Use of Aspect Markers by Mandarin-speaking Children with High-Functioning Autism Plus Language Impairment and Children with Developmental Language Disorder

•This study compares the use of aspect markers among HFA-LI, DLD, and TD groups.•Children with HFA-LI and children with DLD have similar language profiles.•Aspectual development of preschool children with HFA-LI/DLD trails their TD peers’.•Children with ASD and those with DLD could be on the continuum of language impairment. This study investigates the comprehension and production of four typical Mandarin aspect markers zai-, -le, -zhe, and -guo by preschool children with high functioning autism plus language impairment (HFA-LI) and those with developmental language disorder (DLD), by comparing them with typically developing age-matched (TDA) children. Twenty children with HFA-LI (M/F: 18/2; mean age: 5.20), 20 with DLD (M/F: 11/9; mean age: 5.25), and 20 TDA children (M/F:14/6; mean age:5.27) completed a picture-choice task and priming picture-description task. The results were analyzed using non-parametric methods. In the comprehension task, the HFA-LI and DLD groups achieved lower accuracy than the TDA group on zai-, -le, and -guo. The comprehension of aspect markers in the HFA-LI and DLD groups was affected by lexical aspect. In the production task, the HFA-LI and DLD groups produced fewer sentences with the target aspect marker for all four aspect markers than the TDA group. However, they produced more sentences with bare verb forms for zai- and -guo than the TDA group. Furthermore, all three groups tended to combine aspect markers with their semantically inherent types of verbs (e.g, zai-+Activity verbs). The HFA-LI group produced more sentences irrelevant to the task than the other two groups for -zhe and -guo, and some children in the HFA-LI group produced ungrammatical sentences in which both the progressive zai- and perfective -le were used. Children with HFA-LI and DLD demonstrate similarities in the comprehension and production of Mandarin aspect markers, given their poor comprehension of the aspect markers zai-, -le and -guo, and poor production of all four aspect markers compared to their TDA peers. Their performance was also impacted by lexical aspect.