The Great GLP Debate Explained: Should We Use the Natural Language Acquisition Framework?
If you’ve been anywhere near the neuroaffirming SLP space lately, you’ve probably noticed it.
The conversation around gestalt language processing (GLP) and the Natural Language Acquisition (NLA) framework has gotten loud.
Between ASHA presentations, published responses, social media posts, and growing criticism of NLA, many clinicians are left feeling confused, unsettled, or even defensive – and asking the same questions over and over again:
"Is GLP valid?"
"Does the research actually support it?"
"Is it being overused?"
And "am I doing something wrong if I don’t fully buy into it?"
These are fair questions. Important questions. But the way this conversation is happening? That’s where things start to get messy.
Let’s Talk About the “No Evidence” Claim
One of the most common critiques you’ll hear is that there is “no evidence” supporting GLP or the NLA framework.
Here’s the nuance that often gets lost:
A lack of evidence does not mean something has been disproven. It means the research is limited, incomplete, or still emerging. And that distinction matters.
Right now, we do not have strong, large-scale empirical research validating the NLA stages as a psychometrically sound model. That’s true.
But we also do not have research disproving the stages.
We don’t have evidence showing that children labeled as GLP are harmed by thoughtful, flexible use of NLA-informed practices – especially when those practices are grounded in regulation, connection, child-led play, and rich language input.
So when people say “there’s no evidence,” what they often mean is: “There isn’t enough research yet to make definitive claims.”
That is very different from saying something has been proven wrong.
Conflating those two shuts down productive, ethical discussion and replaces nuance with certainty that simply isn’t warranted yet.
What We Actually Agree On
Despite how polarized this debate feels, there is far more shared ground than social media would have you believe.
Across perspectives, most clinicians and researchers agree that:
- Echolalia is meaningful communication
- Regulation, trust, and safety are foundational for language development
- Child-led, motivating interactions support engagement
- Rich, grammatical language input matters
- Modeling matters – for all children
The critics will say that none of those ideas belong exclusively to GLP or NLA. They belong to good therapy.
And here’s where many clinicians – myself included – have a lived clinical experience worth acknowledging.
Many of us were already practicing child-led, play-based, regulation-focused, neuroaffirming therapy. And yet, we didn’t see the same clarity or progress until we began using the NLA framework.
Not because the stages are perfect. But because they provided structure, predictability, shared language, and a way to plan next steps.
Without a framework, everything feels random. With one, clinicians can be more intentional. And that matters.
Evidence-Based Practice Isn’t Just Research
This is also where it’s important to revisit what evidence-based practice (EBP) actually means.
EBP is not just research.
It is the integration of:
- The best available research
- Clinical expertise
- Client and lived experience
That third piece is not optional.
And when we dismiss clinical expertise and autistic perspectives simply because the research hasn’t caught up yet, we distort what ethical practice is supposed to look like.
Listening to the populations we serve is part of responsible, evidence-based care.
The Missing Piece: Autistic Voices
Here’s the part that feels most uncomfortable – and most important.
So much of this debate is happening about autistic people, without autistic people meaningfully included.
And something powerful happens when lived experience is actually brought into these conversations.
The focus shifts.
From defending frameworks → to considering impact.
From “Is this model right?” → to “What does the Autistic population say about this?”
From theory → to ethics.
That’s why centering autistic voices in these discussions isn’t optional. It’s essential.
A Deeper, More Thoughtful Conversation
For a deeper dive into this conversation, we addressed all of this – the critiques, the research limitations, the shared ground, and the autistic perspective – inside a recent Mentor Call in the NeuroAffirm Therapy Academy.
This call was intentionally designed to slow the conversation down and bring autistic voices into a debate that often leaves them out.
We brought this discussion directly to our Autistic Mentor, Chloe Estelle, whose insight added nuance that clinicians alone simply cannot provide.
Inside the Academy, members also have access to:
- Focused trainings on echolalia and autistic language development
- Ongoing mentor calls unpacking complex, real-world topics
- Audio versions of trainings via our private podcast
- And an upcoming video library showing neuroaffirming therapy in action
If you’re craving nuance instead of extremes, and ethical guidance instead of echo chambers, we’d love to have you inside the Academy.
>> Click here to learn more about the NeuroAffirm Therapy Academy
And if you want to catch our free live show on this topic, you can do so here:
“The GLP Conversation Everyone Is Talking About,” The NeuroAffirm Live Show, Ep. 110.
Because this conversation isn’t going away.
And how we choose to engage in it – thoughtfully, critically, and with autistic people at the center – really matters.
