The production of figurative language in typically developing children and Williams Syndrome.

Cornew et al. (2012) watched kids talk. They compared typically developing children to children with Williams syndrome.

Both groups told short stories. The team counted how often each child used figurative language like metaphors or idioms.

They also gave a quick synonym test to see if knowing word pairs mattered.

Both groups used about the same amount of figurative language. Age did not make a big difference.

Only the Williams syndrome kids needed strong synonym skills to produce figures of speech. If they knew “happy” equals “glad,” they could say “my heart is a sunny day.”

Schwichtenberg et al. (2013) looked at the same kids one year later. They tested comprehension, not talking. They found Williams syndrome children understood metaphors in odd, delayed ways. Together the two papers show: production can look typical while understanding stays shaky.

Kritsotakis et al. (2026) studied autistic and dyslexic children. Those groups scored far below peers on figurative comprehension. Lauren’s null production result for Williams syndrome now looks special; it is not shared across all developmental conditions.

Lampri et al. (2024) reviewed autism work and pinned figurative trouble on Theory of Mind and verbal skill. Lauren points to a different lever—synonym knowledge—for Williams syndrome. Same broad topic, different key skill.

When you test figurative language, do not assume good output means good understanding in Williams syndrome. Check synonym knowledge first; it is the quick screen that predicts what they can generate. If synonyms are weak, teach word pairs before you target metaphors in therapy.