漢語母語自閉障礙患童與青少年的主謂賓語句型理解與心智理論縱貫研究

A Longitudinal Study on Sentential Complements and Theory of Mind in Native Chinese-Speaking Children and Adolescents with Autism Spectrum Disorders

心智理論的發展異常是自閉障礙患者主要的功能缺損之一。了解語言能力在此發展歷程中所扮 演的角色，具有病理與實務的雙重意義。本實驗旨在探討以漢語為母語的自閉障礙患童與青少 年之主謂賓語句法發展與心智理論能力發展間的關係。追蹤42 名自閉障礙患童與青少年大約一 年的時間，測量其第一時間點的心智與溝通動詞主謂賓語句法理解力，以及心智理論能力作業 之表現；相隔一年之後再測一次相同的兩類型作業。結果顯示，若控制生理年齡與一般語言產 出能力，並控制初始的心智理論作業表現，動詞主謂賓語句法的能力可獨立預測一年後心智理 論作業的表現，另一方面，第一年的心智理論表現無法預測第二年的心智理論表現。因此推論 自閉障礙患童與青少年對於動詞主謂賓語句型的理解會影響其心智理論能力的發展。不過，本 研究的發現在四種不同的動詞主謂賓語個別獨立預測力的結論上與過去研究並不完全一致。研 究最後討論可能導致此差異的因素，並提出對於未來研究方向的建議。

Theory of mind (ToM) has been known as one of the main developmental deficits in individuals with autistic spectrum disorders (ASDs). It is therefore both theoretically and practically important to observe how the two concepts correlate with each other in individuals with ASDs. The current study aimed to longitudinally investigate this issue in Mandarin-speaking children and adolescents with ASDs. Forty-two children and adolescents were followed for about a year and tested at two time points approximately a year apart. Theory of mind scores at time 1 and time 2 were measured with both verbal and non-verbal ToM tasks. Comprehension of sentential complements (SC) was also tested at the two time points with cognition (“think”) and communication (“say”) verbs of both true and false complementation. Our findings show that SC at time 1 can successfully predict ToM at time 2 while controlling for chronological age， general language production abilities and ToM at time 1. However， ToM at time 1 cannot successfully predict SC at time 2 given the same controlled conditions. Thus， the results suggest that the comprehension of sentential complements should play a causal role in ToM development in Mandarin-speaking children and adolescents with ASD. However， our findings regarding how each of the fourtypes of SC independently contributes to ToM abilities a year later are not totally consistent with past research done with English-speaking participants. Some possible reasons for the differences have been discussed. Suggestions for future studies have also been proposed.