Why Traditional Language Therapy Fails Autistic Gestalt Language Processors
Yes, I brought plenty of receipts for that claim
When children in the US are diagnosed as autistic, they are often met with a flood of recommendations, including a variety of expensive therapies and services. Speech and language therapy is almost always part of the package. The traditional approach used by speech-language pathologists (SLPs) is based on breaking language down into its smallest components—content, form, and use—and teaching these elements in a linear, step-by-step fashion. This can be effective for some children, but for autistic children who are Gestalt Language Processors (GLPs), it’s often a mismatch. As you know if you’ve been reading my work for a while, we GLPs learn language holistically, absorbing scripts and chunks of language as meaningful units, rather than assembling language piece by piece. For us, traditional therapy that focuses on the fine details of language structure can feel disjointed and confusing, ultimately hindering our progress.
One of the most tragic aspects of the systemic failure to recognise GLPs is that it sets these children up for a lifelong struggle with learning. The system, largely rooted in the medical model of disability, often fails to see GLPs for who they are—children who process language and communication differently, not deficiently. When an autistic child enters the school system without the proper understanding of their language processing style, they are often mislabeled as learning disabled (SLI or SLD eligibility for Special Education services). The reality is that the system simply doesn’t know how to teach them. Instead of supporting their natural learning strengths, educators may focus on their perceived deficits. Over time, this misalignment leads to significant learning loss.
The consequences of this systemic failure are profound. As GLPs move through the school system, the gap between them and their peers grows wider. By the time I see many of these students in high school, they often have elementary-level skills. It’s heartbreaking because this isn’t due to an inherent inability to learn, but rather the system’s inability to teach them in a way that aligns with how they process language. This gap can be avoided if the system shifts its approach and begins to assess and support GLPs from the start, focusing on their strengths rather than forcing them into a framework that doesn’t work for them.
Gestalt Processing and Executive Functioning
Gestalt Language Processing is a way of learning language that involves absorbing whole chunks or scripts, rather than building language step-by-step through individual words or grammar rules. For GLPs, language is learned as meaningful, multi-sensory experiences—phrases and expressions that are tied to specific emotions, sensory perceptions, and contexts. For instance, instead of understanding “I’m hungry” by learning the meaning of “I,” “am,” and “hungry” separately, a GLP learns the entire phrase as a single meaningful unit, often connected to the physical sensation of hunger and the emotional context surrounding it. Over time, GLPs begin to deconstruct and remix these chunks, forming more flexible and spontaneous language, but their foundational approach remains holistic, not linear.
What makes GLP unique, and often misunderstood, is that language is never just about the words themselves. It is deeply intertwined with sensory input and emotional experiences. This means that teaching language in isolation—focusing on individual grammatical rules or word meanings—misses the essential context that makes language meaningful for GLPs. When an SLP or teacher breaks down language into small, disconnected components, the approach conflicts with how GLPs naturally process language, leading to confusion, frustration, and often a lack of progress.
A crucial, often overlooked, aspect of this is the connection between language processing and executive function (EF). Executive function plays a key role in how we organise, prioritise, and apply information, and for GLPs, successfully processing and using language relies heavily on these cognitive mechanisms. Deficits in EF, which are common in many neurodivergent populations—including autistics—can lead to delays in language development. This isn’t because GLPs are inherently incapable of learning language but because our brains are processing multiple layers of sensory and emotional information, all whilst managing cognitive challenges like working memory, attention, and self-regulation. If a child struggles with executive function, they may find it harder to break down scripts and apply them in different contexts, slowing their language development. This is another critical piece of the puzzle that SLPs and teachers must understand when working with GLPs.
Unfortunately, many SLPs are not trained to recognise or work with GLPs, nor are they always familiar with the connection between executive function and language development. In my state, for instance, knowledge of GLP is not a requirement for licensure, meaning that many therapists enter the field without the tools to properly support this population. This lack of understanding is compounded by the siloed nature of the system. Teachers, SLPs, and other professionals who work with children rarely collaborate in meaningful ways, which means that insights from one professional often don’t make their way to the others. For example, a teacher who notices that a child is struggling to break down and apply language scripts in new contexts may not have a way to communicate this observation to their SLP. Conversely, the SLP’s observations about a child’s executive function challenges might never reach the classroom, where they could inform better instructional practices.
This disconnect between professionals only deepens the gap for GLPs, leading to further language delays and academic struggles. The system’s failure to recognise GLP and the role of executive function is not just a misstep; it’s a fundamental failure that causes significant harm to neurodivergent students, keeping them from receiving the support they need to succeed.
Traditional Language Therapy: A Mismatch
Traditional speech-language therapy relies heavily on an analytic approach to language, where language is broken down into its smallest components—verbs, syntax, vocabulary, and pragmatic use. These components are then taught in a linear, step-by-step process, with the assumption that language is learned in this sequential manner. This model works for children who process language analytically, as they naturally acquire language by building it from smaller units and gradually mastering the rules governing its structure. SLPs following this method often focus on specific goals like mastering past tense verbs, improving sentence structure, or increasing vocabulary size. These goals are rooted in the idea that by teaching language rules explicitly, children will gradually develop the ability to use language effectively across different contexts.
However, this method is fundamentally mismatched for GLPs. GLPs don’t learn language sequentially, one word or rule at a time. Instead, we acquire language in large, meaningful chunks—gestalts—that are tied to emotional and sensory experiences. For example, rather than learning “I want to go outside” by understanding each individual word, a GLP may hear the entire phrase in a specific context, like when feeling cooped up in the house, and will later use it as a complete script. Over time, GLPs break down and reassemble these chunks, but their approach to language is always holistic, driven by context, emotion, and experience rather than by rules or isolated word meanings.
When traditional SLP methods are applied to GLPs, the disconnect becomes immediately clear. Teaching a GLP to memorise vocabulary words or follow grammatical rules without the rich context and emotional resonance that makes language meaningful to them feels disjointed. The structure and form of language are separated from the sensory experiences that GLPs rely on to process and understand communication. This analytic approach can cause immense frustration for GLPs, who are being asked to learn in a way that is completely at odds with how we naturally acquire and use language.
The result is often a lack of progress. GLPs may struggle to meet therapy goals because the traditional methods don’t align with their cognitive style. For example, when taught verbs in isolation, a GLP may not grasp how to apply them in real-life situations because the verbs have no emotional or contextual grounding. This frustration is compounded when therapists, unaware of GLP, interpret this lack of progress as a language delay or disorder, rather than recognising that the therapy itself is the mismatch. The work of Barry Prizant and Marge Blanc, through Natural Language Acquisition (NLA), provides a more effective model, focusing on building from these meaningful chunks of language rather than imposing arbitrary rules on how language should be learned.
Ultimately, traditional SLP methods not only fail to meet the needs of GLPs but also risk pathologising their natural way of acquiring language. By forcing GLPs into an analytic framework that strips language of its sensory and emotional meaning, therapy becomes an uphill battle—one that doesn’t have to exist if SLPs embrace models like NLA, which honour how GLPs truly process and understand language.
Cognitive Mechanisms and Language Learning for GLPs
Cognitive mechanisms such as working memory, sensory integration, and executive function play a critical role in language learning, particularly for GLPs. Again, unlike traditional language learners, GLPs don’t rely on sequential learning of grammar rules or individual words. Instead, we rely on holistic integration, processing language as a complete experience tied to sensory, emotional, and contextual information. For GLPs, language is not just words or syntax—it’s the full embodiment of meaning within a specific context. This is why focusing on cognitive mechanisms, especially EF, is essential for our successful language development.
Executive function, which includes skills such as working memory, cognitive flexibility, and inhibitory control, is crucial for GLPs as we attempt to break down and generalise the chunks of language we’ve acquired. GLPs often need strong EF support to navigate this complex process of language acquisition and use. For example, working memory allows us to hold onto chunks of language long enough to apply them in new situations. Sensory integration helps us make sense of the emotional and physical contexts in which language is used. When EF skills are underdeveloped, it becomes harder for GLPs to manage this holistic processing, leading to delays in language development.
Unfortunately, therapies and educational interventions often neglect these broader cognitive skills in favour of teaching isolated language components. There is a growing body of research, such as the work by McMurray et al. (2019) and Bishara & Kaplan (2022), that emphasises the importance of targeting cognitive mechanisms rather than focusing solely on linguistic components. McMurray’s research on lexical deficits highlights how EF challenges can underlie difficulties in language development, while Bishara and Kaplan’s work on inhibitory control demonstrates how EF directly impacts academic achievement. For GLPs, supporting cognitive skills like EF can be a game changer, helping us to process language more effectively.
Yet, supporting executive function is rarely addressed in teacher preparation or professional development programmes. Teachers and therapists are often unaware of how critical EF is to GLP learning, and this gap in understanding leads to ineffective interventions. Therapies that support holistic integration of language—through social scripts, contextual learning, and emotional resonance—are more aligned with how GLPs naturally process language and must be prioritised if we are to help these students thrive.
The Limitations of Speech-Language Therapy for Autistic GLPs
The current models of speech-language therapy often fail to meet the needs of autistic GLPs in fundamental ways. One of the most glaring issues is the widespread focus on reducing echolalia, a communication tool that many GLPs naturally rely on. Echolalia, the repetition of phrases or chunks of language, is not a meaningless or problematic behaviour; it’s an essential part of how GLPs learn, process, and communicate. Yet many SLPs, steeped in traditional models of language acquisition, see it as a behaviour that needs to be eliminated. They approach echolalia as something to “correct” rather than a valuable tool that GLPs use to make sense of language, resulting in therapies that seek to suppress this form of communication rather than nurture it.
Through the lens of the Power Threat Meaning Framework (PTMF), this approach can be understood as not only ineffective but potentially traumatic for autistic individuals. When GLPs are forced to abandon our natural way of learning language in favour of an analytic, rule-based system, the underlying message is clear: “The way you communicate is wrong, and you need to comply with our system.” This is especially damaging because it reflects a broader pattern in autistic people’s lives—those in positions of power misunderstanding us and using behaviourist methods to enforce compliance. Over time, repeated exposure to this dynamic can lead to complex post-traumatic stress disorder (cPTSD). The trauma isn’t just about the therapy itself, but about the meaning the individual derives from the experience—that our way of being is inherently flawed and must be suppressed to fit into societal norms.
Therapies that aim to “correct” language use rather than work with GLP strengths perpetuate this harm. Instead of recognising that GLPs learn language holistically, these therapies try to reshape them into standardised moulds of language users. This approach is not only misguided but also, when viewed through Critical Theory, colonial in nature. GLPs gather language scripts from a wide range of sources, including media, family, and peers. These scripts are often in dialects or languages outside Standard American English (SAE). By forcing GLPs to abandon these scripts in favour of “correct” language, traditional therapies erase the rich linguistic diversity that GLPs bring to the table. This practice mirrors colonial efforts to suppress non-dominant languages and enforce conformity to the language of power.
The focus should instead be on working with the natural strengths of GLPs, embracing our ability to learn through whole experiences and phrases. Rather than trying to fix what isn’t broken, therapy should honour the meaningful, multi-sensory ways GLPs acquire language and allow them to use these strengths to communicate in ways that are authentic to their lived experiences. By shifting away from colonial and behaviourist models, we can create a more neurodivergent-affirming approach that recognises GLPs for the powerful communicators they are, rather than trying to reshape them into something they are not.
A Call for Neurodivergent-Affirming Therapy
A shift towards neurodivergent-affirming therapy is essential to truly support GLPs. Instead of focusing on ‘correcting’ our natural ways of acquiring language, therapy must embrace and build on our strengths. Neurodivergent-affirming practices begin by recognising that GLPs learn language holistically, absorbing chunks of meaningful phrases or scripts, often tied to sensory experiences and emotional contexts. The goal of therapy should not be to dismantle these chunks into isolated grammatical components but to honour and expand them, allowing GLPs to develop more flexible and nuanced communication over time.
One key strategy is to build on echolalia rather than trying to suppress it. For GLPs, echolalia is not a deficit but a foundational way of learning and using language. Therapists can work with this by encouraging the use of echolalic phrases in new contexts, gradually helping children break down and modify these scripts in ways that feel natural. By doing so, we allow GLPs to retain the emotional and contextual richness that makes language meaningful for them, whilst still supporting their growth in using language more flexibly.
Another effective approach is the use of storytelling and narratives. GLPs thrive on context, and storytelling provides a rich, multi-sensory framework for learning language. Therapists can introduce new phrases or language concepts through engaging stories that tie into the child’s experiences, emotions, and sensory world. This not only makes language more meaningful but also provides a natural way for GLPs to absorb new scripts and phrases.
Finally, therapy should focus on the whole meaning of language rather than drilling down into discrete grammatical elements. GLPs are not naturally inclined to learn language in this fragmented way. Instead, therapy should prioritise meaningful communication—whether through phrases, gestures, or even visual supports—that aligns with how GLPs experience the world. By embracing these strategies, we can create a more supportive and empowering environment for young GLPs, allowing them to thrive as the communicators they naturally are.
Final thoughts …
To wrap up, language therapy for GLPs must move beyond traditional, analytic models and instead embrace how GLPs naturally process and communicate. The current approach, which breaks language down into isolated components, often leads to frustration and lack of progress for GLPs, whose holistic way of acquiring language is deeply tied to sensory experiences, emotions, and context. By continuing to impose rigid, standardised methods of language therapy, we not only misunderstand GLPs but risk causing long-term emotional harm by denying their natural strengths.
It’s time for a shift towards neurodivergent-affirming practices that honour how GLPs learn and communicate. Therapists, educators, and parents must advocate for therapeutic methods that build on the strengths of echolalia, incorporate storytelling, and focus on whole, meaningful communication rather than dissecting language into isolated grammatical parts. Moving towards a cognitive-based, holistic approach is not just more effective—it respects the diverse ways that neurodivergent individuals engage with language. By embracing these changes, we can create a more inclusive, supportive environment where GLPs are empowered to thrive as their authentic selves. The call to action is clear: it’s time to reimagine language therapy in a way that respects and uplifts neurodivergent learners.
References:
Prizant, B.M. and Duchan, J.F., 1981. The functions of immediate echolalia in autistic children. Journal of speech and hearing disorders, 46(3), pp.241-249.
Prizant, B.M., 1983. Language acquisition and communicative behavior in autism: Toward an understanding of the" whole" of it. Journal of speech and hearing disorders, 48(3), pp.296-307.
Prizant, B.M. and Rydell, P.J., 1984. Analysis of functions of delayed echolalia in autistic children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 27(2), pp.183-192.
Prizant, B.M. and Wetherby, A.M., 1987. Communicative intent: A framework for understanding social-communicative behavior in autism. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 26(4), pp.472-479.
Blanc, M., 2012. Natural language acquisition on the autism spectrum: The journey from echolalia to self-generated language. Madison, WI: Communication Development Center.
Green, B.C., Johnson, K.A. and Bretherton, L., 2014. Pragmatic language difficulties in children with hyperactivity and attention problems: An integrated review. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 49(1), pp.15-29.
Evans, V., 2015. The crucible of language: How language and mind create meaning. Cambridge University Press.
Zwaan, R.A., 2016. Situation models, mental simulations, and abstract concepts in discourse comprehension. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 23, pp.1028-1034.
Friederici, A.D., 2017. Language in our brain: The origins of a uniquely human capacity. MIT Press.
McMurray, B., Klein-Packard, J. and Tomblin, J.B., 2019. A real-time mechanism underlying lexical deficits in developmental language disorder: Between-word inhibition. Cognition, 191, p.104000.
Bishara, S. and Kaplan, S., 2022. Inhibitory control, self-efficacy, and mathematics achievements in students with learning disabilities. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 69(3), pp.868-887.
Viesel-Nordmeyer, N., Röhm, A., Starke, A. and Ritterfeld, U., 2022. How language skills and working memory capacities explain mathematical learning from preschool to primary school age: Insights from a longitudinal study. Plos one, 17(6), p.e0270427.
Yang, Q., Jiang, X. and Zhou, X., 2022. Presupposition processing in language comprehension. Advances in Psychological Science, 30(7), p.1511.
Blanc, M., Blackwell, A. and Elias, P., 2023. Using the natural language acquisition protocol to support gestalt language development. Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups, 8(6), pp.1279-1286.
Hoerricks, J., 2023. No Place for Autism? Lived Places Publishing.
Peter, C., 2023. Oakley, B., Ragowsky, B., & Sejnowski, TJ (2021). Uncommon sense teaching: Practical insights in brain science to help students learn. Canadian Journal of Educational Administration and Policy, (202), pp.188-190.
Hoerricks, J., 2024. Holistic Language Instruction. Lived Places Publishing.