We present a meta-analysis of studies that compare figurative language comprehension in individuals with autism spectrum disorder and in typically developing controls who were matched based on chronological age or/and language ability. A total of 41 studies and 45 independent effect sizes were included based on predetermined inclusion criteria. Group matching strategy, age, types of figurative language, and cross-linguistic differences were examined as predictors that might explain heterogeneity in effect sizes. Overall, individuals with autism spectrum disorder showed poorer comprehension of figurative language than their typically developing peers (Hedges’ g = –0.57). A meta-regression analysis showed that group matching strategy and types of figurative language were significantly related to differences in effect sizes, whereas chronological age and cross-linguistic differences were not. Differences between the autism spectrum disorder and typically developing groups were small and nonsignificant when the groups were matched based on the language ability. Metaphors were more difficult to comprehend for individuals with autism spectrum disorder compared with typically developing controls than were irony and sarcasm. Our findings highlight the critical role of core language skills in figurative language comprehension. Interventions and educational programmes designed to improve social communication skills in individuals with autism spectrum disorder may beneficially target core language skills in addition to social skills.

Successful communication depends on language content, language form, and language use (pragmatics). Children with Down syndrome (DS) experience communication difficulties, however little is known about their pragmatic profile, particularly during early school years. The purpose of the present study was to explore the nature of pragmatic communication in children with DS. Twenty-nine six-year-old children with DS were assessed, in the areas of 1) initiation, 2) scripted language, 3) understanding context and 4) nonverbal communication, as reported by children's parents via the Children's Communication Checklist-2 (Bishop, 2003). Additionally, the relationships between pragmatics and measures of vocabulary, nonverbal mental ability and social functioning were explored. Children with DS were impaired relative to norms from typically developing children in all areas of pragmatics. A profile of relative strengths and weaknesses was found in the children with DS; the area of nonverbal communication was significantly stronger, while the area of understanding context was significantly poorer, relative to the other areas of pragmatics assessed in these children. Relationships between areas of pragmatics and other linguistic areas, as well as aspects of vocabulary and social functioning were observed. By the age of six children with DS experience significantly impaired pragmatic communication, with a clear profile of relative strengths and weaknesses. The study highlights the need to teach children with DS pragmatic skills as a component of communication, alongside language content and form.