In the process of jointly writing an article with Peter Imray (EQUALS), I’ve been giving a lot of thought to the way we use language. Many researchers and practitioners working with individuals with lived experience of profound disabilities feel strongly that verbal language is to be excluded, or at least minimised, as the basis for forming respectful and inclusive relationships. Certainly, Peter Imray is one of them! Bos and Alma (2022) go so far as to describe verbal communication as an assault. The success and effectiveness of Intensive interaction (Hewett & Nind, 2013) has undoubtedly influenced this trend, as has Jo Grace’s designation of persons with profound disabilities as “sensory beings” as opposed to “linguistic beings” (2017). By adopting the means and modalities used by individuals who communicate nonverbally and nonsymbolically, we can show respect and value, allow them to lead and take control, and come to develop shared meanings.
It’s frankly a bit intimidating to dare to critique this position. But argue I will because I think certain critical factors can get overlooked.
Firstly, an absolute distinction between “sensory” and “linguistic” beings is artificial and oversimplified. Everyone experiences, and communicates through the senses: there is no absolute divide as suggested by Grace and Imray: all language has embodied roots, and exists on a continuum between abstract and concrete. Of course when we are talking in formal situations, we use complex abstract language, whereas when talking to children and pets, intimate partners, or when communicating highly emotional experiences, things change – we use simpler vocabulary, lots of prosody and lots of nonverbal behavours (the essence of Storysharing).
We also need to bear in mind that the population of people labelled as having PMLDs is extremely varied, and includes those who can and do respond to spoken language at some level; for example, showing sensitivity to the affective, aspects of speech, conveyed through intonation, rhythm, stress). We should of course be exploring routes to interaction that are matched to personal styles; but we surely need as well to find ways of supporting their ability to understand and participate in the conversations that surround them. So how about this for a new descriptor? “sensori-verbal” for spoken language that is embodied in style, using concrete vocabulary, and affectively resonant, musical and intonated, and enhanced by multisensory nonverbal behaviours.
I think we need to use a range of communicative strategies and contexts as appropriate to individuals and groups in different circumstances. This is not at all to argue against the principle of user led, user styled interactions. In practice, intensive interaction styles are likely to be programmed as specific sessions, and employed at particular moments (as in Forster’s hanging out programme). Being clear about the means of communication we use, when and how we use them, and why we make these choices, may help us to use communication more effectively.
(originally part of a 2025 discussion paper at Rix Inclusive Research)
