**1. Introduction**

tive open trial of guanfacine in children with pervasive developmental disorders.

[72] Seltzer, M.M., Krauss, M.W., Shattuck, P.T., Orsmond, G., Swe, A., & Lord, C. 2003. The symptoms of autism spectrum disorders in adolescence and adulthood. Journal of

[73] Stahlberg, O., Soderstrom, H., Rastam, M., & Gillberg, C. 2004. Bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and other psychotic disorders in adults with childhood onset AD/HD and/or autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Neural Transmission, 111, 7, pp. 891-902.

[74] Szatmari, P., Archer, L., Fisman, S., Streiner, D.L., and Wilson, F. 1995. Asperger's syndrome and autism: differences in behavior, cognition, and adaptive functioning. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 34, 12, pp.

[75] Warren, Z., McPheeters, M. L., Sathe, N., Foss-Feig, J.H., Glasser, A., & Veenstra-Vanderweele, J. 2011. A systematic review of early intensive intervention for autism

[76] Weinssman, L., & Bridgemohan, C. 2012. (last updated: 06/05/2012) Autism spectrum disorder in children and adolescents: pharmacologic interventions. In, *Up To Date*, acessed on 08/30/2012, Available from http://www.uptodate.com/contents-autismspectrum-disorders-in -children-and-adolescents-pharmacological-interventions

[77] Zeiner, P., Gjevik, E., and Weidle, B. 2011. Response to atomoxetine in boys with highfunctioning autism spectrum disorders and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology, 16, 5, pp. 589-98.

Autism and Developmental Disorders, 33, 6, pp. 565-81.

spectrum disorders. Pediatrics, 127, 5, pp. e1303-11.

Acta Paediatrica, 100, 9, pp. 1258-61.

1662-71.

656 Recent Advances in Autism Spectrum Disorders - Volume I

Human language is a system of linguistic symbols acquired through a long ontological process of cultural learning [1]. It serves two functional aspects, communication and cognition [2]. The communicative function of language emerges in the indicative function and allows the establishment of the communication process through choice and combination of symbols [2], whereas, the cognitive function of language allows the representation of beliefs and intentions through linguistic symbols; thus, acts on one's own mental states and that of others [1]. Our view of autism and the way it affect communication is discussed along those lines.

As our conception of language development, it is assumed that communicating is more than speaking. Communicating means skillfully using a powerful tool of mediation1:hu‐ man language. In addition, human language is taken here with all its possible modes of expression, including verbal and non-verbal symbols. Communication is neither regarded as a linear process of direct use of a symbolic system (language) nor as a process of lan‐ guage acquisition of grammatical and phonetic items. The complex process behind lan‐ guage acquisition includes social, cultural, historical, and intersubjective dimensions and is interactional in essence. Interaction, the fuel for development, occurs within scenes of joint attention, in which interacting agents intentionally use linguistic symbols to express intentions, beliefs and representations from their own perspective in several ways [3]. These are the premises underlying our research.

<sup>1</sup> From a sociohistorical perspective, mediation is regarded as a scene of joint attention [1] between two or more subjects intentionally using tools and signs (such as language) to promote a process of appropriation with differentiated responsibility and competence among participants.

© 2013 Passerino and Bez; licensee InTech. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. © 2013 The Author(s). Licensee InTech. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Human primates' natural trend to understand others as intentional agents with goals and perceptions is the basis for the engagement in collaborative activities and joint attention [1]. Different from other primates, humans have developed a specific capacity to share attention and establish a unique type of social interaction. Hence, scenes of joint attention constitute social interactional processes in which: 1) agents are reciprocally responsible; 2) there is a shared goal, that is, each partner is aware of the goal to be achieved together; and, 3) partici‐ pants coordinate their plans of action and intentions mutually so that each participant can anticipate the roles in the interaction and potentially help others with their role if necessary2 [4].

Besides intersubjectivity, linguistic symbols require an ability to understand perspectiva‐ tion. Understanding a symbol is a prerequisite to understanding the intentions, beliefs and background knowledge of others, as well as a particular perspective about an object or event that is incorporated into the symbol [1]. Human ability to adopt different per‐ spectives for the same symbol or to treat different objects as if they were the same for some communicative purpose is only possible because all of those perspectives are incor‐ porated into the symbol. So, this perspectivated nature of linguistic symbols sets forth an endless array of possibilities to manipulate the attention of others with implications for

Building an Alternative Communication System for Literacy of Children with Autism (SCALA) with Context-Centered

Autism belongs in the group of Pervasive Developmental Disorders (PDDs). Literature highlights a triad of elements [7] for the identification of the disorder: behavior, social interaction, and language and communication [8]. In the presence of autism, such elements portray qualitative features which prove to be peculiar or bear deficits. This session aims at discussing the characteristics related to communication and language in autism in more detail without deepening other inter-related aspects of the syndrome (such as interaction and behavior). Presenting a state of the art of on autism is not intended here, but rather, a brief

The field of language and communication in autism presents a great potential for researches. Although there have been many recent studies on autism, there is a gap in what concerns language and communication. So far, emphasis has been on aspects of social interaction,

It is widely known that there are certain deficits in communication, such as, the absence of expressive body cues (in non-verbal communication), deficits in understanding colloquial exchanges, and speech that is not adjusted the context (in verbal communication). Several elements in the speech of a subject with autism account for it being regarded as strange, unproductive, monotonous and unusual, such as a) the difficulty in using pronouns properly, particularly, with pronoun inversions; b) the repetition of questions which have already been answered or of fixed sentences in a mediated echolalic process; c) the literal understanding of metaphors or idiomatic slangs; and, d) the difficulty in using predicative abbreviations4

In a study involving with neurotypical, mentally impaired and children with autism, the kind of gestures children use to communicate have been analyzed [10] and three main categories of gestures emerged: deictic (pointing); instrumental, to organize others' behavior; and, expressive, to share emotions. The study reveals that while typical and mentally impaired children use the three types of gestures, the group of children with autism only uses deictic

4 Predicative abbreviations consist of replacind the subject of a sentence so that the predicative remains as a hidden subject. For example: "Laura always buys bread at the grocery at the corner. She takes a bag and some change her mother leaves on the fridge." The second statement has a predicative abbreviation. It contains the action and the subject is implicit

[9].

Design of Usage

659

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/54547

the nature of its cognitive representation [1].

diagnostic and prevalence.

(WERTSCH, 1988).

**2. Communication in autism: Some considerations**

review of some researches concerning language use and communication.

Scenes of joint attention contribute with the *locus* for the negotiation needed for the construc‐ tion of intersubjective and perspectivated meanings [1]. This is what characterizes the process of communication as a relational and systemic phenomenon. Subjects are actively involved in interaction with a particular dynamics of implicit or explicit rules over which none of the subjects have complete control.

Such intersubjective and perspectivated construction of meanings reveals the uniqueness of human language as, upon the specific use of a particular linguistic symbol, it carries a local, historical and social meaning jointly constructed. This is also to say that in each interaction, participants quickly update possible meanings.

By extension, learning a language is a process situated relationally, historically and culturally. In each interactional process where two individuals engage, there is an intersubjective reconstruction of the perspectives of the others in the representation of their own intentions and beliefs, which requires interacting individuals to select, filter and reconfigure symbols, according to the context, intentions, beliefs and mental representations of co-participants in the communication process.

Communication implies reorganization and coordination of social, cultural and mental representations of subjects in interaction. It is precisely by means of linguistic symbols, namely signs, that it is possible to build and share meanings. That dialectical dimension of the use/ understanding/acquisition of a sign is a feature of the linguistic symbol which always involves two dimensions, language and thought. As a consequence, the attainment of a linguistic symbol constitutes a real and complex act of thought, represented by the word. It is not simply acquired by memorization or association [2].

Language acquisition is realized through the use of the symbol in actions of mediation (triadic) by which participants negotiate and construct meaning in an intersubjective way, because "[...] the meaning of a word is given through the process of verbal and social interaction with adults. Children do not build their own concepts freely. They derive them through the process of understanding the speech of others " [5] (p. 121). It is precisely within those triadic scenes, called joint attention scenes [1], that the interlocutors share some Aspect of their context3 and where intersubjectivity occurs [4]. It is also important to note that interlocutors may reach different levels intersubjectivity depending on the extent of their exchanges [5, 6].

<sup>2</sup> Especially in interactions between subjects with different levels of experience or knowledge about the situation.

<sup>3</sup> The context refers to the way objects and events are represented and meant in a situation [6].

Besides intersubjectivity, linguistic symbols require an ability to understand perspectiva‐ tion. Understanding a symbol is a prerequisite to understanding the intentions, beliefs and background knowledge of others, as well as a particular perspective about an object or event that is incorporated into the symbol [1]. Human ability to adopt different per‐ spectives for the same symbol or to treat different objects as if they were the same for some communicative purpose is only possible because all of those perspectives are incor‐ porated into the symbol. So, this perspectivated nature of linguistic symbols sets forth an endless array of possibilities to manipulate the attention of others with implications for the nature of its cognitive representation [1].
