Mostly Talking About Things
A philosopher, a clinical linguist, and a psychiatrist working in collaboration have found that, while autistic persons have difficulties using language appropriately in social settings—with using what are called language “pragmatics”—their use and comprehension of pragmatics in some settings is higher than previously tought. In particular, understanding of pragmatics is greater in a literal setting attached to something specific. From today’s Science Daily (note that the example cited involves not people but a thing, “the subway” which does more or less does the same thing day after day):
An example [of pragmatics] is the phrase, “I took the subway north” from a transcript of a conversation with a research participant with ASD. The use of the word “the” could indicate there is only one subway in existence going north. “The subway” could also be referring to a subway car, a subway system or a subway tunnel. Taking account of the context and the listener’s expectations, however, the individual using the phrase was able to convey the specific meaning he intended. That is, he used pragmatics effectively.
In short, Stainton and his colleagues produced surprising evidence to show that speakers with ASD use and understand pragmatics in cases of literal talk, as in the subway example.
That is, put language into a situation involving some thing and what is being talked about or referred to makes sense. But when language is used in a social setting, to exchange pleasantries, chat, and cocktail conversation, and difficulties arise, perhaps because such pragmatic language is not directly about something.
Much of what my son Charlie says is about things—-the foods he likes to eat, his favorite things, the color of our car or house. When he talks about people, he tends to mention them with something specific and concrete, such as a certain-colored shirt, as if this is the way that he linguistically recalls a person, by associating him or her with some thing. On the other hand, what one says (or what one teaches a speech-delayed child) to say in a social setting is mostly abstract and formulaic: “Hi,” “I’m fine,” “how are you,” “thank you.”
How do you explain “fine”? Or “how’re you doing?”
To borrow a phrase from the poet William Carlos Williams, no ideas—talk—-but in things.
Tags: adults, asd, asperger, autism, brain, Diagnosis, imagists, pdd-nos, Poetry, Psychology, william carlos williamsRelated Stories
POSTED IN: Language, Philosophy, Poetry, Psychiatry
7 opinions for Mostly Talking About Things
TomsMom
Apr 26, 2008 at 8:57 am
Thanks for this: Tom’s delayed pragmatics are of much concern as it is not only the pleasantries of casual social conversation that are beyond him but his ability to accurately describe what and how he feels–physically as well as emotionally. Since we’ve just started on a medication to help moderate his acute mood swings I am concerned that he will be unable to articulate if he experiences any of the side effects (dizziness, headache). So watch him closely the neurologist says. (I do!!!)
Oddly enough working with Tom on pragmatics has made me acutely aware of how confusing “ordinary” language can be. For example, on one of his videos about space the voiceover extols the power of a radio telescope that “can pick up a cell phone on Mars.” Of course, a radio telescope can’t “pick up” anything: what it does is DETECT the SOUND of a cell phone RINGING on Mars.
CS
Apr 26, 2008 at 9:38 am
“exchange pleasantries, chat, and cocktail conversation”
Researchers should understand that these things have to do with being fake, phony and deceptive and to most autistic people I know, fake, phony and deception are things we don’t care to engage in, although many do out of necessity, its incredibly draining. Its our way of accommodating other’s “language” and its too bad that we are expected to use these modalities of exchange.
retiredwaif
Apr 26, 2008 at 9:59 am
I actually don’t have such a hostile reaction to small talk–I don’t think it’s inherently fake, phony or deceptive. I like to talk to people a lot more now that I’m an adult, and can freely get out of nearly any situation–remove the coercion and the trapped-animal feeling and a lot of things get easier! However, it is still stressful. I simply have no idea when people are done or when I’m talking too much, and I have to resort to things like sentence-counting, pause-counting, and asking “am I making sense?” all the time.
I will attest to some difficulty with the pragmatic side of language, however. For the sort of autistic who is learning social interaction like playing the piano, and taking joy in assembling bits of NT-specific speech to have at the ready, pragmatic language presents a problem that metaphors and colloquialisms do not, in that they masquerade as being utterly straighforward. You can learn an expression like “throwing the baby out with the bathwater,” because people understand that it’s weird, but a question like “how do I get there?” It’s harder. Think about it. I actually remember figuring out that that meant something similar to “tell me the means of arriving at the place” when I was a small child. Until then, honestly, it was just more inexplicable noise, with the added confusion that I might repeat it, with no idea what it meant.
retiredwaif
Apr 26, 2008 at 10:00 am
“it masquerades” for “they masquerade” in the above, please.
Kristina Chew, PhD
Apr 26, 2008 at 10:22 am
Sometimes I think that small talk/cocktail chat is like Charlie’s ambient humming—-things to say to fill the silence and get something started up.
mayfly
Apr 26, 2008 at 11:00 am
The use of the definite article changes. For instance we stand in line, not “in the line”. A Brit gets lost in jungle, while a Yank gets lost in the jungle. After their rescue the former spends time in hospital, and the other in the hospital. An NT person has no problem understanding either formulation, but being an American the phrase “lost in jungle” seems awkward.
CS, I have great difficulty with small talk, as my relationship skills are very poor. Indeed I envy those who are proficient. The people who are best at it are those care what the other person has to say, and respond from the heart.
Bonnie Sayers
Apr 27, 2008 at 12:38 am
My son Nick refers to people as humans. When waiting at the gate the other day for Matt to get out of school he stated that an elephant would have no problem opening the locked gate. He always compares things to animals and wants to know what I think life would be like if the dinosaurs still lived here. Sometimes I just dont know how to respond and tell him I am not interested in that and it is his interest and not mine.
Have an opinion? Leave a comment: