You are on page 1of 13

Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, Vol. 33, No.

3, May 2004 ( 2004)

Comprehension of Idioms by Children with Learning Disabilities: Metaphoric Transparency and Syntactic Frozenness
Eileen P. Abrahamsen1,2 and Debra Burke-Williams1
Third and fth grade children with and without learning disabilities participated in this study. Syntactically frozen and exible idioms and transparent and opaque idioms were used as stimuli to examine the ability to identify the correct idiom and to explain idiom meanings. Grade and diagnostic category affected performance on the explanation task but not on the forced choice task. Idiom type was also a factor affecting comprehension and explanation. Literal responses occurred rarely and were more likely to occur on the forced choice task. KEY WORDS: idiom comprehension; learning disabilities; idiom types; idiom explanation.

INTRODUCTION Idioms and other forms of gurative language are difcult even for children developing normally. Children with learning disabilities have particular difculty with non-literal language (Abrahamsen & Sprouse, 1995; Blue, 1981; Lutzer, 1988; Nippold, 1985, 1991; Seidenberg & Bernstein, 1986). The general consensus is that the ability to understand the gurative meaning of idioms steadily improves throughout childhood and into adulthood (Ackerman, 1982; Cacciari & Levorato, 1989; Gibbs, 1987, 1991; Nippold, 1985; Nippold & Martin, 1989; Prinz, 1983). Several different aspects of idioms inuence comprehension (Gibbs, 1987, 1991; Gibbs & Gonzales, 1985; Gibbs et al., 1989a, 1989b). Syntactic frozenness and transparency are two of these factors. Syntactically exible idioms can be transformed into many syntactic forms and maintain their gurative meaning. Blow off steam is an example of a syntactically exible idiom. It can be used in a variety of syntactic structures and retain its
1 2

Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virgina. To whom all correspondence should be addressed: email: eabraham@odu.edu 203
0090-6905/04/05000203/0 2004 Plenum Publishing Corporation

204

Abrahamsen and Burke-Williams

gurative meaning including the past tense (They blew off steam by running around the tract.) and passive voice (e.g. Steam was blown off by their running around the track). Syntactically frozen idioms are limited to specic syntactic forms. When syntactically frozen idioms such as sitting on pins and needles are transformed, they lose their gurative meanings (e.g. Pins and needles were sat on by the interviewees.) Syntactically frozen idioms are easier to comprehend (Gibbs, 1987; Gibbs & Gonzales, 1985; Gibbs et al., 1989a,b). Transparent idioms are extensions of literal meanings. Hold your tongue means to stop your tongue or be quiet. Opaque idioms have historical backgrounds of which most people are unaware. The origins of opaque meanings are not always easy to determine and not all authorities agree. Shoot the breeze seems far removed from the literal meaning. The American Heritage Dictionary of Idioms (Ammer, 1997) reports that shoot the breeze derived from the expression talking into the wind rst noted in 1918, meaning talking for no specic purpose. The expression shoot the bull dates from 1908, while shoot off ones mouth dates from the mid 1800s. It appears that shoot the breeze was a more polite expression than shoot the bull. Gibbs (1987) reported that all children have more trouble interpreting opaque idioms than transparent idioms. Many teachers and speech-language pathologists have assumed that children with learning disabilities tend to be more concrete or literal in their interpretations of idioms. There is some evidence that children with learning disabilities may interpret idioms literally (Baechle & Lian, 1990). Others report that children with learning disabilities perform like younger normal children (Lee & Kahmi, 1990; Seidenberg & Bernstein, 1986) and may not be aware that a gurative interpretation is expected (Lutzer, 1988). Although Secord and Wiig (1993) found that children with language learning disabilities were more likely than their average learning peers to interpret idioms literally, they also found that the predominant error made was not a literal one, but a partial-incomplete (p. 7) error. These errors indicated an interpretation that was related, not literal, but also not gurative in nature. Using items from the Test of Language Competence (1989) they presented students with a situation and an idiom and requested an explanation. One situation involved students talking about the new school guidance counselor. One student says he is as transparent as we thought. (Wiig & Secord, 1989, p. 140). If a student recognized that transparent referred to a personality characteristic, by describing the counselor as weird or different, this was considered to be a partial-incomplete error. The interpretation was not literal but also did not accurately reect the meaning of transparent.

Idiom Comprehension-Learning Disabilities

205

The purpose of this study was to investigate if idiom type was a factor affecting the ability of third and fth grade children with and without learning disabilities to comprehend idioms. Idiom types included were syntactically exible and frozen, transparent and opaque. An additional purpose was to investigate the prevalence of literal responses in the population of children with learning disabilities.

METHOD Participants Twenty students with learning disabilities, 10 third and 10 fth graders and 20 students without disabilities, 10 third and 10 fth graders participated in the study. Children assigned to the learning disability group had previously been identied as learning disabled. The criterion used by the schools was a discrepancy between IQ and academic performance of at least one standard deviation. All were receiving services for children with learning disabilities. The children without learning disabilities had no history of spoken or written language impairment or academic failure, had no obvious sensory, cognitive, or emotional impairments and were considered normal achievers. The children with learning disabilities and those without learning disability were matched on the basis of performance on the Test of Nonverbal Intelligence-2 (Brown et.al., 1990). The Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (Dunn & Dunn, 1981) was also administered to estimate general literal semantic abilities (see Tables I and II). The students came from
Table I. Test of Non-verbal Intelligence-2 and Peabody Picture Vocabulary TestRevised Scores for Third Grade Children
Non-learning disabled TONI-2 #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 X 110 103 97 103 107 105 95 107 110 93 103.0 PPVT-R 112 116 101 96 112 129 92 104 101 116 107.9 #11 #12 #13 #14 #15 #16 #17 #18 #19 #20 Learning disabled TONI-2 85 95 115 111 107 95 111 106 97 103 102.5 PPVT-R 66 110 87 117 106 90 121 122 130 110 105.9

206

Abrahamsen and Burke-Williams

Table II. Test of Non-verbal Intelligence-2 and Peabody Picture Vocabulary TestRevised Scores for Fifth Grade Children
Non-learning disabled TONI-2 #21 #22 #23 #24 #25 #26 #27 #28 #29 #30 X 95 96 96 98 108 114 103 96 95 97 99.8 PPVT-R 130 105 102 115 122 108 112 100 94 113 110.1 #31 #32 #33 #34 #35 #36 #37 #38 #39 #40 Learning disabled TONI-2 95 102 97 91 89 93 99 97 88 98 94.9 PPVT-R 69 88 98 58 87 93 102 92 120 97 90.4

middle class homes, spoke Standard American English, and were from a variety of ethnic backgrounds. Materials A set of 24 stories was created. Each story ended with an idiomatic expression and was written to bias the listener to a gurative interpretation of the idiom. All stories were at the third grade level according to the Fry (1968) readability formula. Six examples of the four different types of idioms: syntactically frozen, syntactically exible, transparent and opaque occurred in random order. The idioms chosen were taken from the most frozen, most exible, most transparent and most opaque identied by Gibbs (1987) and are reported in Appendix A. Procedure The children were tested individually at their school. Instructions were given to explain that a gurative answer was possible. They were asked When Bart Simpson says Dont have a cow, man. does it mean dont give birth to a cow or does he mean dont get so upset? All children were able to respond correctly. Children were then read the stories. After each story the child was rst asked to explain what the idiom meant, then required to select the appropriate response from three forced choice answers including a gurative interpretation, a literal interpretation and an incorrect response related to the story context.

Idiom Comprehension-Learning Disabilities

207

Table III. Mean Number of Correct Responses on the Forced Choice Task
Third grade NLD Transparent Opaque Flexible Frozen 4.9 5.4 5.1 5.8 (0.9) (0.42) (1.1) (0.42) 5.1 5.5 5.2 5.5 LD (1.1) (0.85) (0.92) (0.42) NLD 5.8 5.9 5.4 5.9 (0.42) (0.32) (0.52) (0.36) Fifth grade LD 4.6 5.4 4.7 5.4 (1.6) (0.82) (1.3) (1.2)

Two independent judges, clinical supervisors of speech-language pathology, judged the explanation answers to be literal, gurative, or incorrect. On rare occasions a child gave no response. This was scored as incorrect. Agreement was originally 97%. Following discussion on definitions (e.g. roll out the red carpet had to include reference to mean a special welcome, not just meeting the new principal, really, really busy was sufcient for burning the candle at both ends), agreement reached 100%.

RESULTS The means for correct responses on the forced choice task for each idiom type for each group are reported in Table III. A 2 2 (grade by diagnostic category) between groups ANOVA revealed no significant differences for grade (F 1, 36, = .01, p > 0.05) or diagnostic category (F 1, 36 = 2.55, p = 0.12). The means for correct responses on the explanation task for each idiom type for each group are reported in Table IV. A 2 2 between groups ANOVA revealed grade was a significant factor affecting performance (F 1, 36 = 5.36, p = 0.026). Diagnostic category was also a significant factor (F 1, 36 = 9.75, p = 0.004). Analysis results are reported in Table V. Tests of within subject contrasts revealed idiom type to be a significant variable affecting comprehension (F 3, 36 = 9.627, p < 0.001) and
Table IV. Mean Number of Correct Responses on the Explanation Task
Third grade NLD Transparent Opaque Flexible Frozen 4.6 3.9 2.3 4.1 (0.96) (0.87) (1.0) (0.99) LD 3.3 3.7 2.4 3.5 (1.2) (1.0) (1.3) (1.4) NLD 3.9 4.7 4.2 5.1 (0.82) (0.95) (0.79) (0.99) Fifth grade LD 4.3 3.4 2.5 4.3 (1.4) (1.4) (1.6) (1.1)

208

Abrahamsen and Burke-Williams

Table V. Within Subjects Analysis on the Explanation Task


Source Grade Diagnostic group Grade diagnostic group SS 13.22 24 3.02 df 1 1 1 ms 13 24 3.02 F 5.4 9.75 1.228 p 0.026 0.004 ns

explanation (F 1, 36 = 16.9, p < 0.001). A series of post hoc t-tests was performed to identify differences among the four idiom groups. Results on the comprehension forced choice task are reported in Table VI and results on the explanation task are reported in Table VII. Children with learning disabilities and those without learning disabilities showed similar patterns on both tasks. On the forced choice task, opaque idioms were significantly easier to comprehend than transparent idioms for children with learning disabilities, t (19) = 2.40, p = 0.021 and without learning disabilities, t (19) = 2.94, p = 0.008. Comprehension of opaque idioms was significantly better than comprehension of exible idioms for children with disabilities, t (19) = 2.26, p = 0.036 and those without disabilities, t (19) = 3.27, p = 0.004. Comprehension of opaque idioms was not significantly different from comprehension of frozen idioms for either group. Frozen idioms were significantly easier to comprehend than exible idioms for children with learning disabilities, t (19) = 2.13, p = 0.047, and without learning disabilities, t (19) = 3.04, p = 0.007. Frozen idioms were significantly easier to comprehend than transparent idioms for both children with learning disabilities, t (19) = 2.56, p = 0.019 and children without disabilities, t (19) = 2.70, p = 0.014 but comprehension of frozen idioms was not significantly different from comprehension of opaque idioms for either group. Children in both groups found opaque idioms and frozen idioms significantly easier to comprehend than transparent idioms and exible ones.
Table VI. Summary of t Test Probability Results Comparing Idiom Types on the Forced Choice Task
Non-learning disabled df Transparent-opaque Flexible-frozen Transparent-exible Opaque-frozen Transparent-frozen Opaque-exible 19 19 19 19 19 19 t 2.94 3.04 0.435 0.00 2.70 3.27 p 0.008 0.007 ns ns 0.014 0.004 df 19 19 19 19 19 19 Learning disabled T 2.40 2.13 0.37 0.40 2.56 2.26 p 0.027 0.047 ns ns 0.019 0.036 Direction O>T Fr > Fl ns ns Fr > T O > Fl

Idiom Comprehension-Learning Disabilities

209

Table VII. Summary of t Test Probability Results Comparing Idiom Types on the Explanation Task
Non-learning disabled df Transparent-opaque Flexible-frozen Transparent-exible Opaque-frozen Transparent-frozen Opaque-exible 19 19 19 19 19 19 t 0.50 4.35 3.15 1.06 0.48 3.46 p ns <0.001 0.005 ns ns 0.003 df 19 19 19 19 19 19 Learning disabled T 0.19 4.31 3.36 1.12 1.14 2.82 p ns <0.001 0.003 ns ns 0.011 Direction Fr > Fl T > Fl

O > Fl

The forced choice task was easier than the explanation task for all children. T-tests for related measures revealed significant differences for third grade children without disabilities, t (19) = 9.42, p < 0.001, third grade children with learning disabilities t (19) = 12.56, p < 0.001, fth grade children without learning disabilities t (19) = 30.65, p < 0.001) and fth grade children with learning disabilities t (19) = 3.96, p < 0.01. No significant differences were found in the ability to explain opaque, transparent or frozen idioms for either group. Children without disabilities found exible idioms significantly more difcult to explain than frozen idioms, t (19) = 4.35, p < 0.001, transparent idioms, t (19) = 3.15, p = 0.005, and opaque idioms, t (19) = 3.46, p = 0.003. Children with learning disabilities manifested the same pattern. Flexible idioms were significantly more difcult to explain than frozen idioms, t (19) = 4.31, p < 0.001, transparent idioms, t (19) = 3.136, p = 0.003, and opaque idioms, t (19) = 2.82, p = 0.011. The number of literal errors and related errors on the forced choice task and the explanation task for all four groups are reported in Table VIII. Errors classied related accounted for the majority of error responses. On
Table VIII. Number of Literal and Related Errors on the Forced Choice Task and Explanation Task for all Four Groups
Literal errors FC 3LD 5LD Total LD 3NLD 5NLD Total NLD 18 27 45 6 6 12 EX 1 5 6 1 0 1 FC 13 15 28 18 3 21 Related errors EX 116 105 221 96 62 158

210

Abrahamsen and Burke-Williams

Fig. 1. Number of literal responses in the forced choice and explanation tasks.

the explanation task, most of these responses were related to the story. For example, one story involved a young man named Sam, driving to a store in the snow. He has an accident and whines to his friend, Linda, about the dent in his car. You need to call the repair shop and get the car xed. She said. Theres no use crying over spilled milk. The student was asked what Linda meant when she said that. A literal response was Theres no use to cry over spilled milk because a person could come and clean it up. Sometimes people spill their milk and it is very easy to clean it up. All you do is run and get a towel and clean it up. An incorrect but related response was He was crying because his car got a dent in it. In addition, literal responses were more common on the forced choice task than the explanation one. For the same story, a literal response was that Linda wanted Sam to stop whining about a drink that was dropped, a related error was she wanted him to be more careful driving and a correct response was to stop complaining about something that had already happened. Figure 1 reects this trend.

DISCUSSION One of the more surprising results was that there were no significant differences either between grades or diagnostic groups on the forced choice task. It appears that the task was not difcult enough and a ceiling effect occurred. It should be noted however, that while diagnostic category did not reach significance, children in the learning disability group had means lower than those in the group without disabilities, a trend that was expected.

Idiom Comprehension-Learning Disabilities

211

Grade was a significant factor affecting ability to correctly interpret idioms on the explanation task. These results are consistent with previous ndings that indicate growth during the school years in idiomatic knowledge (Ackerman, 1982; Cacciari & Levorato, 1989; Gibbs, 1987, 1991; Nippold, 1985; Nippold & Martin, 1989). Children with learning disabilities had significantly more difculty explaining idioms than their peers without disabilities. These results are also consistent with previous research ndings indicating that children with learning disabilities have more difculty than children without disabilities explaining gurative language in general and consistent with known expressive language difculties often present in children with learning disabilities (Abrahamsen & Sprouse, 1995; Seidenberg & Bernstein, 1986). All groups of children found the explanation task to be more difcult than the forced choice task. This supports the view that the understanding of gurative language precedes the ability to explain it (Abrahamsen & Sprouse, 1995; Gibbs, 1987; Prinz, 1983). Idiom type was a significant factor inuencing ability to comprehend idioms as measured on the forced choice task. Children in both the learning disabled and non-disabled groups demonstrated similar patterns. Opaque idioms and frozen idioms were significantly easier to comprehend than transparent idioms or exible idioms. There was no significant difference between transparent idioms and exible idioms or frozen idioms and opaque idioms. Idiom type was also a significant factor affecting the ability to explain idioms and again, the patterns were the same for both groups, and only slightly different from patterns observed on the forced choice task. On the explanation task, there was no difference between transparent, frozen or opaque idioms. All three idiom types however were significantly more easily explained by children in both groups than exible idioms. The similar patterns observed in both groups on both tasks seems to support that differences between children with learning disabilities and non-disabled children were quantitative in nature rather than qualitative. Flexible idioms were more difcult than other types of idioms on both the forced choice and the explanation tasks. This is consistent with prior research (Gibbs, 1987; Gibbs & Gonzales, 1985; Gibbs et al., 1989a,b). It appears that because the gurative meaning is retained when sentences are transformed but that in many cases literal interpretations are also possible, correct comprehension and explanation is more problematic. Results for differences between transparent idioms and opaque idioms are not consistent with previous research. Gibbs (1987) reported that opaque idioms were more difcult than transparent ones. Although this seems logical, because transparent idioms could, theoretically at least, be

212

Abrahamsen and Burke-Williams

gured out based on similarities between the gurative and literal meanings, our results do not support this. On the forced choice task, the opposite occurred. Opaque idioms were significantly easier to comprehend than transparent ones for both children with and without learning disabilities. On the explanation task, there was no significant difference between transparent and opaque idioms. In both cases frozen and opaque idioms appeared very similar. This makes sense. If an opaque idiom must be learned as a giant word or semantic category, not interpreted by knowledge of literal meanings, then frozen idioms, which retain gurative meaning only in one syntactic structure, but not when transformed, may also function in this manner. In fact, Gibbs and Gonzales (1985) suggested one reason adults demonstrated more rapid processing of frozen idioms compared to exible idioms was that they were treated as a giant word. Another issue is the blurring of the boundaries between these dichotic classications of idioms. For example, one idiom classied as frozen sitting on pins and needles is also opaque in that literal interpretation may not make comprehension easier. Another exible idiom blow off some steam appears more transparent. As one child explained, it meant get the wiggles out. Dividing idioms into such categories may blur the picture of idiomatic understanding rather than clarifying it, particularly in children. The individual childs exposure to idioms, experience, intelligence, inferential skills and overall language abilities all contribute to the development of gurative language, regardless of the type of idiom being learned. Even if we were to only look at transparent-opaque and frozen-exible categories, the better performance on opaque idioms warrants a closer look and has implications for how idioms are learned and taught. Ackerman (1982) concluded that children must realize that a literal interpretation is not consistent with the context and then reach a gurative meaning. Examination of literal vs. gurative interpretations produced by the children in this study argues against such a view. Many researchers have indicated that children with learning disabilities are more likely than non-disabled children to give literal interpretations of idioms. While the children with learning disabilities did produce more literal interpretations than their non-disabled peers, the most common error made by all children was providing a related error. This is consistent with the ndings of Secord and Wiig (1993) who reported that despite some literal interpretations, the predominant error made was not a literal one, but a partial-incomplete (p. 7) error. These errors indicated an interpretation that was related, not literal but also not gurative in nature. Levorato (1993) presents convincing evidence that . . . the development of childrens ability to produce and understand idioms depends on

Idiom Comprehension-Learning Disabilities

213

the development of the same linguistic abilities on which gurative language as well as language in general is based. (p. 101). It is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss in detail Levoratos model for the acquisition of gurative language. She addresses the importance of associated responses, those similar to the related errors in this study and the partial/incomplete errors described by Secord and Wiig (1993). This type of interim response, not literal but not gurative were chosen by children who were beginning to use a gurative strategy, but were not yet able to analyze the text and extract the semantic interpretation most appropriate to the context. (p. 115). Levorato also suggested that pragmatic abilities may affect gurative language comprehension since understanding indirect requests often requires understanding the difference between what is said and what is meant. Of even more interest to therapists and educators who work with children with learning disabilities is the fact that more literal interpretations occurred during the forced choice task than the explanation task. Recommendations for teaching children with disabilities the meaning of idioms often recommend contrasting the literal and gurative meanings. Literal responses did not occur frequently enough to recommend changing such a strategy, but it appears that by providing a possible literal interpretation, some children chose one even though they did not spontaneously provide one. The good performance by children with learning disabilities could be explained by the nature of the tasks. They were primed to expect a gurative interpretation and stories were geared towards gurative interpretations. These conditions, however, are not similar to real life classroom settings. It is suggested that further research into the comprehension of gurative language in children with learning disabilities investigate in more depth the semanticpragmatic system of these children in an effort to further understand how these factors inuence idiom acquisition.

APPENDIX Transparent Idioms Take a shot in the dark Right Under my nose Crying over spilled milk Follow in her mothers footsteps Burning the candle at both ends Hold your tongue Opaque Idioms Chip off the old block Spill the beans Shoot the breeze Flip her lid Straight from the horses mouth Gets under my skin

214

Abrahamsen and Burke-Williams

Flexible Idioms Roll out the red carpet Throw in the towel Wear out your welcome Turn over a new leaf Blow off some steam Bite off more than you can chew

Frozen Idioms Turns back the clock Jumped down my throat Wait on hand and foot Sitting on pins and needles Pull up stakes Goes against the grain

REFERENCES
Abrahamsen, E., & Sprouse, P. (1995). Fable comprehension by children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28(5), 302308. Ackerman, B. P. (1982). On comprehending idioms: Do children get the picture? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 33, 439454. Ammer, C. (1997). The American Dictionary of Idioms. New York: HoughtonMifflin Company. Baechle, C. L., & Lian, M. J. (1990). The effects of direct feedback and practice on metaphor performance in children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 451455. Blue, C. M. (1981). Types of utterances to avoid when speaking to language impaired children. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in the Schools, 12, 120124. Brown, L., Sherbenou, R. J., & Johnsen, S. K., (1990). Test of Nonverbal Intelligence: A Language free Measure of Cognitive Ability, 2nd ed. Austin, TX: ProEd. Cacciari, C., & Levorato, M. C. (1989). How children understand idioms in discourse. Journal of Child Language, 16, 387405. Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1981). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. Fry, E. (1968). A readability formula that saves time. Journal of Reading, 11, 513578. Gibbs, R. W. (1987). Linguistic factors in childrens understanding of idioms. Journal of Child Language, 14, 569586. Gibbs, R. W. (1991). Semantic analyzability in childrens understanding of idioms. American Speech Language Hearing Association, 34, 613620. Gibbs, R. W., & Gonzales, G. P. (1985). Syntactic frozenness in processing and remembering idioms. Cognition, 20, 243259. Gibbs, R. W., Nayak, N. P., Bolton, J. L., & Keppel, M. E. (1989a). Speakers assumptions about the lexical exibility of idioms. Memory and Cognition, 17(1), 5868. Gibbs, R. W., Nayak, N. P., & Cutting, C. (1989b). How to kick the bucket and not decompose: Analyzability and idiom processing. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 576 593. Lee, R. F., & Kahmi, A. G. (1990). Metaphoric competence in children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 476452. Levorato, M. (1993). The acquisition of idioms and the development of gurative competence. In C. Cacciari & P. Tabossi (Eds.), Idioms: Processing, Structure, and Interpretation pp. 101128. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Lutzer, V. D. (1988). Comprehension of proverbs by average children and children with learning disorders. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 104108. Nippold, M. A. (1985). Comprehension of gurative language in youth. Topics in Language Disorders, 5, 120.

Idiom Comprehension-Learning Disabilities

215

Nippold, M. A. (1991). Evaluating and enhancing idiom comprehension in languagedisordered students. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in the Schools, 22, 100106. Nippold, M. A., & Martin, S. T. (1989). Idiom interpretation in isolation versus context: A developmental study with adolescents. Journal of Speech and Language Research, 32, 5966. Prinz, P. M. (1983). The development of idiomatic meaning in children. Language and Speech, 26, 2263272. Seidenberg, P. L., & Bernstein, D. K. (1986). The comprehension of similes and metaphors by learning disabled and nonlearning disabled children. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in the Schools, 17, 219229. Secord, W., & Wiig, E. (1993) Interpreting gurative language expressions. Folia Folia Phoniatrics, 45, 19. Wiig, E., & Secord, W. (1989). Test of Language Competence: Administration Manual. San Antonio, Texas: Psychological Corporation.

You might also like