116 Sorting out Speech: Understanding Multiple Methods of Communication for Persons with Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities Christi Kasa-Hendrickson University of Colorado chendri3@uccs.edu Alicia A. Broderick Teachers College, Columbia University Darlene Hanson WAPADH, CA Abstract: This article presents a qualitative research study that descriptively documents multiple forms of speech experienced by participants who have historically been described as functionally nonverbal with noncommunicative echolalic speech, and whose primary and most reliable expressive communication occurs through typing. The authors have constructed a typology of partici- pants’ speech that includes two types of spontaneous speech—echolalic phrases and self initiated conversation and three types of scaffolded speech—reading aloud, the use of routine social scripts, and supported conversation. The communicative intent of these various forms of speech as described by the participants will be discussed. Four of these five forms of speech are characte- rized as dialogic, or potentially so, in that they allow the speaker to participate actively in meaningful communicative exchanges with others. As the data illustrate, the relationships among these various types of speech, and indeed the relationship between these various forms of speech and each participant’s typed expressive communication, appears to be complex and dynamic. Im- plications for communication partners, in making decisions about supporting and responding to complex, multi-modal systems of communication are discussed. “Go home!” Sue shouted. I a had just arrived at her home and this apparent command to leave confused me. Did she want me to leave? Did she want to go? I decided to move forward with the conversation saying, “Good to see you Sue. How is school going?” Sue reached for her mother’s arm and tapped it quickly. Sue’s mother pulled out a small electronic keyboard and held it in front of Sue. Sue pointed her finger and, punching one letter at a time, typed out, “Echolalia at its worst. It is very embarrassing. I want you to stay.” I now understood that her verbal statement, “Go home,” was not what she intended to say. It has historically been quite diffi- cult to interpret what meaning or intent (if any) echolalic speech such as Sue’s “Go home!” may or may not have for individuals described as functionally nonverbal (individuals whose speech is repetitive and not sufficient to engage in communicative exchanges with others). Had Sue not been able to make her intent clear through her typed language, I might never have known what she intended to communicate to me, or if, indeed, her speech had been intentional at all. Sue Rubin has autism and for the past seventeen years has communicated through typing (i.e., pointing her index finger of her right hand to strike a keyboard one letter at a time). Sue requires a communication partner, trained in methods of support, to coach her while she communicates. Sue refers to her method of communication as facilitated communication (FC; see Biklen, 1990, 1993; Biklen & Cardinal, 1997; Cross- ley, 1994, 1997; Mirenda, 2004, 2008). FC (also referred to as Facilitated Communication Training [FCT]; see Crossley, 1994) is a method of augmentative and alternative communi- cation (AAC) used by individuals whose speech is not reliable and who experience difficulties with intentional movement (see Donnellan & Leary, 1995; Donnellan, Leary, & Robledo 2006; Dziuk et al. 2007; Green et al., 2009; Kasa- Hendrickson, 2006; Leary & Hill, 1996; Ming, Brimacombe, & Wagner, 2007) that makes the ability to independently point to access a communication aid unreliable at the outset of the training process (Biklen, 1993; Biklen & Cardinal, 1997; Crossley, 1994, 1997; Iverson, 2006, 2007; Mukhopadhyay, 2008). Physical support (e.g., hand stabilization, propriocep- tive input, and resistance or backward movement away from the keyboard) to enable the communication aid user to access the alphabet, symbols, words, or pictures is provided at the