Commonly-Held Myths about Communication and Language Development in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders – Part 2

Posted by Diane Twachtman-Cullen in Speech & Language, Therapies on 08 14th, 2009 | no responses

Hello there! If you are new here, you might want to subscribe to the RSS feed for updates on this topic.

In my last article I examined two widely-held myths regarding language and communication which I referred to as part of speech-language pathology’s “folk lore”. Myth #1 had to do with taking the act of speaking for granted, based upon the fact that since so many people are able to speak effortlessly, it appears that it must be an easy task to accomplish. (Hopefully, you’ve read my previous article, and now know that nothing could be farther from the truth!) Myth #2 was he understands everything. This article covers three additional myths about language and communication that all too often stand in the way of an individual’s progress in this critically important area of development.

Myth #3: Using pictures or other visual symbols with nonverbal children will cause them to become dependent upon these types of supports.

Not all myths are created equal, and this one is among the most damaging, particularly since individuals on the autism spectrum, with rare exception, have greater strengths in the visual, as opposed to the auditory realm. For one thing, this myth flies in the face of research. For another, it insulates the child from receiving valuable and much needed visual support. Simply stated, there is ample research evidence that demonstrates that the use of pictures and manual signs not only support, but actually facilitate the development of verbal language in many children with and without autism. If that isn’t reason enough to use these supports (and it surely should be!), visual supports can also help to facilitate word retrieval, reduce frustration, and most importantly, provide a means of augmentative communication for the child who is either nonverbal or minimally verbal.

Myth #4: The best way to increase length of utterance is to insist that the child always says the whole sentence.

I call this one, “the full-sentence press,” because I find insistence on saying the full sentence to be overbearing (and often overwhelming!) for those students with autism who are struggling to retrieve words, formulate thoughts, construct messages, and deliver them to intended listeners. In my opinion, the mantra, “Tell me in a complete sentence,” quite literally glorifies form (manner) over substance (message). It also adds additional stress to speaking situations—not a good thing for individuals who typically experience high levels of anxiety. This is not to say that increased length of utterance is not a desirable goal. Surely it is. But there are ways to increase phrase and sentence length that are far more natural, less stressful, and more effective. For example, manual signs could be used to unobtrusively prompt additional language. This practice can be applied independently, or in concert with the “playing dumb” phenomenon in which the adult pretends that s/he doesn’t understand something so that the child has to use additional words to elaborate the message.

Myth #5: The most effective way to teach language is to use flash cards.

Second only in the damage department to myth #3, this myth assumes that labeling a picture can somehow convey its meaning and also ensure appropriate use of the word in the real-world environment. But saying a word; knowing what it means; and using that word in the appropriate context are all different parameters that involve different types of competencies. For example, being able to say apple in response to a picture does not automatically enable the child to request an apple when s/he is hungry. The reason for this is that saying a word involves the physical act of moving the articulators (i.e., speech); understanding what the word means involves semantics (i.e., meaning); and being able to use the word appropriately—for example, to request—involves pragmatics—the social use of language in a particular context. Since pragmatic communication difficulty is the quintessential element of language impairment in autism, and because it is complex and multidimensional, language use should never be assumed based upon the learning of word labels. Moreover, addressing pragmatic communication impairment requires a context for word use—an element conspicuously lacking in therapy-by-flash-cards. While flash cards may be useful for language games and additional vocabulary practice, to say that they are the most effective means by which to teach language is a myth, and a seriously misleading one at that!

Coming Full Circle

Ironically, it is likely that the deceptive ease with which verbal language develops in neurotypical people serves to blind us to the underlying complexities inherent in the language-learning process—a shortcoming that can easily lead to the promotion of myths that mitigate against best practices in language development. Hopefully, the myths discussed within this article and the previous one will give much needed pause to those who fail to understand and appreciate the exquisite complexity of the language learning process.

Please share the knowledge. Sharing is caring! = )