Nonspeaking and nonverbal: understanding different ways of communicating

When someone doesn’t speak, it is easy to make assumptions about what else they can or can’t do.

But speech, language, communication and understanding are not the same thing.

Neither are the terms nonspeaking and nonverbal, although they are often used interchangeably.

Understanding these distinctions matters. Not because we need to find the perfect label for everyone, but because the assumptions we make about communication can influence whether people are listened to, included and given meaningful opportunities to participate.

What does nonspeaking mean?

In simple terms, nonspeaking describes someone’s use of speech.

A nonspeaking person may not use spoken words at all, or may have some speech but not be able to rely on it as their main way of communicating.

Even here, there isn’t one universally agreed definition.

Research has used terms including ‘nonverbal’, ‘minimally verbal’ and ‘minimally speaking’, often with very different criteria. One research definition of ‘minimally verbal’, for example, has included people using no spoken words through to people with a small repertoire of spoken words or fixed phrases.

So we need to be careful about assuming a label tells us exactly how somebody communicates.

Someone may have no speech.

Someone else may use a handful of spoken words alongside other forms of communication.

Another person may be able to speak in some situations but find speech becomes unreliable or unavailable in others.

‘Nonspeaking’ tells us something about speech.

It doesn’t tell us everything else about the person.

Is nonspeaking the same as nonverbal?

Not necessarily.

This is an important distinction because speech and verbal language are not quite the same thing.

Speech is the production of spoken words.

‘Verbal’, in its more technical sense, relates to words and language.

That means someone can be nonspeaking but still use words.

For example, someone might not be able to tell you something using their voice, but might type:

‘I understand what you’re asking. I need more time to answer.’

They haven’t used speech.

But they have clearly used words and language.

This is one reason some people prefer nonspeaking to nonverbal.

However, ‘nonverbal’ is still widely used in research, healthcare and everyday conversation to mean someone who has little or no speech. Some people also use or prefer the term to describe themselves.

So this isn’t about declaring one word universally acceptable and another universally wrong.

It’s about understanding what the words are trying to describe, and, where possible, using the terminology an individual prefers.

Speech, language and communication are different things

It can help to separate a few concepts that are often bundled together.

Speech is producing spoken sounds and words.

Language is a system for understanding and expressing meaning through words, signs or symbols.

Communication is broader. It is how we send and receive messages, ideas, feelings, preferences and information.

Someone might communicate through:

• Speech or vocalisations
• Typing or writing
• Signing
• Gestures
• Pictures or symbols
• A communication board
• A speech-generating device
• Eye gaze
• Facial expressions and movement
• Behaviour
• A combination of different methods

These areas can overlap.

But difficulty with one doesn’t automatically tell us what is happening in another.

And that’s where some of the biggest misunderstandings can begin.

What is AAC?

This is also where AAC can become important.

AAC stands for augmentative and alternative communication.

The name sounds technical, but the principle is straightforward: AAC includes ways of communicating that supplement speech or provide an alternative when speech isn’t sufficient.

AAC can include things such as:

• Gestures and signs
• Pictures and symbols
• Communication boards
• Typing
• Speech-generating devices
• Communication apps

‘Augmentative’ means adding to speech.

‘Alternative’ means providing another way to communicate when speech isn’t available or reliable.

Importantly, AAC isn’t only for people who never speak.

Some people use speech and AAC together. Someone might speak comfortably in one situation but use typing or another method when tired, overwhelmed or dealing with something complex.

And people should not have to prove that they are sufficiently intelligent, sufficiently verbal or ‘ready’ before communication support is considered.

The goal is communication.

What about language disorders?

A person who is nonspeaking may also have a language disorder or significant language difficulties.

But nonspeaking and language disorder are not the same thing.

Language difficulties can affect how someone understands language, expresses themselves through language, or both.

So two nonspeaking people could have very different experiences.

One person might understand complex spoken language and express complex ideas through an alternative communication method.

Another might experience significant difficulties understanding language as well as expressing it.

Someone else might understand considerably more than they can currently communicate.

And another person may communicate effectively without relying heavily on conventional verbal language at all.

This is why we shouldn’t work backwards from the fact that someone doesn’t speak and decide how much language they have.

We need to understand the individual.

And what about intellectual disability?

This distinction matters too.

Being nonspeaking does not automatically mean somebody has an intellectual disability.

Equally, it would be wrong to suggest that nonspeaking people don’t have intellectual disabilities.

Some do. Some don’t.

Intellectual disability involves significant limitations in both intellectual functioning, things such as learning, reasoning and problem-solving, and adaptive functioning, which includes the conceptual, social and practical skills involved in everyday life.

That is different from someone’s ability to produce speech.

But assessing intellectual ability can become more complicated when somebody has significant communication differences.

Many conventional assessments rely to some degree on understanding instructions, responding in expected ways, language or particular motor abilities.

Research involving autistic children with little or no speech has shown that performance can differ substantially depending on the type of cognitive assessment used. In one small study, children who struggled to complete a conventional Wechsler assessment were much more able to complete alternative measures that relied on different abilities.

That doesn’t prove that every nonspeaking person who has been diagnosed with an intellectual disability has been underestimated.

And we shouldn’t use evidence like this to dismiss intellectual disability as somehow less real or less worthy of respect.

It tells us something more useful:

We should be cautious about assuming that one assessment, or one visible ability, tells us everything about someone’s cognitive abilities.

Don’t underestimate. But don’t assume.

There can be a temptation to replace one stereotype with another.

The first says:

‘They don’t speak, so they probably don’t understand.’

That is not a safe assumption.

But the opposite assumption –

‘They don’t speak, but they definitely understand everything’

– isn’t something we can know either.

Nonspeaking people are people.

They have different intellectual abilities, language abilities, sensory experiences, motor abilities and support needs.

Some live and work with considerable independence.

Some require significant support throughout daily life.

Some have intellectual disabilities.

Some don’t.

Some communicate complex ideas through written language or AAC.

Others communicate in more individual ways and may need people around them to pay close attention to their gestures, movements, expressions, sounds or behaviour.

A neuroaffirmative approach doesn’t require us to pretend those differences aren’t there.

It asks us not to turn difference into a judgement of somebody’s worth.

What lived experience can teach us

Lived experience is particularly important here.

Historically, much of what has been said about people who don’t speak has been said about them, rather than by them.

Clinical expertise, research and the knowledge of families and support professionals can all matter, particularly when somebody has complex needs.

But observation has limits.

Nonspeaking people who communicate through typing, AAC and other methods have described experiences of being underestimated because they could not demonstrate what they knew or understood through speech.

These accounts can help us recognise something that may be difficult to see from the outside: a person’s ability to express themselves and their ability to think or understand are not necessarily the same.

At the same time, lived experience shouldn’t become another source of generalisation.

The experience of a nonspeaking person who communicates complex thoughts through typing cannot tell us what every nonspeaking person thinks, understands or needs. Just as the experience of one speaking person cannot represent every other speaking person.

Some nonspeaking people have significant language difficulties or intellectual disabilities. Some have substantial support needs. Others describe a considerable gap between what they understand and what they have historically been able to communicate.

All of those experiences belong in the conversation.

The value of lived experience isn’t that it gives us a new rule for understanding every nonspeaking person.

It reminds us not to assume that we already know.

Listen to how someone communicates. Take their individual abilities and support needs seriously. And remain open to the possibility that what is visible from the outside doesn’t tell you the whole story.

Communication is a two-way responsibility

When a speaking person and a nonspeaking person struggle to communicate, we often locate the problem entirely within the nonspeaking person.

But communication involves at least two people.

Suppose someone uses AAC and needs longer to formulate a response.

You ask them a question.

There is a pause.

You assume they haven’t understood, so you ask again.

Then you simplify the question.

Then somebody accompanying them answers on their behalf.

The original person may never have been given the opportunity to respond.

The barrier wasn’t necessarily a lack of understanding.

It may have been the pace of the interaction.

That doesn’t mean every pause means somebody is composing a complex answer.

It means we shouldn’t rush to decide what a pause means.

Ask.

Wait.

Pay attention to how the person communicates.

And where somebody has established communication preferences or support, use them.

Instead of only asking:

‘How can this person communicate better with us?’

we can also ask:

‘How can we become better communication partners?’

What does this mean in the workplace?

Nonspeaking people are often missing from workplace conversations about neurodiversity.

Many of our ideas about what a ‘capable employee’ looks like still depend heavily on speech.

Interviews reward people who can answer questions verbally and quickly.

Meetings reward people who can enter fast-moving conversations.

Networking rewards spontaneous social communication.

Leadership can become associated with confident speaking.

Even everyday ideas about professionalism can favour particular voices, tones and communication styles.

But these are ways of organising work.

They are not universal measures of capability.

A neuroinclusive workplace can start by asking whether speech is genuinely necessary for the task or simply the way the organisation is accustomed to doing it.

That might mean:

• Allowing AAC naturally in interviews, meetings and conversations
• Giving people sufficient time to communicate
• Providing questions or topics in advance where appropriate
• Making written and asynchronous communication normal options
• Speaking directly to the person rather than automatically addressing a support worker
• Ensuring communication devices can be used wherever they are needed
• Asking how somebody communicates rather than guessing
• Separating fluency of speech from competence

For some people, substantial support may still be required.

Inclusion doesn’t mean pretending everyone can do every job.

It means making sure an unrelated expectation, such as speaking in a particular way, isn’t being mistaken for an essential requirement when it doesn’t need to be.

Presume competence without presuming sameness

‘Presume competence’ is a phrase you may encounter when learning about nonspeaking people.

There is something valuable at its heart:

Don’t decide what somebody is capable of simply because they cannot demonstrate it in the way you expect.

But we can apply that principle without assuming everyone has the same abilities.

Give people meaningful opportunities to participate.

Make communication accessible.

Listen to the person themselves wherever possible.

Recognise genuine disabilities and support needs without treating them as evidence of lesser worth.

And stay open to having your understanding of somebody change.

Perhaps the most useful principle isn’t to presume that we already know someone’s abilities.

It is to presume that finding out is worthwhile.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the difference between nonspeaking and nonverbal?

Nonspeaking refers to speech; nonverbal refers to words and language.

Someone who doesn’t speak but communicates using written or typed words is nonspeaking, but is still using verbal language.

Someone who is nonverbal does not use words to communicate, but may communicate through gestures, sounds, movement, pictures or other methods.

The terms are sometimes used interchangeably, which can cause confusion. Where possible, use the terminology the individual prefers.

Does being nonspeaking mean someone has an intellectual disability?

No. Being nonspeaking does not by itself tell you whether somebody has an intellectual disability.

Some nonspeaking people have intellectual disabilities and some don’t. Speech, language and intellectual functioning are related in complex ways but are not interchangeable.

Can someone be nonspeaking and understand spoken language?

Yes. Some nonspeaking people understand considerably more spoken language than they can express through speech.

However, this is not true of everyone. Some people also have receptive language difficulties, meaning they experience barriers understanding language.

The important point is not to infer somebody’s understanding from their speech alone.

What is AAC and who can use it?

AAC stands for augmentative and alternative communication. It includes methods that supplement or replace speech, such as gestures, signs, pictures, communication boards, typing and speech-generating devices.

AAC can be used by people with many different communication needs, including people who have some speech.

Final thought

How much somebody speaks tells us something important about their speech.

It doesn’t tell us everything else.

It doesn’t automatically tell us how much language they understand, whether they have an intellectual disability, what they are thinking or what they might be capable of with the right communication support.

At the same time, respecting nonspeaking and nonverbal people means acknowledging genuine disabilities and substantial support needs where they exist.

We don’t need to underestimate people.

And we don’t need to romanticise their experiences.

We need to get better at recognising communication in its different forms, and listening to the person in front of us.

What next?

If your organisation wants to build a deeper understanding of different ways of communicating and working, we support leadership teams, HR functions and all colleagues to challenge assumptions, understand barriers and create more neuroinclusive environments.

Explore how we work with organisations →