Autistic adults report communication access barriers related to the prioritization of speech over all other forms of communication. Our participatory research team, including autistic adults who use augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) both part- and full-time, designed and administered a 35-question online survey to examine school-based professionals' knowledge, training, and practices related to AAC and autism. The current study reports a portion of the larger data set specific to participants' definitions of speech terms related to autistic speech. A total of 567 participants completed the survey. Thematic analysis of participants' responses to speech definitions revealed multiple themes, including a focus on speech without implying or suggesting other forms of communication, speech production (mechanics), communication functions (intentionality), deficits, and definitions that were exclusionary in nature (e.g., identifying what the term did not define). Quantitative analysis of definitions of autistic speech revealed the need for increased exposure to these internal speech states for professionals working with autistic children. Increasing school-based professionals' knowledge, including community-sourced knowledge, related to autism and AAC, can improve access to AAC for speaking autistic students who may benefit from AAC.

1) The word intelligibility is etymologically related to the notion of intelligence, which we understand as a social construct with deep roots in racism and ableism (Carlson, 2017).

2) “People with highly unintelligible speech,” terminology which depends on the concept of intelligibility (e.g. Binger et al., 2021), was extremely unpopular among AAC users (Zisk & Konyn, 2022).

3) In conversations around speech disability, “intelligibility” tends to artificially burden a speaker with the onus of being understood. Yet conversation is always a mutual endeavor, regardless of the presence or absence of pathologized speech characteristics in one or both parties (Nair et al., 2022). For example, many people with communication disabilities are more readily understood by people who know them well; in this case, a lack of understanding from strangers has more to do with circumstance and relationship than with actual speech traits being “unintelligible.”

4) Similarly, anyone's speech may be more or less understandable based on (for example) the acculturation, personal accent, hearing status, and/or auditory processing abilities of the listener, regardless of whether the speaker is producing sounds in the way an ablenormative, native speakerist listener would expect (Nair et al., 2022). So arguably, whether someone's speech is considered “intelligible” is more determined by a match or mismatch in speaker/listener characteristics than it is by the presence or absence of speech disability.

For all these reasons, we avoid using “intelligible” and related concepts where possible.

Article published online:
16 December 2024

© 2024. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA