Development of novel metaphor and metonymy comprehension in typically developing children and Williams syndrome.
In Williams syndrome, metonymy matures slowly but metaphor stays uniquely off-track—so test both before you dismiss figurative language deficits.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Schwichtenberg et al. (2013) tested how kids understand two kinds of figurative speech. One group had Williams syndrome. One group was typically developing. The team used new metaphors like 'the teacher is a candle' and new metonymies like 'the crown visited the city.' They asked children to pick the real meaning from pictures. Then they compared scores across ages.
What they found
Typical kids got better with age. Metonymy was easier than metaphor. Kids with Williams syndrome could learn metonymy, just slower. But metaphor looked different. They often chose strange, off-target pictures. The gap was not just late—it was odd.
How this fits with other research
Cornew et al. (2012) asked the same children to create figurative speech, not just understand it. Production stayed flat in both groups. That matches Jo's finding: comprehension, not output, is the main puzzle in Williams syndrome.
Lampri et al. (2024) reviewed dozens of autism studies. Autistic children struggle with all non-literal language. Jo's WS group shows a narrower, weirder profile—metonymy can catch up, metaphor stays quirky. The syndromes diverge.
Kritsotakis et al. (2026) later tested autistic and dyslexic children on the same task. Both groups scored low, and grammar skill predicted the gap. Jo did not find grammar to be the key in WS. The predictors shift across diagnoses, so you must test, not assume.
Why it matters
If you assess a child with Williams syndrome, check both metaphor and metonymy. A decent metonymy score can fool you into thinking figurative language is 'good enough.' It is not. Metaphor may stay atypical even in teenagers. Write separate goals and probe both forms before you exit language services.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Add two quick trial sets to your language probe: one metonymy, one metaphor; score separately and plot the gap.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
This study investigated the development of novel metaphor and metonymy comprehension in both typically developing (TD) children and individuals with Williams syndrome (WS). Thirty-one TD children between the ages of 3;09 and 17;01 and thirty-four individuals with WS between the ages of 7;01 and 44 years old were administered a newly developed task examining novel metaphor and metonymy comprehension, as well as a range of standardised tests that assess semantic knowledge. This age range and the background measures allowed construction of developmental trajectories to investigate whether chronological age or mental age, represented by word knowledge, relate to novel metaphor and metonymy comprehension. The results showed that comprehension of figurative language did not increase with chronological age in WS, in contrast to TD. Although there was no difference for the different types of metaphors, certain metonymy expressions were found to be easier than others in the TD group. In addition, semantic knowledge was a reliable predictor for novel metaphor and metonymy comprehension in the TD but only for metonymy in the WS group. In sum, development of novel metonymy in the WS group is only delayed while comprehension of novel metaphor is both delayed and atypical. However, future research should further investigate differences between sub-types, as well as what cognitive factors relate to novel metaphor comprehension in individuals with Williams syndrome.
Research in developmental disabilities, 2013 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2013.01.017