The atypical development of metaphor and metonymy comprehension in children with autism.

Rundblad et al. (2010) compared how autistic and neurotypical kids understand two kinds of figurative speech: metaphors and metonymy. They tested children across a wide age range to see if the gap closes as kids get older.

The team used simple picture-choice tasks. Kids heard a phrase like "time is money" and picked the picture that showed the intended meaning.

Autistic children scored far below their typical peers on every metaphor item at every age. Even when their mental age matched the comparison group, the gap stayed large.

Metonymy was also delayed, but the lag was smaller and improved with age. Metaphor, however, remained stubbornly weak.

Lampri et al. (2024) repeated the same metaphor test fourteen years later and got the same grim result. They added a twist: when they asked kids to invent their own metaphors, expressive vocabulary was the best predictor of success. This extends Gabriella’s work by showing the problem is not just understanding, but also creating figurative language.

Brynskov et al. (2017) found that high-functioning autistic children can have solid vocabularies yet still stumble on grammar. Together with Gabriella’s findings, this warns us that good single-word scores can hide deeper language holes.

Flapper et al. (2013) showed receptive vocabulary grows more slowly in autistic boys. Pair that with Gabriella’s data and you see a pattern: both basic and advanced language domains lag behind mental age, so surface fluency can be misleading.

If you teach with phrases like "break the ice" or "hit the books," check comprehension first. Autistic learners may take these literally and miss the lesson. Use visual supports, teach the phrase in context, and probe with "what does that mean?" before moving on. Don’t trust a rich vocabulary score as proof that figurative language is in place.