0743-4618/86/0204/165$2.

00/0
AAC Augmentative and Alternative Communication
Copyrtght © 1986 by Williams & Wilkins

FORUM
Toward an Augmentative and Alternative
Communication Symbol Taxonomy: A Proposed
Superordinate Classification
Augment Altern Commun Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by RMIT University on 08/08/13

Lyle L. Lloyd and Donald R. Fuller

Special Education (L. L. L.) and Audiology and Speech Sciences (L. L. L., D. R. F.), Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana 47907

As the first step in developing a symbol taxonomy, the major augmentative and alternative
communication symbol classifications reported in the literature over the past decade are reviewed.
The terms used to classify symbols are critically evaluated according to their internal logic, their
sociolinguistic implications, and their compatibility with common definitions and usage. The clinical
and educational relevance of the classification approach in question, and the reduction of dual-
classification ambiguity that a given dichotomy may provide are also evaluated. The aided/unaided
classification is based on production of the symbol by the user, while the static/dynamic classifi-
cation is based upon the nature of the symbol’s signal. Although both of these dichotomies have
clinical/educational and theoretical/research implications, the aided/unaided dichotomy is pro-
For personal use only.

posed as the less ambiguous and the more practical classification for the superordinate level of a
taxonomy. A major purpose of this paper is to stimulate discussion of symbol classification that
will lead to the development of a more complete augmentative and alternative communication
symbol taxonomy.

In the last three decades, and especially within the
last decade, there has been an increase in the use of
augmentative and alternative communication systems
as a means of functional communication for individuals
with severe speech impairments. As the clinical/edu-
cational practices and the theoretical and empirical
research base for augmentative and alternative com-
munication are developed on an international and trans-
disciplinary level, there has been considerable confu-
sion and miscommunication among professionals due
to different definitions and taxonomic approaches
(Lloyd, 1984/1985; Waksvik, 1985). In an effort to
develop consistent terminology for the profession, the
International Society for Augmentative and Alternative
Communication (ISAAC) has established a terminology
committee whose charge is to collect information and
ultimately to propose a standard set of descriptors.
Such a task will undoubtedly take several years to
complete and will hopefully result in a position paper
concerning terminology that eventually will be adopted

Editorial Note: The forum section is designed to develop the field of augmentative and alternative communication
through the discussion and debate of clinical/educational, technical/manufacturing, and theoretical/empericaI issues.
The forum is designed for letters to the editor, position papers, and in some cases papers which may be considered
provocative by some members of the profession. Readers are encouraged to submit letters to the editor about
manuscripts published in AAC. Such letters may amplify basic points or issues raised in the original paper or may
take exception to procedures, data analysis, interpretation, and discussion in the original papers. Readers are also
encouraged to submit original position papers or “think pieces.” Papers in this section undergo the same peer
review process as other manuscripts with the exception that letters to the editor are given an expedited review.
The expedited Review process typically involves only three members of the editorial board (including the associate
editor of original manuscripts when the letter to the editor is making reference to previously published papers).
This procedure for letters is designed to increase the possibility of letters being published in the one or two issues
immediately following the original manuscript. Readers are encouraged to submit papers to the journal which are
specifically identified for this section of the journal, being designated as either a letter to the editor or a position
paper. Readers are strongly encouraged to submit potentially publishable comments on any manuscript in the
journal. However, we are particularly interested in receiving comments on items published in this section of the
journal.

165
 166 Lloyd and Fuller

by ISAAC. In the interim, it is our professional respon- TABLE 1: Published Dichotomies for Symbol Classifications
sibility as clinicians, educators, and researchers to de- Author (in alphabetical order) Classification
bate issues concerning terminology and to strive to- Blau (1983) Graphic and Dynamic
ward consistency in the use of terms, as well as to Fundamental
develop an overall taxonomy for the field of augment-
ative and alternative communication. The process of Carlson (1981) Visual Motor
developing a complete taxonomy for the components
of augmentative and alternative communication must Fristoe & Lloyd (1979)a Static or Aided Dynamic or
Unaided
include: (a) the symbols, (b) the transmission tech-
niques, and (c) the communicative process. The pur- Jones & Cregan (1 986)b Symbols Signs
pose of this paper is to briefly outline the evaluation
metrics for a symbol taxonomy, review previous symbol Kiernan (1977) Representational Sign Language
taxonomies, and propose the adoption of a specific Systems and Sign
Systems
terminology for the superordinate level of a symbol
Augment Altern Commun Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by RMIT University on 08/08/13

taxonomy. Kiernan, Reid & Jones Symbols Signs

By critically comparing the different classifications, it (1979, 1 982)b
is possible that an inclusive system for the superordi-
nate classification of symbols will emerge and be refined LAMH (1984) Symbol Gestural
to meet the current needs of the entire profession. The
Lloyd (1980b), Lloyd & Aided Unaided
classification that is ultimately chosen should be a Karlan (1984)
referent system that will best serve to organize subor-
dinate levels of the taxonomy for symbols. This referent Musselwhite & St. Louis Symbolic Gestural
system should be functional and unambiguous. As eval- (1982)
uation metrics for determining the most suitable tax-
onomy, one should consider the reduction of ambiguity Owens & House (1984) Visual Manual
For personal use only.

and the clinical and educational implications such a Romski, Sevcik, & Joy- Aided Unaided
system would provide. The terminology used should ner (1984)
also be evaluated in terms of its sociolinguistic aspects,
internal logic, and compatibility with common definitions Silverman (1980) Gestural-As- Gestural
and usage. sisted and
Neuro-As-
Available Symbol Classifications sisted

There are several extant symbol classifications avail-
able. Table 1 lists the published approaches to symbol
classification currently employed in the field of aug-
mentative and alternative communication. For three of
the listings in Table 1, a trichotomous classification has
been modified to fit into a dichotomy (Blau, 1983;
Kiernan, 1977; Silverman, 1980). Similarly, Fristoe and
Lloyd (1979) used two terms for each part of their
dichotomy, that is, “static or aided” and “dynamic or
unaided.” In some cases, specific definitions were pre-
sented (Fristoe & Lloyd, 1979; Kiernan, 1977; Kiernan,
Reid & Jones, 1979, 1982; Lloyd, 1980b; Lloyd &
Karlan, 1984; Vanderheiden & Lloyd, 1986). In other
cases, the authors did not provide exact definitions of
their terms for symbol classification but simply classified
symbols according to the terms they chose.
Evaluating the Symbol Classifications
The classification systems listed in Table 1 must be
critically evaluated in order to determine if any of them
can serve as the superordinate level of an augmentative
and alternative communication symbol taxonomy. Once
the superordinate level has been established, subordi-
nate levels can be considered.
Common Definitions and Usage
While some terms employed to classify symbols may
have frequent usage by some individuals within the field
Vanderheiden & Lloyd Static Dynamic
(1986)
a
First presented to ASHA in a November 2, 1977 short course by
Fristoe, Lloyd, and Wilbur as “Aided Systems and their Graphic
Symbols” and “Manual or Unaided Symbols and Systems.”
b
In common use in the United Kingdom.
c
Presented to ASHA in a November 20, 1981 short course by
Goossens’ and Lloyd.
of augmentative and alternative communication, they
are not compatible with common dictionary definitions
and usage. For example, the classification of “symbols”
and “signs” is quite common in the United Kingdom and
some Commonwealth countries. However, these are
idiosyncratic uses of “sign” and “symbol” as is clear
from the following definition:
The terms ‘sign’ and ‘symbol’ have acquired par-
ticular meaning in the field of non-vocal communi-
cation. ‘Sign’ is normally used in this field to refer
to the use of manual communication through the
use of sign languages or sign systems. ‘Symbol’
is used to refer to a static visual representation of
an element in communication. (Kiernan et al., 1982,
p. 4)
This “particular meaning” of symbol adopted by some
practitioners and scientists during the past decade is
not consistent with the common dictionary definitions
of symbol such as the following:
 AAC Symbol Taxonomy
. . . 2: something that stands for or suggests some-
thing else by reason of relationship, association,
convention, or accidental but not intentional resem-
blance. . . 3: an arbitrary or conventional sign (as a
character, a diagram, a letter, or an abbreviation)
used in writing or printing relating to a particular
field (as mathematics, physics, chemistry, music,
or phonetics) to represent operations, quantities,
spatial position, valence, direction, elements, rela-
tions, qualities, sounds, or other ideas or quali-
ties. . . 6: an act, sound, or material object having
cultural significance and the capacity to excite or
objectify a response. . . (Gove, 1976, p. 2316)
Other practitioners and scientists in the field of aug-
Augment Altern Commun Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by RMIT University on 08/08/13
mentative and alternative communication use symbol
with its more conventional meaning. For example, Fris-
toe and Lloyd state the following:
Symbols, used to represent objects, actions, rela-
tionships, etc., can be spoken, graphic, or manual.
While spoken symbols are conveyed through the
auditory-vocal modality, graphic and manual sym-
bols are conveyed through the visual modality.
(Fristoe & Lloyd, 1979, p. 402)
This definition of symbol has been used in other publi-
cations (Lloyd, 1984/1985; Romski, Lloyd, & Sevcik, in
press). This conventional use of symbol should facilitate
For personal use only.
communication between professionals within the field
(e.g., educators, engineers, occupational therapists,
physical therapists, physicians, psychologists, and
speech pathologists), parents, consumers, and the gen-
eral public.
lnternal Logic and Sociolinguistic implications
Considering the internal logic of the terms chosen,
several dichotomies can be dismissed. For example,
classification systems that use terms such as represen-
tational, symbolic, or symbols to describe some symbol
sets and systems but not others has an internal logic
problem. All symbol systems and sets could be consid-
ered representational or symbolic, whether they are
graphic (e.g., Blissymbolics) or manual (e.g., American
Sign Language). Use of the term fundamental, meaning
basic, to describe some symbol systems and sets, but
not others, could also lead to confusion because many
symbol sets and systems include both basic symbols
and higher level or specialized symbols.
The visual/motor classification also lacks internal
logic since many of the motor symbols (e.g., gestures,
manual signs) are also visual in nature. The same
problem exists for the visual/manual classification.
Gestural also presents a problem of internal logic.
Since some specific symbols are referred to as gestures
or gestural (e.g., Amerind Gestural Code and Generally
Understood Gestures), it seems inappropriate to use
the term gestural as a superordinate classification. Fur-
ther, the use of the term gestural has sociolinguistic
implications and can be confusing when used to classify
manual signs typically used by the deaf. This term may
be considered by some persons to have a demeaning
connotation in that it implies a system that is devoid of
167
linguistic characteristics, such as syntax or phonology.
The terms representational, symbolic, symbols, funda-
mental, manual, motor, visual, and gestural should not
be used for classification at the superordinate level of
a symbol taxonomy due to sociolinguistic or logical
problems. As a result, two published dichotomies are
still eligible for consideration. These are static/dynamic
and aided/unaided.
The static/dynamic classification is based primarily
on the transmission characteristics of the symbol’s
signal. This dichotomy is defined by a single intelligibility
feature of the symbol, that is, whether movement (or
change) within the signal is a critical factor in symbol
intelligibility. This intelligibility factor may be considered
in isolation, without contextual cues, and becomes
apparent in the following definitions (modified from Van-
derheiden & Lloyd, 1986):
• Static symbols (and static symbol systems) in-
clude both graphic symbols and objects which
are permanent and enduring. They do not re-
quire any change or movement to express
meaning. Because of this, they lend themselves
very well to display on communication boards,
electronic devices, and other aids so that most,
but not all, static symbols could be thought of
as aided. Most of the letters in most manual
alphabets are examples of static, but unaided
symbols.
• Dynamic symbols (and dynamic symbol sys-
tems) have their meanings conveyed by change,
transition, and/or movement, and therefore can-
not be considered as permanent and enduring.
Most gestures and manual signs, and speech
are dynamic in nature, which generally corre-
sponds with unaided symbols. However, syn-
thetic productions of “speech,” “gestures,” and
“manual signs” are examples of dynamic sym-
bols which are aided.
Speech, fingerspelling, and printed letters (traditional
orthography, or T.O.) are examples of how the intelli-
gibility factor plays a part in classifying symbols as
either static or dynamic. Speech is dynamic in nature
due to the fact that each phoneme is a result of move-
ments of the articulators used to produce it and the
transitions from phoneme to phoneme. In connected
speech, the transition from phoneme to phoneme is a
critical determinant of intelligibility. In American finger-
spelling, the C, A, and T that make up the word CAT
are each static in nature because no movement is
required in order to decipher the meaning of each letter
in isolation. In context, however, movement is required
to convey the meaning of the word CAT (specifically,
the transition from C, to A, to T), but the rate and/or
quality of this movement are not critical intelligibility
factors. The C, A, and T of the word CAT are all
decipherable regardless of whether or not the receiver
sees the transition from letter to letter. In other words,
most of the letters in manual alphabets are static. The
letters on this page are also static because no move-
ment or change in the letters is necessary in order to
 168 Lloyd and Fuller

convey meaning. Each orthographic character can be TABLE 2: Static and Dynamic Communication Symbols”
deciphered without movement or transition. Static Dynamic
Table 2 provides a listing of all the major communi-
Objects Gestures, e.g., pointing, yes/
cation symbols (and most of the infrequently used
no head shakes, mime,
symbols) organized according to the static/dynamic Pictures, i.e., photographs & Amer-lnd, Generally Under-
dichotomy and incorporates several dimensions. Em- drawings including simple (or stood Gestures, esoteric
pirical evidence for classification along these dimen- basic) rebus signs/gestures
sions is limited. For the most part, they have only been
Sigsymbols Natural sign language, e.g.,
hypothesized on the basis of clinical/educational ex- ASL, BSL, CSL, FSL, JSL,
perience and logic (e.g., Goossens’ & Lloyd, 1981; Pictogram Ideogram Communi- KSL, SSL, & TSL
Lloyd & Karlan, 1984). The dimensions are: (a) from cation
those demanding the least cognitive ability to those Gestuno
demanding the highest cognitive ability for symbol/ Picsyms Manually Coded English, e.g.,
referent association and use; (b) for the unaided sym- Signed English, PGSS,
bols-those requiring the least motor control to those Blissymbols SEE-I, & SEE-II (or manual
Augment Altern Commun Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by RMIT University on 08/08/13

requiring the greatest motor control; (c) from nonverbal coding for other spoken lan-
Graphic representations of man- guages; e.g., manually
(or nonlinguistic) to verbal (or linguistic), that is, those ual signs and/or gestures, e.g. coded Swedish)
best approximating English or other native languages HANDS, pictures of signs,
of the general community; (d) from the more concrete Sign Writer, Sigsymbols & Synthetic or animated “manual
to the more abstract (primarily based upon the referent Worldsign signs and/or gestures”
which can be represented by the symbols); and (e) from Complex (or expanded) Rebus Fingerspelling or manual al-
the more iconic (i.e., transparent and translucent) to the phabets
more opaque (or from those which have some visual Other logographs with referent
representation in some or all of the symbols to those in relationship Synthetic “fingerspelling”
which all of the symbols are arbitrary). For descriptions Eye blink, gestural, and/or vo-
of these various symbol sets and systems, the reader Modified orthography with other
symbols cal alphabet codes, e.g.,
For personal use only.

is referred to other general chapters and texts (e.g., Morse Code

Fristoe & Lloyd, 1979; Jones & Cregan, 1986; Karlan
& Lloyd, 1986; Kiernan et al., 1982; Lloyd, 1976; Mus-
selwhite & St. Louis, 1982; Silverman, 1980; Tebbs,
1978; Vanderheiden & Grilley, 1976; Vanderheiden &
Lloyd, 1986).
The aided/unaided classification was first described
in 1977 and further developed in summary table form
by Lloyd and his colleagues (e.g., Bloomberg & Lloyd,
1986; Fristoe & Lloyd, 1979; Fristoe, Lloyd, & Wilbur,
1977; Karlan & Lloyd, 1986; Lloyd, 1980a, 1980b,
1984/1985; Lloyd & Karlan, 1983, 1984; Romski et al.,
in press). This dichotomy is based upon production
demands of the symbol, as is illustrated in the following
definitions (modified from Lloyd, 1980a, pp. 44-45):
• Aided symbols (and aided symbol systems) refer
to those symbols that require some type of
external assistance, or an aid or device (e.g.,
paper, pencil, pictures, charts, communication
boards, and in some cases electronic devices)
for production. Most, but not all aided symbols
may be referred to as graphic. Aided symbols
are frequently enduring and are relatively fixed
or permanent (i.e., remain available in the same
form), and therefore most of the aided symbols
may be thought of as static.
• Unaided symbols (and unaided symbol systems)
refer to those symbols that do not require any
aids or devices for production. Unaided symbols
require only the sender’s face, head, hands,
arms, and other parts of the body, and are
frequently referred to as manual, although
speech is included in this category. Unaided
symbols are typically nonenduring and fre-
Abstract logographs, e.g., Lexi-
grams; and shapes, e.g., Pre- Eye blink, gestural, and/or vo-
cal word and/or message
mack-type symbols
codes
Traditional orthography (TO)
Tadoma and other vibrotactile
Fingerspelling or manual alpha-
codes
bets
Electronic vibrotacticle codes
Synthetic “fingerspelling”
Hand-cued speech, e.g., Cued
Speech & Danish Mouth
Graphic representation of finger-
spelling Hand
Braille and other static tactile Electronic-cued speech
codes
Natural speech
Synthetic speech
a
From Vanderheiden and Lloyd (1986). These are “formal” or
conventionalized symbols and systems; informal nonverbal behaviors
or ritualized behaviors have not been included.
quently involve movement or change. In many
instances, the movement or change (including
durational, temporal, and transitional factors)
carries much of the meaning, and therefore most
of the unaided symbols may be thought of as
dynamic.
Table 3 provides a listing of all the symbols in Table
2 according to an aided/unaided classification. Because
of the overlap in terminology across the two classifica-
tion systems, Tables 2 and 3 are almost identical,
making the five organizational dimensions mentioned
 AAC Symbol Taxonomy 169

TABLE 3: Aided and Unaided Communication Symbolsa namic dichotomy. This point brings us to the evaluation
Aided Unaided metric of ambiguity.
Objects Gestures, e.g., pointing, yes/ Dual-classification Ambiguity
no head shakes, mime,
Pictures, i.e., photographs & Amer-lnd, Generally Under- One factor that should be considered in choosing a
drawings including simple (or stood Gestures, esoteric taxonomy for augmentative and alternative communi-
basic) rebus signs/gestures
cation symbols is the ambiguity of the classification
Sigsymbols Natural sign language, e.g., system that is used to describe them. The classification
ASL, BSL, CSL, FSL, JSL, of fingerspelling is a case in point. Two of the 26 English
Pictogram Ideogram Communi- KSL, SSL, & TSL letters (J and Z) that are represented by American
cation fingerspelling require movement in order to be intelligi-
Gestuno ble. Those two symbols would have to be classified as
Picsyms dynamic under the static/dynamic dichotomy. The other
Manually Coded English, e.g.,
Blissymbols Signed English, PGSS, 24 symbols require no movement to convey meaning,
Augment Altern Commun Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by RMIT University on 08/08/13

Graphic representations of man-
ual signs and/or gestures, e.g.
HANDS, pictures of signs,
Sign Writer, Sigsymbols &
Worldsign
Synthetic or animated “manual
signs and/or gestures”
Complex (or expanded) Rebus
Other logographs with referent
relationship
For personal use only.
SEE-I, & SEE-II (or manual
coding for other spoken lan-
guages; e.g., manually
coded Swedish)
Fingerspelling or manual al-
phabets
Eye blink, gestural, and/or vo-
cal alphabet codes, e.g.,
Morse Code
Eye blink, gestural, and/or vo-
cal word and/or message
and therefore are classified as static. American Sign
Language (ASL) provides another example of dual clas-
sification of symbols within the same system. Most of
the signs in ASL are dynamic; movement is required in
order to convey meaning. However, for some signs
(e.g., MORNING, TELEPHONE, TIME) neither move-
ment nor transition are necessary to convey meaning.
Therefore, some signs could be classified as static.
Obviously, this dual classification for symbols within
the same set or system is ambiguous and may create
confusion. On the other hand, one can see by viewing
Table 3 that there is a clean distinction between sym-

codes bols classified as unaided and those classified as aided.

Modified orthography and other It allows for a true dichotomous classification of symbol
symbols Tadoma and other vibrotactile
codes systems and sets. In other words, there is no dual
classification for symbols within the same sets or sys-
Abstract logographs, e.g. Lexi-
grams; and shapes, e.g., Pre- Hand-cued speech, e.g., Cued tems, and this clear dichotomy minimizes ambiguity. In
mack-type symbols Speech & Danish Mouth terms of ambiguity, the static/dynamic classification is
Hand at a disadvantage to the aided/unaided classification
Traditional orthography (TO) system. In order for the static/dynamic feature to be
Natural Speech
used for classification, three classes are needed to fit
Graphic representation of finger-
spelling
each of the symbol sets and systems into only one
class, that is, static, dynamic, and mixed (or both static
Synthetic “fingerspelling” and dynamic). It would seem to be more appropriate to
choose a classification system that does not require
Braille and other static tactile any modification in order to eliminate dual-classification
codes ambiguity. Because the static/dynamic dichotomy must
Electronic vibrotactile codes be modified into a trichotomy in order to eliminate
ambiguity, it would appear to be less desirable than the
Electronic-cued speech aided/unaided classification, which requires no modifi-
cation. It seems more parsimonious to use a simple
Synthetic speech dichotomy rather than a more complex trichotomous
a
The overview of communication symbol sets and symbol systems classification at the superordinate level.
as presented on this table was developed by Lloyd and his colleagues
Clinical/Educational lmplications
(e.g., Bloomberg & Lloyd, 1986; Goossens’ & Lloyd, 1981; Karlan &
Lloyd, 1986; Lloyd, 1980a, 1980b, 1984/1985; Lloyd & Karlan, 1983, Another important metric for evaluating the suffi-
1984; Romski, Lloyd, & Sevcik, in press). These are “formal” or ciency of any classification system is the clinical and
conventionalized symbols and systems; informal nonverbal behaviors educational implications that are delineated through use
or ritualized behaviors have not been included. of that classification. Both the static/dynamic and the
aided/unaided dichotomies have implications for clinical
and educational applications; however, there is a major
for Table 2 also applicable to Table 3. However, there difference in the focus of the two approaches. As
is one significant difference in the two classification mentioned earlier, the static/dynamic dichotomy fo-
schemes. Whereas fingerspelling is considered to be cuses on the transmission characteristics of the sym-
exclusively unaided in the aided/unaided scheme, it is bols while the aided/unaided dichotomy highlights the
considered both static and dynamic in the static/dy- production of the symbol by the user (or sender). Under
 170 Lloyd and Fuller
the static/dynamic classification, a symbol is classified
according to what is required to make that symbol
intelligible, whereas under an aided/unaided dichotomy,
the orientation is toward its use with an individual even
though it is the symbol that is being classified. Regard-
less of an individual’s physical abilities, aided symbols
may or may not be readily available to that individual
depending on the availability of an external device, aid,
and/or symbol display. Unaided symbols are always
available to an individual within the constraint of that
person’s own physical limitations.
Conclusions and Recommendations
In evaluating the current classification systems ac-
cording to internal logic, reduction of dual classification
Augment Altern Commun Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by RMIT University on 08/08/13
ambiguity, and clinical/educational implications, the
aided/unaided and static/dynamic dichotomies appear
to be the most practical. The real difficulty lies in trying
to determine which of these two classification ap-
proaches better serves as a superordinate level dichot-
omy. The two dichotomies are in general agreement
regarding terminology used to classify symbols. How-
ever, the aided/unaided scheme is less ambiguous and
is oriented more to the physical abilities of the user than
the static/dynamic one. Therefore, we suggest that the
aided/unaided dichotomy be used to classify augment-
For personal use only.
ative and alternative communication symbols at the
superordinate level of the taxonomy.
In developing an augmentative and alternative com-
munication symbol taxonomy, subordinate levels of
classification also need to be specified. It could be that
the static and dynamic dimension of symbols may be
appropriate for the first subordinate level, but with
symbols fitting into one of three classes. Although we
have argued for a true dichotomy at the superordinate
level, it may be more acceptable to have a trichotomy
at lower levels of the taxonomy.
If we use aided/unaided as the first (and dichoto-
mous) level, and static/dynamic as the second (and
trichotomous) level of a taxonomy, symbols could then
be classified on other levels which may even be on
continua. Symbols might be further classified along
dimensions such as the five listed above to describe
the organization of Tables 2 and 3, and along other
dimensions of clinical/educational relevance. The di-
mensions of a complete taxonomy might include: (a)
acceptability of the symbol sets or systems, (b) com-
municative interaction facilitation, (c) representational
range, (d) future expansion (e.g., logic and abstraction),
(e) permanency as it relates to initial learning, memory,
structure, etc., and to future record and vocational/
educational uses, (f) symbol accessability, (g) reproduc-
ibility of graphic symbols, (h) physical demands of man-
ual symbols, (i) cognitive demands (including memory),
(j) teaching advantages (e.g., abstract symbolization,
syntax and structure, and concepts), (k) training de-
mands, and (I) costs, including both initial and ongoing.
Symbol dimensions such as these have been proposed
as symbol selection considerations (e.g., Carlson,
1981; Goodenough-Trepagnier, 1981; Goossens’ &
Lloyd, 1981; Lloyd & Karlan, 1984; Nietupski & Hamre-
Nietupski, 1979; Romski, Sevcik & Joyner, 1984; Van-
derheiden & Harris-Vanderheiden, 1976). In a subse-
quent paper, these potential subordinate dimensions
will be discussed as an additional step towards devel-
oping a multilevel symbol taxonomy (Fuller & Lloyd,
1986).
In conclusion, we propose the development of a
symbol taxonomy using the aided/unaided dichotomy
as the superordinate level of classification. Such a
proposal is an initial step in developing a multilevel
symbol taxonomy. Additional research and clinical/ed-
ucational insights are needed before a taxonomy can
be fully developed, but the use of a common terminol-
ogy at the first taxonomic level should facilitate research
and clinical/educational practice and communication.
Comments from other clinicians, educators, theorists,
and researchers are encouraged.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the members of the
Purdue Augmentative and Alternative Communication
Research Group for their suggestions during the de-
velopment course of this paper. The preparation of this
paper was partially supported by grants from the Office
of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services,
United States Education Department (GO08300868 and
G00863079). However, the contents do not necessarily
represent the policy of that agency and endorsement
by the federal government is not to be assumed.
Address reprint requests to: Lyle L. Lloyd, Ph.D.,
Special Education, Purdue University, South Campus
Courts-E, W. Lafayette, IN 47907.
REFERENCES
Blau, A. F. (1983). Vocabulary selection in augmentative communi-
cation: Where do we begin? In H. Winitz (Ed.), Treating language
disorders: For clinicians by clinicians (pp. 205-233). Baltimore:
University Park Press.
Bloomberg, K., & Lloyd, L. L. (1986). Graphic/aided symbols and
systems: A resource list. Communication Outlook, 7 (4), 24-30.
Carlson, F. (1981). Alternative methods of communication. Danville,
IL: Interstate Printers and Publishers, Inc.
Fristoe, M., & Lloyd, L. L. (1979). Nonspeech communication. In N.
R. Ellis (Ed.), Handbook of mental deficiency: Psychological theory
and research (2nd ed.) (pp. 401-430). New York: Lawrence Erl-
baum Associates. (An expansion of the invited symposium pres-
entation at the 1977 Gatlinburg Conference on Research and
Theory in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities).
Fristoe, M., Lloyd, L. L., & Wilbur, R. B. (1977, November). Non-
speech communication: Systems and symbols. Asha, 19, 541-
542. (Abstract) A Short Course presented at the 52nd Annual
Convention of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Associa-
tion, Chicago.
Fuller, D. R., & Lloyd, L. L. (1986). Toward an augmentative and
alternative communication symbol taxonomy: II. Proposed subor-
dinate classifications. Manuscript in preparation.
Goodenough-Trepagnier, C. (1981, June). Representation of language
for nonvocal communication. Paper presented at the AACP&T-
NEMC Meeting on Advances in Technical Aids for Children with
Physical Disabilities, Tufts University, Medford, MA.
 AAC Symbol Taxonomy
Goossens’, C. A., & Lloyd, L. L. (1981, November). Clinical experi-
ence and research: Implications for teaching nonspeech commu-
nication. Asha, 23, 697. (Abstract) Short Course presented at the
56th Annual Convention of the American Speech-Language-Hear-
ing Association, Los Angeles.
Gove, P. O. (Ed.) (1976). Webster’s third international dictionary of
the English language (unabridged). Springfield, MA: G. & C. Mer-
riam, Co.
Jones, K. R., & Cregan, A. (1986). Sign and symbol communication
for mentally handicapped people. Beckenham, England: Croom
Helm.
Karlan, G. R., & Lloyd, L. L. (1986). Communication intervention for
the moderately and severely handicapped. Manuscript in prepara-
tion.
Kiernan, C. (1977). Alternatives to speech: A review of research on
manual and other forms of communication with the mentally hand-
Augment Altern Commun Downloaded from informahealthcare.com by RMIT University on 08/08/13
icapped and other noncommunicating populations. British Journal
of Mental Subnormality, 23, 6-28.
Kiernan, C., Reid, B., & Jones, L. (1979). Signs and symbols: Who
uses what? Special Education: Forward Trends, 6, 32-35.
Kiernan, C., Reid, B., & Jones, L. (1982). Signs and symbols: A review
of literature and survey of the use of non-vocal communication.
London: Heinemann Educational Books.
Lamh. (1984). Language alternatives for mentally handicapped (Lamh)
manual. Dublin: LAMH (Developed by M. Clark, T. Kearns, F. K.
Meldon, D. Malocca, A. O’Connell, and M. Rafferty).
Lloyd, L. L. (Ed.) (1976). Communication assessment and intervention
strategies. Baltimore: University Park Press.
Lloyd, L. L. (1980a). Non-speech communication: Discussant’s com-
ments. In B. Urban (Ed.), Proceedings of the 18th Congress of the
International Association of Logopedics and Phoniatrics (Vol. II).
For personal use only.
Washington, DC: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
(pp 43-48). (An invited presentation, August).
Lloyd, L. L. (1980b). Unaided non-speech communication for severely
handicapped individuals: An extensive bibliography. Education and
Training of the Mentally Retarded, 15, 15-34.
Lloyd, L. L. (1984). Comments on terminology. Communicating To-
gether, February, 2, 19-21. (Reprinted in Augmentative and Alter-
native Communication, 1985, 1, 95-97).
Lloyd, L. L., & Karlan, G. R. (1983). Nonspeech communication
symbol selection considerations. Proceedings of the 19th Congress
171
of the International Association of Logopedics and Phoniatrics (Vol.
Ill). University of Edinburgh, Scotland, August, 1115-1160.
Lloyd, L. L., & Karlan, G. R. (1984). Nonspeech communication
symbols and systems: Where have we been and where are we
going? Journal of Mental Deficiency Research, 28, 3-20. (An invited
plenary presentation at the 6th Congress of the International As-
sociation for the Scientific Study of Mental Deficiency, Toronto,
August, 1982).
Musselwhite, C. R., & St. Louis, K. W. (1982). Communication pro-
gramming for the severely handicapped: Vocal and non-vocal strat-
egies. San Diego, CA: College-Hill Press.
Nietupski, J., & Hamre-Nietupski, S. (1979). Teaching auxilliary com-
munication skills to severely handicapped students. AAESPH Re-
view, 4, 13-23.
Owens, R., & House, L. (1984). Decision-making processes in aug-
mentative communication. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disor-
ders, 49, 18-25.
Romski, M. A., Lloyd, L. L., & Sevcik, R. A. (in press). Augmentative
and alternative communication issues. In R. L. Schiefelbusch & L.
L. Lloyd (Eds.), Language perspectives II. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Romski, M. A., Sevcik, R. A., & Joyner, S. E. (1984). Nonspeech
communication systems: Implications for language intervention
with mentally retarded children. Topics in Language Disorders, 5,
66-81.
Silverman, F. (1980). Communication for the speechless. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Tebbs, T. (Co-ordinator) (1978). Ways and means. Houndmills, Bas-
ingstoke, Hampshire: Globe Education.
Vanderheiden, G. C., & Grilley, K. (1976). Non-vocal communication
techniques and aids for the severely physically handicapped. Bal-
timore: University Park Press.
Vanderheiden, G. C., & Harris-Vanderheiden, D. (1976). Communi-
cation techniques and aids for the nonverbal severely handicapped.
In L. L. Lloyd (Ed.), Communication assessment and intervention
strategies (pp. 607-652). Baltimore: University Park Press.
Vanderheiden, G. C., & Lloyd, L. L. (1986). Nonspeech modes and
systems. In S. Blackstone (Ed.), Augmentative communication (pp.
49-162), Rockville, MD: American Speech-Language-Hearing As-
sociation.
Waksvik, K. (1985). Reader’s forum. Augmentative and Alternative
Communication, 1, 52-54.