Fable Comprehension by Children

with Learning Disabilities

Eileen P. Abrahamsen and Pamela T. Sprouse

Seven fables were read to 14 average learners and 14 children with learning disabilities, all 1990; Lutzer, 1988; Seidenberg & Bern-
of whom ranged in age from 10 to 13 years. They were presented with four possible moral stein, 1986).
choices: one correct, one related, and two incorrect. They were instructed to select the correctDifficulty comprehending metaphor-
moral choice and were asked to explain their choice. The average learners' ability to select the
ical language has been attributed to a
correct moral was significantly better than that of the children with learning disabilities. In
addition, even when they chose correct morals, the children with learning disabilities were
metacognitive deficit (Lutzer, 1988;
less capable of explaining their choice. Seidenberg & Bernstein, 1986) and
general language deficits (Lee & Kahmi,
1990; Seidenberg & Bernstein, 1988).

C
hildren with learning disabil-
ities (LD) frequently demon-
strate a variety of language
deficits. It has been known for some
time that language delays in the pre-
school years signal possible academic
difficulties in later years (de Hirsch,
Jansky, & Langsford, 1965). Observed
language impairments in the preschool
years frequently seem to disappear,
only to resurface several years later,
often in reading and writing deficits
(Aram, Ekelman, & Nation, 1984; Aram
& Nation, 1980; Bashir & Scavuzzo,
1992; Hall & Tomblin, 1978; King,
Jones, & Lasky, 1982).
As children progress through the
elementary grades, they experience a
major shift in educational and auric-
ular requirements at about the fourth
grade. One characteristic of this shift
is the increased frequency of nonliteral
language. This is developmentally ap-
propriate because understanding of
figurative language increases during
the ages consistent with these grades.
Although some rudimentary under-
standing of metaphor may occur even
in the preschool years (Vosniadou &
Ortony, 1983; Vosniadou, Ortony,
Reynolds, & Wilson, 1984), there is
a marked improvement in the ability
of children ages 9 to 14 years (who are
typically attending Grades 4 to 8) to
understand and explain figurative lan-
guage, including idioms (Ackerman,
1982; Cacciari & Levorato, 1989; Gibbs,
1987; Lodge & Leach, 1975; Prinz,
1983); similes (Gardner, Winner, Bech-
hofer, & Wolf, 1978; Malgady, 1977);
metaphors (Demorest, Silberstein,
Gardner, & Winner, 1983; Nippold,
Leonard, & Kail, 1984; Winner, Rosen-
stiel, & Gardner, 1976); and proverbs
(Douglas & Peel, 1979; Resnick, 1982;
Richardson & Church, 1959).
Children with language learning dis-
abilities frequently have difficulty
understanding figurative language
(Donahue & Bryan, 1984; Lee & Kah-
mi, 1990; Lutzer, 1988; Nippold &
Fey, 1983; Seidenberg & Bernstein,
1986, 1988). Significantly impaired
metaphoric comprehension has been
found in children with histories of
auditory comprehension disorders and
expressive syntax disorders (Nippold
& Fey, 1983) and in children with
learning disabilities with and with-
out language deficits (Lee & Kahmi,
Although cognitive deficits at one time
were hypothesized to be a contribut-
ing factor in metaphoric comprehen-
sion (Billow, 1975; Cometa & Eson,
1978; Douglas & Peel, 1979), subse-
quent research (Nippold & Fey, 1983;
Vosniadou et al., 1984) has failed to
confirm that cognitive deficits are con-
tributing factors. There is more consen-
sus regarding the pattern of meta-
phoric comprehension demonstrated
by children with LD. These children
demonstrate a similar but delayed pat-
tern for metaphors (Nippold & Fey,
1983; Seidenberg & Bernstein, 1986)
and proverbs (Lutzer, 1988) when
compared to nondisabled peers.
Children are more successful with
multiple choice formats in compari-
son to explanation formats in demon-
strating comprehension of figurative
language (Gardner, 1974; Nippold,
Martin, & Erskine, 1988; Winner et al.,
1976). Children are also more likely to
successfully differentiate between lit-
eral and figurative meanings when lin-
guistic context is provided in the form
of short stories or paragraphs. This has
been demonstrated for idioms (Acker-
man, 1982; Cacciari & Levorato, 1989;

JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES

Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
VOLUME 28, NUMBER 5, MAY 1995
PAGES 302-308

Gibbs, 1987; Nippold & Martin, 1989)
and proverbs (Resnick, 1982).
Ortony, Schallert, Reynolds, and
Antos (1978) concluded that the com-
prehension of literal and figurative lan-
guage requires similar processes. A
schema is generated by the child as a
passage is read, and the context gener-
ates expectations that the information
that follows can be explained in terms
of these schemata. The relatedness of
the idiom or metaphor to the context
determines the difficulty.
When a multiple choice format is
used in conjunction with context, chil-
dren may be drawn to foils that con-
tain words highly associated with
words or ideas presented in the story
if they are unable to correctly iden-
tify the target response. Reynolds and
Ortony (1980) examined children's
ability to complete short stories, some
of which required literal responses and
some of which required metaphorical
answers. None of the foils in the meta-
phorical set made literal sense, but
some contained words that were highly
associated with words or concepts in
the story presented. When children
did not perceive the metaphorical re-
sponse to be appropriate, they tended
to select foils with distractors contain-
ing high associates of the theme in
the story. Context, therefore, always
seems to influence responses but does
not ensure that figurative language will
be interpreted correctly.
One form of figurative language that
has not been examined is the compre-
hension of fables and their correspond-
ing morals. Fables are brief tales in
which animals talk and act as humans,
and these tales contain a moral lesson
or satirize human conduct. Although
children may encounter some classic
fables in the early primary grades,
fables usually become part of the edu-
cational language arts curriculum in
the fifth grade. With the trend toward
inclusive classes and the widespread
use of the whole language approach,
more and more children with learning
disabilities will be encountering this
form of literature in school. It is impor-
tant for those who teach children with
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
VOLUME 28, NUMBER 5, MAY 1995 303
LD to understand the problems these teria. They ranged in age from 10 years
children may encounter interpreting 5 months to 13 years 2 months (X =
this form of literature. The purpose of 12-1). IQs as measured by the Wechs-
the present study was to examine the ler Intelligence Scale for Children-
comprehension of fables by 10- to 13- Revised (WISC-R; Wechsler, 1974)
year-old average learners and children were in the normal range. They were
with learning disabilities, as demon- being educated in a self-contained
strated by their selection of the appro- classroom for children with learning
priate moral in a multiple choice format disabilities. Age and IQ scores for these
and the explanation of their choice, fol- students are reported in Table 1.
lowing selection. The children without learning dis-
abilities who participated in this study
were enrolled in a regular fifth- or
sixth-grade classroom. Teachers were
Method asked to identify children who demon-
strated average academic achievement.
Subjects They ranged in age from 10 years 5
Fourteen children identified as LD months to 13 years 2 months (X =
and 14 nondisabled (NLD) peers at- 11-8) and were not receiving remedial
tending school in Virginia Beach, Vir- services or participating in gifted and
ginia, served as subjects. To be classi- talented programs in school.
fied as learning disabled in this district,
children must meet criteria outlined in
Stimulus Materials
the Education for All Handicapped
Children Act of 1975 (P.L. 94-142) and Ten fables were chosen from Fables
demonstrate a discrepancy (1 standard (Lobel, 1980) to serve as stimuli in this
deviation and/or 2 years) between a investigation. It was anticipated that
measure of aptitude (either verbal or these fables would be unfamiliar to the
nonverbal IQ) and achievement. children participating in the study.
The 14 children identified as learn- Four moral choices were selected to
ing disabled in this study met these cri- accompany each fable. Only one moral
TABLE 1
Age and IQ of Subjects with Learning Disabilities
WISC-R
Subject Age VIQ PIQ Full-Scale IQ
1 11-7 72 90 79
2 12-6 77 95 84
3 10-5 75 ± 4 80 ± 4 76 ± 3
4 12-8 86 93 89
5 11-6 100 ± 5 88 ± 7 93 ± 5
6 12-8 91 ± 5 95 ± 8 92 ± 5
7 12-6 NA NA 90-109
8 12-7 91 95 93
9 12-8 109 75 92
10 12-3 86 80 84
11 13-2 74 85 78
12 11-8 80-89 90-109 NA-Average
13 11-1 86 93 89
14 12-0 92 104 97
Note. The psychologist chose to report some scores by range label. WISC-R = Wechsler Intelligence
Scale for Children-Revised; VIQ = Verbal IQ; PIQ = Performance IQ; NA = Measured by the Wechsler
Intelligence Scale for Children.
304
was the correct one; the other three
were selected from other fables in the
book. One of the three incorrect morals
was related to the correct moral; the
other two were not.
Interexaminer reliability measures
were then calculated to ensure agree-
ment on correct, incorrect, and related
moral choices for each fable. Copies of
the fables and moral choices were
given to six speech-language pathol-
ogists holding Certificates of Clin-
ical Competency from the American
Speech-Language-Hearing Associa-
tion. They marked each moral choice
as correct, related, or incorrect. Agree-
ment on the correct moral could not be
attained on three of the fables. Two
speech pathologists chose the related
a b
moral as the correct moral and the X = 3.5. X = 5.28.
correct moral as the related moral.
These three fables were then excluded
from statistical analysis, leaving only
seven fables for analysis. There was
100% agreement among the six speech
pathologists on these seven fables
for correct, related, and incorrect re-
Total
sponses.
Procedure
Each child was read the seven fables,
and the four moral choices were pre-
sented aloud. The child was requested
to select the correct moral choice and
to explain his or her reasons for mak-
ing that choice. Selections were writ-
ten down and explanations were tape-
recorded for future analysis. No time
limit was imposed on the child's re-
sponse, and repetitions were given if
necessary.
Results
The numbers of correct moral selec-
tions for each subject are reported in
Table 2. The mean number of correct
moral choices made by children with-
out learning disabilities was 5.28,
whereas the mean number of correct
moral choices made by children with
LD was 3.5. An analysis of variance
was performed to determine if differ-
ences between the means were signifi-
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES
TABLE 2
Correct Moral Selections for Fables
Learning disability group3 Average learner groupb
Subject No. correct Subject No . correct
1 15
2 16
3 17
4 18
5 19
6 20
7 21
8 22
9 23
10 24
11 25
12 26
13 27
14 28
TABLE 3
Analysis of Variance: Correct Moral Choices for Both Groups
SS df MS F P
86.43 27
Between groups 20.57 1 20.57 8.13 .01
Within groups 65.86 26 2.53
cant. Results indicate that children analysis of variance with repeated
without learning disabilities were sig- measures was performed to determine
nificantly more capable of selecting cor- if significant differences existed for par-
rect morals for fables than were their ticular fables and group assignment.
peers exhibiting learning disabilities, Nondisabled subjects had significantly
F(l, 26) = 8.13, p < .01. These results higher means than those with learning
are reported in Table 3. disabilities, F(l, 26) = 9.38, p < .01.
The number of subjects selecting cor- Significant differences were also noted
rect (LD = 49, NLD = 73), related among the actual fables, F(6, 352) =
(LD = 25, NLD = 12), and incorrect 11.13, p < .001. The interaction effect
(LD = 24, NLD = 13) moral choices for between fable type and group assign-
fables are also calculated. Although it ment was not significant, F(6, 352) =
appears that related and incorrect 1.18, p > .05. Results of this ANOVA
choices were made with equal fre- can be found in Table 5.
quency, there was only one related Following the selection of each
moral and two incorrect morals for moral, subjects were asked to explain
each fable. This pattern reflects a clear why they chose their answers. Re-
preference by both groups of subjects sponses were tape-recorded and later
for selecting related morals when the transcribed. The explanations were
correct one was not chosen. grouped into three categories: meta-
The rank order of difficulty of fable phorical, appropriate/literal, and incor-
and the mean number of correct re- rect. For the explanation to be con-
sponses for each fable in each group sidered metaphorical, the subject must
are reported in Table 4. A two-way have generalized the moral to a real-
 VOLUME 28, NUMBER 5, MAY 1995 305

life situation, rather than specifying counted for 9.6% of all explanations.
ions. In many ways, fables are metaphors
particular events in the fable. For Appropriate/literal explanations ac- because animals depict human condi-
example, in the fable ' T h e Camel counted for 65.75% (n = 48) of expla-
<pla- tions and relationships. Metaphors con-
Dances/' a camel who wanted to be a nations made by the children withouthout sist of a topic, a vehicle, and a ground.
ballerina performed for a critical audi- learning disabilities and 40.8% (n == 20) In the metaphor "The billboard was a
ence and, after being laughed at, de- of those given by the children with wart on the highway," the billboard is
cided to continue dancing to please learning disabilities. Incorrect explana-
iana- the topic, the wart is the vehicle, and
herself. The correct moral choice was tions or "no response" accountedd for the shared characteristics (unattractive,
"Satisfaction will come to those who 24.6% (n = 18) of explanations from raised) are considered to be the ground.
please themselves." A metaphorical nondisabled children and 59.1% (n = To understand the fable and the moral
explanation would be "To thine own 29) of those provided by the children
dren attached to it, it is necessary to perceive
self be true," or, in the words of one with LD. the relationship among the characteris-
subject, "Because if you do something tics of the participants in the story, the
that you really like, it will make you events that occur, and events that
happy and you'll like doing it and Discussion could happen in everyday life. The
you'll really be happy and you won't morals of fables are similar to proverbs
care if anybody else likes it or not." An The children with LD had signifi- ;nifi- in that they are wise sayings that teach
appropriate/literal explanation cen- cantly more difficulty selecting and a lesson. Morals are presented in ab-
tered on specifics in the fable and fre- explaining moral choices for fables es in stract language that can relate to both
quently involved a summary of the comparison to nondisabled peers, sup- the actual story in the fable and to real-
events that occurred in the fable. An porting previously reported findingsgs of life experiences in general.
example of this was, "Because the difficulties with figurative languagee for The children with learning disabili-
camel had tried her hardest to work this population (Donahue & Bryan, yan, ties were less able to select correct
out something and critics said, and all 1984; Lutzer, 1988; Nippold & Fey, morals for fables, but they did not
her friends said that she was all lumpy 1983; Seidenberg & Bernstein, 1986).)86). demonstrate qualitative differences
and bumpy and stuff and then she
decided to dance just for herself and
that way she got satisfaction from
pleasing herself."
TABLE 4
Explanations were categorized as in- Rank Order of Fable Difficulty and Corresponding Means of Correct Moral Choices
correct if they did not correctly or fully
explain the moral of the story. Exam- Learning disability group Average learner group
ples included, "Because it sounded Fable M Fable M
like it was the right one and has some
of the words in it," or, "Cause she "The Hippopotamus at Dinner" .78 "The Hippopotamus at Dinner" 1.0
was training out in the desert when "The Hen and the Apple Tree" .64 "The Camel Dances" 1.0
"The Camel Dances" .57 "The Bear and the Crow" .78
she was training, dancing—her feet
"The Bear and the Crow" .50 "The Hen and the Apple Tree" .71
were getting all blistered and when "The Mouse at the Seashore" .38 "The Mouse at the Seashore" .71
she finally thought she was ready, "The Pig at the Candy Store" .38 "The Pig at the Candy Store" .57
she went out to her place, and when "The Elephant and His Son" .28 "The Elephant and His Son" .5
she was finished her dance, nobody
gave her an applause—when she was
done." "No responses" rarely oc-
curred and were grouped with the in-
correct responses. TABLE 5
The two authors independently clas- Analysis of Variance: Group Assignment x Fable
sified the explanations. Initial inter-
SS df MS F p
examiner reliability was 90%. Differ-
ences between examiners concerning Total 45.82 391
classification disagreements were re- Between subjects 12.10 27
solved through discussion. None of LD x Controls 3.19 1 3.19 9.38 .01
the children with learning disabilities Error b 8.91 26 .34
Within subjects 33.72 364
gave metaphorical explanations for a
Fable 5.28 6 .88 11.13 .001
moral choice. Seven metaphorical ex- Fable x Group .564 6 .094 1.18 ns
planations occurred among six dif- Error w 27.87 352 .079
ferent nondisabled children and ac-
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016

when fable difficulty levels were com-
pared. Both groups of children found
some fables to be easier than others
(see Table 4). Factors that may have
contributed to variability in difficulty
include vocabulary, the degree of the
fable's adherence to story grammar,
inclusion of one primary actor versus
a relationship between actors, and the
child's familiarity with the relation-
ships portrayed in the fable.
Winner et al. (1976) suggested that
both the inability to understand words
and difficulty perceiving similarities
between disparate objects could ac-
count for variation in the ability to
understand metaphors. Vocabulary dif-
ficulty varies, and the events depicted
in one fable may correspond more
closely to children's stored experiential
schemas than to events in other fables.
The more distance between the items
being compared—the more distance
between the topic and the vehicle—the
more difficult the metaphor is to com-
prehend (Winner, Engel, & Gardner,
1980).
Fables that closely follow story gram-
mars may generate appropriate sche-
mas. It is beyond the scope of this
study to analyze each fable relative to
its adherence to story grammar, but a
cursory examination indicates that
fables vary greatly in this regard. "The
Hippopotamus at Dinner," the easiest
fable for both groups of children, in-
volves a hippopotamus who goes to
dinner, eats too much, gets caught be-
tween the table and the chair, and can-
not get out. The elephant expresses the
idea that maybe he ate too much. The
correct moral of the story is "Too much
of anything often leaves one with a
feeling of regret." This probably is a situ-
ation that children have encountered—
eating too much at Thanksgiving, too
much candy, or too many green apples.
They may even have been exposed to
the saying, "Your eyes are bigger than
your stomach." The story line is also
fairly straightforward.
The most difficult fable for all chil-
dren was "The Elephant and His
Father." Four of the 14 children with
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES
learning disabilities and 7 of the 14
nondisabled children chose the correct
moral. This story involves an elephant
and his father spending a quiet eve-
ning together. The young elephant
begins to sing, and the father, who is
reading, tells him to stop, as he can
pay attention to only one thing at a
time. The father lights a cigar, and the
ash sets his slipper on fire as he con-
tinues to read. The boy elephant asks
his father if he can still only attend to
one thing at a time. When the father
answers in the affirmative, the boy ele-
phant directs his father's attention to
the slipper and the father puts the fire
out by sticking his foot in a bucket of
water. The boy elephant begins to sing
once again. The correct moral of this
fable was "Knowledge will not always
take the place of simple observation."
Certainly most children would have a
more difficult time identifying with the
parent-child relationship and outcome
presented in this story. Four of the
nondisabled children selected the re-
lated moral, "It is the high and mighty
who have the longest distance to fall,"
possibly reflecting some satisfaction in
the child being right while the father
was wrong. Only one child with LD
selected this related moral. The most
common moral selected by children
with LD was "Love can be its own re-
ward." These children may have ab-
stracted the love that the parent and
child had for one another but did not
detect the relationship between knowl-
edge and observation. This can be sub-
stantiated by several of their explana-
tions of their moral choice. One said,
" 'Cause his son love him so he told
him his foot was on fire," and another
said, "Because the kid loved him and
so he told him." These explanations in-
dicate that the children understood the
literal details in the story. In fact, sev-
eral others retold the story to explain
their moral selection but failed to select
the appropriate moral. This is consistent
with the idea that although context
may aid in the interpretation of meta-
phorical and nonliteral language, it does
not ensure a figurative interpretation.
The language concepts expressed in
the fable and moral are also quite ab-
stract. For example, in the fable just
discussed, the vocabulary words obser-
vation and knowledge could have pre-
sented far more difficulty than the
words love and reward, which appeared
in the popular incorrect choice. In
addition, the related moral selected by
many nondisabled learners was itself
metaphorical in nature, as "the high
and mighty" is not meant in the literal
sense but in the figurative one.
Children with and without learning
disabilities found it easier to select the
correct moral for a fable than to explain
their choices. Metaphorical explana-
tions occurred occasionally in the non-
disabled population, but appropriate/
literal explanations were the most
common. None of the children with
LD gave metaphorical explanations,
and only 40.8% of their explanations
were classified as appropriate/literal.
Appropriate/literal explanations had to
be specific to the story. Because many
of the children with learning disabili-
ties had difficulty producing cohesive
texts and omitted details, many of their
explanations were classified as incor-
rect. Other children with LD used non-
communicative comments—possibly a
compensatory strategy (e.g., "Because
it's nice and pleasant and I think it's
the right one. Just the way it fit in").
All children showed a preference for
the related moral when they did not
select the correct one. However, be-
cause the children with learning dis-
abilities were less successful in select-
ing the correct moral, they were more
likely than the nondisabled learners to
select a related moral.
Additional research in the area of
figurative language abilities of children
with LD is warranted. Lee and Kahmi
(1990) found that although children
who had learning disabilities but no
oral language deficits experienced
difficulty with metaphoric language,
those with language deficits were even
more impaired. The present study
grouped all children with learning dis-
abilities together, preventing exami-

nation of the effect of oral language
delays in relation to fable comprehen-
sion. Furthermore, reading achieve-
ment scores were not available. Read-
ing achievement and/or experience
could have affected results. In addi-
tion, IQ scores were not available for
the nondisabled control g r o u p . It is
possible that these children h a d higher
nonverbal and verbal abilities than
those classified as learning disabled.
Finally, vocabulary and adherence to
story grammar were not controlled.
Blue (1981) r e c o m m e n d e d that par-
ents, teachers, and clinicians avoid the
use of some forms of figurative lan-
guage with children having severe lan-
guage delays. Although children with
LD manifest deficits in comprehending
and producing figurative language, it
is not necessary to avoid figurative lan-
guage with those of school age. In fact,
in light of the Regular Education Initi-
ative, the increased incidence of inclu-
sive classes, a n d the popularity of the
whole language approach, such rec-
ommendations would come into con-
flict with the curricular d e m a n d s of
general education.
Some promising suggestions for
remediating figurative language defi-
cits in children with LD are beginning
to emerge. These include (a) teaching
decision-making strategies that would
help children with LD to identify w h e n
a literal or figurative interpretation is
necessary (Lutzer, 1988; Seidenberg &
Bernstein, 1986) and (b) using feedback
and practice in small g r o u p settings to
enhance the comprehension of figura-
tive language (Baechle & Ming-Gon,
1990).
Although there is still m u c h to learn
about the nature of figurative language
deficits in children with learning dis-
abilities, there is growing evidence that
these children demonstrate develop-
mental lags and/or deficits in this area.
Future research should continue to
investigate m e t h o d s of improving the
ability of children with LD to cor-
rectly interpret figurative language in
order to be more successful in general
classrooms.
Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016
VOLUME 28, NUMBER 5, MAY 1995 307
ABOUT THE AUTHORS tation: A Piagetian model. Child Devel-
opment, 49, 649-659.
Eileen P. Abrahamsen received her EdD in
speech-language pathology from Teachers Col- Hirsch, K., Jansky, J., & Langsford, W.
de
lege at Columbia University in 1980. She is an (1965). Predicting reading failure. New
associate professor of speech-language pathol- York: Harper & Row.
ogy at Old Dominion University and maintains Demorest, A., Silberstein, L., Gardner, H.,
a small private practice. She is currently inves- & Winner, E. (1983). Telling it as it isn't:
tigating the relationship between phonological Children's understanding of figurative
encoding abilities and reading in children with language. British Journal of Developmental
learning disabilities. Pamela T. Sprouse re- Psychology, 1, 121-134.
ceived her master's degree in speech-language Donahue, M., & Bryan, T. (1984). Commu-
pathology from Old Dominion University in nicative skills and peer relations of learn-
1991 and was awarded a certificate of clinical ing disabled adolescents. Topics in Lan-
competence in speech-language pathology in guage Disorders, 4, 10-21.
1993. She is currently providing services to Douglas, J. D., & Peel, B. (1979). The devel-
elementary-age children in public school and has opment of metaphor and proverb trans-
developed a special interest in children with LD lation in children grades one through
as a result of her work with this population. seven. Journal of Educational Research, 73,
Address: Eileen P. Abrahamsen, Child Study 116-119.
Center, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Gardner, H. (1974). Metaphors and modal-
VA 23529-0136. ities: How children project polar adjec-
tives onto diverse domains. Child Devel-
opment, 45, 84-91.
REFERENCES
Gardner, H., Winner, E., Bechhofer, R., &
Ackerman, B. P. (1982). On comprehend- Wolf, D. (1978). The development of fig-
ing idioms: Do children get the picture? urative language. In K. Nelson (Ed.),
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, Children's language (Vol. 1, pp. 1-38).
33, 439-454. New York: Gardner.
Aram, D., Ekelman, B., & Nation, J. (1984). Gibbs, R. W. (1987). Linguistic factors in
Preschoolers with language disorders: 10 children's understanding of idioms. Jour-
years later. Journal of Speech and Hearing nal of Child Language, 14, 1034-1039.
Research, 27, 232-244. Hall, P., & Tomblin, J. (1978). A follow-up
Aram, D., & Nation, J. (1980). Preschool study of children with articulation and
language disorders and subsequent lan- language disorders. Journal of Speech and
guage and academic difficulties. Journal Hearing Disorders, 43, 227-241.
of Communication Disorders, 13, 159-170. King, R., Jones, C , & Lasky, E. (1982). In
Baechle, C. L., & Ming-Gon, J. L. (1990). retrospect: A fifteen year follow-up report
The effects of direct feedback and prac- of speech-language disordered children.
tice on metaphor performance in children Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in
with learning disabilities. Journal of Learn- the Schools, 13, 24-32.
ing Disabilities, 23, 451-455.
Lee, R. F., & Kahmi, A. G. (1990). Meta-
Bashir, A. S., & Scavuzzo, A. (1992). Chil-
phoric competence in children with learn-
dren with language disorders: Natural
ing disabilities. Journal of Learning Dis-
history and academic success. Journal of
abilities, 23, 476-482.
Learning Disabilities, 25, 53-65.
Billow, R. M. (1975). A cognitive develop- Lobel, A. (1980). Fables. New York: Harper
mental study of metaphor comprehen- & Row.
sion. Developmental Psychology, 11, Lodge, D., & Leach, E. A. (1975). Chil-
415-423. dren's acquisition of idioms in the Eng-
Blue, C M . (1981). Types of utterances to lish language. Journal of Speech and Hearing
Research, 18, 521-529.
avoid when speaking to language im-
paired children. Language, Speech, and Lutzer, V. D. (1988). Comprehension of
Hearing Services in the Schools, 12, 120-124. proverbs by average children and chil-
dren with learning disorders. Journal of
Cacciari, C , & Levorato, M. C. (1989). How
children understand idioms in discourse. Learning Disabilities, 21, 104-108.
Journal of Child Language, 16, 387-405. Malgady, R. G. (1977). Children's interpre-
Cometa, M. S., & Eson, M. E. (1978). Log- tation and appreciation of similes. Child
ical operations and metaphor interpre- Development, 48, 1734-1738.
308 JOURNAL OF LEARNING DISABILITIES

Nippold, M. A., & Fey, S. H. (1983). Meta- Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 17, performance on metaphor-related lan-
phoric understanding in preadolescents 465-477. guage tasks: A comparison of good and
having history of language acquisition Prinz, P. M. (1983). The development of poor readers. Remedial and Special Educa-
difficulties. Language, Speech, and Hearing idiomatic meaning in children. Language tion, 9(2), 39-45.
Services in the Schools, 14, 171-180. and Speech, 26, 263-272. Vosniadou, S., & Ortony, A. (1983). The
Nippold, M. A., Leonard, L. B., & Kail, R. Resnick, D. A. (1982). A developmental emergence of the literal-metaphorical-
(1984). Syntactic and conceptual factors study of proverb comprehension. Journal anomalous distinction in young children.
in children's understanding of meta- of Psycholinguistic Research, 11, 521-538. Child Development, 54, 154-161.
phors. Journal of Speech and Hearing Re- Reynolds, R. E., & Ortony, A. (1980). Some Vosniadou, S., Ortony, A., Reynolds, R.,
search, 27, 197-205. issues in the measurement of children's & Wilson, T. (1984). Sources of difficulty
Nippold, M. A., & Martin, S. T. (1989). comprehension of metaphorical lan- in the young child's understanding of
Idiom interpretation in isolation versus guage. Child Development, 51, 1110-1119. metaphorical language. Child Develop-
context: A developmental study with Richardson, C , & Church, J. (1959). A ment, 55, 1588-1606.
adolescents. Journal of Speech and Hearing developmental analysis of proverb inter- Wechsler, D. (1974). Wechsler intelligence
Research, 32, 59-66. pretations. Journal of Genetic Psychology, scale for children-Revised. San Antonio, TX:
Nippold, M. A., Martin, S. A., & Erskine, 94, 169-179. Psychological Corp.
B. J. (1988). Proverb comprehension in Seidenberg, P. L., & Bernstein, D. K. (1986). Winner, E., Engel, M., & Gardner, H.
context: A developmental study with The comprehension of similes and meta- (1980). Misunderstanding metaphor:
adolescents. Journal of Speech and Hearing phors by learning-disabled and non- What's the problem? Journal of Experimen-
Research, 31, 19-28. learning-disabled children. Language, tal Child Psychology, 30, 22-32.
Ortony, A., Schallert, D. L., Reynolds, Speech, and Hearing Services in the Schools, Winner, E., Rosenstiel, A., & Gardner, H.
R. E., & Antos, S. J. (1978). Interpreting 17, 219-229. (1976). The development of metaphoric
metaphors and idioms: Some effects of Seidenberg, P. L., & Bernstein, D. K. understanding. Developmental Psychology,
context on comprehension. Journal of (1988). Metaphor comprehension and 12, 289-297.

(Continued from p. 301)

REFERENCES Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Dis- Nicolson, R. I., Fawcett, A. J., & Miles,
ciplines, 27, 45-54. T. R. (1993). Feasibility study for the develop-
Bradley, L., & Bryant, P. E. (1978). Difficul- Lovegrove, W. (1994). Visual deficits in dys- ment of a computerized screening test for
ties in auditory organization as a possible lexia: Evidence and implications. In A. J. dyslexia in adults (Report No. OL176).
cause of reading backwardness. Nature, Fawcett & R. I. Nicolson (Eds.), Dys- Sheffield: Employment Department.
271, 746-747. lexia in children: Multidisciplinary perspec- Olson, R. K., Gillis, J. J., Rack, J. P.,
De Gelder, B., & Vroomen, J. (1991). Phono- tives (pp. 113-136). London: Harvester DeFries, J. C , & Fulker, D. W. (1991).
logical deficits: Beneath the surface of Wheatsheaf. Confirmatory factor analysis of word
reading-acquisition problems. Psycholog- Lovegrove, W. J., Garzia, R. P., & Nichol- recognition and process measures in the
ical Research, 53, 88-97. son, S. B. (1990). Experimental evidence Colorado reading project. Reading and
Elliott, C. D. (1992). British ability scales- of a transient system deficit in specific Writing, 3, 235-248.
Spelling scale. Windsor, England: NFER- reading disability. Journal of the American Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in
Nelson. Optometric Association, 61, 137-146. reading: Some consequences of individ-
Fawcett, A. J., & Nicolson, R. I. (1993). McNicol, D. M. (1972). A primer in signal ual differences in the acquisition of liter-
Children with dyslexia show deficits in detection theory. London: George Allen & acy. Reading Research Quarterly, 16, 32-71.
most primitive skills. In W. Kintsch (Ed.), Unwin. Stein, J. F. (1989). Visuospatial perception
Proceedings of the 15th annual conference of Nicolson, R. I., & Fawcett, A. J. (1990). and reading problems. Irish Journal of Psy-
the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 422-427). Automaticity: A new framework for dys- chology, 10, 521-533.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. lexia research. Cognition, 35, 159-182. Stein, J. F. (1994). A visual defect in dys-
Finucci, J. M., Guthrie, J. T., Childs, A. L., Nicolson, R. I., & Fawcett, A. J. (1993). lexics? In A. J. Fawcett & R. I. Nicolson
Abbey, H., & Childs, B. (1976). The Towards the origins of dyslexia. In S. F. (Eds.), Dyslexia in children: Multidiscipli-
genetics of specific reading disability. Wright & R. Groner (Eds.), Facets of dys- nary perspectives (pp. 137-157). London:
Annals of Human Genetics, 50, 1-23. lexia and its remediation (pp. 371-392). Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Jorm, A. F., Share, D. L., McLean, R., & Amsterdam: Elsevier. Thomson, M. E. (1984). Developmental dys-
Matthews, D. (1986). Cognitive factors at Nicolson, R. L, & Fawcett, A. J. (1994). lexia: Its nature, assessment and remediation.
school entry predictive of specific read- Reaction times and dyslexia. Quarterly London: Edward Arnold.
ing retardation and general backward- Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47A, Vellutino, F. R. (1979). Dyslexia: Theory and
ness: A research note. Journal of Child 29-48. research. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Downloaded from ldx.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on March 4, 2016