Poster de conférence
| Résumé : | Verbal behaviors of French-speaking autistic and non-autistic adults: from monologue to cross-neurotype social interactionsDifficulties in social interactions and communication are one of the core symptoms of autism (American Psychiatric Association, 2013) and can have a significant negative impact on autistic individuals’ everyday lives (Cummins et al., 2020). Traditionally, these challenges have been attributed to autistic individuals’ atypical social cognition, such as difficulties with perspective-taking and interaction management (Davis & Crompton, 2021). Supporting this view, linguistic analyses have consistently shown that, in comparison to their non-autistic peers, autistic individuals struggle to produce coherent discourse (Baixauli et al., 2016; Harvey et al., 2023). Most of this linguistic evidence comes from “monologic” tasks, such as narrative productions or interactions between an experimenter and a participant, rather than peer-to-peer interactions. Recent research, however, suggests that social atypicalities previously considered specific to autism are at least partially bidirectional: both autistic and non-autistic individuals may mutually misunderstand each other due to differing cognitive profiles, norms, and expectations (Davis & Crompton, 2021; Milton, 2012). This creates a 'double problem,' affecting both parties in the interaction (Milton, 2012). Consequently, it is assumed that same-neurotype interactions (autistic/autistic and non-autistic/non-autistic) experience better interaction outcomes than mixed-neurotype interactions (autistic/non-autistic). This shift—from a one-sided to a bidirectional understanding of communication—calls for a more comprehensive and systematic exploration of linguistic patterns across different interaction contexts. In this talk, I present findings from four studies examining linguistic differences between autistic and non-autistic adults, progressing from monologic to interactive discourse. My goal is to identify linguistic characteristics of autistic speech and examine their impact on interactional dynamics, particularly in mixed-neurotype interactions.In the first study (Geelhand et al., 2020), using a narrative task, I conducted fine-grained analyses of syntactic complexity, story structure, cohesive links, and internal state language in the narratives of autistic and non-autistic adults. Autistic adults differed from their non-autistic peers in all narrative aspects, with distinctive features including atypical use of connectives (e.g., because) and discourse markers (e.g., well, there you go), as well as extraneous story comments. These findings suggest that autistic adults produce less coherent narratives—echoing results previously reported in autistic children—and indicate that these challenges persist into adulthood.While transcript analyses provide valuable linguistic insights, they often lack prosodic information—an important limitation given that atypical prosody is common in autism (Asghari et al., 2021; Fusaroli et al., 2017). Building on my narrative findings, I conducted a second study in which I modelled a segmentation procedure combining syntactic and prosodic cues to create discourse units associated with distinct information management strategies (Geelhand, Papastamou, & Kissine, 2021). My results showed that these discourse units distinguish between autistic and non-autistic speech, with autistic adults using fewer units for interaction flow management.Building on these production-level differences, which can be subtle, the third study examined how such discourse features are perceived by others and their impact on interaction outcomes (Geelhand, Papastamou, Deliens, et al., 2021). Results showed that both autistic and non-autistic raters consistently rated the discourse characteristics (e.g., fluidity, relevance, coherence) of autistic adults less favorably than non-autistic adults. Furthermore, while less positive impressions of spoken discourse led non-autistic raters to adopt less favorable attitudes towards autistic speakers (e.g., lower likelihood to become friends), this was not the case for autistic raters. These results suggest that non-autistic’s unfavorable impressions may diminishsocial opportunities for autistic individuals, exacerbating their social communication difficulties.Together, these first three studies consistently show that autistic adults experienced difficulties producing coherent discourse, which transpired in both content and delivery strategies. Crucially, differences in discourse are perceived by both autistic and non-autistic individuals. However, the data from these studies was collected from semi-structured interviews between a participant (non-autistic or autistic) and a non-autistic experimenter. Recent research has shown that the diagnosis status of the interaction partner significantly impacts interaction outcomes for autistic individuals (Davis & Crompton, 2021; Milton, 2012). More specifically, same-neurotype interactions (autistic/autistic and non-autistic/non-autistic) experience better outcomes than mixed-neurotype interactions (autistic/non-autistic (Crompton, Ropar, et al., 2020; Crompton, Sharp, et al., 2020).To address this gap and better approximate everyday contexts, I conducted a fourth study using an online referential communication task (Geelhand et al., 2025) involving both same- and mixed-neurotype dyads. In this referential communication task, participants took turns as either 'Directors' (describing abstract images) or 'Matchers' (identifying images based on descriptions). A key finding of this study is that neurotype mismatch influenced Director verbosity differently: autistic Directors produced significantly more words when paired with non-autistic partners, particularly during small talk. Conversely, non-autistic Directors maintained consistent verbosity regardless of their partner's neurotype. In other words, being paired with a partner of a different neurotype increased verbosity only for autistic individuals.Collectively, and in relation to existing literature, these four studies reveal a consistent pattern: autistic individuals tend to use fewer explicit linguistic cues to manage discourse, and this communication style seems to present challenges mainly for non-autistic partners. Recognizing and respecting these differences is crucial to foster better mutual understanding and more successful interactions between autistic and non-autistic individuals.ReferencesAmerican Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.).Asghari, S. Z., Farashi, S., Bashirian, S., & Jenabi, E. (2021). Distinctive prosodic features of people with autism spectrum disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis study. Scientific Reports 2021 11:1, 11(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-02487-6Baixauli, I., Colomer, C., Roselló, B., & Miranda, A. (2016). Narratives of children with high-functioning autism spectrum disorder: A meta-analysis. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 59, 234–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RIDD.2016.09.007Crompton, C. J., Ropar, D., Evans-Williams, C. V. M., Flynn, E. G., & Fletcher-Watson, S. (2020). Autistic peer-to-peer information transfer is highly effective. Autism, 24(7), 1704–1712. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362361320919286/ASSET/IMAGES/LARGE/10.1177_1362361320919286-FIG4.JPEGCrompton, C. J., Sharp, M., Axbey, H., Fletcher-Watson, S., Flynn, E. G., & Ropar, D. (2020). Neurotype-Matching, but Not Being Autistic, Influences Self and Observer Ratings of Interpersonal Rapport. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 586171. https://doi.org/10.3389/FPSYG.2020.586171/BIBTEXCummins, C., Pellicano, E., & Crane, L. (2020). Autistic adults’ views of their communication skills and needs. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 55(5), 678–689. https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.12552Davis, R., & Crompton, C. J. (2021). What Do New Findings About Social Interaction in Autistic Adults Mean for Neurodevelopmental Research? Https://Doi.Org/10.1177/1745691620958010, 16(3), 649–653. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620958010Fusaroli, R., Lambrechts, A., Bang, D., Bowler, D. M., & Gaigg, S. B. (2017). “Is voice a marker for Autism spectrum disorder? A systematic review and meta-analysis.” Autism Research, 10(3), 384–407. https://doi.org/10.1002/AUR.1678Geelhand, P., Papastamou, F., Deliens, G., & Kissine, M. (2020). Narrative production in autistic adults: A systematic analysis of the microstructure, macrostructure and internal state language. Journal of Pragmatics, 164, 57-81.Geelhand, P., Papastamou, F., Deliens, G., & Kissine, M. (2021). Judgments of spoken discourse and impression formation of neurotypical and autistic adults. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 82, 101742. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RASD.2021.101742Geelhand, P., Papastamou, F., & Kissine, M. (2021). How do autistic adults use syntactic and prosodic cues to manage spoken discourse? Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 35(12), 1184–1209. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699206.2021.1878278Geelhand, P., Papastamou, F., Jaspard, S., & Kissine, M. (2025). Autistic adults display different verbal behavior only in mixed-neurotype interactions: Evidence from a referential communication task. Autism, 29(5), 1129-1142.Harvey, A., Spicer-Cain, H., Botting, N., Ryan, G., & Henry, L. (2023). Assessing ‘coherence’ in the spoken narrative accounts of autistic people: A systematic scoping review. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 102, 102108. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RASD.2023.102108Milton, D. E. M. (2012). On the ontological status of autism: the ‘double empathy problem.’ Disability & Society, 27(6), 883–887. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2012.710008 |
