوره، دانشکده علوم انسانی، دانشگاه اراک، اراک، ایران / دانشیار روان‏شناسی شناختی، گروه روان‏شناسی، دانشکده علوم تربیتی و روان‏شناسی، دانشگاه اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران.
10.48311/lrr.2025.7259
چکیده
اوتیسم یک اختلال عصب ­شناختی است. بسیاری از کودکان مبتلا به اوتیسم در زبان تحولی ندارند و معمولأ تمایل به برداشت­های تحت­اللفظی از عبارات دارند. این مسأله در درک زبان استعاری مشکل ایجاد می­کند که این اشکالات در دو بعد استعارات کلامی و دیداری دیده می­شود. مطالعه حاضر با هدف مقایسه درک استعاری شنیداری و دیداری در کودکان اوتیسم خفیف و کودکان عادی انجام گرفته است. پژوهش حاضر یک پژوهش مقطعی و علی- مقایسه ای است. نمونه آماری این پژوهش شامل 30 پسر ۷ تا ۱۰ سال مبتلا به اوتیسم خفیف در حال تحصیل در مراکز آموزشی کودکان استثنایی شهر مشهد و ۳۰ کودک عادی همتاسازی شده از نظر سنی است که به روش نمونه­گیری در دسترس انتخاب شدند. پس از ارزیابی اولیه زبانی توسط آزمون درک استعاری مورد سنجش قرار گرفتند و جهت تجزیه و تحلیل داده­ها از آزمون آماری یو من ویتنی و نرم افزار SPSS 23 استفاده شد. نتایج تحلیل داده­ها نشان داد که در درک استعاری به­ صورت کلی بین کودکان اوتیسم و طبیعی تفاوت معناداری وجود دارد (P<0/001)، همچنین، در درک استعاره­های دیداری و شنیداری نیز دو گروه تفاوت معناداری را نشان دادند (P<0/001). نتایج به دست آمده بیانگر این است که کودکان مبتلا به اوتیسم در مقایسه با کودکان عادی از نظر درک استعاری دیداری و شنیداری عملکرد پایین­تری دارند و در نظر گرفتن این مساله می­تواند در برنامه­ریزی­ و طراحی محتوای آموزشی و مداخلات توانبخشی در جهت ارتقاء عملکرد آموزشی و اجتماعی این کودکان مفید باشد.
کلیدواژه‌ها
اوتیسم خفیف
استعاره مفهومی بدنمند
استعاره دیداری
استعاره شنیداری
روان‌شناسی زبان
موضوعات

عنوان مقاله English

Comparison of Perception of Auditory and Visual Embodied Metaphors between Children with Mild Autism and Normal Ones

نویسندگان English

Mahdi Madanifard 1
Sahar Bahrami-Khorshid 2
Soghra Akbari Chermahinin 3
Hayat Ameri 2
1 PhD student, Department of Linguistics, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
2 Associate Professor of Linguistics, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
3 1. Associate Professor of Cognitive Psychology, Department of Psychology and Counseling, Arak University, Arak, Iran 2. Associate Professor of Cognitive Psychology, Department of Psychology, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran
چکیده English

Autism is a neurocognitive disorder. Many children with autism do not have a change in language and usually tend to have literal interpretations of phrases, which makes it difficult to understand metaphorical language, which can be seen in both visual and visual metaphors. The aim of this study was to compare auditory and visual metaphorical perception in children with mild autism and normal children. The present study is a cross-sectional and causal-comparative study. The statistical sample of this study includes 30 boys aged 7 to 10 years with mild autism studying in educational centers for exceptional children in Mashhad and 30 normal children matched in terms of age who were selected by convenience sampling method. After initial language assessment, they were assessed by metaphorical perception test and U Mann-Whitney test and SPSS 23 software were used to analyze the data. The results of data analysis showed that in metaphorical perception in general there is a significant difference between autistic and normal children (P <0.001), also, in understanding visual and auditory metaphors, the two groups showed a significant difference (P <0/001). The obtained results indicate that compared to normal children, children with autism have a lower performance in terms of understanding visual and auditory metaphors, and considering this issue can be used in planning and designing educational content and rehabilitation interventions in order to improve educational performance and social benefit of these children.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Autism
embodied conceptual metaphor
visual metaphor
auditory metaphor
Psycholinguistics
• رافعی، ط. (1385)، اوتیسم، ارزیابی و درمان. تهران: دانژه.
• Adachi, T., Koeda, T., Hirabayashi, S., Maeoka, Y., Shiota, M., Wright, E. C., & Wada, A. (2004). The metaphor and sarcasm scenario test: A new instrument to help differentiate high functioning pervasive developmental disorder from attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Brain and Development, 26(5): 301-306.
• Baixauli-Fortea, I., Miranda Casas, A., Berenguer-Forner, C., Colomer-Diago, C., & Roselló-Miranda, B. (2019). Competencia pragmática de niños con trastorno del espectro autista. Impacto de la teoría de la mente, la memoria de trabajo verbal, los síntomas del TDAH y el lenguaje estructural. Neuropsicología aplicada: niño, 8(2): 101-112.
• Bialeka-Pikul, M. (2003). Metaphors in preschool child thinking about the mind. Journal Psychology of Language and Communication, 7(2): 37-47.
• Cacciari, C. (2014). The Place of Idioms in a Literal and Metaphorical World. C. Cacciari and P. Tabossi. Idioms Processing, Structure, and Interpretation, 27-57.
• Chahboun, S., Vulchanov, V., Saldaña, D., Eshuis, H., & Vulchanova, M. (2016). Can you play with fire and not hurt yourself? A comparative study in figurative language comprehension between individuals with and without autism spectrum disorder. PloS one, 11(12): e0168571.
• Chahboun, S., Vulchanov, V., Saldaña, D., Eshuis, H., & Vulchanova, M. (2017). Can you tell it by the prime? A study of metaphorical priming in high‐functioning autism in comparison with matched controls. International journal of language & communication disorders. 52(6): 766-785.
• Chiappe DL, Chiappe P. (2007). The role of working memory in metaphor production and comprehension. J Mem Lang, 56:172–88.
• De Villiers, P. A., de Villiers, J. G., Diaz, S., Cheung, C., Alig, R., & Raditz, V. (2011). Non-literal language and theory of mind in autism spectrum disorders. In Poster presented at the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Convention, San Diego, CA.
• Frith U. 1989. Autism: explaining the enigma. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
• Gernsbacher M. A. & Pripas-Kapit S. R. (2012). Who’s missing the point? A commentary on claims that autistic persons have a specific deficit in figurative language comprehension. Metaphor and Symbol, 27(1): 93-105.
• Gidley Larson J. C., Bastian A. J., Donchin O., Shadmehr R., Mostofsky S. H. (2008). Acquisition of internal models of motor tasks in children with autism. Brain.; 131(Pt 11), 2894 290310.1093/brain/awn226 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
• Gowen E., Hamilton A. (2013). Motor abilities in autism: a review using a computational context. J. Autism Dev. Disord, 43: 323–344 10.1007/s10803-012-1574-0.
• Grandin T. (1995). Thinking in pictures: and other reports from my life with autism. New York: Doubleday.
• Happé, F., & Frith, U. (2006). The weak coherence account: detail-focused cognitive style in autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 36(1): 5-25.
• Hill, E. L. (2004). Executive dysfunction in autism. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8 (1).
• Huang, S. F., Oi, M., & Taguchi, A. (2015). Comprehension of figurative language in Taiwanese children with autism: The role of theory of mind and receptive vocabulary. Clinical linguistics & phonetics, 29(8-10): 764-775.
• Johnson, D. C., and Wade, M. G., 2009. Children at risk for developmental coordination disorder: judgement of changes in action capabilities. [Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural]. Dev. Med. Child Neurol.Vol. 51, no. 5, pp. 397–403.
• Kalandadze, T., Norbury, C., Nærland, T., & Næss, K. A. B. (2018). Figurative langua
comprehension in individuals with autism spectrum disorder: a meta-analytic review. Autism, 22: 99-117.
• Kail RV, Siegel. The development of mnemonic encoding in children: from perception to abstraction. In: Kail RV, Hagen JW, editors. (1977). Perspectives on the development of memory and cognition. Hillsdale: Erlbaum, p. 61–88.
• Kamio Y, Toichi M. (2000). Dual access to semantic in autism: is pictorial access superior to verbal access? J Child Psychol Psychiatry, 41:859–67.
• Kogan N. (1975). Metaphoric thinking in children: developmental and individual difference aspects. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child development; Denver, Colorado.
• Kogan N, Chadrow M. (1986). Children’s comprehension of metaphor in the pictorial and verbal modality. Int J Behav Dev, 9:285–95.
• Kogan N, Connor K, Gross A, Fava D. (1980). Understanding visual metaphor: developmental and individual differences. Monogr Soc Res Child Dev, 45(Serial No. 183):1–78.
• Landa, R. J., & Goldberg, M. C. (2005). Language, social, and executive functions in high functioning autism: A continuum of performance. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 35(5): 557-573.
• Mackay G, Shaw A. (2004). A comparative study of figurative language in children with autistic spectrum disorders. Child Lang Teach Ther, 20:13–32.
• Mashal N, Kasirer A. (2012). Principal component analysis study of visual and verbal metaphoric comprehension in children with autism and learning disabilities. Res Dev Disabil, 33:274–82.
• Nikolaenko N. (2004). Metaphorical and associative thinking in healthy children and in children with Asperger’s syndrome at different ages. Hum Physiol, 30(5):532–36.
• Olofson, E. L., Casey, D., Oluyedun, O. A., Van Herwegen, J., Becerra, A., & Rundblad, G. (2014). Youth with Autism Spectrum Disorder Comprehend Lexicalized and Novel Primary Conceptual Metaphors. Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 44:2568-2583.
• Özçalişkan, Ş. (2005). On learning to draw the distinction between physical and metaphorical motion: Is metaphor an early emerging cognitive and linguistic capacity? Journal of Child Language, 32(2): 291-318.
• Pouscoulous, N. (2011). Metaphor: For adults only?. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 25(1): 51-79.
• Rafie, Talat. (2006). Autism, Evaluation and Treatment. Tehran: Danjeh.
• Rapin I., Dunn M., 2003. Update on the language disorders of individuals on the autistic spectrum. Brain Dev. Vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 166–172.
• Rundblad, G. & Annaz, D. (2010). The atypical development of metaphor and metonymy comprehension in children with autism. Autism, 14(1): 29-46.
• Schopler E, Olley JG. (1982). Comprehensive educational services for autistic children: the TEACCH model. In: Reynolds CR, Gutkin TR, editors. The handbook of school psychology. New York: Wiley, p. 629–43.
• Sternberg, R. (2008). Cognitive Psychology. Thomson, Wadsworth. 4th ed.
• Vulchanova, M., Saldaña, D., Chahboun, S. & Vulchanov, V. (2015). Figurative language processing in atypical populations: the ASD perspective. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 9: 1-11.
• Whyte, E. M., Nelson, K. E. & Scherfa, K. S. (2014). Idiom, syntax, and advanced theory of mind abilities in children with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 57: 120-130.
• Zheng, Q., Jia, Z., & Liang, D. (2015). Metaphor and metonymy comprehension in Chinese-speaking children with high-functioning autism. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 10: 51-58.
جستارهای زبانی

مقالات آماده انتشار، پذیرفته شده
انتشار آنلاین از 22 تیر 1404