|
| Gestalt Language Processing and the Natural Language Acquisition Protocol: Considerations for Autism Intervention |
| Monday, May 26, 2025 |
| 8:00 AM–9:50 AM |
| Marriott Marquis, M4 Level, Independence A-C |
| Area: AUT; Domain: Translational |
| Chair: Heather J. Forbes (West Chester University) |
| Discussant: Francesca Degli Espinosa (ABA Clinic) |
| CE Instructor: Heather Forbes, Ph.D. |
| Abstract: In recent years, the Natural Language Acquisition (NLA) protocol (Blanc, 2012; Blanc et al., 2023) has gained widespread popularity as an approach for addressing language development of autistic children described as gestalt language processors (GLPs). Several behavior analysts have expressed interest in GLP as a unique language learning profile and have applied the NLA protocol or wished to learn more about the approach. In this symposium, presenters will discuss theoretical and practical concerns with GLP and the NLA protocol for informing language intervention for children with autism. The first presenter will describe the historical and conceptual underpinnings of GLP and NLA and the potential reasons for widespread adoption. The second presenter will discuss the kinds of evidence necessary to support claims made by GLP and NLA proponents and will critically evaluate whether claims are presently supported by high-quality evidence. The third presenter will question the plausibility of NLA practice recommendations based on current scientific research. The final presenter will suggest evidence-based language interventions to address similar goals proposed by NLA proponents. |
| Instruction Level: Basic |
| Keyword(s): autism intervention, echolalia, GLP, NLA |
| Target Audience: behavior analysts, professionals providing services to autistic children, students |
Learning Objectives: 1. describe the historical and theoretical foundations of gestalt language processing (GLP) and Natural Language Acquisition (NLA) frameworks
2. evaluate the validity of claims made by NLA proponents
3. identify the plausibility of NLA practice recommendations
4. identify practices informed by applied behavior analysis that should be used instead of the NLA protocol |
| |
| History and Theoretical Background of Gestalt Language Processing and Natural Language Acquisition |
| (Theory) |
| TRACIE L. LINDBLAD (Tracie Lindblad Consulting), Sari Risen (Action Potential Services), Sophie Millon (Portland Public Schools), Heather J. Forbes (West Chester University) |
| Abstract: Gestalt language processing (GLP) refers to a specific profile of language learner who purportedly uses chunks of language (i.e., gestalts) before moving to single words. GLP proponents claim that using the Natural Language Acquisition (NLA) protocol helps GLP autistic children move through six stages of language development to emerge as communicators who generate novel utterances. Many behavior analysts have accepted and adopted these concepts and practices without a full understanding of their histories and implications. Although the concept of GLP is purportedly grounded in psychological and linguistic theory, the formalization of the concept as an approach to addressing language in autistic children is relatively recent. Blanc's (2012) Natural Language Acquisition on the Autism Spectrum: The Journey from Echolalia to Self-Generated Language served as a key publication that linked GLP theory to language intervention practice. A significant rise in interest and social media engagement was noted in the late 2010s and was further accelerated in the early 2020s as professional education changed to online sources during the pandemic. Understanding the history and theoretical background of GLP and NLA as well as their intersection with current-day trends paints a fuller picture of the foundation and widespread adoption of these practices among professionals. |
| |
| Examining Claims Made by Natural Language Acquisition Proponents Through the Lens of Evidence-Based Practice |
| (Theory) |
| HEATHER J. FORBES (West Chester University), Tracie L. Lindblad (Tracie Lindblad Consulting), Sari Risen (Action Potential Services), Sophie Millon (Portland Public Schools) |
| Abstract: Evidence-based practice (EBP) includes the integration of high-quality external research evidence, data collected from intervention sessions, clinical expertise of the practitioner, and perspectives of clients, families, and other consumers (Higginbotham & Satchidanand, 2019; Slocum et al, 2014). All components of EBP are considered necessary for making informed decisions that prioritize the well-being and values of vulnerable individuals served. Proponents of the Natural Language Acquisition (NLA) protocol often claim to engage in EBP when providing language intervention to children with autism using a gestalt language processing (GLP) and NLA framework. In this presentation, we will evaluate through an EBP lens the claims made by NLA proponents, including but not limited to (1) GLP as an explanation for delayed echolalia, (2) the six stages of gestalt language development, and (3) the effectiveness of the NLA protocol for improving language of children with autism. We will describe the kinds of external research necessary to validate each claim and examine whether the claims are presently supported by studies that meet standards for high-quality external research evidence. Understanding the validity (or lack thereof) of NLA claims provides an important foundation for determining whether the NLA framework can inform EBP in behavior analysis. |
| |
| Is the Natural Language Acquisition Protocol Likely to Be Effective According to Current Literature? |
| (Service Delivery) |
| SARI RISEN (Action Potential Services), Heather J. Forbes (West Chester University), Sophie Millon (Portland Public Schools), Tracie L. Lindblad (Tracie Lindblad Consulting) |
| Abstract: Behavior analysts (among other practitioners) have increasingly considered using the Natural Language Acquisition (NLA) protocol to support language development for children with autism. When determining whether a new practice is likely to be effective, practitioners should consider both empirical evidence supporting the practice as well as scientific plausibility. In the context of healthcare, scientific plausibility is defined as the likelihood that a hypothesis is true given existing basic and clinical science (Novella, 2010). In this presentation, we will use existing scientific research to examine the plausibility that each component of the NLA protocol might be effective in practice, against the backdrop of an absence of direct empirical support for the NLA protocol. We will first highlight components of the NLA protocol that are supported by research evidence and discuss other, well-established approaches that include the same components. Next, we will describe components that are unique to the NLA protocol and review evidence from the fields of applied behavior analysis and psycholinguistics that conflicts with the assumptions behind these practices. Ultimately, we will suggest that it is implausible that the NLA protocol will produce the proposed effects on language development for children with autism. |
| |
| If Not the Natural Language Acquisition Protocol, Then What? Best Practices for Language Intervention |
| (Service Delivery) |
| SOPHIE MILLON (Portland Public Schools), Tracie L. Lindblad (Tracie Lindblad Consulting), Heather J. Forbes (West Chester University), Sari Risen (Action Potential Services) |
| Abstract: For behavior analysts working with autistic clients, language and communication are fundamental components of intervention programs. Despite its growing popularity, the Natural Language Acquisition (NLA) protocol is not grounded in high-quality research, nor does it align with the ethical standards outlined by the Behavior Analyst Certification Board (BACB, 2020). In this presentation, we will introduce attendees to a range of behavioral language interventions supported by research that demonstrate socially significant outcomes. Suggested approaches include interventions that share elements with NLA strategies as well as interventions that differ significantly in their focus on language acquisition. Interventions reviewed will include naturalistic developmental behavioral interventions (NDBI; Schreibman et al., 2015), functional communication training (FCT; Chezan et al., 2018), applied verbal behavior (Sundberg and Michael, 2001), and Pivotal Response Training (PRT; Verschuur et al., 2013). Additionally, core behavior analytic teaching techniques—such as prompting and prompt fading, errorless teaching, modeling, reinforcement systems, and incidental teaching—will be outlined in relation to their role in supporting language development. Together, these strategies offer evidence-based alternatives to the NLA protocol, ensuring ethically sound and effective language interventions. |
|
| |