Article published in:
The Conversation Frame: Forms and functions of fictive interaction
Edited by Esther Pascual and Sergeiy Sandler
[Human Cognitive Processing 55] 2016
► pp. 343–361

Echolalia as communicative strategy

Fictive interaction in the speech of children with autism

| Federal University of Juiz de Fora, Brazil
| Zhejiang University, China
We explore how fictive interaction (Pascual 2002, 2014), manifested as echolalia (i.e. prior speech repeated verbatim), is successfully used by autistic children as a compensatory strategy in conversation. We video-recorded four Brazilian autistic children between the ages of 4 and 12 in interactions with adults in weekly therapy sessions. We found that these autistic children do not use direct speech to represent prior speech only, as in ordinary reported speech. Instead, they use direct speech to make mental contact with past (types of) communicative situations. Reenactment is used fictively as a means of expressing needs, describing situations, and referring to people, animals, and events. These fictive quotations may reflect socio-communicative or socio-cultural knowledge, or experiences with prior specific interactions.
Keywords: autism, echolalia, literal quotation, metonymy
Published online: 01 November 2016
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.55.17dor
References
Bánréti, Z
(2010) Recursion in aphasia. Clinical Linguistics & Phonology, 24(11), 906–914. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, M., Tomasello, M., & Striano, T
(2005) Role reversal imitation and language in typically developing infants and children with autism. Infancy, 8(3), 253–278. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H., & Gerrig, R
(1990) Quotation as demonstration. Language, 66(4), 784–805. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Courchesne, E., & Pierce, K
(2005) Brain overgrowth in autism during a critical time in development: Implications for frontal pyramidal neuron and interneuron development and connectivity. International Journal of Development Neurosciences, 23(2–3), 153–170. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dobbinson, S., Perkins, M., & Boucher, J
(2003) The interactional significance of formulas in autistic language. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 17(4/5), 299–307. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, J.W
(2014) Towards a dialogic syntax. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(3), 359–410. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, J.W., & Giora, R
(2014) From cognitive-functional linguistics to dialogic syntax. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(3), 351–357. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, J.W., Hobson, P., & Hobson, J.A
(2014) Dialogic resonance and intersubjective engagement in autism. Cognitive Linguistics, 25(3), 411–441. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fauconnier, G
(1981) Social ritual and relative truth in natural language. In K.D. Knorr Cetina, & A.V. Cicourel (Eds.), Advances in social theory and methodology: Toward an integration of micro and macro sociologies (pp. 175–202). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
[1985] (1994) Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural languages. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, G., & Turner, M
(2002) The way we think: Conceptual blending and the mind’s hidden complexities. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Fernandes, F
(2003) Terapia de linguagem em crianças com transtorno do espectro autístico: Um estudo transversal. Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Fonoaudiologia, 1, 49–56.Google Scholar
Jarque, M.J., & Pascual, E
(2016) Mixed viewpoints in factual and fictive discourse in Catalan Sign Language narratives. In B. Dancygier, L. Wei-lun-Lu, & A. Verhagen (Eds.), Viewpoint and the fabric of meaning: Form and use of viewpoint tools across languages and modalities (pp. 259–280). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kanner, L
(1943) Autistic disturbance of affective contact. Nervous Child, 2, 217–250.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G
(1987) Women, fire and dangerous things. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R.W
(1987) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
(1991) Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. II: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Millward, C., Powell, S., Messer, D., & Jordan, R
(2000) Recall for self and other in autism: Children’s memory for events experienced by themselves and their peers. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 30(1), 15–28. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Paccia, J., & Curcio, F
(1982) Language processing and forms of immediate echolalia in autistic children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 25, 42–47. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pascual, E
(2002) Imaginary trialogues: Conceptual blending and fictive interaction in criminal courts. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
(2006) Fictive interaction within the sentence: A communicative type of fictivity in grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 17(2), 245–267. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2014) Fictive interaction: The conversation frame in thought, language and discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pascual, E., & Versluis, C
(2006) Verbale demonstratie als strategie van functionele adaptatie bij Broca-afasie: Een gevalstudie. Voortgang, 24, 169–182.Google Scholar
Pascual, E., Królak, E., & Janssen, T.A.J.M
(2013) Direct speech compounds: Evoking socio-cultural scenarios through fictive interaction. Cognitive Linguistics, 24(2), 345–366. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Prizant, B., & Duchan, J
(1987) The functions of immediate echolalia in autistic children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 46, 241–249. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Prizant, B., & Rydell, P
(1984) Analysis of functions of delayed echolalia in autistic children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 27, 183–192. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Prizant, B
(1983) Language acquisition and communicative behavior in autism: Toward an understanding of the “whole” of it. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 48(3), 296–307. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rydell, P., & Mirenda, P
(1991) The effects of two levels of linguistic constraint on echolalia and generative language production in children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 19(2), 271–281.Google Scholar
Schneider, D.E
(1938) The clinical syndromes of echolalia, echopraxia, grasping and sucking: their significance in the disorganization of the personality. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 88(2), 200–216. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schopler, E., Reichler, R.J., & Renner, B.R
(1986) The childhood autism rating scale (CARS) for diagnostic screening and classification in autism. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
Schuler, A
(1979) Beyond echolalia: Promoting language in children with autism. The National Autistic Society, 7(4), 455–469.Google Scholar
Sterponi, L., & Shankey, J
(2014) Rethinking echolalia: Repetition as interactional resource in the communication of a child with autism. Journal of Child Language, 41(2), 275–304. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Talmy, L
(2000) Toward a cognitive semantics. Vol. 1. Massachusetts: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Tannen, D
(1986) Introducing constructed dialogue in Greek and American conversational and literary narratives. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Direct and indirect speech (pp. 311–322). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1989) Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, M
(2006) Construction grammar for kids. Constructions, 11(1), 1–23.Google Scholar
Xiang, M., & Pascual, E
(2016) Debate with Zhuangzi: Fictive interaction blends in ancient Chinese philosophy. Pragmatics 26(1), 137–162. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wetherby, A
(1986) Ontogeny of communicative functions in autism. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 16(3), 295–316.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

Pascual, Esther, Aline Dornelas & Todd Oakley
2017. When “Goal!” means ‘soccer’. Pragmatics & Cognition 24:3 ► pp. 315 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 march 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.