Michelle Dawson posts

Post published on Bluesky on 23 May 2024 10:57

Bluesky DOI work crossref Extract quoted in the post External link integrated into the post Autism terms

Structured cited links

1 cited resource

DOI work Fetched Post crossref

Tiffany L Hutchins, Sophie E Knox, E Cheryl Fletcher (2024). Natural language acquisition and gestalt language processing: A critical analysis of their application to autism and speech language therapy. Autism & Developmental Language Impairments, 9, 23969415241249944. SAGE Publications.

Publication date
22 May 2024
Identifier
10.1177/23969415241249944
Authors
Tiffany L Hutchins, Sophie E Knox, E Cheryl Fletcher
Source
Autism & Developmental Language Impairments
Details
9, 23969415241249944
Reference type
article
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Metadata source
crossref

Abstract

Background and Aim Recently, there has been a lot of interest surrounding the term gestalt language processor (GLP) which is associated with Natural Language Acquisition (NLA): a protocol intended to support the language development of autistic people. In NLA, delayed echolalia is presumed raw source material that GLPs use to acquire language in a stage-like progression from delayed echolalia to spontaneous speech. The aim of this article is to evaluate NLA in light of relevant literatures to allow scrutiny of NLA claims. Main contributions First, we review the notion of gestalt language and situate it in the broader literature on language styles to update understanding of its significance. We then review the links from gestalt language processing to autism and identify definitional and conceptual problems and clarify the construct ‘episodic memory’. We discuss the ‘raw material view of delayed echolalia’ and identify theoretical and empirical shortcomings. Finally, we review Blanc’s language stages and their accompanying assessment and language support recommendations and challenge their validity. Conclusions & Implications The term ‘gestalt language processor’ is definitionally and conceptually troubled, the assertion that autistic people are GLPs is misleading and unhelpful, and evidence is lacking that GLP represents a legitimate clinical entity. The theoretical basis of NLA lacks empirical support. NLA stages are implausible and their accompanying assessment and support recommendations lack justification. We recommend the use of alternate, individualized, theoretically-sound, evidence-based, neurodiversity-affirming supports that are sensitive and responsive to the heterogeneity that defines autism.

Study authors in this cited reference