Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics

ISSN: 0269-9206 (Print) 1464-5076 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/iclp20

Comprehension of presupposition triggers in

cantonese-speaking children with and without
autism spectrum disorders

Candice Chi-Hang Cheung, Yicheng Rong, Fei Chen, Man Tak Leung & Tempo
Po Yi Tang

To cite this article: Candice Chi-Hang Cheung, Yicheng Rong, Fei Chen, Man Tak Leung &
Tempo Po Yi Tang (2019): Comprehension of presupposition triggers in cantonese-speaking
children with and without autism spectrum disorders, Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, DOI:
10.1080/02699206.2019.1673486

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02699206.2019.1673486

Published online: 07 Oct 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=iclp20
CLINICAL LINGUISTICS & PHONETICS
https://doi.org/10.1080/02699206.2019.1673486

Comprehension of presupposition triggers in

cantonese-speaking children with and without autism
spectrum disorders
a
Candice Chi-Hang Cheung , Yicheng Ronga, Fei Chena, Man Tak Leungb,
and Tempo Po Yi Tangb
a
Research Centre for Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience, Department of Chinese and Bilingual Studies,
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong SAR, China; bSpeech Therapy Unit, Department of Chinese
and Bilingual Studies, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong SAR, China

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Built on a previous finding that children with autism spectrum dis- Received 24 January 2019
orders (ASD) had difficulty comprehending presuppositions, Revised xx xxx xxxx
a domain of knowledge which is crucial for successful communica- Accepted 23 September 2019
tion, the present study investigated the comprehension of seven KEYWORDS
types of presupposition trigger – namely definite descriptions, factive Autism spectrum disorders;
predicates, change-of-state verbs, implicative verbs, iteratives, tem- Cantonese-speaking
poral clauses, and counterfactual conditionals – in Cantonese- children; pragmatic
speaking children with and without ASD. Twenty-seven children language impairment;
with ASD (mean age 9.07) were compared with 23 typically develop- presupposition triggers;
ing (TD) children matched on chronological age and 21 TD children temporal clauses
matched on language ability (LA). Knowledge of presupposition trig-
gers was evaluated on the basis of children’s ability to judge whether
a given utterance was a correct presupposition of a preceding utter-
ance. Children with ASD were found to perform significantly worse
than TD children matched on chronological age in comprehending
the seven types of presupposition trigger, but they performed simi-
larly to TD children matched on language ability. After the effects of
chronological age, language ability, and non-verbal intelligence were
controlled for, children with ASD were still found to show a deficit in
comprehending the presupposition triggered by a temporal clause,
relative to the two groups of TD children. Future studies should
investigate the factors contributing to this specific deficit in children
with ASD, such as executive functioning and theory of mind.

Introduction
Individuals with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) are known to have deficits in pragmatic
aspects of language or in the ability to use language to communicate effectively in a range of
social contexts (Baron-Cohen, 1988; Boucher, 2003; Eales, 1993; Lord & Paul, 1997; Martin &
McDonald, 2003; Ozonoff & Miller, 1996; Tager-Flusberg, 1981, 1996; Wilkinson, 1998). This
is evident from the huge body of literature showing that children with ASD have difficulties
with topic management (e.g. Dobbinson, Perkins, & Boucher, 1998; Hale & Tager-Flusberg,
2005; Rutter & Schopler, 1987), turn taking (e.g. Dobbinson et al., 1998; García-Pérez, Lee, &
Hobson, 2006), and conversational repair (e.g. Volden, 2004) in conversational contexts.

CONTACT Candice Chi-Hang Cheung candice.ch.cheung@polyu.edu.hk Department of Chinese and Bilingual

Studies, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR, China
© 2019 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
2 C. C.-H. CHEUNG ET AL.

In the theoretical linguistics literature, it is well known that presuppositions can be

triggered by a wide range of lexical items and constructions known as presupposition
triggers (Levinson, 1983). Presuppositions are backgrounded information that interlocu-
tors mutually assume to be taken for granted; they typically do not convey any new
information (Karttunen, 1974; Stalnaker, 1973, 1974, 1998, 2002). To see why under-
standing presuppositions is crucial for successful conversational exchanges, consider
example (1). The definite description the prime minister of Japan in (1) triggers an
existential presupposition (i.e. the existence of a prime minister of Japan) (Strawson,
1950, 1952), which is assumed to be mutually known to the interlocutors as backgrounded
information. If children with ASD are unable to recognize that the existence of a prime
minister of Japan is meant to be understood as backgrounded information or if they deny
the existence of a prime minister of Japan, the utterance in (1) will become infelicitous for
them and communication will break down.

(1) The Prime Minister of Japan is planning to visit London next month.

While a recent study has shown that Cantonese-speaking children with ASD have a deficit in
comprehending presuppositions relative to typically developing (TD) children (Cheung et al.,
2017), it is worth mentioning that pragmatic phenomena that are closely connected to
presuppositions, such as scalar implicatures (Chevallier, Wilson, Happé, & Noveck, 2010;
Pijnacker, Hagoort, Buitelaar, Teunisse, & Geurts, 2009) and obligatory control (Janke &
Perovic, 2015, 2017), did not reveal a significant difference between children with ASD and
TD controls. While Cheung et al. (2017) is the first comprehensive study of autistic children’s
comprehension of four types of presupposition – namely, existential presuppositions, lexical
presuppositions, factive presuppositions, and structural presuppositions, one limitation of
their study is that it lumped together different types of presupposition trigger (e.g. change-of-
state verbs and iteratives were treated as a type of presupposition called lexical presupposi-
tions), making it impossible to investigate whether children with ASD show deficits in
comprehending a specific type of presupposition trigger, relative to TD controls.1
Moreover, it is unclear how children with ASD differ from TD children matched on
chronological age (CA) and TD children matched on language ability (LA) in terms of
their understanding of presupposition triggers. Furthermore, while there is an increasing
number of experimental studies on the properties of different presupposition triggers in
neurotypical adults (Amaral & Cummins, 2015; Jayez, Mongelli, Reboul, & van der Henst,
2015; Romoli, Khan, Sudo, & Snedeker, 2015; Schwarz, 2015; Tiemann, Kirsten, Beck,
Hertrich, & Rolke, 2015), studies investigating the acquisition of presuppositions in TD
children are limited and they mainly focus on a few presupposition triggers (Berger & Höhle,
2012; Dudley, Orita, Hacquard, & Lidz, 2015). In light of these research gaps, the present
study aimed to address two questions: (1) Do Cantonese-speaking children with ASD differ
from CA-matched and LA-matched TD children in terms of comprehension of seven types
of presupposition trigger – namely definite descriptions, factive predicates, change-of-state
1
The need to investigate whether children with ASD differ from TD controls with respect to each type of
presupposition trigger is in line with the growing number of experimental studies that have
compared presupposition triggers with one another in neurotypical adults in order to gain a better
understanding of the differences between triggers (Schwarz, 2015).
 CLINICAL LINGUISTICS & PHONETICS 3

verbs, implicative verbs, iteratives, temporal clauses, and counterfactual conditionals? (2) Do
Cantonese-speaking children with ASD show a deficit in comprehending any specific types of
presupposition trigger relative to CA-matched and LA-matched TD children after control-
ling for the effects of chronological age, language ability, and non-verbal intelligence?

Presupposition triggers
In this section, we introduce the seven types of presupposition trigger investigated in our
study. We have already exemplified one type of definite description, using the Prime
Minister of Japan as an example (Strawson, 1950, 1952). Another type of definite descrip-
tion is possessives, such as Rachel’s son. These have the same property of presupposing the
existence of their referents, as shown in (2) (presupposition is marked by “≫”
throughout).

(2) Rachel’s son was sick yesterday.

≫ Rachel’s son exists.

Factive predicates (e.g. know, regret, discover, find, odd, happy) presuppose the veracity of
the following complement clause (Karttunen, 2016; P. Kiparsky & Kiparsky, 1970; Scoville &
Gordon, 1980), as shown in (3). In other words, these predicates trigger the presupposition
that the content of the complement clause (i.e. John is a teacher in (3)) is true.

(3) Mary knows that John is a teacher.

≫ John is a teacher.

Change-of-state verbs (e.g. stop, begin, continue) are verbs that signal the beginning,
continuation, or end of an event or action (Abusch, 2002; Lorenz, 1992; Simons, 2001).
The presuppositions they trigger are based on their lexical meaning. For instance, in (4),
the change-of-state verb stop presupposes that the event depicted (i.e. that Dave argued
with Sally) had been taking place.

(4) Dave stopped arguing with Sally.

≫ Dave had been arguing with Sally.

Implicative verbs (e.g. manage, forget) presuppose the sufficient and necessary condi-
tions for utterances containing them to hold true (Karttunen, 1971, 2016; Levinson, 1983).
For instance, the implicative verb manage presupposes try as its sufficient and necessary
condition because one cannot manage to do something without trying.

(5) They managed to escape.

≫ They tried to escape.

Iteratives (e.g. again, anymore) are adverbs that mark the repetitiveness of an event
(Karttunen, 2016; Levinson, 1983). For instance, in (6), the iterative again presupposes
that the event (i.e. that the student was late) has happened before.
4 C. C.-H. CHEUNG ET AL.

(6) The student was late again.

≫ The student was late before.

Temporal clauses are headed by after, before, since, and so on in English (Beaver &
Condoravdi, 2003; Heinämäki, 1974). As shown in (7), they presuppose the veracity of the
clause (i.e. Joe came) introduced by the temporal conjunction (i.e. after).

(7) After Joe came, Jane left.

≫ Joe came.

In the counterfactual conditionals, the if-clause is contrary to fact (Levinson, 1983).

They therefore presuppose that the content of the if-clause is false.

(8) If May had won the lottery, she would be in Paris now.
≫ May did not win the lottery.

As these descriptions indicate, each type of presupposition trigger involves a specific set
of lexical items or constructions. Since understanding the presuppositions clearly relies on
the hearer’s knowledge of the meaning of the presupposition triggers involved, and since
some types of presupposition trigger might be acquired earlier than others, we hypothesize
that children with ASD might show impairment in one or more specific types of
presupposition trigger rather than being impaired in all types of presupposition trigger
compared to their TD peers.

Materials and methods

Participants
Twenty-seven Cantonese-speaking children with ASD (M = 9.07 years, SD = 1.13; 3
female), 23 CA-matched TD Cantonese-speaking children (M = 9.13 years, SD = 0.95;
11 female), and 21 LA-matched TD Cantonese-speaking children (M = 8.49 years, SD =
0.77; 13 female) participated in the present study.
All TD children were recruited from mainstream primary schools in Hong Kong.
According to their teachers’ and parents’ reports, they had no known or suspected specific
language impairment or psychological problem. All children with ASD were recruited
through a non-profit charitable organisation called LoveXpress Foundation Limited and
the Speech Therapy Unit at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University. They were diagnosed
with ASD by a pediatrician or a clinical psycholinguist in a government setting, either in
public hospitals or in child assessment centers, according to the criteria in the Diagnostic
and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed., text rev.; DSM-IV-TR; American
Psychiatric Association, 2000). To ensure that they could understand the tasks, only
children with ASD who were studying in mainstream primary schools during the time
of testing were included in the present study. The children with ASD had the ability to
speak, read, and write, and they were able to complete all the tasks in this study. All
participants were native speakers of Cantonese.
 CLINICAL LINGUISTICS & PHONETICS 5

The participants’ language ability was assessed using the textual comprehension test
(TCT), a subtest of the Hong Kong Cantonese Oral Language Assessment Scale
(HKCOLAS; T’sou et al., 2006). Their non-verbal intelligence was assessed using
Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices Test (Raven, 1981, 1989). Mann–Whitney U-tests
revealed no significant difference between the ASD and CA-matched TD groups in terms
of chronological age (U = 286.00, p = 0.633). However, compared to CA-matched TD
children, children with ASD scored significantly lower on the TCT (U = 155.00, p =
0.002). The ASD group did not differ significantly from the LA-matched TD group on the
raw mean score of TCT (U = 251.50, p = 0.503), but children with ASD were significantly
older than LA-matched TD children (U = 187.00, p = 0.045).
Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of the three groups of participants, namely
chronological age, age range, mean score for the textual comprehension test, and mean
score for non-verbal intelligence.
This study was approved by the Human Subjects Ethics Subcommittee at the Hong
Kong Polytechnic University. For all participants, a parent read and signed an informed
consent form prior to the start of the study. All participants were informed that they were
free to withdraw at any time for any reason. No financial compensation was offered.

Stimuli in the presupposition trigger test

A presupposition trigger test was devised to assess the participants’ comprehension of the seven
types of presupposition trigger. A total of 56 test trials were constructed (8 per type of
presupposition trigger).2 They were constructed by a panel consisting of a Chinese linguist,
a speech therapist and a clinical associate who had rich experience treating Cantonese-speaking
children with ASD, and three students who enrolled in the Master of Speech Therapy
Programme at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University in the initial stage of the study. Since
the youngest participants were around 7 years old, the panel members ensured that all lexical
items and constructions used in the test trials were familiar to 7-year-old children.
As Cheung et al.’s (2017) presupposition test has proven useful in assessing Cantonese-
speaking ASD and TD children’s understanding of presuppositions, the presupposition
trigger test used in the present study was modelled after theirs. Specifically, each test trial
contained two utterances. The first one (spoken by a male) containing a presupposition
trigger (see (9a) and (10a); the presupposition trigger is underlined for clarity).
The second utterance (spoken by a female) began with gam2jeong6 gong2 zik1hai6 waa6
‘That is to say’, followed by either a correct (9b) or an incorrect (10b) presupposition. (9)

Table 1. Descriptive characteristics of the three groups of participants.

ASD CA-matched TD LA-matched TD
Number of participants 27 23 21
Age (SD) in months 108.82 (13.58) 109.61 (11.35) 101.86 (9.23)
Age range in months 91–143 93–124 92–122
TCT (SD) 53.23 (19.65) 68.19 (12.60) 55.26 (12.03)
NVIQ (SD) 108.33 (16.80) 103.70 (14.30) 108.52 (18.54)
ASD = autism spectrum disorders; TD = typically developing; CA = chronological age; LA = language
ability; TCT = Textual Comprehension Test; NVIQ = non-verbal intelligence.

2
The sentences used in the 56 test trials will be made available to any researchers upon request.
6 C. C.-H. CHEUNG ET AL.

and (10) are test trials that include a definite description (specifically, the possessives
Siu2fan1 go3 syu1baau1 ‘Siufan’s schoolbag’ and Daai6man4 go3 saimui6 ‘Daaiman’s
younger sister’) in the first utterance.3

(9) a. Siu2fan1 go3 syu1baau1 hou2 cung5.

Siufan Cl schoolbag very heavy
‘Siufan’s schoolbag is very heavy.’
b. Gam2jeong6 gong2 zik1hai6 waa6, Siu2fan1 jau6 go3 syu1baau1.
this.way say exactly say Siufan have Cl schoolbag
‘That is to say, Siufan has a schoolbag.’
(10) a. Daai6man4 go3 sai3mui6 beng6-zo2.
Daaiman Cl younger.sister sick-Perf
‘Daaiman’s younger sister was sick.’
b. Gam2jeong6 gong2 zik1hai6 waa6, Daai6man4 mou5 sai3mui6.
this.way say exactly say Daaiman not.have younger.sister
‘That is to say, Daaiman has no younger sister.’

Following Cheung et al. (2017), we prepared an answer sheet and asked the participants
to indicate whether the last utterance they heard was correct or not by circling either tick
(correct) or cross (incorrect) on the answer sheet for that particular stimulus. For instance,
in the example above, if the participants heard the sequence of utterances (9a, b), then
they had to circle the tick mark for their answer to be considered correct. If they heard the
sequence (10a, b), then they had to circle the cross to be considered correct.
To ensure that the test was effective for assessing children’s understanding of the seven
types of presupposition trigger, for each type of presupposition trigger, half of the test
trials contained the correct presupposition (9a, b) and half of the test trials contained the
incorrect presupposition (10a, b). For instance, for definite descriptions, four of the test
trials contained the correct presupposition and four contained the incorrect presupposi-
tion. Although Cantonese is a classifier language and does not have definite articles
(Cheng & Sybesma, 1999), in addition to possessives such as Siu2fan1 go3 syu1baau1
‘Siufan’s schoolbag’, definite expressions introduced by demonstratives such as go2 go3
gung1jyun4 ‘that garden’ are triggers of existential presuppositions. To minimize the effect
of the choice of definite description on children’s performance, we constructed four test
trials with possessives and four with definite expressions introduced by demonstratives.
Turning to factive predicates, we followed Cheung et al. (2017) in including both
factive (e.g. zi1dou6 ‘know’, hau6fui3 ‘regret’) and strong non-factive (e.g. ji5wai4 ‘falsely
think’, waan6soeng2 ‘imagine’) mental terms in the eight test trials – specifically, four of
each. Unlike factive mental terms, which presuppose the veracity of the complement
clause (see (11)), strong non-factive mental terms presuppose the falsity of the comple-
ment clause (see (12)).

3
All the examples contain the Cantonese romanizations in the first line, followed by word by word by
glosses in the second line, and English translations in the third line. The Cantonese romanizations
used in this paper follow the Linguistic Society of Hong Kong Cantonese Romanization Scheme.
 CLINICAL LINGUISTICS & PHONETICS 7

(11) Po4po2 zi1dou6 miu4miu2 cam4jat6 mou5 faan1hok6.

grandma know younger.sister yesterday not.have go.to.school
‘Grandma knows that the younger sister did not go to school yesterday.’
≫ Miu4miu2 cam4jat6 mou5 faan1hok6.
younger.sister yesterday not.have go.to.school
‘The younger sister did not go to school yesterday.’
(12) Baa4baa1 ji5wai4 gam1jat6 hai6 sing1kei4jat6.
dad falsely.think today be Sunday
‘Dad falsely thought that today was Sunday.’
≫ Gam1jat6 m4 hai6 sing1kei4jat6.
Today not be Sunday
‘Today was not Sunday.’

As for change-of-state items, in addition to verbs that are also available in English such
as hoi1ci2 ‘start’, gaai3 ‘quit’, and ting4 ‘stop’, we included the Cantonese verbal particle
faan1, which indicates resumption of an activity or return to a state which has been
interrupted, as shown in (13) (Matthews & Yip, 2011).

(13) Po4po2 gin3 faan1 di1 lou5pang4jau5.

grandma see Prt Cl old.friend
‘Grandma resumed seeing her old friends.’
≫ Po4po2 jau5 jat1 dyun6 si4gaan1 mou5 gin3 di1 lou5pang4jau5.
grandma have one period time not.have see Cl old.friend
‘Grandma hadn’t seen her old friends for some period of time.’

For implicative verbs, we included ones whose counterparts are available in English
such as sing4gung1 ‘succeed’ and m4gei3dak1 ‘forget’, as shown in (14).

(14) Je4je2 m4gei3dak1 so2 mun4.

grandpa forget lock door
‘Grandpa forgot to lock the door.’
≫ Je4je2 jing1goi1 jiu3 so2 mun4.
grandpa should need lock door
‘Grandpa ought to have locked the door.’

For iteratives, we included ones that are also available in English such as jau6si3 ‘again’
and mou5zoi3 ‘not anymore’, as in (15).

(15) Sai3lou2 jau6si3 cong2wo6.

younger.brother again cause.misfortune
‘The younger brother has caused misfortune again.’
≫ Sai3lou2 zi1cin4 cong2-gwo3 wo6.
younger.brother before cause-Exp misfortune
‘The younger brother has caused misfortune before.’
8 C. C.-H. CHEUNG ET AL.

For temporal clauses, we included ones with temporal conjunctions such as zi1cin4
‘before’, zi1hau6 ‘after’, mou5noi6 ‘not long after’, and go2zan6 ‘at that time’ (Matthews &
Yip, 2011), as in (16).

(16) Ze4ze1 daai6hok6 bat1jap6 mou5noi6, zau6 wan2dou3 gung1 zou6.

elder.sister college graduate not.long.after then find job do
‘Not long after the elder sister graduated from college, she found a job.’
≫ Ze4ze1 ji5ging1 daai6hok6 bat1jap6.
elder.sister already college graduate
‘The elder sister had graduated from college.’

Finally, Cantonese counterfactual conditionals behave like English ones in that they
could use the conjunction jyu4gwo2 ‘if’ to mark the if-clause (Matthews & Yip, 2011) and
in that the jyu4gwo2 ‘if’-clause is contrary to fact.

(17) Jyu4gwo2 baa4baa1 mou5 teoi3jau1, keoi5 zung6 gaau3-gan2 syu1.

If dad not.have retire he still teach-Prog book
‘If Dad hadn’t retired, he would still be teaching.’
≫ Baa4baa1 teoi3-zo2-jau1.
dad retire-Perf
‘Dad has retired.’

Table 2 summarises the number of test trials as well as the number of correct and
incorrect presuppositions for each type of presupposition trigger. All the test trials were
recorded as audio files.

Tasks and procedures

The present study involved three tasks: the Textual Comprehension Test of HKCOLAS,
Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices Test, and the presupposition trigger test. Each task
was administered in Cantonese, and the order of task administration was randomized.
Testing was conducted in quiet rooms at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University for the
ASD group, and in the respective primary schools for the two TD groups.

The Textual Comprehension Test

The Textual Comprehension Test, a subtest of HKCOLAS (T’sou et al., 2006) was used
to assess the participants’ language ability. This is a standardised language test used by

Table 2. Description of the test trials for the seven types of presupposition trigger.
Types of presupposition trigger Correct presuppositions Incorrect presuppositions Total number of test trials
Definite descriptions 4 4 8
Factive predicates 4 4 8
Change-of-state verbs 4 4 8
Implicative verbs 4 4 8
Iteratives 4 4 8
Temporal clauses 4 4 8
Counterfactual conditionals 4 4 8
 CLINICAL LINGUISTICS & PHONETICS 9

speech therapists in Hong Kong to assess children’s textual comprehension skills. Since
children must understand a wide range of vocabulary, phrases, and grammatical struc-
tures in order to understand the texts and answer the questions correctly, we considered
it a valid test for assessing the participants’ language ability.

Raven’s standard progressive matrices test

Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices Test (Raven, 1981, 1989) was adopted to assess the
participants’ non-verbal intelligence. This is a standardized test used by speech therapists
in Hong Kong to assess children’s nonverbal intelligence. In this test, participants were
asked to choose from several pieces the one that best fit into a given pattern. The test
comprises five sets (A to E) of 12 items each, for a total of 60 items; items within a set
become increasingly difficult.

The presupposition trigger test

The presupposition trigger test was devised to assess participants’ comprehension of
the seven types of presupposition trigger. The test contained a total of 56 test trials
(8 per type of presupposition trigger), along with 12 practice trials. The purpose of the
12 practice trials was to familiarise the participants with the notion of ‘presupposition’.
The format of the practice trials and the test trials was identical except that feedback
was provided after each practice trial but not after test trials. All trials were presented
as audio files.
As noted earlier, each trial contained two utterances. To signal the start of a trial, a beep
preceded the first utterance. The first utterance (spoken by a male) contained
a presupposition trigger (see (18a) and (19a); the presupposition trigger is underlined
for clarity). The second utterance (spoken by a female) was a Cantonese sentence meaning
‘That is to say’, followed by either a correct (18b) or an incorrect (19b) presupposition.
Then, another beep signalled the end of the trial. (18) and (19) are test trials for temporal
clauses.4

(18) a. Siu2ming4 sik6-zo2 daan6gou1 zi1hau6 go3 tou5 hou2 tung3.

Siuming eat-Perf cake after Cl tummy very painful
‘Siuming’s tummy hurt after he ate the cake.’
b. Gam2jeong6 gong2 zik1hai6 waa6, Siu2ming4 sik6-zo2 daan6gou1.
this.way say exactly say Siuming eat-Perf cake
‘That is to say, Siuming ate the cake.’

4
As shown in (18) and (19), the participants were presented with a correct presupposition (18b) or an
incorrect presupposition (19b) in the second utterance. This design might overestimate the presup-
position understanding of the participants, as the second utterance could potentially highlight the
presuppositional meaning of the first utterance and make it more salient to the participants. However,
since one goal of the present study was to compare children with ASD with CA-matched TD and LA-
matched TD children regarding comprehension of the seven types of presupposition trigger, if the
design could indeed enhance the participants’ presupposition comprehension, we expect that it
would not affect our comparison among the three groups of children, as the enhanced presupposi-
tion comprehension should apply across the board.
10 C. C.-H. CHEUNG ET AL.

(19) a. Biu2go1 heoi3-zo2 Ou1zau3 zi1hau6 sik1-zo2 hou2do1 san1 pang4jau5.

older.male.cousin go-Perf Australia after know-Perf many new friend
‘The older male cousin had made a lot of new friends after he went to Australia.’
b. Gam2jeong6 gong2 zik1hai6 waa6, biu2go1 mou5 heoi3 Ou1zau3.
this.way say exactly say older.male.cousin not.have go Australia
‘That is to say, the older male cousin did not go to Australia.’

After listening to each test trial, the participants had to indicate whether the last
utterance they heard was correct or not by circling either tick (correct) or cross (incorrect)
on the answer sheet for that particular trial. In the example above, if participants heard the
sequence of utterances (18a, b), then they had to circle the tick mark for their answer to be
considered correct. If they heard the sequence (19a, b), then they had to circle the cross to
be considered correct.
All 56 test trials were pseudorandomized to avoid test trials with the same type of
presupposition trigger appearing in blocks. The order of presentation of the practice trials
and test trials was the same for all participants. To avoid causing fatigue to the partici-
pants, the test was divided into four sessions, each session consisting of three practice
trials and 14 test trials. Short breaks were given between sessions.

Results
Among the 56 test trials, 28 should be answered “yes” and 28 should be answered “no.” To
minimize the 50% chance correctness bias, signal detection criterion c was used as
a measure of response bias (Banks, 1970; Macmillan & Creelman, 1990; Snodgrass &
Corwin, 1988). No participant in the current study showed “yes” or “no” bias (c < – 1 for
“yes” bias; c < – 1 for “no” bias; Stanislaw & Todorov, 1999). Mann–Whitney U-tests
revealed that the scores for comprehending the seven types of presupposition trigger were
all significantly above chance in the ASD group and the two TD groups.5
Figure 1 shows the mean accuracy with which Cantonese-speaking children with ASD, CA-
matched TD children, and LA-matched TD children comprehended each type of presupposi-
tion trigger. A two-way repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), with Greenhouse-
Geisser corrections when appropriate, was conducted on the mean accuracy with trigger type
(seven types of presupposition trigger) as a within-subject factor, and group (three groups:
ASD, CA-matched TD, and LA-matched TD groups) as a between-subjects factor. The
analysis revealed significant main effects for both group (F(2, 68) = 5.52, p = 0.006) and
trigger type (F(6, 408) = 8.88, p < 0.001), while the interaction between group and trigger type
5
ASD group: definite descriptions: U = 27.00, p < 0.001; factive predicates: U = 40.50, p < 0.001; change-
of-state verbs: U = 13.50, p < 0.001; implicative verbs: U = 27.00, p < 0.001; iteratives: U = 40.50, p <
0.001; temporal clauses: U = 54.50, p < 0.001; and counterfactual conditionals: U = 40.50, p < 0.001.
CA-matched TD group: definite descriptions: U < 0.01, p < 0.001; factive predicates: U = < 0.001, p <
0.001; change-of-state verbs: U < 0.01, p < 0.001; implicative verbs: U < 0.001, p < 0.001; iteratives: U
< 0.01, p < 0.001; temporal clauses: U = 11.50, p < 0.001; and counterfactual conditionals: U < 0.01, p
< 0.001. LA-matched TD group: definite descriptions: U < 0.01, p < 0.001; factive predicates: U =
10.50, p < 0.001; change-of-state verbs: U < 0.01, p < 0.001; implicative verbs: U = 10.50, p < 0.001;
iteratives: U < 0.01, p < 0.001; temporal clauses: U = 31.50, p < 0.001; and counterfactual conditionals:
U < 0.01, p < 0.001.
 CLINICAL LINGUISTICS & PHONETICS 11

Figure 1. Mean percentage accuracy on seven types of presupposition trigger for three comparison
groups: Cantonese-speaking children with ASD, CA-matched TD children, and LA-matched TD children.
Error bars: +/ – 1 standard error.

was not significant (F(12, 408) = 1.19, p = 0.305). The ANOVA results indicated that the three
groups of children performed differently in comprehending presupposition triggers. Tukey’s
HSD post hoc pairwise comparisons of the three groups indicated that the children with ASD
performed much worse than the CA-matched TD children in comprehending the seven types
of presupposition trigger (p = 0.004), but their performance did not differ from that of the LA-
matched TD children (p = 0.690). Furthermore, the absence of a group × trigger type
interaction implied that the relative difficulty of the seven types of presupposition trigger
did not differ among ASD, CA-matched TD, and LA-matched TD groups. Further post hoc
pairwise comparisons of the seven types of presupposition trigger showed that for all three
groups of children, comprehending temporal clauses was much more difficult than compre-
hending definite descriptions (p = 0.002), factive predicates (p = 0.001), change-of-state verbs
(p < 0.001), and iteratives (p < 0.001).
Spearman correlations were conducted to investigate whether children’s performance
correlated with their chronological age, language ability, and non-verbal intelligence. The
correlation results are presented in Table 3. For children with ASD, their chronological age
correlated with their comprehension of iteratives (r(27) = 0.47, p = 0.010) and temporal
clauses (r(27) = 0.44, p = 0.020), and their language ability correlated with their comprehen-
sion of factive predicates (r(27) = 0.59, p = 0.001), change-of-state verbs (r(27) = 0.60, p =
0.001), iteratives (r(27) = 0.55, p = 0.002), temporal clauses (r(27) = 0.43, p = 0.024), and
counterfactual conditionals (r(27) = 0.44, p = 0.019). As for the CA-matched TD and LA-
matched TD groups, mean accuracies on all seven types of presupposition trigger did not
significantly change as a function of chronological age or language ability, which might be
attributed to a ceiling performance around 90% in both groups of TD children.
Results of the above correlation analysis provided support for the influence of chron-
ological age, language ability, and/or non-verbal intelligence on children’s performance,
although in a different manner within each group. To examine the unique effect of group
12 C. C.-H. CHEUNG ET AL.

Table 3. Intercorrelations among chronological age, language ability, non-verbal intelligence, and
comprehension of the seven types of presupposition trigger by group.
ASD CA-matched TD LA-matched TD
CA LA NVIQ CA LA NVIQ CA LA NVIQ
Definite description 0.14 0.11 0.20 –0.01 0.27 0.25 0.30 0.17 –0.10
Factive predicate 0.17 0.59** 0.37 0.12 0.07 –0.39 0.33 0.16 0.06
Change-of-state verb 0.33 0.60** 0.31 –0.23 –0.35 0.34 –0.11 –0.12 0.61**
Implicative verb 0.07 0.31 0.05 –0.12 –0.17 –0.18 0.19 0.05 –0.07
Iterative 0.47* 0.55** 0.28 0.29 0.06 –0.43 –0.00 0.07 0.42
Temporal clause 0.44* 0.43* 0.33 0.30 0.19 0.11 0.35 0.22 0.24
Counterfactual conditional 0.30 0.44* 0.28 0.34 0.39 –0.16 0.36 0.24 0.13
CA = chronological age; LA = language ability; NVIQ = non-verbal intelligence.
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.

(i.e. ASD group vs. CA-matched TD group; ASD group vs. LA-matched TD group) on
children’s understanding of the seven types of presupposition trigger, hierarchical multiple
regressions were further conducted. For the comparison between ASD and CA-matched TD
groups, chronological age and language ability were entered at the first step, because
a significant correlation between chronological age and language ability was found in the
ASD group (r(27) = 0.43, p = 0.024) as well as the CA-matched TD group (r(23) = 0.58, p =
0.004). Non-verbal intelligence was entered at the second step, and then group was entered
at the third step (see Table 4). To compare the performance between ASD and LA-matched
TD groups, chronological age was entered at the first step in the regression, language ability
was entered at the second step, non-verbal intelligence was entered at the third step, and
then group was entered at the last step (see Table 5). For all regressions, the dependent
variables were the participants’ scores on the seven types of presupposition trigger.
As shown in Table 4, regressions 1 through 7 examined the effect of group (ASD group
vs. CA-matched TD group) on comprehension of the seven types of presupposition
trigger, after controlling for the effects of chronological age, language ability, and non-
verbal intelligence. Results of the full model in regressions revealed that language ability
had a significant influence on the comprehension of some types of presupposition trigger,
namely factive predicates (t = 3.86, p < 0.001), change-of-state verbs (t = 2.57, p = 0.014),
iteratives (t = 3.28, p = 0.002), and counterfactual conditionals (t = 2.49, p = 0.017). After
the effects of chronological age, language ability, and non-verbal intelligence were con-
trolled for, 9.7% of the variance in the comprehension of temporal clauses was accounted
for by the participants’ group (F = 6.48, p = 0.014).
As shown in Table 5, regressions 8 through 14 examined whether group (ASD group
vs. LA-matched TD group) uniquely predicted the comprehension of the seven types of
presupposition trigger. Results of the full model in these regressions revealed
a significant influence of chronological age on the comprehension of temporal clauses
(t = 2.20, p = 0.033). Language ability had a significant influence on the comprehension
of factive predicates (t = 3.13, p = 0.003) and change-of-state verbs (t = 2.69, p = 0.010),
whereas non-verbal intelligence had a significant influence on the comprehension of
change-of-state verbs (t = 2.23, p = 0.031) and temporal clauses (t = 2.75, p = 0.009).
After the effects of chronological age, language ability, and non-verbal intelligence were
controlled for, 7.6% of the variance in the comprehension of temporal clauses was
accounted for by the participants’ group (F = 4.95, p = 0.031).
 CLINICAL LINGUISTICS & PHONETICS 13

Table 4. Explaining comprehension of the seven types of presupposition trigger by group (ASD group
vs. CA-matched TD group).
Variables B SE R2 change F change p value
Regression 1: Definite description
Step 1: CA < 0.01 < 0.01 0.06 1.54 0.225
LA < 0.01 < 0.01
Step 2: NVIQ < 0.01 < 0.01 0.05 2.76 0.104
Step 3: Group < 0.01 0.04 0.03 2.71 0.105
Regression 2: Factive predicate
Step 1: CA < 0.01 < 0.01 0.33 11.71 < 0.001
LA < 0.01 < 0.01
Step 2: NVIQ < 0.01 < 0.01 0.02 1.40 0.243
Step 3: Group 0.13 0.06 0.01 0.74 0.394
Regression 3: Change-of-state verb
Step 1: CA < 0.01 < 0.01 0.14 3.96 0.026
LA < 0.01 < 0.01
Step 2: NVIQ < 0.01 < 0.01 0.03 1.69 0.200
Step 3: Group < 0.01 0.02 0.001 0.04 0.804
Regression 4: Implicative verb
Step 1: CA < 0.01 < 0.01 0.15 4.05 0.024
LA < 0.01 < 0.01
Step 2: NVIQ < 0.01 < 0.01 0.02 1.13 0.292
Step 3: Group 0.03 0.02 0.03 1.55 0.220
Regression 5: Iterative
Step 1: CA < 0.01 < 0.01 0.36 13.13 < 0.001
LA < 0.01 < 0.01
Step 2: NVIQ < 0.01 < 0.01 0.01 0.43 0.514
Step 3: Group 0.02 0.07 0.02 1.34 0.253
Regression 6: Temporal clause
Step 1: CA < 0.01 < 0.01 0.18 5.15 0.009
LA < 0.01 < 0.01
Step 2: NVIQ < 0.01 < 0.01 0.04 2.32 0.135
Step 3: Group 0.06 0.02 0.10 6.48 0.014
Regression 7: Counterfactual conditional
Step 1: CA < 0.01 < 0.01 0.25 7.86 0.001
LA < 0.01 < 0.01
Step 2: NVIQ < 0.01 < 0.01 0.03 1.75 0.193
Step 3: Group 0.03 0.02 0.04 2.30 0.137
In each regression table, B (raw beta) and SE (standard error of beta) are final statistics of the full model, including all three
steps, whereas R2 change, F change and p value are change statistics for the respective step as the last-entered step,
representing its additional contribution over and above the last model. CA = chronological age; LA = language ability;
NVIQ = non-verbal intelligence.

Discussion
The present study addressed two research questions: (1) Do Cantonese-speaking children
with ASD differ from CA-matched and LA-matched TD children in terms of comprehen-
sion of seven types of presupposition trigger? (2) Do Cantonese-speaking children with
ASD show a deficit in comprehending any specific types of presupposition trigger relative
to CA-matched and LA-matched TD children after controlling for the effects of chron-
ological age, language ability, and non-verbal intelligence?
The answer to the first question depends on which TD group (i.e. CA-matched or LA-
matched TD group) is compared with the ASD group. Specifically, we found that
Cantonese-speaking children with ASD performed worse than their CA-matched TD
peers in comprehending the seven types of presupposition trigger, but they performed
similarly to their LA-matched TD peers. This result is consistent with Cheung et al.’s
(2017) finding that Cantonese-speaking children with ASD generally performed worse
14 C. C.-H. CHEUNG ET AL.

Table 5. Explaining comprehension of the seven types of presupposition trigger by group (ASD group
vs. LA-matched TD group).
Variables B SE R2 change F change p Value
Regression 8: Definite description
Step 1: CA 0.001 0.002 0.021 1.010 0.320
Step 2: LA 0.001 0.001 0.023 1.101 0.300
Step 3: NVIQ 0.002 0.001 0.022 1.051 0.311
Step 4: Group 0.006 0.038 <0.001 0.022 0.882
Regression 9: Factive predicate
Step 1: CA <0.001 0.002 0.023 1.093 0.301
Step 2: LA 0.004 0.001 0.221 13.158 0.001
Step 3: NVIQ 0.002 0.001 0.041 2.549 0.118
Step 4: Group 0.024 0.040 0.006 0.367 0.548
Regression 10: Change-of-state verb
Step 1: CA <0.001 0.001 0.028 1.318 0.257
Step 2: LA 0.003 0.001 0.148 8.096 0.007
Step 3: NVIQ 0.002 0.001 0.091 5.431 0.024
Step 4: Group −0.032 0.032 0.017 1.014 0.320
Regression 11: Implicative verb
Step 1: CA 0.001 0.002 0.015 0.720 0.400
Step 2: LA 0.002 0.001 0.066 3.212 0.080
Step 3: NVIQ <0.001 0.001 0.002 0.098 0.756
Step 4: Group 0.038 0.045 0.015 0.694 0.409
Regression 12: Iterative
Step 1: CA 0.002 0.002 0.045 2.183 0.146
Step 2: LA 0.003 0.001 0.210 12.668 0.001
Step 3: NVIQ 0.002 0.001 0.039 2.405 0.128
Step 4: Group 0.074 0.037 0.061 4.035 0.051
Regression 13: Temporal clause
Step 1: CA 0.005 0.002 0.068 3.382 0.072
Step 2: LA 0.002 0.001 0.098 5.043 0.030
Step 3: NVIQ 0.004 0.001 0.100 5.995 0.018
Step 4: Group 0.101 0.046 0.076 4.954 0.031
Regression 14: Counterfactual
Step 1: CA 0.003 0.002 0.065 3.180 0.081
Step 2: LA 0.002 0.001 0.099 5.305 0.026
Step 3: NVIQ 0.002 0.001 0.058 3.276 0.077
Step 4: Group 0.036 0.042 0.013 0.727 0.399
In each regression table, B (raw beta) and SE (standard error of beta) are final statistics of the full model, including all three
steps, whereas R2 change, F change and p value are change statistics for the respective step as the last-entered step,
representing its additional contribution over and above the last model. CA = chronological age; LA = language ability;
NVIQ = non-verbal intelligence.

than their CA-matched TD peers in comprehending presuppositions. Crucially, our study

differed from Cheung et al.’s (2017) by including LA-matched TD children as another
control group, and it further revealed that ASD children’s performance did not differ from
the performance of this group of TD children. As the result of the correlation analysis
indicated that ASD children’s language ability correlated with their comprehension of
a number of presupposition triggers – namely factive predicates, change-of-state verbs,
iteratives, temporal clauses, and counterfactual conditionals – ASD children’s difficulty in
comprehending presupposition triggers may be partially accounted for by their impaired
language ability.
The answer to the second question was yes, as shown by the fact that Cantonese-
speaking children with ASD displayed a deficit in comprehending presuppositions
triggered by a temporal clause, relative to both CA-matched and LA-matched TD groups
after controlling for the effects of chronological age, language ability, and non-verbal
intelligence. As for the remaining six types of presupposition trigger, the performance of
 CLINICAL LINGUISTICS & PHONETICS 15

children with ASD did not differ significantly from that of the CA-matched and LA-
matched TD groups after controlling for the effects of chronological age, language
ability, and non-verbal intelligence. Our finding that children with ASD were impaired
in comprehending temporal clauses is in line with previous studies, which found that
children with ASD had difficulty interpreting temporal clauses (Boucher, 2001; Overweg,
Hartman, & Hendriks, 2018; Perkins, Dobbinson, Boucher, Bol, & Bloom, 2006) and
understanding temporal concepts such as past and future (Boucher, Pons, Lind, &
Williams, 2007; Maister & Plaisted-Grant, 2011; Peeters & Gillberg, 1999). Given that
correct interpretation of the presupposition triggered by a temporal clause relies on
understanding that the veracity of the clause introduced by the temporal conjunction
must be presupposed, if children with ASD are unable to grasp the presupposition due
to their impairment in temporal perception, they might wrongly consider (20b) as the
incorrect presupposition of (20a), and (21b) as the correct presupposition of (21a).

(20) a. Siu2ming4 sik6-zo2 daan6gou1 zi1hau6 go3 tou5 hou2 tung3.

Siuming eat-Perf cake after Cl tummy very painful
‘Siuming’s tummy hurt after he ate the cake.’
b. Gam2jeong6 gong2 zik1hai6 waa6, Siu2ming4 sik6-zo2 daan6gou1.
this.way say exactly say Siuming eat-Perf cake
‘That is to say, Siuming ate the cake.’

(21) a. Biu2go1 heoi3-zo2 Ou1zau3 zi1hau6 sik1-zo2 hou2do1 san1 pang4jau5.

older.male.cousin go-Perf Australia after know-Perf many new friend
‘The older male cousin had made a lot of new friends after he went to Australia.’
b. Gam2jeong6 gong2 zik1hai6 waa6, biu2go1 mou5 heoi3 Ou1zau3.
this.way say exactly say older.male.cousin not.have go Australia
‘That is to say, the older male cousin did not go to Australia.’

In other words, our study revealed that children with ASD were less accurate in judging
the veracity of the clause introduced by the temporal conjunction compared to the two
groups of TD children even after controlling for the effects of chronological age, language
ability, and non-verbal intelligence. Future studies should investigate the factors contri-
buting to this specific deficit in children with ASD, such as executive functioning and
theory of mind, which have been found to play a role in accounting for ASD children’s
interpretation of temporal order of events in complex sentences with the temporal
conjunctions before and after (Overweg et al., 2018).

Conclusions
The current study examined how 7- to 12-year-old Cantonese-speaking children with
ASD comprehend seven types of presupposition trigger – namely definite descriptions,
factive predicates, change-of-state verbs, implicative verbs, iteratives, temporal clauses,
and counterfactual conditionals – compared to CA-matched and LA-matched TD groups.
We found that children with ASD performed worse than the CA-matched TD group in
comprehending the seven types of presupposition trigger, but they performed similarly to
16 C. C.-H. CHEUNG ET AL.

the LA-matched TD group. We further found that Cantonese-speaking children with ASD
showed a deficit in comprehending the presupposition triggered by a temporal clause
relative to the two groups of TD children.

Acknowledgements
We thank all the children and parents for their participation in this study. We are grateful to LoveXpress
Foundation Limited and Speech Therapy Unit at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University for recruitment
of the participants. We would also like to thank Gordon Cheung, Harmony Choi, and Lydia Lai for their
help in constructing the stimuli for this study. We are greatly indebted to the anonymous reviewer for
the valuable comments and suggestions on an earlier version of this paper. We also thank the audience
at the research seminar organized by the Research Centre for Language, Cognition, and Neuroscience at
the Hong Kong Polytechnic University, where part of the material in this paper was presented. Special
thanks go to Gordon Cheung, Noel Chiu, Harmony Choi, Lydia Lai, Ally Lee, Catherine Wong,
Charlene Wong, and Stephanie Yuen for their help with data collection. We would also like to thank
Anne Mark for editorial assistance.

Declaration of interest
The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Funding
This study was supported by Central Research Grant [YBR7], awarded to the first author; the title of
the project is “Development of Mental State Verbs and Presuppositions in Cantonese-speaking
Children with and without Autism Spectrum Disorders”.

ORCID
Candice Chi-Hang Cheung http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1502-5724

References
Abusch, D. (2002). Lexical alternatives as a source of pragmatic presuppositions. In B. Jackson (Ed.),
Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory 12 (pp. 1–19). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, CLC
Publications.
Amaral, P., & Cummins, C. (2015). A cross-linguistic study on information backgrounding and
presupposition projection. In F. Schwarz (Ed.), Experimental perspectives on presuppositions (pp.
157–172). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th
ed., text revision). Washington, DC: Author.
Banks, W. P. (1970). Signal detection theory and human memory. Psychological Bulletin, 74, 81–99.
Baron-Cohen, S. (1988). Social and pragmatic deficits in autism: Cognitive or affective? Journal of
Autism and Developmental Disorders, 18, 379–402.
Beaver, D., & Condoravdi, C. (2003). A uniform analysis of ‘before’ and ‘after’. In R. B. Young &
Y. Zhou (Eds.), Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory 13 (pp. 37–54). Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University, CLC Publications.
Berger, F., & Höhle, B. (2012). Restrictions on addition: Children’s interpretation of the focus
particles auch ‘also’ and nur ‘only’ in German. Journal of Child Language, 39, 383–410.
 CLINICAL LINGUISTICS & PHONETICS 17

Boucher, J. (2001). ‘Lost in a sea of time’: Time-parsing and autism. In C. Hoerl & T. McCormack (Eds.),
Time and memory: Issues in philosophy and psychology (pp. 111–135). Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
Boucher, J. (2003). Language development in autism. International Journal of Pediatric
Otorhinolaryngology, 67(Suppl.), S159–S163.
Boucher, J., Pons, F., Lind, S., & Williams, D. (2007). Temporal cognition in children with autistic
spectrum disorders: Tests of diachronic thinking. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders,
37, 1413–1429.
Cheng, L. L.-S., & Sybesma, R. (1999). Bare and not-so-bare nouns and the structure of NP.
Linguistic Inquiry, 30, 509–542.
Cheung, C. C. H., Politzer-Ahles, S., Hwang, H., Chui, R. L. Y., Leung, M. T., & Tang, T. P. Y.
(2017). Comprehension of presuppositions in school-age Cantonese-speaking children with and
without autism spectrum disorders. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 31, 557–572.
Chevallier, C., Wilson, D., Happé, F., & Noveck, I. (2010). Scalar inferences in autism spectrum
disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 40, 1104–1117.
Dobbinson, S., Perkins, M. R., & Boucher, J. (1998). Structural patterns in conversations with
a woman who has autism. Journal of Communication Disorders, 31, 113–134.
Dudley, R., Orita, N., Hacquard, V., & Lidz, J. (2015). Three-year-olds’ understanding of know and
think. In F. Schwarz (Ed.), Experimental perspectives on presuppositions (pp. 241–262). Cham,
Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
Eales, M. J. (1993). Pragmatic impairments in adults with childhood diagnoses of autism or
developmental receptive language disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 23,
593–617.
García-Pérez, R. M., Lee, A., & Hobson, R. P. (2006). On intersubjective engagement in autism:
A controlled study of nonverbal aspects of conversation. Journal of Autism and Developmental
Disorders, 37, 1310–1322.
Hale, C. M., & Tager-Flusberg, H. (2005). Brief report: The relationship between discourse deficits
and autism symptomatology. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 35, 519–524.
Heinämäki, O. (1974). Semantics of English temporal connectives. (Unpublished doctoral disserta-
tion). Indiana University, Bloomington.
Janke, V., & Perovic, A. (2015). Intact grammar in HFA? Evidence from control and binding.
Lingua, 164, 68–86.
Janke, V., & Perovic, A. (2017). Contrasting complement control, temporal adjunct control and
controlled verbal gerund subjects in ASD: The role of contextual cues in reference assignment.
Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 448.
Jayez, J., Mongelli, V., Reboul, A., & van der Henst, J.-B. (2015). Weak and strong triggers. In
F. Schwarz (Ed.), Experimental perspectives on presuppositions (pp. 173–193). Cham, Switzerland:
Springer International Publishing.
Karttunen, L. (1971). Implicative verbs. Language, 47, 340–358.
Karttunen, L. (1974). Presupposition and linguistic context. Theoretical Linguistics, 1, 181–193.
Karttunen, L. (2016). Presupposition: What went wrong? In M. Moroney, C. R. Little, J. Collard, &
D. Burgdorf (Eds.), Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory 26 (pp. 705–731). Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University, CLC Publications.
Kiparsky, P., & Kiparsky, C. (1970). Fact. In M. Bierwisch & K. E. Heidolph (Eds.), Progress in
linguistics (pp. 143–173). The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton.
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Lord, C., & Paul, R. (1997). Language and communication in autism. In D. J. Cohen &
F. R. Volkmar (Eds.), Handbook of autism and pervasive developmental disorders (2nd ed., pp.
195–225). New York, NY: John Wiley.
Lorenz, S. (1992). On the role of reasoning about change in the projection of presuppositions. Report
234, IWBS, IBM Germany.
Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (1990). Response bias: Characteristics of detection theory,
threshold theory, and “nonparametric” indexes. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 401–413.
Maister, L., & Plaisted-Grant, K. C. (2011). Time perception and its relationship to memory in
autism spectrum conditions. Developmental Science, 14, 1311–1322.
18 C. C.-H. CHEUNG ET AL.

Martin, I., & McDonald, S. (2003). Weak coherence, no theory of mind, or executive dysfunction?
Solving the puzzle of pragmatic language disorders. Brain and Language, 85, 451–466.
Matthews, S., & Yip, V. (2011). Cantonese: A comprehensive grammar. New York, NY: Routledge.
Overweg, J., Hartman, C. A., & Hendriks, P. (2018). Temporarily out of order: Temporal perspec-
tive taking in language in children with autism spectrum disorder. Frontiers in Psychology, 9,
1663.
Ozonoff, S., & Miller, J. N. (1996). An exploration of right-hemisphere contributions to the
pragmatic impairments of autism. Brain and Language, 52, 411–434.
Peeters, T., & Gillberg, C. (1999). Autism: Medical and educational aspects (2nd ed.). London, UK:
Whurr.
Perkins, M., Dobbinson, S., Boucher, J., Bol, S., & Bloom, P. (2006). Lexical knowledge and lexical
use in autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 36, 795–805.
Pijnacker, J., Hagoort, P., Buitelaar, J., Teunisse, J.-P., & Geurts, B. (2009). Pragmatic inferences in
high-functioning adults with autism and Asperger syndrome. Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders, 39, 607–618.
Raven, J. (1981). Manual for Raven’s Progressive Matrices and Vocabulary Scales. Research supple-
ment no. 1: The 1979 British standardisation of the Standard Progressive Matrices and Mill Hill
Vocabulary Scales, together with comparative data from earlier studies in the UK, US, Canada,
Germany, and Ireland. Oxford, UK/San Antonio, TX: Oxford Psychologists Press/The
Psychological Corporation.
Raven, J. (1989). The raven progressive matrices: A review of national norming studies and ethnic and
socioeconomic variation within the United States. Journal of Educational Measurement, 26, 1–16.
Romoli, J., Khan, M., Sudo, Y., & Snedeker, J. (2015). Resolving temporary referential ambiguity
using presupposed content. In F. Schwarz (Ed.), Experimental perspectives on presuppositions (pp.
67–108). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
Rutter, M. R., & Schopler, E. (1987). Autism and pervasive developmental disorders: Concepts and
diagnostic issues. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 17, 159–186.
Schwarz, F. (2015). Symmetry and incrementality in conditionals. In F. Schwarz (Ed.), Experimental
perspectives on presuppositions (pp. 195–213). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International
Publishing.
Scoville, R. P., & Gordon, A. M. (1980). Children’s understanding of factive presuppositions: An
experiment and a review. Journal of Child Language, 7, 381–399.
Simons, M. (2001). On the conversational basis of some presuppositions. In R. Hastings, B. Jackson,
& Z. Zvolensky (Eds.), Proceedings of semantics and linguistic theory 11 (pp. 431–448). Ithaca,
NY: Cornell University, CLC Publications.
Snodgrass, J. G., & Corwin, J. (1988). Pragmatics of measuring recognition memory: Applications to
dementia and amnesia. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 34–50.
Stalnaker, R. (1973). Presuppositions. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 2, 447–457.
Stalnaker, R. (1974). Pragmatic presuppositions. In M. Munitz & P. Unger (Eds.), Semantics and
philosophy (pp. 197–214). New York, NY: New York University Press.
Stalnaker, R. (1998). On the representation of context. Journal of Logic, Language and Information,
7, 3–19.
Stalnaker, R. (2002). Common ground. Linguistics & Philosophy, 25, 701–721.
Stanislaw, H., & Todorov, N. (1999). Calculation of signal detection theory measures. Behavior
Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 31, 137–149.
Strawson, P. F. (1950). On referring. Mind, 59, 320–344.
Strawson, P. F. (1952). Introduction to logical theory. London, UK: Methuen.
T’sou, B. K. Y., Lee, T., Tung, P., Chan, A., Man, Y., & To, C. K. S. (2006). Hong Kong Cantonese
oral language assessment scale. Hong Kong, China: Language Information Sciences Research
Centre, City University of Hong Kong.
Tager-Flusberg, H. (1981). On the nature of linguistic functioning in early infantile autism. Journal
of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 11, 45–56.
Tager-Flusberg, H. (1996). Brief report: Current theory and research on language and communica-
tion in autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 26, 169–172.
 CLINICAL LINGUISTICS & PHONETICS 19

Tiemann, S., Kirsten, M., Beck, S., Hertrich, I., & Rolke, B. (2015). Presupposition processing and
accommodation: An experiment on wieder (‘again’) and consequences for other triggers. In
F. Schwarz (Ed.), Experimental perspectives on presuppositions (pp. 39–65). Cham, Switzerland:
Springer International Publishing.
Volden, J. (2004). Conversational repair in speakers with autism spectrum disorder. International
Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 39, 171–189.
Wilkinson, K. M. (1998). Profiles of language and communication skills in autism. Mental
Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 4, 73–79.