On the nature of linguistic functioning in early infantile autism.

Tager-Flusberg (1981) looked at every paper on autistic language from the 1960s and 1970s.

The author compared how kids with autism sound, build sentences, understand meaning, and use words with others.

The goal was to map which parts of language are only delayed and which are truly different.

Speech sounds and grammar develop late but follow the usual path.

Meaning and social use of language fall far behind and stay uneven.

So a child may speak in full sentences yet still ask off-topic questions or miss jokes.

Baixauli et al. (2016) extends this view. Their meta-analysis of 24 studies shows the same weak story structure H first noted.

Crane et al. (2016) seems to disagree. They found hidden strengths inside echolalia and pronoun reversals. The clash is only on the surface: H used clinic tests, Laura used long natural talk. Both can be true—tests show gaps, conversation shows work-arounds.

Rojahn et al. (2012) adds a real-world payoff. They show receptive communication, not grammar scores, predicts daily living skills. This supports H’s call to probe meaning and use, not just sentence form.

When you assess a child who recites whole cartoons, do not stop at “good vocabulary.” Ask if they can answer why, greet, or refuse. Add dynamic assessment, story retell, or peer chat. Target teaching to those meaning and social gaps first; they drive classroom success more than perfect syntax.