This study compares the introduction and expansion of non-speech communication for people with receptive impairments with the introduction and expansion of non-speech communication for people with expressive impairments. It documents the introduction of specific nonspeech
communication strategies—sign, augmeiitative communication and facilitated communication—and discusses the controversies which have ensued. It examines institutional responses to the use of atypical communication strategies: in particular, it examines the treatment of people with communication impairments by the state and the reaction of the legal and professional establishments to the introduction of new communication techniques.
The primary hypothesis guiding the study was that repeating patterns would appear, both in attempts to change the status of different groups and in professional intervention and reaction. The secondary hypothesis was that the group recognised longest—the deaf—would have come closest to
achieving acceptance.
Both hypotheses were supported to some extent. It is possible to discern repeating pattems both in the introduction of new communication techniques and in attempts by professional groups to control their use; and
while people who cannot hear have not yet achieved full acceptance and understanding, they are considerably closer to both than are people with diagnoses of physical or intellectual impairment who cannot speak.