Resumo

Literature Review

USAGE-BASED THEORY AND THE GESTALT LANGUAGE PROCESSING

AN INTEGRATIVE PERSPECTIVE ON LANGUAGE PROCESSING

Campião

Alice Silvestre

Puglisi

Marina Leite

Ramacciotti

Mirela Cunha Cardoso

University of São Paulo Federal University of São Paulo Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul 7 1

e974

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This study presents a scoping review aimed at mapping the existing literature on Usage-Based Theory and Gestalt Language Processing, analyzing their convergences and divergences in the stages and processes of language acquisition of children with typical and atypical developmental trajectories. The review was conducted following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidelines. The databases PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, LILACS, EMBASE, and PubMed were consulted, complemented by hand searching. The search strategy followed the PCC model (Population, Concept, Context), with no temporal restrictions. Out of 12,104 retrieved articles, 20 met the inclusion criteria; hand searching added 23 texts, totaling 43 analyzed studies. The results show that Usage-Based Theory and Gestalt Language Processing converge in describing acquisition as starting from holistic units (chunks/gestalts), which are gradually analyzed and recombined. The main divergence lies in their structure: Usage-Based Theory proposes a continuum with a broad empirical basis, whereas Gestalt Language Processing organizes development into clinical stages focused on echolalia in Autism Spectrum Disorder, relying primarily on qualitative descriptions and clinical reports. The study suggests that Gestalt Language Processing has comparable stages and processes to the Usage-Based Theory that need further research.

Resumo

Este estudo apresenta uma revisão de escopo que teve como objetivo mapear a literatura existente sobre a Teoria Baseada no Uso e o Processamento Gestalt de Linguagem, analisando suas convergências e divergências nos estágios e processos de aquisição de linguagem de crianças com trajetórias de desenvolvimento típico e atípico. A revisão foi conduzida seguindo as diretrizes do Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). Foram consultadas as bases de dados PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, LILACS, EMBASE e PubMed, complementadas por busca manual. A estratégia de busca seguiu o modelo PCC (População, Conceito, Contexto), sem restrições temporais. Dos 12.104 artigos recuperados, 20 preencheram os critérios de inclusão; a busca manual adicionou 23 textos, totalizando 43 estudos analisados. Os resultados mostram que a Teoria Baseada no Uso e o Processamento Gestalt de Linguagem convergem ao descrever que a aquisição se inicia a partir de unidades holísticas (chunks/gestalts), as quais são gradualmente analisadas e recombinadas. A principal divergência reside em sua estrutura: a Teoria Baseada no Uso propõe um continuum com ampla base empírica, enquanto o Processamento Gestalt de Linguagem organiza o desenvolvimento em estágios clínicos focados na ecolalia no Transtorno do Espectro Autista, baseando-se principalmente em descrições qualitativas e relatos clínicos. O estudo sugere que o Processamento Gestalt de Linguagem possui estágios e processos comparáveis aos da Teoria Baseada no Uso que necessitam de investigações adicionais.

Language development Gestalt Language Processing Echolalia Child language

09012026

Lay Summary

Introduction

Language acquisition is a complex phenomenon, investigated across multidisciplinary fields, such as linguistics, psychology, and neuroscience. Over time, various theories have emerged to explain its ontogeny. Some emphasize innate mechanisms (Chomsky, 1965; Pinker, 1994), while others highlight social interaction (Bruner, 1983; Snow, 1977), communicative function (Halliday, 1975, 1978), the capacity to perceive patterns in auditory input (Thiessen; Hill; Saffran, 2005), or the frameworks of cognitive grammar and construction grammar (Langacker, 1987; Goldberg, 2006).

Among these perspectives is the premise that language emerges from use. This is the foundation of Usage-Based Theory (UBT), primarily associated with Tomasello (2003), where individuals are not born with pre-existing grammatical rules, but rather construct them gradually from concrete communication experiences. This framework is supported by a robust body of empirical research across diverse linguistic contexts.

Concurrently, in the clinical field, the Gestalt Language Processing (GLP) model has emerged from clinical insights to characterize atypical developmental profiles, specifically within Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) (Blanc, 2005). This model proposes that the child begins by using memorized expressions (referred to as "gestalts" or echolalic utterances), which are only later broken down into smaller parts and analyzed (Blanc, 2005; Blanc; Blackwell; Elias, 2023). However, while the theory is grounded in clinical observations and series of case descriptions, it currently lacks comprehensive scientific validation. To examine these perspectives, both frameworks are described in detail in the following sections.

1. Usage-Based Theory

In UBT, as described by Tomasello (2000a, 2003), acquisition begins with the production of linguistic chunks (holophrases or whole phrases) frequently heard in specific contexts. These units are initially memorized as whole and later decomposed. Grammatical rules then emerge from the abstraction of patterns based on contextual meaning (semantics and pragmatics), rather than from learning isolated words and rules.

This focus on real-world language use has philosophical roots, dating back to Wittgenstein (1953) and other thinkers in pragmatics, who investigated how language use establishes patterns for social interactions (Langacker, 1987, 1991; Croft, 1991; Givón, 1995; Tomasello, 2003; Bybee, 2010; Goldberg, 2006). In this view, linguistic complexity results from the interaction between cognitive capacities and experience (Tomasello, 2003). This proposal directly contrasts with nativist views, especially with Chomsky's Universal Grammar (UG), which postulates innate grammatical principles and rules (Chomsky, 2014; Novák, A.; Novák, B., 2022).

Tomasello (2003) structures UBT on two fundamental principles: the idea that meaning is derived from use and that linguistic structure emerges from actual language use. To achieve this, the child needs two central cognitive abilities: intention-reading and pattern-finding (Tomasello, 2009). According to UBT, linguistic development (Tomasello, 2003, 2009) starts with whole utterances, laden with communicative intention, progressing through predictable phases: pivot schemas (fixed, non-generalizable combinations. e.g., "more water", "daddy gone"); item-based constructions (structures with syntax but tied to specific words, e.g., "throw ball"), replicated as they were heard; and abstract constructions (generalizable structures that allow the creation of novel utterances, resulting from the abstraction of regularities from the input). A crucial phase is the “verb island” stage (Tomasello, 2000b, 2009). Each verb is used in specific contexts before wider grammatical generalization occurs. This process is regulated by cognitive mechanisms such as entrenchment and preemption (Tomasello, 2000b, 2009), preventing overgeneralizations and aligning their use with adult conventions.

2. Gestalt Language Processing

The term gestalt is rooted in psychology, positing that human perception organizes itself into meaningful patterns and wholes, prioritizing the global form over the sum of isolated parts (Köhler, 1929; Wertheimer, 1923). This principle later influenced the field of language acquisition, providing the idea that some children initially process speech in integral units (such as memorized phrases or segments), and only later segment them into smaller, combinable elements (Blanc, 2005; Prizant, 1983).

In the 1970s and 1980s, scholars proposed the concept of GLP, initially as a description of a typical developmental profile (Peters, 1977, 2021). According to this view, language acquisition would begin with multi-word utterances learned as memorized chunks, which would later be analyzed into smaller constituents (Peters, 1977, 2021).

Subsequently, Barry Prizant (1983) associated GLP with autistic children with predominant echolalia, establishing three fundamental concepts: "gestalt forms," which correspond to speech chunks; the "gestalt style of language acquisition," a process where early productions consist mostly of holistic units requiring subsequent analysis; and the "gestalt mode of cognitive processing," referring to the retention of experiences as non-analytic mental representations (Prizant, 1983).

Based on these pillars, he proposed four stages: (1) predominant use of echolalia, serving as turn-taking or self-stimulation, with little comprehension; (2) echolalia gains more functions (requests, self-regulation), and the analysis of echolalic phrases begins; (3) transition to spontaneous speech through novel combinations, and a decrease in echolalia; (4) spontaneous and flexible speech with creative language use, with residual echolalia during fatigue or distraction. Prizant (1983) emphasized, however, the need for further investigation of the model.

Building on these studies, Marge Blanc (2012) developed the "Natural Language Acquisition" (NLA) model, aimed at supporting autistic individuals or those with significant echolalia, termed "gestalt processors." This work will adopt the term GLP to also encompass the NLA framework. Blanc expanded Prizant's (1983) proposal, describing two additional stages in her model (totaling six stages) that advance toward complete grammar, including the use of verb tenses, pronouns, complex structures, and conjunctions. This progression is not rigidly tied to specific ages but follows an expected sequential order.

Recently, GLP has gained visibility regarding delayed echolalia in autism (Blanc; Blackwell; Elias, 2023). However, the framework faces rigorous academic appraisal. Critics argue that the binary distinction between 'gestalt' and 'analytic' processors lacks empirical substantiation and oversimplifies autistic linguistic trajectories (Hutchins; Knox; Fletcher, 2024). From a linguistic perspective, Beals (2024) contends that the model is implausible, as echolalia itself requires underlying analytic phonetic processing, suggesting that reliance on 'chunks' may be a symptom of language delay rather than a distinct processing mode. Furthermore, systematic reviews highlight a critical lack of replicable research, noting that GLP relies exclusively on anecdotal clinical reports rather than validated efficacy data (Bryant et al., 2025; Venker; Lorang, 2025). For a contextualized analysis of GLP, it is relevant to consider its intersections with the characteristics of ASD, which will be addressed next.

2.1. Autism Spectrum Disorder

The first descriptions of ASD date back to the work of Kanner (1943) and Asperger (1944). While Kanner focused on impairments in social interaction, communication, and repetitive behaviors, Asperger reported profiles with similar social difficulties but with apparently preserved formal linguistic skills. This historical duality pointed to the diversity that would become a hallmark of the disorder.

Over the decades, the understanding of ASD solidified as a neurodevelopmental disorder with a neurobiological basis (Lord et al., 2018), moving away from psychogenic explanations (Lord et al., 2020).

According to the American Psychiatric Association’s (2022) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5-TR), ASD is defined by persistent deficits in social communication and social interaction, associated with restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior, interests, or activities, with onset in the early developmental years. Its main manifestations include difficulties in socio-emotional reciprocity, in the communicative use of gestures and facial expressions, in developing relationships, and the presence of repetitive behaviors, inflexible adherence to routines, and particularities in sensory processing (American Psychiatric Association, 2022), resulting in impairments in social, academic, or occupational functioning (Kim; Udhnani; Lecavalier, 2024).

Heterogeneity is a fundamental characteristic of ASD, justifying the notion of a "spectrum" (Georgiades et al., 2013; Bishop et al., 2017). ASD does not constitute a single, homogeneous condition, but rather a broad construct encompassing a diversity of developmental profiles (Lord et al., 2020). This phenotypic variability poses significant methodological challenges. Symptomatic diversity and the frequent occurrence of co-occurring conditions complicate the identification of consistent phenotypes and the search for unified causal mechanisms (Lord et al., 2020). Studies show, for example, that different early developmental trajectories are associated with distinct linguistic and social outcomes (Landa et al., 2012). Similarly, neuroimaging investigations reveal heterogeneous patterns of brain development in early childhood, which predict subsequent variations in cognitive and adaptive skills (Hazlett et al., 2017).

This complexity translates into concrete methodological challenges. Differences in participant recruitment, levels of functioning, age ranges, and instruments complicate the generalization of findings (Bishop et al., 2017). Furthermore, variability over time - influenced by early interventions and contexts - makes defining normative trajectories complex (Lord et al., 2020; Pickles et al., 2022). Given this phenotypic and methodological variability, many studies focus on pragmatic aspects. However, a significant gap persists regarding underlying mechanisms for acquisition of form (grammar) and content (semantics) in ASD.

Despite their different epistemological roots - UBT being a socio-pragmatic theory of typical development and GLP a clinical framework for neurodivergence - both models converge in describing language acquisition as a process anchored in concrete use, input frequency, and the initial processing of holistic linguistic units (holophrases or gestalts) prior to internal analysis (Bybee, 2010; Blanc; Blackwell; Elias, 2023). However, as previously noted, while UBT is supported by extensive empirical evidence, GLP remains primarily based on clinical observation and requires a more rigorous theoretical and empirical framework. Therefore, a scoping review is necessary to map the available evidence regarding both models. This study aims to identify and examine the literature that addresses the parallels between the developmental stages and processes of UBT and GLP.

3. Methods

A scoping review was conducted following the Joanna Briggs Institute framework (Aromataris et al., 2024) and PRISMA-ScR recommendations (Tricco et al., 2018). Although the study was not pre-registered prior to data collection, the review protocol was registered on the Open Science Framework platform on January 30, 2026 (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/U2KFV) for transparency.

The guiding question, based on the PCC structure, was: "What are the similarities and differences between stages and processes of the Usage-Based Theory (UBT) and the Gestalt Language Processing (GLP) model in explaining the linguistic development of children with typical and atypical development?"

3.1. Search Strategy and Selection

The systematic search was conducted in September 2025 in the databases: PsycINFO, Scopus, EMBASE, PubMed, LILACS, and Web of Science. Search strings included terms such as "usage-based theory", "usage-based model", “Autism Spectrum Disorder", "Autistic Disorder”, "typically developing", "Language Development", "Gestalt Language Process*".

Inclusion criteria targeted children with typical development or on the Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and research addressing UBT, GLP/NLA, or related phenomena (echolalia and formulaic language). To ensure a comprehensive mapping of these frameworks, all publication types were considered, including peer-reviewed articles, book chapters, clinical guides, and non-peer-reviewed materials (grey literature), such as website documents. Exclusion criteria were applied to records involving unrelated populations or focusing on non-linguistic domains, such as pharmacological treatments, motor milestones, or standardized clinical assessments that did not analyze the qualitative process of language construction.

Following scoping review guidelines, which recommend a comprehensive search when database indexing may be insufficient, a structured hand-search was performed. This was essential given the limited scientific literature for GLP. For this, an initial exploratory screening was performed via Google Scholar (first two pages) to identify relevant repositories and organizations. This was followed by targeted searches within specific platforms, resulting in 23 included documents from: Websites and academic repositories, including ResearchGate and the Communication Center; Professional Organizations, such as the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) and the Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS); and other academic publishers, such as Frontiers, SpringerLink and Cambridge University Press.

3.2. Data Extraction and Synthesis

The selection process (screening of titles, abstracts, and full texts) was conducted by the first author and independently verified by a research assistant. Disagreements were resolved by consensus with the co-author. To ensure comprehensiveness, 23 additional texts (including grey literature) were identified through manual searching (hand searching).

Data were extracted into a structured Microsoft Excel spreadsheet containing Reference, Year, Country/Language, Publication Type, Objective, Theory, Definitions/References to theories or authors, Stages, and Main Results. This specific categorization was designed to enable a comparative analysis between the theoretical frameworks. The extraction of 'Definitions' aimed to trace the origins and conceptual similarities between the theories. The 'Stages' were extracted to compare the procedural development and operational flow of each model.

The complete data extraction sheet is available in the study repository (https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/JR8PYP) and for ease of identification, all sources included in the final synthesis are marked with an asterisk (*) in the reference list of this article. The synthesis was descriptive and narrative, using a deductive-inductive approach to construct comparative categories based on the core tenets of UBT and GLP. In line with scoping review guidelines, a formal risk of bias assessment was not performed.

4. Results 4.1. Selection of Texts

Initially, 12,104 records were retrieved from the databases. After the removal of 5,160 duplicates, 6,924 records were excluded based on title and abstract screening, primarily for not addressing the population or the concept (UBT/GLP) of interest. This stage resulted in 20 eligible studies.

The supplementary manual search identified 23 additional documents (including websites, organizations, and other academic publishers). All 23 were screened and included due to their theoretical relevance. Therefore, the final corpus for analysis consisted of 43 documents: 20 from indexed databases and 23 from manual searching. The identification and selection process of the texts is summarized in the PRISMA-ScR flowchart (Figure 1).

Figure 1 <bold id="bold-13a6a676bbfadc04570e2d49bc7f8408">Figure 1. </bold>PRISMA-ScR flowchart translated and adapted from Campião, 2026.

ALT: PRISMA flowchart of study selection, showing 12,104 records identified from databases, 5,160 duplicates removed, 6,924 excluded after title/abstract screening, including a total of 20 records from database searches plus 23 records from a manual search, totaling 43 included documents.

4.2. Identification of Articles

The 43 included studies were published between 1961 and 2025. Regarding the database search (n = 20), PubMed yielded the highest volume (n = 12), followed by Scopus (n = 4), EMBASE (n = 2), and LILACS (n = 2), while PsycINFO and Web of Science contributed no additional unique studies after the eligibility screening. Manual search records (n = 23) were sourced from academic platforms and organizations, distributed as follows: Cambridge University Press (n = 11), ResearchGate (n = 4), the Communication Center website (n = 3), SpringerLink (n = 2), Frontiers (n = 1), the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) (n = 1) and the Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS) (n = 1).

4.3. Developmental Parallels: A Comparative Mapping of UBT and GLP Stages and Processes

The analysis of the 43 studies enabled a comparative mapping of UBT and GLP, organized here according to the chronological progression of language acquisition. This structure highlights how both theories, despite their different origins, describe a consistent transition from holistic processing toward analytical grammatical construction. To facilitate this comparison, the following sections follow a representative developmental trajectory, where the processes of both theories are contrasted stage by stage.

To illustrate these mechanisms in a practical context, consider a scenario where a child is watching a cartoon with an adult. On the screen, a character exclaims: "Oh no, the girl dropped the ball!"; meanwhile, the adult provides a more direct input: "Oops, the ball fell!". In this situation, the child receives two distinct linguistic models for the same event. Figure 2 provides a visual summary of this scenario, serving as a baseline to compare how each framework explains the child's processing and subsequent linguistic output throughout their development.

Figure 2 <bold id="bold-2fa87ce3a75fa8ca5137d18ef699e98a">Figure 2. </bold>Comparison of UBT and GLP Stages.

ALT: Diagram comparing the developmental progression proposed by gestalt language processing/natural language acquisition and usage-based theory. Both begin with memorized holistic linguistic units, progress through segmentation and recombination, develop item-based syntax, and culminate in complex grammar. GLP/NLA presents this progression as discrete clinical stages, whereas usage-based theory presents it as a gradual continuum. Source: Translated from Campião, 2026.

4.3.1. Stage 1: Holistic Units and Imitating Patterns (Chunks, Gestalt and Echolalia)

At the onset of development, both theories identify the holistic unit as the fundamental psycholinguistic starting point, although they describe its emergence with distinct emphases. According to the analyzed texts, UBT argues that language acquisition is an emergent process where grammatical structure is constructed through exposure and repeated use of linguistic "chunks" in communicative contexts (Fernández-Pena; Kaltenböck; Pérez-Guerra, 2025). This framework relies on general cognitive mechanisms - such as memory, the processing of fragments, chunking, categorization, and analogy - driven by token and type frequency, and on statistical learning (Arciuli, 2017).

Furthermore, Abbot-Smith (2020) highlights that this development is underpinned by the child’s ability to engage in shared intentionality, noting a period of lexical conservatism where linguistic forms are initially learned as concrete, lexically specific items. Consequently, grammar constitutes a dynamic network of form-meaning constructions (Wertheimer, 1923; Tomasello, 2000a, 2000b; Ibbotson, 2013; Ghalebi; Sadighi, 2015; Leclercq, 2023; Bybee, 2010, 2023).

Within this stage, UBT considers the utterance to be the fundamental unit (Tomasello, 2000a, 2000b, 2009). It is defined as a complete speech act, bounded by a single intonation contour, through which the speaker expresses a specific intention to a listener in a concrete interactional context (Tomasello, 2000b). To understand its nature and emergence, the reviewed texts highlight the importance of two underlying cognitive abilities: intention-reading and pattern-finding (Tomasello, 2000b).

Intention-reading is central, referring to the speaker's action of directing attention to a shared referent. Around 12 months, children infer that adults communicate intentionally, forming the basis for joint attention behaviors (following gaze, imitating actions, pointing). First linguistic manifestations emerge directly from these triadic interactions (child, partner, and object), already imbued with communicative intention (Tomasello, 2000c, 2009). Simultaneously, pattern-finding manifests as the ability to identify regularities in the objects of attention, supporting future grammatical acquisition (Bishop et al., 2017; Croft, 1991; Tomasello, 2000c).

Thus, after interpreting the adult's intention, the child attempts to reproduce their speech. These productions can be holophrases, which are single linguistic symbols that function as a complete utterance (e.g., "Fell!" to express "The ball fell!", as in Figure 2) (Tomasello, 2000b, 2009); or "frozen phrases" (e.g., "the ball fell", as in Figure 2), initially produced as undifferentiated chunks, without the child analyzing their internal constituents (Tomasello, 2000b).

This process is sustained by specific cognitive mechanisms. Cultural or imitative learning allows the child to grasp the adult's communicative intention and reproduce the utterance as a meaningful unit (Tomasello, 2000b). The consolidation of these initial units depends on token frequency, that is, the repetition of identical expressions in similar functional contexts. This repeated exposure leads to entrenchment, through which forms become automated and fixed in the child's repertoire as prefabricated chunks (Tomasello, 2000b).

Parallel to this, GLP describes an acquisition trajectory that also begins with whole, unanalyzed phrases ("gestalts" or "chunks"), memorized and reproduced as holistic units. Development progresses from the segmentation of these units to the production of analytic and spontaneous utterances (Blanc, 2005, 2012; Peters, 2021).

Both perspectives believe that language emerges from use and interaction, rejecting initial abstract rules. Only one study (Wray, 2013) explicitly connected Peters' 'formulaic language' to Tomasello's 'item-based constructions' (UBT). The main difference lies in focus: UBT explains typical development, whereas GLP focuses on clinical context in ASD, emphasizing functional echolalia (Blanc, 2005, 2012). This distinction raises a central question regarding how echolalia is differentiated between ASD and in typical development.

Echolalia is described as a continuum of repetitions (whether immediate/delayed or literal/mitigated) dependent on intention, context, and sociocognitive function (Schuler, 1979; McEvoy et al., 1988). In children with ASD, echolalia has recently been recognized not as a purposeless symptom, but as a sophisticated interactional resource (Paccia; Curcio, 1982; Sterponi; Shankey, 2014). It is emphasized that its analysis must consider context and that its indiscriminate suppression can harm speech development (Saad; Goldfeld, 2009). Multiple functions are identified, with turn-taking being the most frequent (~61%) in children with typical development (Bybee, 2023). For delayed echolalia, there are subtypes with distinct clinical implications, such as stereotyped, negativistic, and mitigated - the latter indicating increasing communicative intent (Dyer; Hadden, 1981).

Schuler (1979) observes echolalia in typical development (18-30 months), with a transition from literal to mitigated repetitions, favoring language acquisition. However, as a transient phase in typical development, it often persists as a primary strategy in ASD. This suggests differences of degree, duration, and function, not nature, reinforcing the need for functional analysis (Pruccoli et al., 2021).

But studies present distinct perspectives: Tager-Flusberg and Calkins (1990) suggest that imitation does not facilitate grammatical development in typical development, ASD, or Down syndrome. In contrast, Leung and Wu (1997) demonstrate that interventions integrating echolalia can benefit receptive language acquisition in ASD. In summary, the analyzed records indicate that while the gestalt model (Blanc, 2005, 2012; Prizant, 1983) characterizes echolalia as the starting point for analytical processing via mitigation and recombination, UBT studies describe it as a transient phase in typical development.

4.3.2. Stage 2: The Pre-Syntactic Period

In UBT, it is observed that, by using these holophrases and frozen phrases, the child begins a process of analyzing their parts; that is, of understanding words as isolated units with meaning. This path unfolds into pre-syntactic patterns, such as word combinations and pivot schemas (Tomasello, 2000a, 2009). Word combinations emerge around 18 months, where the child joins two relevant terms for a scene (e.g., "girl ball", as in Figure 2). These combinations, which can be produced with a pause or under a single intonation contour, represent an advance over holophrases, as they segment the experience into nameable parts. However, word order still does not carry grammatical value, being guided by frequency in the adult input (Tomasello, 2000a, 2009).

Subsequently, pivot schemas emerge, one of the first systematic combination patterns (around 18-24 months). A fixed word (the pivot, such as "more" or "fell") combines with a variety of other words (the open words), generating utterances such as "ball fell" or "fell girl", as observed in Figure 2 (Tomasello, 2000a, 2009). This pattern is enabled by type frequency - exposure to different lexical items in the same functional position (e.g., "more milk", "more cookie"), enabling the child to identify a variable slot in the structure (Bybee, 2010; Tomasello, 2009). This is an initial abstraction (Tomasello, 2000a).

In GLP for typical development, Peters (2021) describes a phase of segmenting chunks into smaller parts, followed by the extraction of morphosyntactic frames with slots (e.g., "I want _"), equivalent, respectively, to word combinations and pivot schemas in UBT (Peters, 1977; Tomasello, 2000a). In the NLA for ASD, this progression is slower. Prizant (1983) describes a stage in which echolalia gains pragmatic functions and segmentation of gestalts begins, followed by recombining the segments into new combinations (Prizant, 1983).

Blanc (2012), in turn, describes the second stage as the "mitigation" phase, a period of transition in which the child begins to separate gestalts, modifying elements of the phrase to adapt it to new contexts. As examples, the author cites: (1) the change from "mommy got" to "girl got"; and (2) the production of "girl's ball", derived from the original gestalts "the girl dropped the ball" and "oops, the ball fell" - as represented in Figure 2. The first case approximates the pivot schemas described by Tomasello (2000a), while the second reflects the greater complexity and length of echolalia in ASD, associated with pragmatic challenges. The third stage in Blanc's model (2012) - termed "isolated words" - shows a clear correspondence with the concept of "word combinations" in UBT. This phase is marked by the use of referential combinations, such as the production of "ball" followed by “the ball fell" (Figure 2).

4.3.3. Stage 3: Beginning of Syntactic Marking

In UBT, the beginning of syntax is marked by item-based constructions, a grammatical knowledge that is still concrete and tied to specific verbs the child already masters. In this phase, the child uses word order and other syntactic markers consistently, but only around individual "verb islands" For example, a child may know perfectly that for the verb "to fall," the agent of the action comes before the verb ("The girl's ball fell on the floor", as in Figure 2). The knowledge is, therefore, specific, and non-abstract, evolving gradually from exposure to concrete uses (Tomasello, 2000a, 2003).

In GLP, especially in its clinical version for ASD, the equivalent stage is described as the emergence of original phrases (Stage 4 of the NLA model). The initial syntax here is experimental, characterized by a period of "trial and error," with productions that may seem disorganized (e.g., "no ball floor", as in Figure 2). These "linguistic labyrinths," along with the use of "minichunks" (fragments of previous gestalts), are seen as positive indicators of the active construction of grammar. The proposed intervention emphasizes the careful modeling of basic and transparent structures, avoiding initial abstract elements like pronouns, with the aim of transforming parts of gestalts into independent words (Blanc, 2005, 2012).

Thus, the data extraction reveals a convergence where both approaches describe initial syntax as concrete, with specific knowledge centered on lexical items (verbs or verbal frames), which gradually evolves into more general patterns. As a divergence, UBT offers a cognitive explanation of the learning mechanism (limited generalization from verbs). GLP, in turn, provides an observable clinical description of the process, highlighting the phenomenology of speech under construction and proposing intervention guidelines to support this transition in the context of ASD.

4.3.4. Stage 4: Towards Complete Grammatical Construction

Regarding the development of abstract and complex constructions, UBT responds to criticisms about its supposed limitation to simple structures by arguing that complexity emerges gradually. Tomasello (2003) demonstrates that constructions such as complement clauses (e.g., "I think that..."), relative clauses (e.g., "the toy that spins"), and complex questions are not acquired as abstract rules. Instead, the child learns specific, fixed lexical patterns tied to concrete verbs or expressions. Generalization to truly abstract structures occurs later, through repeated exposure to different instances of these patterns in the input. In this way, grammatical constraints (such as the dative alternation) are not innate but learned through experience with the conventional uses of the language.

In contrast, GLP describes the pinnacle of development as mastery of a complete and productive grammatical system. In the typical model, Peters (2021) describes final stages of "fusion" and "persistence at intermediate levels," where frequent combinations become pre-assembled units. In the NLA model applied to ASD, the transition from ungrammatical strings (e.g., "no ball floor") to complex grammar is explained by the gradual process of segmentation and linguistic reanalysis, as these units become available for creative recombination, leading to stages 5 and 6, which are dedicated to the spontaneous and appropriate use of complex sentences, marking the final consolidation of grammar and a significant reduction in echolalia (e.g., "the girl's ball had already fallen on the floor when I arrived", as in Figure 2) (Blanc, 2012).

In summary, the approaches converge in characterizing the final stages of acquisition as the consolidation of a productive linguistic system. In UBT, this process is described as the formation of a network of constructions that functions as a complex adaptive system (Bybee, 2010; Kretzschmar, 2015), in which abstractions emerge from the recurrent use of contextualized linguistic patterns. In parallel, GLP defines Stages 5 and 6 of the NLA model as the phase of mastering complex and grammatically complete structures, typically marked by a significant reduction in echolalia (Prizant, 1983; Blanc, 2012).

4.3.5. Theoretical Divergence: Continuum vs. Stages

While the stages described above reveal structural parallels, the theories diverge in their conceptualization of the developmental trajectory. In UBT, development is described as a continuum - a gradual and continuous process where complexity emerges through progressive cognitive action without fixed phases or specific ages (Tomasello, 2009; Croft; Cruse, 2004; Bybee, 2010, 2023; Lieven et al., 2003).

In contrast, GLP (specifically the NLA model) organizes this journey into a descriptive sequence of stages to guide clinical assessment and intervention in ASD (Blanc, 2005; Blanc; Blackwell; Elias, 2023). The retrieved studies document a chronological evolution of this model: from a description in typical development (Peters, 2021), to an outline of stages in ASD (Prizant, 1983), to a structured clinical protocol (Blanc, 2005; Blanc; Blackwell; Elias, 2023). As acquisition progresses, GLP also emphasizes the necessity of adult mediation to interpret gestalts and model functional chunks, whereas UBT focuses on the child's spontaneous intention-reading in typical development (Blanc, 2005; Tomasello, 2000b).

4.3.6. Studies reinforcing elements of the theories

Research on pronouns indicates that reversals are more linked to socio-cognitive factors and input than to structural deficits (Barokova; Tager-Flusberg, 2020) and are not solely explainable by echolalia (Fay, 1979). Such findings align with UBT's emphasis on communicative intention as a guide for development and with the GLP view that personal references emerge later, after the gestalt phase.

In a longitudinal study, Patterson (2000) described the progression of a child with language delay in three phases: 1) use of isolated words and "frozen phrases"; 2) emergence of flexible elements; 3) spontaneous construction of new sentences. The author used the term "gestalt" to describe the initial phase of unanalyzed units and, in the discussion, cited Brooks and Tomasello (1999) in emphasizing that acquisition can occur in both bottom-up (part-whole) and top-down (whole-part).

Carvalho and Avelar (2002) established a dialogue between typical and pathological acquisition by analyzing repetition and error in children with and without ASD. They observed that while the child with typical development transitioned between imitation and creation, the child with ASD presented more rigid speech, characterized by echolalia and stereotypies.

Another study demonstrated that the pragmatic use of language was a better predictor of word combination than vocabulary size, reinforcing the emphasis of both approaches on the role of actual use for acquisition (Foster-Cohen; Van Bysterveldt; Papp, 2021). Finally, caregiver alignment emerged as an empirical link between the perspectives. Longitudinal studies showed that the correspondence between the child's and adult's productions (lexical, syntactic, or semantic) predicted growth in vocabulary and sentence complexity, suggesting a common mechanism underlying both approaches (Fusaroli et al., 2023).

4.3.7. Studies criticizing elements of the theories

The data extraction identified a group of studies that provide critical evaluations of the theoretical and empirical foundations of the analyzed frameworks. Regarding the broader lineage of usage-based perspectives, Baker (1961) points out theoretical inconsistencies in earlier "linguistic theories of usage," noting that isolating language use from its social and emotional effects results in a loss of contextual meaning. The author reports that language cannot be separated from its social consequences, even from a strictly scientific perspective.

In relation to the GLP/NLA model, Hutchins, Knox, and Fletcher (2024) report that, although the model's principles are consistent with established theories, its stage-like progression lacks robust empirical evidence. A literature review (Beals, 2024) states that the premise that gestalt processors bypass the word level to process whole sentences is incompatible with neuroscience evidence on phonological and syntactic processing, describing the model as implausible considering current linguistic research. Corroborating the critique regarding the lack of empirical support for the NLA protocol, Dinello and Gladfelter (2025) conducted a scoping review aimed at informing speech-language pathologists about current intervention strategies targeting echolalia. The authors reported that behavioral approaches focused on reducing echolalia remain the most frequent strategy used in clinical sessions (accounting for 73% of interventions). Furthermore, they highlighted that while NLA is a utilized protocol, it currently lacks robust empirical evidence.

5. Discussion

The present study conducted a mapping and comparative analysis between the stages and processes of UBT and the GLP model. The results revealed fundamental convergences, but also divergences in the described developmental stages, empirical scope, and theoretical foundation of each approach.

5.1. From Continuum to Stages: An Epistemological Divergence

A key difference between the approaches lies in the description of the developmental trajectory. UBT conceives the process as a gradual continuum, without delineating fixed phases, emphasizing the continuous action of cognitive mechanisms on linguistic input (Croft; Cruse, 2004; Bybee, 2010, 2023). In contrast, GLP, particularly in the formulation of the NLA model, organizes acquisition into a descriptive sequence of stages (Blanc, 2005; Blanc; Blackwell; Elias, 2023).

Although the NLA/GLP model itself recognizes individual variability and does not establish rigid ages (Blanc, 2005; Blanc; Blackwell; Elias, 2023), the "stage" structure may, in clinical practice, be interpreted in an excessively linear way. Hutchins et al. (2024) point out this risk, questioning its current capacity to fully capture the heterogeneity of ASD. This skepticism is amplified by the fact that GLP’s stages are descriptive and lack the robust longitudinal validation seen in usage-based frameworks (Beals, 2024). This risk materializes if the sequence is seen as a universal roadmap, precisely underestimating the crucial role of environmental mediation - a central pillar of the model.

This distinction does not invalidate GLP but defines its different purposes. The stages of GLP function as a descriptive clinical tool that names and sequences observable phenomena (such as mitigation). UBT, on the other hand, offers an explanatory model of the underlying cognitive processes. The divergence is, therefore, one of emphasis and application: UBT explores the "why" (the mechanisms), while GLP/NLA describes the "what" (the phenomena) and suggests a "how" to intervene.

5.2. The Holistic Unit

One of the central axes of convergence identified is that both theories describe the onset of language acquisition as anchored in larger, unanalyzed units (Wertheimer, 1923; Tomasello, 2000b; Ibbotson, 2013; Ghalebi; Sadighi, 2015; Novák, A.; Novák, B., 2022; Leclercq, 2023; Bybee, 2010, 2023; Tomasello, 2000a). In UBT, these are holophrases or frozen phrases (Tomasello, 2000b, 2009); in GLP, they are gestalts, chunks, or echolalic productions (Blanc, 2005, 2012; Blanc; Blackwell; Elias, 2023; Prizant, 1983; Peters, 2021). This shared premise signals a view of language as an emergent system, constructed from actual use, input frequency, and its communicative function (Tomasello, 2003; Croft; Cruse, 2004; Bybee, 2023). Both perspectives propose that these holistic chunks are progressively analyzed and recombined in a trajectory that goes in a top-down trajectory forming the basis for subsequent grammatical creativity (Blanc, 2005, 2012; Tomasello, 2009).

5.3. The Major Divergence: The Initial Pragmatic Abyss and the Bridge of Mediation

The convergence on the starting point, however, conceals a fundamental divergence concerning the degree of shared communicative intentionality associated with these initial units. In UBT, which describes typical development, holophrases emerge naturally from established joint attention and effective intention-reading, carrying from the outset a clear communicative intention for the interlocutor (Tomasello, 2000b, 2009). In the clinical GLP, applied to ASD, the first gestalts or echolalic productions have a predominantly associative or self-stimulatory function, and their communicative intent may not be transparent (Prizant, 1983; Blanc; Blackwell; Elias, 2023). This reflects the deficits in socio-emotional reciprocity characteristic of the spectrum (American Psychiatric Association, 2022).

It is in this initial pragmatic abyss that the NLA/GLP model introduces its most crucial element: intentional adult mediation. Blanc (2005) proposes that the caregivers should first meet the child on their own terms, decoding their gestalts to establish a connection. In a second step, they begin strategically introducing new linguistic chunks that are, by design, more functional, predictable, and analyzable (e.g., "Where is...?") (Blanc; Blackwell; Elias, 2023).

When analyzed alongside UBT, this mediation can be described as a clinical strategy that aims to foster the conditions for shared intentionality. While critics suggest that GLP may oversimplify complex neurodivergent trajectories (Beals, 2024; Hutchins et al., 2024), the mediation process described in GLP focuses on providing structured and functional input. From a usage-based perspective, such input is the environmental requirement for cognitive mechanisms - such as intention-reading and pattern-finding - to operate. Thus, rather than a contradiction, the two models offer different entry points: UBT identifies the cognitive prerequisites for language construction, while GLP describes a clinical procedure intended to facilitate those interactions within an atypical developmental context.

5.4. From Analysis to Syntax

The results revealed parallels between the descriptions of each theory in the subsequent processes: (1) Initial Analysis: The word combinations and pivot schemas of UBT (Tomasello, 2009) find their counterpart in the mitigation stages and isolated word combinations of GLP (Blanc, 2005; Prizant, 1983). The "mitigation" process is the observable clinical manifestation of the "pattern-finding" mechanism described by UBT; (2) Emerging Syntax: The item-based constructions or "verb islands" of UBT - where syntactic knowledge is initially tied to specific verbs (Tomasello, 2003) - mirror the phase of original phrases with experimental grammar (Stage 4 of NLA), where verbs begin to stand out as a grammatical class, albeit through trial and error (Blanc, 2005; Blanc; Blackwell; Elias, 2023); (3) Consolidated Grammar: The development of abstract and complex constructions in UBT (Tomasello, 2003) corresponds to the final NLA stages of sentences with a complete grammatical system (Blanc, 2005; Blanc; Blackwell; Elias, 2023).

These parallels suggest that an underlying sequence of linguistic processes - such as analysis, recombination, and generalization - may be observed across different developmental paths. Within this perspective, the heterogeneity of ASD does not necessarily invalidate this sequence; rather, it may account for variations in the starting point (such as complex echolalia) and the pace of progression. However, since GLP remains an emergent clinical framework, these observations highlight the need for further empirical studies.

5.5. Empirical Limitations and Clinical Implications

While UBT operates within a consolidated cycle of experimental and longitudinal validation, GLP remains primarily situated within clinical and non-indexed literature. This disparity implies that GLP functions as an emergent clinical framework rather than a validated scientific theory. It is crucial, however, to distinguish between the conceptual core of GLP and the NLA intervention protocol derived from it. This review proposes a potential theoretical alignment with UBT’s principles, suggesting a plausible framework to further explore these clinical observations through the lens of established cognitive science.

6. Final Considerations

This work proposed a conceptual exploration between two models of language development, identifying structural parallels across developmental stages. The analysis noted that certain cognitive mechanisms described by UBT - such as pattern-finding and entrenchment - showed conceptual correlations with the transitions observed in GLP trajectories. However, these points of contact must be viewed with caution, as UBT and GLP occupy distinct positions in the hierarchy of scientific evidence.

The implications of this review are twofold. First, for clinical practice, the results suggest that a critical adoption of the NLA model may be beneficial, prioritizing not the rigid application of its stages, but the understanding of the mediation mechanisms that facilitate the transition from holistic to analytic processing. Second, intervention could seek to create environmental conditions that align with the learning processes documented in usage-based literature, always grounded in the individual's interests and communicative forms.

In the field of research, the correlations identified in this mapping indicate a clear need for studies that investigate these mechanisms more deeply. Future directions should include longitudinal research to verify whether the pattern of abstraction processes (UBT) is indeed active during the progression through the GLP stages, as well as controlled clinical trials to evaluate the NLA protocol.

The limitations of this study are acknowledged. As a scoping review, the synthesis has an inherent interpretive nature, underscores the preliminary status of the identified parallels, and highlights that they should be treated as propositions to be tested.

In summary, the articulation between UBT and GLP suggests a framework for understanding language acquisition in ASD not as a deficit process, but as a variation in the starting point, pace, and necessary conditions for activating the same fundamental usage-based learning mechanisms. This integrative view offers a theoretical path to explore clinical practices that are informed by these principles, proposing a framework that aligns with the neurodiversity perspective and seeks to be responsive to the specific needs of children with ASD.

Additional Information

Conflict of Interest

The authors have no competing interests to declare.

Statement of Data Availability

The dataset supporting this scoping review is publicly archived in the Harvard Dataverse repository (https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/JR8PYP). The repository comprises: (1) Search Strategy and Protocol, documenting the PCC framework, exact search strings, applied filters, and database-specific search dates; (2) PRISMA Flowchart, providing a visual summary of the screening process from the 12,104 identified records to the final 43 included studies; (3) Exclusion Log, an itemized list of 6,924 records excluded during title and abstract screening with their respective reasons for exclusion; (4) Extraction Table, containing the complete dataset and variables extracted from the included studies (e.g., theoretical frameworks, definitions, and main results); and (5) a README file, which provides comprehensive metadata, column definitions, and methodological notes regarding deduplication and decision rules. This data is available under the Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 license.

AI Usage Statement

During the preparation of this work, the authors used DeepSeek-V3 to assist in the initial English translation and grammatical review of the whole manuscript, which is based on the first author's master's dissertation (originally in Brazilian Portuguese). All AI-assisted sections underwent human review, manual rewriting, and verification by the authors to ensure scientific accuracy and terminological precision. Because interaction logs and exact prompts were not retained during the initial drafting phase, a persistent public record of the chat history cannot be provided.

Research Protocol

We confirm the evaluation of Equator Network guidelines, and the application of available models was not deemed relevant. The study was not pre-registered prior to data collection. Instead, a retrospective, post hoc protocol documentation was deposited on the Open Science Framework platform for transparency on January 30, 2026, after the study was fully completed (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/U2KFV). No differences exist between the procedures described in the deposited protocol and the study performed.

References

AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION. DSM-5-TR: Manual diagnóstico e estatístico de transtornos mentais. 5. ed., texto revisado. Porto Alegre: Artmed, 2022.

AROMATARIS, E.; LOCKWOOD, C.; PORRITT, K.; PILLA, B.; JORDAN, Z. (ed.). JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. [S. l.]: JBI, 2024. https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-24-01

ASPERGER, H. Die “Autistischen Psychopathen” im Kindesalter. Archiv für Psychiatrie und Nervenkrankheiten, Berlin, v. 117, p. 76-136, 1944. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01837709.

BISHOP, D. V. M.; SNOW, P.; THOMPSON, P.; GREENHALGH, T. Phase 2 of CATALISE: a multinational and multidisciplinary Delphi consensus study of problems with language development: Terminology. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, Oxford, v. 58, n. 10, p. 1068-1080, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12721.

BROOKS, P. J.; TOMASELLO, M. Young children learn to produce passives with nonce verbs. Developmental Psychology, Washington, v. 35, n. 1, p. 29-44, 1999. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.35.1.29.

BRUNER, J. Child’s talk: learning to use language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983.

CAMPIÃO, A. S. Teoria baseada no uso & processador gestalt da linguagem: revisão de escopo para uma abordagem integrada do desenvolvimento da linguagem. 2026. viii, 66 f. Dissertação (Mestrado em Distúrbios da Comunicação Humana) - Programa de Pós-Graduação em Distúrbios da Comunicação Humana, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, 2026. Disponível em: https://repositorio.unifesp.br/items/3ab15870-fe92-4efa-9f2b-6d2863d8f290. Acesso em: 12 fev. 2026.

CHOMSKY, N. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1965.

CHOMSKY, N. Aspects of the theory of syntax. 50th Anniversary Edition. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2014.

CROFT, W. Syntactic categories and grammatical relations: the cognitive organization of information. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991.

GEORGIADES, S.; SZATMARI, P.; BOYLE, M.; HANNA, S.; DUKU, E.; ZWAIGENBAUM, L.; BRYSON, S.; FOMBONNE, E.; VOLDEN, J.; MIRENDA, P.; SMITH, I.; ROBERTS, W.; VAILLANCOURT, T.; WADDELL, C.; BENNETT, T.; THOMPSON, A.; PATHWAYS IN ASD STUDY TEAM. Investigating phenotypic heterogeneity in children with autism spectrum disorder: a factor mixture modeling approach. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, Oxford, v. 54, n. 2, p. 206-215, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2012.02588.x.

GIVÓN, T. Functionalism and grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1995.

GOLDBERG, A. E. Constructions at work: the nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.

HALLIDAY, M. A. K. Learning how to mean. London: Edward Arnold, 1975.

HALLIDAY, M. A. K. Language as social semiotic. London: Edward Arnold, 1978.

HAZLETT, H. C.; GU, H.; MUNSELL, B. C.; KIM, S. H.; STYNER, M.; WOLFF, J. J.; ELISON, J. T.; SWANSON, M. R.; ZHU, H.; BOTTERON, K. N.; COLLINS, D. L.; CONSTANTINO, J. N.; DAGER, S. R.; ESTES, A. M.; EVANS, A. C.; FONOV, V. S.; GERIG, G.; KOSTOPOULOS, P.; MCKINSTRY, R. C.; PANDEY, J.; PATERSON, S.; PRUETT, J. R.; SCHULTZ, R. T.; SHAW, D. W.; THE IBIS NETWORK. Early brain development in infants at high risk for autism spectrum disorder. Nature, London, v. 542, n. 7641, p. 348-351, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature21369.

KANNER, L. Autistic disturbances of affective contact. Nervous Child, New York, v. 2, p. 217-250, 1943.

KIM, S. Y.; UDHNANI, M.; LECAVALIER, L. Heterogeneity in autism spectrum disorder explained by social-communicative and restricted repetitive behavior balance subgroups. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, Amsterdam, v. 114, 102387, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rasd.2024.102387.

KÖHLER, W. Gestalt psychology. New York: Liveright, 1929.

LANDA, R. J.; GROSS, A. L.; STUART, E. A.; BAUMAN, M. Latent class analysis of early developmental trajectory in baby siblings of children with autism. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, Oxford, v. 53, n. 9, p. 986-996, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2012.02558.x.

LANGACKER, R. W. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. I: Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1987.

LANGACKER, R. W. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. II: Descriptive application. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1991.

LORD, C.; ELSABBAGH, M.; BAIRD, G.; VEENSTRA-VANDERWEELE, J. Autism spectrum disorder. The Lancet, London, v. 392, n. 10146, p. 508-520, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(18)31129-2.

LORD, C.; BRUGHA, T. S.; CHARMAN, T.; CUSACK, J.; DUMAS, G.; FRAZIER, T.; JONES, E. J. H.; JONES, R. M.; PICKLES, A.; STATE, M. W.; TAYLOR, J. L.; VEENSTRA-VANDERWEELE, J. Autism spectrum disorder. Nature Reviews Disease Primers, London, v. 6, art. 5, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41572-019-0138-4.

NOVÁK, A.; NOVÁK, B. Cross-lingual transfer of knowledge in distributional language models: experiments in Hungarian. Acta Linguistica Academica, Budapest, v. 69, n. 4, p. 405-449, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1556/2062.2022.00580.

PETERS, A. M. Language learning strategies: does the whole equal the sum of the parts? Language, Baltimore, v. 53, n. 3, p. 560-573, 1977. https://doi.org/10.2307/413177.

PICKLES, A.; WRIGHT, N.; BEDFORD, R.; STEIMAN, M.; DUKU, E.; BENNETT, T.; GEORGIADES, S.; KERNS, C. M.; MIRENDA, P.; SMITH, I. M.; UNGAR, W. J.; VAILLANCOURT, T.; WADDELL, C.; ZAIDMAN-ZAIT, A.; ZWAIGENBAUM, L.; SZATMARI, P.; ELSABBAGH, M.; PATHWAYS IN ASD STUDY TEAM. Predictors of language regression and its association with subsequent communication development in children with autism. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, Oxford, v. 63, n. 11, p. 1243-1251, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.13565.

PINKER, S. The language instinct: how the mind creates language. New York: William Morrow and Company, 1994.

SNOW, C. E. The development of conversation between mothers and babies. Journal of Child Language, Cambridge, v. 4, n. 1, p. 1-22, 1977. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900000453.

THIESSEN, E. D.; HILL, E. A.; SAFFRAN, J. R. Infant-directed speech facilitates word segmentation. Infancy, Hoboken, v. 7, n. 1, p. 53-71, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327078in0701_5.

TOMASELLO, M. Constructing a language: a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctv26070v8.

TRICCO, A. C.; LILLIE, E.; ZARIN, W.; O’BRIEN, K. K.; COLQUHOUN, H.; LEVAC, D.; MOHER, D.; PETERS, M. D. J.; HORSLEY, T.; WEEKS, L.; HEMPEL, S.; AKL, E. A.; CHANG, C.; MCGOWAN, J.; STEWART, L.; HARTLING, L.; ALDCROFT, A.; WILSON, M. G.; GARRITTY, C.; LEWIN, S.; GODFREY, C. M.; MACDONALD, M. T.; LANGLOIS, E. V.; SOARES-WEISER, K.; MORIARTY, J.; CLIFFORD, T.; TUNÇALP, Ö.; STRAUS, S. E. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, Philadelphia, v. 169, n. 7, p. 467-473, 2018. https://doi.org/10.7326/m18-0850.

WERTHEIMER, M. Untersuchungen zur Lehre von der Gestalt II. Psychologische Forschung, Berlin, v. 4, n. 1, p. 301-350, 1923. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00410640.

WITTGENSTEIN, L. Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Blackwell, 1953.

CORPUS OF ANALYZED STUDIES

ABBOT-SMITH, K. Language disorders and autism: implications for usage-based theories of language development. In: ROWLAND, C.; THEAKSTON, A.; AMBRIDGE, B.; TWOMEY, K. E. (org.). Current perspectives on child language acquisition: how children use their environment to learn. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2020. p. 305-326. (Trends in Language Acquisition Research). https://doi.org/10.1075/tilar.27.13abb.

ARCIULI, J. The multi-component nature of statistical learning. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, London, v. 372, n. 1711, 20160058, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2016.0058.

BAKER, R. J. The “linguistic” theory of usage. Journal of the Canadian Linguistic Association, Montreal, v. 6, p. 209-212, 1961. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008413100019265.

BAROKOVA, M.; TAGER-FLUSBERG, H. Person-reference in autism spectrum disorder: developmental trends and the role of linguistic input. Autism Research, Hoboken, v. 13, n. 6, p. 959-969, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.2243.

BEALS, K. A linguist’s take on Blanc’s proposition of gestalt language processing and natural language acquisition: an implausible theory at odds with the research. Current Developmental Disorders Reports, New York, v. 11, p. 163-170, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40474-024-00309-8.

BLANC, M. To tell the “whole” story: Natural language acquisition on the autism spectrum (Parts 1-4). Autism Asperger’s Digest, May–Dec. 2005. Disponível em: https://communicationdevelopmentcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Finding-the-words-to-tell-the-whole-story.pdf. Acesso em: 22 ago. 2025.

BLANC, M. The natural language acquisition guide: echolalia is all about gestalt language development. Madison: Communication Development Center, 2012. Disponível em: https://communicationdevelopmentcenter.com/articles/the-natural-language-acquisition-guide-echolalia-is-all-about-gestalt-language-development/. Acesso em: 22 ago. 2025.

BLANC, M.; BLACKWELL, A.; ELIAS, P. Using the Natural Language Acquisition Protocol to support gestalt language development. Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups, Rockville, v. 8, n. 6, p. 1279-1286, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1044/2023_PERSP-23-00098.

BRYANT, L.; BOWEN, C.; GROVE, R.; DIXON, G.; BEALS, K.; SHANE, H.; HEMSLEY, B. Systematic review of interventions based on ‘gestalt language processing’ and ‘natural language acquisition’ (GLP/NLA): clinical implications of absence of evidence and cautions for clinicians and parents. Current Developmental Disorders Reports, New York, v. 12, art. 2, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40474-024-00312-z.

BYBEE, J. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511750526.

BYBEE, J. What is usage-based linguistics? In: DÍAZ-CAMPOS, M.; BALASCH, S. (ed.). The Handbook of Usage-Based Linguistics. 1. ed. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2023. p. 9-24. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119839859.ch1.

CARVALHO, G. M. M.; AVELAR, T. C. Aquisição de linguagem e autismo: um reflexo no espelho. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicopatologia Fundamental, São Paulo, v. 5, n. 3, p. 11-27, 2002. https://doi.org/10.1590/1415-47142002003002.

CROFT, W.; CRUSE, D. A. The usage-based model. In: CROFT, W.; CRUSE, D. A. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. cap. 11, p. 291-327. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511803864.012.

DINELLO, A.; GLADFELTER, A. Intervention techniques targeting echolalia: a scoping review. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, v. 34, n. 3, p. 1528-1543, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1044/2025_AJSLP-24-00211.

DYER, C.; HADDEN, A. J. Delayed echolalia in autism: some observations on differences within the term. Child: Care, Health and Development, Oxford, v. 7, n. 6, p. 331-345, 1981. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2214.1981.tb00850.x.

FAY, W. H. Personal pronouns and the autistic child. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, New York, v. 9, n. 3, p. 247-260, 1979. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01531211.

FERNÁNDEZ-PENA, Y.; KALTENBÖCK, G.; PÉREZ-GUERRA, J. Fragments: a usage-based view. English Language and Linguistics, Cambridge, v. 28, n. 3, p. 447-464, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674324000248.

FOSTER-COHEN, S.; VAN BYSTERVELDT, A.; PAPP, V. The roles of language use and vocabulary size in the emergence of word-combining in children with complex neurodevelopmental disabilities. Journal of Child Language, Cambridge, v. 48, n. 1, p. 202-214, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000920000136.

FUSAROLI, R.; WEED, E.; ROCCA, R.; FEIN, D.; NAIGLES, L. Caregiver linguistic alignment to autistic and typically developing children: a natural language processing approach illuminates the interactive components of language development. Cognition, Amsterdam, v. 236, 105422, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2023.105422.

GHALEBİ, R.; SADIGHI, F. The usage-based theory of language acquisition: a review of major issues. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Language Research, Tehran, v. 2, n. 6, p. 190-195, 2015. Disponível em: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/351436938_The_Usage-based_Theory_of_Language_Acquisition_A_review_of_Major_Issues. Acesso em: 18 jul. 2025.

HUTCHINS, T. L.; KNOX, S. E.; FLETCHER, E. C. Natural language acquisition and gestalt language processing: a critical analysis of their application to autism and speech language therapy. Autism & Developmental Language Impairments, London, v. 9, p. 1-20, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1177/23969415241249944.

IBBOTSON, P. The scope of usage-based theory. Frontiers in Psychology, Lausanne, v. 4, p. 255, 2013. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00255.

KRETZSCHMAR, W. A. Jr. Usage-based linguistics and complex systems. In: _______. Language and complex systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. p. 56-80. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316179017.004.

LECLERCQ, B. Understanding Construction Grammar and Relevance Theory. In: _______. Linguistic knowledge and language use: bridging construction grammar and relevance theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2023. p. 5-65. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009273213.002.

LEUNG, J-P.; WU, K-I. Teaching receptive naming of Chinese characters to children with autism by incorporating echolalia. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, Washington, v. 30, n. 1, p. 59-68, 1997. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1997.30-59.

LIEVEN, E.; BEHRENS, H.; SPEARES, J.; TOMASELLO, M. Early syntactic creativity: a usage-based approach. Journal of Child Language, Cambridge, v. 30, n. 2, p. 333-370, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000903005592.

MCEVOY, R. E.; LOVELAND, K. A.; LANDRY, S. H. The functions of immediate echolalia in autistic children: a developmental perspective. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, New York, v. 18, n. 4, p. 657-668, 1988. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02211883.

PACCIA, J. M.; CURCIO, F. Language processing and forms of immediate echolalia in autistic children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, Rockville, v. 25, n. 1, p. 42-47, 1982. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.2501.42.

PATTERSON, J. L. Development of constructed phrases in a child with language impairment. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, London, v. 14, n. 7, p. 545-556, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1080/026992000750020369.

PETERS, A. M. The units of language acquisition. Madison: Communication Development Center, 2021. Disponível em: https://communicationdevelopmentcenter.com/articles-books-and-blogs-library/. Acesso em: 27 jul. 2025. Reimpressão digital da obra originalmente publicada em 1983 pela Cambridge University Press (Cambridge).

PRIZANT, B. M. Language acquisition and communicative behavior in autism: toward an understanding of the “whole” of it. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, Rockville, v. 48, n. 3, p. 296-307, 1983. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshd.4803.296.

PRUCCOLI, J.; SPADONI, C.; ORSENIGO, A.; PARMEGGIANI, A. Should echolalia be considered a phonic stereotypy? A narrative review. Brain Sciences, Basel, v. 11, n. 7, e862, 2021. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11070862.

SAAD, A. G. F.; GOLDFELD, M. A ecolalia no desenvolvimento da linguagem de pessoas autistas: uma revisão bibliográfica. Pró-Fono: Revista de Atualização Científica, Barueri, v. 21, n. 3, p. 255-260, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-56872009000300013.

SCHULER, A. L. Echolalia: issues and clinical applications. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, Rockville, v. 44, n. 4, p. 411-434, 1979. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshd.4404.411.

STERPONI, L.; SHANKEY, J. Rethinking echolalia: repetition as an interactional resource in the communication of a child with autism. Journal of Child Language, Cambridge, v. 41, n. 2, p. 275-304, 2014. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000912000682.

TAGER-FLUSBERG, H.; CALKINS, S. Does imitation facilitate the acquisition of grammar? Evidence from a study of autistic, Down’s syndrome and normal children. Journal of Child Language, Cambridge, v. 17, n. 3, p. 591-606, 1990. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0305000900010898.

TOMASELLO, M. First steps toward a usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cognitive Linguistics, Berlin, v. 11, n. 1/2, p. 61-82, 2000a. https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2001.012.

TOMASELLO, M. A usage-based approach to child language acquisition. In: BERKELEY LINGUISTICS SOCIETY. Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley: Berkeley Linguistics Society, 2000b. p. 305-319. https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v26i1.1123.

TOMASELLO, M. The Social-Pragmatic Theory of Word Learning. Pragmatics, Antwerp, v. 10, n. 4, p. 401-413, 2000c. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.10.4.01tom.

TOMASELLO, M. The usage-based theory of language acquisition. In: BAVIN, E. L. (ed.). The Cambridge handbook of child language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. p. 69-87. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511576164.005.

VENKER, C. E.; LORANG, E. Continuing the conversation about echolalia and gestalt language development: a response to Haydock, Harrison, Baldwin, and Leadbitter. Autism, London, v. 29, n. 3, p. 821-824, 2025. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613241287577.

WRAY, A. Formulaic language. Language Teaching, Cambridge, v. 46, n. 3, p. 316-334, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444813000013.

Review

DOI: https://doi.org/10.25189/2675-4916.2026.V7.N1.ID974.R

Editorial Decision

EDITOR: Mirela Cunha Cardoso Ramacciotti

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3109-8376

AFFILIATION: Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul, Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil.

ASSESSMENT: The article " Usage-Based Theory and the Gestalt Language Processor: An Integrative Perspective on Language Processing " , in the form of a scoping review, offers a useful comparison between Usage-Based Theory and Gestalt Language Processing in child language development, with particular relevance for researchers and clinicians working in language, autism, and developmental studies.

The manuscript provides a novel approach which questions whether parallels can be drawn between Tomasello’s usage-based theory (UBT) of language acquisition in typically developing children and that of Gestalt language processing (GLP) in children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The main focus is on children with ASD. Despite the acknowledged lack of rigorous empirical support for GLP, the authors make a compelling case for reassessing this proposed clinical practice in view of cognitive linguistic theory (UBT), by drawing parallels between the stages and processes proposed by each theory. This proposition is grounded in a comprehensive and transparently conducted scoping review of the literature.

This review provides an interesting discussion of the potential for UBT to provide needed theoretical and empirical support for researchers wishing to investigate the claims of GLP and its possible utility in furthering clinical support for individuals with ASD.

For the aforementioned reasons, we recommend the article for publication in the theme issue on Neurobiology of Early Language Development.

Rounds of Review

REVIEWER 1: Caroline Handley

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0007-8435-0778

AFFILIATION: Western Kentucky University, Kentucky, Estados Unidos.

REVIEWER 2: Raquel Meister Ko Freitag

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4972-4320

AFFILIATION: Universidade Federal de Sergipe, Sergipe, Brasil.

REVIEWER 3: Daisy Cristina Olerich Cecatto

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0008-3246-8739

AFFILIATION: Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brasil.

ROUND 1

REVIEWER 1

30/06/2026 | 09:37

The manuscript provides an interesting scoping review which brings together theories of language acquisition in typically developing children and those with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), attempting to uncover commonalities. The main focus is on children with ASD and it will be of more interest to researchers and practitioners working with this population. However, the assumption that Tomasello’s usage-based theory (UBT) and Gestalt language processing (GLP) are broadly comparable is questionable given the empirical status of GLP. This issue is addressed towards the end of the manuscript, but needs to be raised at the beginning and the authors need to justify their endorsement of GLP despite the significant criticisms raised by literature that is cited in the manuscript, but that is not discussed in much depth, beyond the lack of empirical support for GLP. Criticisms by Hutchins et al. (2024) are briefly mentioned at the end of section 1, but the other three articles criticizing GLP are not mentioned in relation to this aspect until section 4.5 and Beals (2024) is never cited as criticism of GLP. These omissions mean that GLP is largely falsely portrayed as a scientific theory.

The authors have conducted a thorough scoping review, which was pre-registered and is transparently reported. However, at least one search string should be stated in the methods or in an appendix and it should be highlighted in the methods that the search string was restricted to “usage-based theory/method,” thus excluding literature that uses other terms, such as usage-based approaches/frameworks. Given that usage-based accounts of language acquisition include several different theories, as stated in the paper (e.g., cognitive and construction grammars), it is important to highlight that in their search and therefore, the manuscript, UBT is essentially restricted to Tomasello’s theory. Likewise, the term typically developing or neurotypical appears in all search strings, meaning that studies of infants and children in which neither of these terms were used were also excluded, which may have further reduced the relevant studies retrieved.The reporting of the results of the review requires significant clarification. In particular, the 43 studies identified are not indicated, either in the manuscript or in the reference list, so it is impossible to discern which references were retrieved through the review process within the article. Although this information has been made fully available online and the DOI link is provided, it should also be in the manuscript. It may be useful to provide summary table(s) of the studies retrieved in the scoping review, specifying which are related to UBT, GLP, typically developing children, and children with ASD, especially as most of the studies related to ASD do not appear to discuss GLP. Some of the information in the results seems to belong in the introduction. For example, Section 4.3.1. Definitions of each theory, and Section 4.2.3.1 Echolalia, is background information that should inform the scoping review, not findings from it. In addition, the logic for Section 4.4 and its contribution to the scoping review is unclear. The aim of the scoping review is clearly stated, but by reducing the information presented in this section, the results could be more focused on what new understanding of each theory, and their possible relationship, is gained from the review. The authors need to clarify the inclusion of grey literature in the scoping review, as well as journal articles criticizing GLP. The references in support of GLP in ASD are predominantly published by Blanc. They include a series of four short, non-peer-reviewed articles, published in 2005 – in the scoping review process these were included as one article, hosted on the CDC website, so perhaps they should be cited as such both in-text and in the reference list. In addition, Blanc’s 2012 article appears to be self-published (although the CDC website provides no real information about the history of the website or who constructed it, nor any contact information). These references should be highlighted as grey literature to clarify the nature of Blanc’s predominantly non-academic output. As all of these were manually retrieved, rather than appearing in any of the databases searched, their inclusion in the scoping review appears to reflect a subsequent decision by the authors rather than adherence to a search protocol, and it may be better to discuss these as supporting literature, rather than including them in the scoping review results. If not, the reasoning for including such grey literature needs to be explained, especially given that, as indicated in the manuscript, at least four journal articles included in the scoping review are highly critical of GLP, suggesting that it is implausible and that its application, even if well-intended, may negatively impact the language acquisition of children with ASD. Although the authors admit the inclusion of grey literature in the Final Considerations section, this should be discussed in the Methods. In the Results it should be highlighted that the grey literature is specific to GLP and forms the main support for this theory. Likewise, articles that criticize GLP cannot be cited in sentences describing or supporting GLP, as this is a misrepresentation. For example, in section 4.3.1 Venker and Beals are cited in support of the definition of GLP, despite these papers purely presenting criticisms of the theory. These references, and any other such instances, must be deleted to ensure that these papers are accurately employed in the manuscript.In line with these observations, in Figure 2, GLP, it is unclear how an ungrammatical string such as “no ball floor” develops into full mastery of complex grammar in the next stage, yet this issue is not discussed in the text. Neither is it discussed whether echolalia typically serves a communicative function in children with ASD. The authors appear to equate echolalia in neurotypical children with that in children with ASD, although it quickly disappears in typically developing children and is seen as a sign of a speech disorder otherwise. Thus, this position needs clarification and explanation. In Section 4.5 the authors conclude that UBT and GLP have “a complementary relationship.” However, no support is provided for this claim. If GLP is not testable (and as yet is untested) it cannot be claimed to complement UBT. Similar claims are also made in the Discussion. For example, it is not merely the case that intention-reading does not need to be triggered by adult input in UBT, arguably Tomasello’s main claim is that children’s ability for intention-reading, or Theory of Mind, enables them to learn language. This is not a small divergence. The relation between both theories should be discussed in view of the scientific evidence available and the authors should clearly explain their position that UBT can provide support for GLP.

REVIEWER 2

30/06/2026 | 11:14

O manuscrito apresenta uma contribuição para o campo da aquisição da linguagem aproximando a Teoria Baseada no Uso (TBU) e o Processamento Gestalt da Linguagem (PGL), campos teóricos ainda pouco explorado: as autoras identificaram, apenas um estudo anterior que havia estabelecido essa conexão de forma explícita.

Revisões sistemáticas e de escopo desempenham papel estruturante no avanço do conhecimento científico. O mapeamento, organização e sistematização da produção existente sobre um tema permite identificar lacunas investigativas (como a apontada pelas autoras, direções para pesquisas futuras e um panorama ou estado da arte. A necessidade deste tipo de estudo é ainda maior quando o campo é heterogêneo e a produção está dispersa em diferentes formatos e tradições, como é o caso da interface entre a Teoria Baseada no Uso (TBU) e o Processamento Gestalt da Linguagem (PGL) na aquisição da linguagem. Por isso, a transparência metodológica é condição indispensável para que esse tipo de estudo cumpra sua função: somente com clareza sobre como, quando e onde as buscas foram realizadas é possível avaliar a abrangência dos achados, replicar o processo e situar as conclusões no tempo. É justamente nesse ponto que o manuscrito apresenta inconsistências que precisam ser resolvidas antes de sua publicação.

A seção de métodos descreve com cuidado a estratégia de busca, as bases consultadas e os critérios de seleção, mas omite a informação de quando as pesquisas foram realizadas. O único indício temporal disponível são as datas de acesso registradas em algumas referências bibliográfica do manuscrito, que apontam para outubro de 2025 como período provável de execução das buscas. Esse dado, no entanto, entra em conflito com o pré-registro depositado na Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/u2kfv/overview), datado de 30 de janeiro de 2026. Em revisões sistemáticas e de escopo, o pré-registro deve, por definição, preceder a condução das buscas, e não sucedê-las. Se as buscas foram de fato realizadas em outubro de 2025 e o pré-registro ocorreu em janeiro de 2026, essa sequência inverte a lógica do pré-registro e compromete uma das principais garantias de transparência que esse procedimento oferece. As datas de execução das buscas nas bases de dados precisam estar presente no manuscrito.

Uma das bases de busca, PubMed, apresenta situação ambígua, já no pré-registro: está ausente no campo “Databases”, onde são listadas apenas cinco bases (PsycINFO, Web of Science, Scopus, LILACS e EMBASE), mas aparece no campo “Interfaces”, onde é relacionada com sua interface correspondente (NCBI PubMed). Essa contradição interna no pré-registro não é esclarecida no manuscrito, que trata o PubMed como a principal base da revisão, responsável pelo maior número de artigos recuperados (12 dos 20 provenientes das bases de dados) e como aquela a partir da qual a estratégia de busca foi primeiramente desenvolvida. A ausência de nota explicativa sobre essa discrepância compromete a rastreabilidade do processo.

O pré-registro indica o Google Scholar como fonte para a modalidade de busca denominada de “grey literature”. Contudo, o manuscrito e o fluxograma PRISMA-ScR não fazem menção ao Google Scholar: as fontes da busca manual relatadas são sites especializados, organizações profissionais e plataformas editoriais. Além da inconsistência em si, cabe um alerta metodológico: o Google Scholar apresenta limitações conhecidas para uso em revisões sistemáticas, entre elas a impossibilidade de reprodução exata das buscas, a ausência de controle sobre os algoritmos de ranqueamento e a variabilidade dos resultados entre sessões e usuários. Caso tenha sido efetivamente utilizado, sua inclusão deve ser relatada com transparência no manuscrito, acompanhada de descrição do procedimento adotado; caso não tenha sido utilizado, o pré-registro deve ser corrigido.

Há ainda um problema na disponibilização dos dados. O manuscento declara que o repositório no Harvard Dataverse contém, entre outros elementos, um log de triagem e um resumo do fluxo PRISMA. No entanto, o que está efetivamente disponibilizado corresponde apenas ao produto final da seleção, ou seja, os 43 documentos incluídos na revisão, sem que haja registro das etapas anteriores do processo de triagem: os 5.160 duplicados removidos e os 6.944 registros excluídos por título e resumo, com as respectivas justificativas. A possibilidade de auditar uma revisão sistemática ou de escopo depende justamente do acesso a esses registros completos, que permitem verificar se os critérios de inclusão e exclusão foram aplicados de forma consistente ao longo do processo. Sem esses dados, a reprodutibilidade da triagem não pode ser avaliada. A lista dos 43 documentos incluídos, atualmente disponível no repositório externo, poderia compor o próprio manuscrito na forma de apêndice, conforme prática recomendada e frequentemente exigida pelo PRISMA-ScR.

Em síntese, o artigo apresenta contribuição conceitual relevante e uma proposta integradora bem fundamentada, cuja publicação pode beneficiar a comunidade acadêmica. No entanto, as inconsistências metodológicas aqui apontadas afetam diretamente a credibilidade e a rastreabilidade do processo, que são os pilares de qualquer revisão sistemática.

REVIEWER 3

30/06/2026 | 15:09

This manuscript presents a conceptually relevant scoping review comparing Usage-Based Theory (UBT) and Gestalt Language Processing (GLP/NLA) in typical and atypical language development. Its main comparative claims are partially supported by the reviewed material; however, the current version would benefit from a clearer definition of the effective corpus, fuller methodological reporting, harmonization of the study-selection flow, and more cautious formulation of its clinical implications.

This manuscript addresses a timely and worthwhile question by bringing into dialogue two approaches that originate in different traditions but share potentially relevant points of contact for understanding language development. The objective is clearly stated in the abstract, where the review is described as “aimed at mapping the existing literature on Usage-Based Theory and Gestalt Language Processing, analyzing their convergences and divergences in the language acquisition of children with typical and atypical developmental trajectories” (p. 1, abstract, para. 1), and it is consistently reflected in the guiding question formulated in the methods section: “What are the similarities and differences between Usage-Based Theory (UBT) and the Gestalt Language Processing (GLP) model in explaining the linguistic development of children with typical and atypical development?” (p. 7, para. 2). This coherence between aim, question, and design is a notable strength.The manuscript’s main contribution lies in its comparative theoretical synthesis. It shows clearly that UBT and GLP converge in describing language acquisition as beginning with larger initial units that are progressively segmented and recombined. This is well captured in the statement that both approaches “converge in describing acquisition as starting from holistic units (gestalts/chunks), which are progressively segmented by the child. This process is guided by the frequency and use of input in communicative contexts, advancing to stages of recombination and creative use” (p. 6, final paragraph). The results section strengthens this argument by reporting “a comparative mapping of the two approaches, highlighting convergences and divergences in categories such as core definitions, initial linguistic units, pre-syntactic and syntactic developmental processes, and the outline of the theoretical scope of both theories” (p. 9, para. 3). The distinction between UBT as an explanatory continuum and GLP/NLA as a staged clinical framework is particularly useful.The manuscript also presents positive transparency features. It states that the protocol was registered on the Open Science Framework (p. 7, para. 1), declares no competing interests, and reports public data archiving in Harvard Dataverse (p. 23, Competing Interests; Data Availability Statement). These elements increase the traceability of the review and may enhance its utility for readers interested in reproducibility or future updates.

The main weaknesses of the current version concern corpus definition, internal consistency of reporting, and methodological explicitness. First, the effective corpus is not described with sufficient precision. The methods define the inclusion criteria as “original articles and reviews” (p. 7, para. 4), but the manuscript later refers to “23 additional texts (including grey literature)” (p. 7, para. 6), a final corpus of “43 documents” (p. 8, para. 2), and a GLP/NLA literature that is “predominantly composed of case reports, editorials, and books” (p. 17, Empirical Limitations). This does not invalidate the review, but it leaves the documentary status of the corpus insufficiently clear.Second, the PRISMA-ScR flow requires numerical harmonization. The manuscript states that “After the removal of 5,160 duplicates, 6,944 records were excluded based on title and abstract screening (...) This stage resulted in 20 eligible studies” (p. 8, para. 1), whereas the figure ALT text reports “6.924 excluded after title/abstract screening” (p. 9). This appears more likely to be a material reporting inconsistency than a conceptual problem, but it should be corrected because the numerical flow is central to the auditability of a scoping review.

Third, the methods are appropriate in outline but underreported in the manuscript itself. The paper states that it followed JBI and PRISMA-ScR, used PCC, searched multiple databases, applied independently verified screening, and conducted a descriptive and narrative synthesis (pp. 7–8). However, the Data Availability Statement indicates that the repository contains the exact search strings, filters, search dates, and decision rules (p. 23). Some of this information should also be summarized in the manuscript, particularly the search dates, the logic of the hand search, the criteria for including grey literature, and the basis for constructing the comparative categories used in the synthesis.

Finally, some of the clinical implications are currently phrased more strongly than the manuscript’s own discussion appears to support. The abstract refers to “a more individualized and evidence-based clinical practice” (p. 1), and the final considerations refer to a practice that is “therefore more effective” (p. 22, final paragraph). At the same time, the discussion recognizes that the GLP/NLA literature is “predominantly composed of case reports, editorials, and books” and that there is “a lack of controlled trials testing the efficacy of the structured protocol (...) and standardized outcome measures” (p. 17, Empirical Limitations). The proposed conceptual integration is promising, but the clinical implications should be stated with greater restraint.

ROUND 2

REVIEWER 1

30/06/2026 | 11:03

The manuscript provides a novel scoping review which questions whether parallels can be drawn between Tomasello’s usage-based theory (UBT) of language acquisition in typically developing children and that of Gestalt language processing (GLP) in children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The main focus is on children with ASD and it will be of more interest to researchers and practitioners working with this population. Despite the acknowledged lack of rigorous empirical support for GLP, the authors make a compelling case for reassessing this proposed clinical practice in view of cognitive linguistic theory (UBT), by drawing parallels between the stages and processes proposed by each theory. This proposition is grounded in a comprehensive and transparently conducted scoping review of the literature.

The authors have thoroughly revised their manuscript based on the round one reviewers’ suggestions and it is now considerably improved. The introduction establishes the theoretical background and motivation for the review and the methodology of the scoping review is now clearly presented and the hand-search justified. Structuring the results by stage has enabled the authors to present a clear comparison of the two theories based on the literature retrieved. In doing so, the authors build a strong argument for using UBT as a framework to provide motivation for researching GLP further, without making unwarranted claims about GLP. Overall, the review provides an interesting discussion of the potential for UBT to provide needed theoretical and empirical support for researchers wishing to investigate the claims of GLP and its possible utility in furthering clinical support for children with ASD.

REVIEWER 2

30/06/2026 | 14:01

Não existe pré-registro retrospectivo. É uma contradição: pré = antes; retro = depois. Se o registro não foi feito antes da coleta e análise dos dados, não há razão para o fazê-lo depois de os dados terem sido coletados e analisados, como é o que aconteceu no manuscrito em questão.

É mais transparente e honesto assumir que não foi feito pré-registro do estudo (e isso não o invalida) do que inventar um conceito apenas para adequar uma submissão a uma chamada.

REVIEWER 3

30/06/2026 |19:09

This revised manuscript has improved substantially and addresses most of the concerns raised in the previous review. Its main comparative and conceptual claims are now presented more clearly and cautiously; however, a few remaining issues of methodological reporting and internal consistency should still be corrected before acceptance.

This manuscript offers a relevant scoping review comparing Usage-Based Theory (UBT) and Gestalt Language Processing (GLP/NLA) in typical and atypical language development. The objective remains clear, and the revised version preserves the manuscript’s main strength: a productive comparative synthesis showing convergences between the two frameworks in relation to larger initial units, progressive segmentation, frequency, and use. The distinction between UBT as an explanatory continuum and GLP/NLA as a clinically staged framework also remains useful and well articulated.The revised manuscript is stronger than the previous version in several important respects. The eligibility criteria are now broader and more explicit, the hand-search strategy is better described, search dates were added, terminology was standardized, and the abstract and conclusion are more cautious than before. The response letter accurately reflects these improvements.The main remaining issues are relatively limited but should still be corrected. First, the manuscript now defines the corpus more clearly, but some reporting details still need tightening, particularly regarding the exact contribution of all listed databases and the duplicate mention of Web of Science in the Methods section. Second, the PRISMA-ScR flow is much improved, but one inconsistency remains in the Data Availability Statement, where the repository description refers to “6,922 records assessed in full-text,” which does not align with the selection flow reported in the manuscript. Third, although the protocol is now explicitly described as retrospectively registered on OSF, the manuscript still does not provide the exact registration date. This limits full transparency regarding timing.Overall, the revised version demonstrates a serious and constructive response to peer review. The remaining issues do not undermine the manuscript’s academic value, but they should be corrected to ensure consistency, transparency, and editorial precision.

ROUND 2

REVIEWER 1

30/06/2026 | 09:19

The authors have thoroughly revised the manuscript based on the round one and two reviewers’ suggestions and it is now considerably improved. The introduction establishes the theoretical background and motivation for the review and the methodology of the scoping review is now clearly presented and the hand-search justified. Structuring the results by stage has enabled the authors to present a clear comparison of the two theories based on the literature retrieved. In doing so, the authors build a strong argument for using UBT as a framework to provide motivation for researching GLP further, without making unwarranted claims about GLP. Overall, the review provides an interesting discussion of the potential for UBT to provide needed theoretical and empirical support for researchers wishing to investigate the claims of GLP and its possible utility in furthering clinical support for individuals with ASD.

REVIEWER 2

30/06/2026 | 11:29

Aprovado.

REVIEWER 3

30/06/2026 | 14:26

This revised scoping review offers a useful comparison between Usage-Based Theory and Gestalt Language Processing in child language development, with particular relevance for researchers and clinicians working in language, autism, and developmental studies. The manuscript has improved across review rounds, and its main conclusions are now supported with sufficient clarity and caution for publication, although a few minor editorial inconsistencies remain, such as the wording in the Data Availability Statement referring to “6,924 records assessed in full-text,” which does not fully align with the PRISMA-ScR flow as described in the Results section.

The manuscript presents a scoping review comparing Usage-Based Theory and Gestalt Language Processing in child language development. The revised version is clearer in its methods, more transparent about protocol registration and database reporting, and more cautious in its conclusions. It offers a useful comparative synthesis for readers in linguistics, speech-language pathology, and developmental studies. A minor wording inconsistency remains in the Data Availability Statement, but it does not compromise the manuscript’s overall contribution.