Gestalt Language Processing
and
Natural Language Acquisition
Welcome!
You likely found this website because you are looking for information about Gestalt Language Processing, Gestalt Language Processors, or the Natural Language Acquisition Protocol. Maybe you encountered these terms on social media, or maybe you are considering seeking out NLA-based therapy for someone you care for who has been described as a GLP.
Proponents of NLA often suggest that this is the only approach that is neurodiversity-affirming and will support language development in children described as GLPs. Often, people who learn about GLP and NLA from its proponents are not told that GLP is disconnected from, and contradicted by, existing evidence on child language development. They are often given incomplete information about alternatives to NLA: specifically, NLA is often presented in a false dichotomy with truly bad therapies, and there are other evidence-aligned therapy approaches that involve following the child’s lead, respecting echolalia, and modeling declarative language. This website does not provide clinical advice, but will review the evidence relating to GLP and NLA, describe alternatives, and identify areas where research is needed.
What is Gestalt Language Processing?
Gestalt Language Processing (GLP) is a proposed explanation of how children acquire language. GLP was first proposed by a speech-language pathologist; she claims to have data that supports it but has not published it in peer-reviewed journals or shared it on any platform. In recent years, discussion of GLP has become increasingly popular on social media, and some practitioners and social media personalities have developed deep financial ties to the promotion of GLP and NLA.
Although GLP proponents are often vague about many aspects of the theory, GLP is typically contrasted with Analtyic Language Processing (ALP). GLP proponents have suggested that most autistic children are GLPs, although not all GLPs are autistic. Gestalt Language Processing is most commonly discussed in spaces that are dedicated to supporting children with autism. It is said that GLPs learn language by initially repeating longer chunks of language, called gestalts. For example, a child may quote a lot of TV shows or repeat phrases they hear caregivers use. Gestalts have also been called scripts and delayed echolalia. Proponents of GLP claim that GLPs do not understand the individual words and grammar that comprise their gestalts, and instead comprehend them as whole units, tied to an emotional experience. GLPs are identified based on their use of delayed echolalia among a number of other characteristics that may vary by source; there is not yet a clear set of criteria for distinguishing ALPs from GLPs. ALP is described as a "typical" language development pattern where children first learn single words, and then combine them into two-word and eventually longer utterances.
It is important to note that the terms ALP and GLP are not used in language acquisition literature, nor are the claims made about ALPs or GLPs backed by language acquisition literature. This website will address the current state of the evidence around ALP and GLP, particularly as it relates to autistic individuals.
What is Natural Language Acquisition?
Natural Language Acquisition is a term used by proponents of GLP/NLA to describe language development in children who are gestalt language processors. It consists of six stages of language development, from Stage 1 (use of language gestalts) to Stage 6 (use of complex grammar). The Natural Language Acquisition Protocol (Blanc, 2023) describes an approach to supporting language development in a child who is a GLP. Recommendations include: modeling language at the child's current stage of language acquisition, avoiding any form of prompting or direct instruction, following the child's lead, and responding to all forms of communication from the child. Proponents often present NLA in contrast with outdated, ineffective therapies; it is important to note that there are many modern and respectful therapy strategies available to support language development in autistic children and children with language delays that are not NLA.
What will I find on this website?
Social media paints a very positive picture of gestalt language processing and Natural Language Acquisition, and the extent to which GLP and NLA are disconnected from the research evidence is rarely acknowledged. Alternatives to NLA are often not described accurately. This website responds to many claims commonly made by proponents of NLA, with the goal of providing additional perspectives so that therapists and other stakeholders can make more informed choices.
An analysis of individual claims that are often made about NLA or GLP. I explain the reasoning behind each claim and evaluate whether the claim is unique to NLA/GLP and describe the evidence for or against that claim.
A non-exhaustive list of approaches to supporting language development in children who use delayed echolalia and resources for anyone interested in learning more about the science of language development.
A description of the kinds of studies that would be needed to support specific claims that are unique to GLP and NLA in light of what is currently known about autism, language processing, and language interventions.
Sources for further reading:
(note: Sources towards the top of the list may be more readable to a general audience than sources towards the bottom of the list)
A 2024 letter to the editor of the journal Autism by Venker & Lorang describes components of GLP and NLA that the authors agree with, namely valuing autistic communication and echolalia use and not attempting to extinguish echolalia. They also outline claims made about GLP and NLA that contradict existing evidence from language processing research and clinical research.
A 2024 systematic review by Bryant et al. published in Current Developmental Disorders Reports found no research studies investigating the effectiveness of therapy approaches based in GLP or NLA. This means that there have been no published case studies, qualitative studies, or other research validating the treatment approach.
A 2024 Research Article by Hutchins et al. describes definitional and conceptual problems with GLP and NLA. The authors acknowledge the communicative value of echolalia while pointing out challenges in defining terms such as gestalt and gestalt language processor. They identify ways that claims made about GLPs are often contradicted by the evidence, and show how some aspects of NLA treatment approaches overlap with evidence-based approaches while other aspects are contradicted by the evidence.