{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018418201516793065, 'fraction_numerical': 0.00866738894907909, 'mean_word_length': 6.21875, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Interpreting figurative language expressions.

Interpretations of figurative language expressions were compared in matched samples of 28 language/learning-disabled (LLD) and 28 academically achieving (non-LLD) adolescents. LLD adolescents performed significantly poorer than their non-LLD age peers. All but 1 of 12 figurative language expressions contributed to the significant group difference. Stepwise discriminant analysis identified 3 figurative expressions as the best single predictors of an LLD group placement. Qualitative analysis indicated that the LLD group produced predominantly literal error interpretations while the non-LLD controls produced predominantly partial and/or incomplete error interpretations. The results indicate that interpretation and matching of figurative language expressions can assess levels of acquisition of metaphoric ability by adolescents and provide suggestions for intervention.