Another Linguist's Take on Blanc's Proposition of Gestalt Language Processing and Natural Language Acquisition: Part 1

Back in December, there was a presentation at ASHA that garnered a lot of attention in certain circles, both positive and negative. The presentation was a critique of Gestalt Language Processing -- specifically the Natural Language Acquisition approach, created by Marge Blanc, to provide language development support for children who are Gestalt Language Processors. This presentation was based on an article that was published soon after:

Systematic Review of Interventions Based on “Gestalt Language Processing” and “Natural Language Acquisition” (GLP/NLA): Clinical Implications of Absence of Evidence and Cautions for Clinicians and Parents.

The above paper referenced this one, written by one of the co-authors:

A Linguist’s Take on Blanc’s Proposition of Gestalt Language Processing and Natural Language Acquisition: An Implausible Theory at Odds with the Research | Current Developmental Disorders Reports

The author, Katharine Beals, argues that "the purported linguistic units in GLP -- gestalts, defined as language that is echoed as analyzed [sic] stretches of speech sounds -- are not plausible either as building blocks in language acquisition, or as full-fledged linguistic phenomenon [...]".

First, let's give Beals the benefit of the doubt and assume that she intended to say "language that is echoed as unanalyzed stretches of speech sounds".

Second, I was very confused when I read this. As someone with only an undergraduate level of academic training in linguistics (aside from self-study since becoming an SLP), the concept of linguistic gestalts was still very familiar to me and even seemed to be so obvious a reality that it didn't even make sense to question it.

The critiques of GLP often mention a very limited set of scientific research that reportedly supports GLP -- Ann Peters and Barry Prizant seem to be the favorites scholars cited so far. But there's plenty of other academic evidence that I haven't really seen discussed.

So let's discuss it. Here's a start:

Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Harvard University Press.

There are numerous ideas in this book, which is based on both empirical research as well as theoretical discussion, that support the concept of linguistic gestalts as a scientific reality as well as a building block of language acquisition. Let's start with just one idea:

---

Holophrases

Image description: a red hexagon with six arrows pointing away from it in all directions.

[C]hildren's early one-word utterances may be thought of as "holophrases" that convey a holistic, undifferentiated communicative intention, most often the same communicative intention as that of the adult expressions from which they were learned (Barrett, 1982; Ninio, 1992). Many of children's early holophrases are relatively idiosyncratic, and their uses can change and evolve over time in a somewhat unstable manner.

(p. 36)

[M]ost children begin language acquisition by learning some unparsed adult expressions as holophrases -- such expressions as I-wanna-do-it, Lemme-see, and Where-the-bottle. The prevalence of this pattern in the early combinatorial speech of English-speaking children has been documented by Pine and Lieven (1993), who found that almost all children have at least some of these so-called frozen phrases in their early speech. This is especially true of some children, especially later-born children who observe siblings (Barton and Tomasello, 1994; Bates, Bretherton, and Snyder, 1998).

(p. 38)

Let's summarize and make some connections:

• Holophrases "convey a holistic, undifferentiated communicative intention, most often the same communicative intention as that of the adult expressions from which they were learned".

  • Sounds an awful lot like a "gestalt" or "stage 1 utterance" as they're described in NLA. Also known as delayed echolalia. Though, in the case of many neurodivergent children, the meaning that the learner derives from the original experience may not match up precisely with what the speaker intended. Exactly how holophrases relate to delayed echolalia and/or NLA Stage 1 is an interesting question that should be discussed further.

    
    

• "[M]ost children begin language acquisition by learning some unparsed adult expressions as holophrases -- such expressions as I-wanna-do-it, Lemme-see, and Where-the-bottle."

  • I'm pretty sure this is saying that unparsed utterances as holophrases (a.k.a. linguistic phenomenon likely quite similar to "gestalts" or "Stage 1 utterances") are a typical linguistic phenomenon during very early language acquisition for most children.

    
    

According to this text, the concept of linguistic gestalts -- at least in the form of holophrases -- has been discussed as a known linguistic phenomenon, involved in early language acquisition, by multiple authors in academic literature since the 90s.

Why hasn't this been mentioned when these detractors of GLP discuss its supposed lack of theoretical foundations?

More to come. This is just the beginning.

---

Part 2