Unraveling nonliteral meaning: Figurative competence in autism spectrum disorder and dyslexia.

Kritsotakis et al. (2026) compared figurative language skills in three groups of 8-11-year-olds: autistic children, children with dyslexia, and typically developing peers. They used a quasi-experimental design to test how well each group understood non-literal phrases like idioms and metaphors.

The researchers also measured morphosyntax skills - how well kids understand grammar and sentence structure. They wanted to see if grammar skills, age, or reading ability best predicted figurative language comprehension.

Both autistic and dyslexic children scored much lower than their peers on figurative language tasks. The gap was large and consistent across different types of non-literal expressions.

Surprisingly, morphosyntax - not age or reading level - was the strongest predictor of figurative comprehension in both clinical groups. Kids who struggled with grammar also struggled with figurative language.

Song et al. (2024) found similar deficits in autistic children's understanding of irony, but they pointed to theory of mind as the key factor. Both studies show figurative language challenges in autism, but highlight different underlying causes - morphosyntax versus social cognition.

Petit et al. (2025) presents an apparent contradiction - they found autistic children performed as well as peers on metaphor comprehension when task demands were reduced. This suggests the deficit George et al. found might be task-dependent rather than universal.

The findings extend earlier work by Richman et al. (2001), who first documented pragmatic inference difficulties in high-functioning autistic children. Kritsotakis et al. (2026) quantifies these deficits and identifies morphosyntax as a key predictor.

Mashal et al. (2011) tested interventions for figurative language deficits, finding that visual thinking maps helped children with learning disabilities more than autistic children. This intervention research builds on the assessment findings George et al. documented.

If you're working with autistic students or students with dyslexia, don't assume they understand figurative language just because they can read. Check their morphosyntax skills first - grammar comprehension predicts figurative understanding better than age or reading level. When teaching idioms or metaphors, start with explicit grammar instruction and use clear, syntactically simple examples. For assessment, separate figurative language tasks from theory of mind demands to get a clearer picture of what students actually understand.