gestalt language: should we be facilitating it?

re Gestalt Language:

At this moment, our country seems to be divided by politics or issues. People have difficulty bridging the gap across perspectives to allow for some level of shared belief. In a way, this divisiveness seems to be happening in the field of speech pathology regarding teaching children the beginning steps of language, especially children with Autism. There seems to be a sense that children who are judged to be “gestalt” language learners , i.e. those who process language by memorizing whole phrases or language“chunks," must learn language in this manner.

To truly understand if that is the case, we might wonder why some of our autistic children are “gestalt” language learners. First of all, it is widely accepted that many Autistic children have very strong rote memory skills. If that is the case, the likelihood that they can retain chunks of language input increases. In addition, language phrases are presented with varied intonation and often, high affect, both of which draw the children to the phrases. It is also widely recognized, that there are many Autistic children who, despite being able to produce, extensive language, have little comprehension of the the specific content. Like typical children who, early on, might acquire a the meaning of a word in a distorted way by applying the word to a whole scenario, e.g. using the word “man” only to refer to a man who is seen while looking out a window and wearing a furry hat, a child using a gestalt might apply that gestalt to an overall situation. For example, “Itsa hot hot day,” might become a means of requesting a drink as, initially, the phrase might have been used with the child when given a cold glass of water. To this end, the child will use the phrase to request water whether it is a hot day or not. The adult, reading the situation of the child being near the sink and possibly remembering the use of the phrase, will then translate the phrase and give the child the desired water. In this way, the child’s use of the phrase is inadvertently reinforced. The child will then continue to use this phrase to request water, and so the phrase “Itsa hot hot day” becomes a language gestalt and the child is seen as a “gestalt language user.” While this scenario is simplistic, it does encapsulate the essence of how a gestalt language user might evolve as other phrases can be learned in the same way.

Two questions then emerge: Should the child be encouraged to use other gestalts as he seems to be able to learn chunks of language with ease? Why hasn’t the child learned individual words from which he could build creative sentence structures? In response to the first question: By all means, any communicative attempt by a child, that can be interpreted accurately, should be honored. For example, if a child yells “bee stings ouch!!” as a means of expressing being in pain, that intent should be recognized and responded to! In this way, the child will learn that he can communicate in words. However, the adult should recognize that these words are not conveying his specific message. In fact, in some cases, the gestalt might not get the child the needed response from an adult. If the adult is unfamiliar with the child’s language gestalt, the adult might simply tell the child that there is no bee. Therefore, what a child communicates through his gestalt should be noted and more specific, contextually based language should be facilitated, even taught as another gestalt, if necessary. For example, once the adult is aware that the child is in pain, the adult could model “It hurts!.” While the child might still initiate the interaction through the gestalt, the additional specific phrase would support better understanding by any adult.

The second question as to why the child has not learned how to combine specific words, is more complicated and variable. Autistic children often have language deficits. Often, but not always, language intervention is included when supporting these children. Often the language intervention is offered as part of an overall behavioral program. The content of the language intervention may be static, and the verb structures not taught in a meaningful way as the content might be taught through picture identification (e.g. give me “throwing”) or the verb might not be taught at all. Often the content is taught in a repetitive manner. Often, the content is taught through testing and not real teaching (e.g. three pictures are on the table and the child has to select one). Actual use of basic phrases and sentences within life might not be taught. Without understanding how to combine words around a verb, simple sentences cannot be formulated. Other times, the child is seen by a speech therapist but the speech therapist might choose to offer the child intervention in a “naturalistic” manner, e.g.,, within play, within a generalized classroom setting. That is, the child is offered general exposure to language as opposed to specific teaching as to how to formulate specific language structures. In both scenarios, the resulting lack of learning by the child as to how to formulate creative sentence structures is likely to be thought to be a breakdown in the child as opposed to a failure of the teaching methodology.

The child need not be only a gestalt language learner, he can move to being a creative language user early on if his therapist focuses on the development of the basic sentence structure in a manner that allows for the creative manipulation of words within phrases and sentences. Therapists can teach the child the meaning of a verb and the use of a verb through flooding, i.e., repeated exposure to the word within the appropriate contexts involving the enactment of the verb. For example, having the child “cut” apples, bananas, bread, paper, bags, carrots, etc. In this way, the child learns to apply the word across both different materials and tools. Therapists can then move to teach the child how to combine the verb with an object (cut apple/ cut banana) and an actor with the verb (e.g. mommy cut/ I cut/ daddy cut). Finally, all components can be combined: mommy cut apple/ daddy cut paper/ I cut banana. The source of the teaching is experiential with clearly defined language that is not static so is not a gestalt. If the child is not taught about the “verb” he cannot learn to create sentence structures as the verb is the pivotal point of any sentence.

Initially, how ever the child communicates should be accepted so the child can see the impact of his words as it is imperative that the child sees himself as a communicator. However, early on, language teaching should be creatively crafted for the specific child, so the child can be taught to be an analytic language builder. Only by being an analytic language user, can the child truly learn to communicate not just with the few people who can interpret his gestalts but with everyone! While being an analytic language user comes up in later stages of gestalt language teaching, it behooves us to move this teaching up sooner in the programming as understanding and expressing language is the basis for both interacting with others and academic learning. Our students don’t have time to wait and see if someone will teach them as they cannot learn on their own. While we need to acknowledge a child’s communication attempts in whatever form he can use, we also need to be competent teachers for moving the child through the analytical level of language for both comprehension and expression.