Basically they wanted us to withhold meaningful communication until he piped up. Exactly the kind of programme you describe. And there is some evidence that those programmes can cause longterm harm. I would guess by stressing the child by withholding meaningful conversation, and by eliminating opportunities to hear sentences.
That makes sense (the way you've described that it could be harmful to withhold speech). Got it.
With our DD (non-verbal until about 25 months) we were referred to a SLP who introduced the Hanen "it takes two" program, which opened the verbal floodgates for DD. I used to chatter away endlessly to her and she'd listen. She was an extremely adept non-verbal communicator - she just didn't talk. She knew we wanted her to, and the more we tried to entice her, the more defiant her glares would become, so we finally left it alone.
The SLP told me to talk
less to her, but it was more so that I could shift my attention to what she was attending to (ie let it be child-led rather than parent-led). Rather than talking constantly to her, I was instructed to sit on the floor next to her and say nothing other than a one word label for whatever she was focusing on, like "book" or "block." It worked like M.A.G.I.C. for DD because her particular issue was perfectionism, and when I simplified language for her she became brave enough to try. She went from nothing to full sentences in about 2-3 weeks. Without the SLP's help I wouldn't have known to try that approach.
Michaela I think the key difference between our SLP's approach and the one you describe is that we were never instructed to NOT talk, just to clear away the verbal clutter and talk a lot less. I don't think I could ever be on board with no speaking at all - how would you model language for your child? How can they learn it if they don't hear it?
