‘Gestalt Language Processing’ meets ‘Intensive Interaction’ – Round 2!

For my Blog this week I thought I would follow up on my last Blog (14/05/24) about the model of ‘Gestalt Language Processing’ (GLP) and how it might philosophically and practically fit alongside Intensive Interaction. What I will do here is to bring together some viewpoints given in response to that original Blog; and add a bit more myself. So here goes:

The response to the position I set out, in terms of Gestalt Language Processing being seen to be broadly sympathetic to, or compatible with the philosophy and practices of Intensive Interaction, was generally well received. Several people posted on this from a position of having used both approaches, with one person describing their use as going ‘hand in hand’, and even suggesting that Intensive Interaction and GLP are ‘very integrated forms of practice’. Another respondent stated that ‘GLP theory fits well with the principles of intensive Interaction’ and is useful ‘for supporting the child’s language development whilst remaining child-centred’.

However, despite GLP strategies being seen as ‘very similar to the ones Intensive Interaction practitioners employ’, there are clear differences in the kinds of envisaged outcomes intended from the two approaches – the clearest being that, with GLP the outcome focus is on increased non-echolalic, multi-word language use i.e. a move on from ‘gestalt utterances’ to the production of creative and spontaneous language on the part of the child or adult client.

That GLP outcome focus can be contrasted with the outcome focus of Intensive Interaction, which is on increased social inclusion and sociability evidenced in whatever form it might take when responsively following the lead of the child/client i.e. via the whole range of the ‘Fundamentals of Communication’ e.g. via shared personal space, exchanges in eye contacts and/or facial expressions, using sociable physical contacts, engaging in some form of turn-taking or sequencing of activity, and/or using socially significant vocalisations; which for some people (but certainly not all) will include the use of some form of symbolic language (and maybe of a gestalt nature).  

That has to be a potentially important point of difference in the developmental or therapeutic roles and outcomes envisaged for the two approaches i.e. the reasons they are employed, and which groups of children/clients they are deemed appropriate for. Also, I think the need to generate evidence in those different outcome domains (sometimes within a tight educational or therapeutic schedule) might lead to some aspects of the interactive and ‘child-centred’ practices being given greater primacy and therefore greater projection in practice, whether intentionally done so or not.

Also in the responses to my first blog, there were some concerns raised around some more theoretical issues posited by some GLP proponents i.e. around descriptions of children’s cognitive processing as being solely language-based (i.e. there only being ‘language-thinkers‘), which to me only allows for a narrow characterisation of what ‘thinking’ actually is. I also think there might be some issues to be addressed in terms of an overly concrete acceptance of a distinct division between either gestalt or analytic language processing in the mind of an individual child/client; as I said in my original blog, I think in reality there is more likely to be a spectrum of language processing types, with some (maybe many) language learners potentially moving between the two entirely separate gestalt or analytic processing states, depending on the context of the language use.

But in my view, this does not mean that the use of either GLP or Intensive Interaction should be seen as mutually exclusive i.e. their use being deemed appropriate only for distinct groups of children/clients, potentially identified (I would say too simplistically), as either being verbal or non-verbal communicators (or thinkers). Indeed, one respondent to my last blog saw the two approaches as ‘extensions of each other’ and another as ‘a natural progression’; although I might suggest that GLP is more of a developmental extension or progression on from Intensive Interaction, as it focuses on symbolic language use and not just on the development of some aspects of the Fundamentals of Communication; which might include ‘meaningful vocalisations’ of any form (or not). Conversely, Intensive Interaction may be viewed as creating the social and communicative foundation, upon which GLP can subsequently build!

Ultimately it would seem that both of ‘these neurodiversity affirming approaches’ (thanks Del – I like that term) are gaining momentum in SLT/SLP circles as a means of enabling or nurturing improved social engagement for children and adults who have social and/or symbolic communication difficulties and/or differences – and that is certainly my impression from the number of times I have recently heard discussion of the parallels across the two approaches – and from the response to my last Blog.

I think further discussion on the philosophical and practical Venn-like overlaps of GLP and Intensive Interaction, and also on the potential implications of the different outcome focuses, would be useful to help all those children/clients who would benefit from both improved social inclusion and, for some, improved spontaneous, self-generated language use.