BackgroundIn the governmental delineation of the speech‐language therapist (SLT) profession and in preservice SLT education, Flemish SLTs are considered as gatekeepers of the standard language in Flanders. Yet, most Flemish clients typically use a colloquial language style. Following earlier research on how teachers' language style affects teacher–student interactions, an SLT's strict adherence to standard Dutch may potentially evoke perceptions of inequality in their clients. As a result, Flemish SLTs may find themselves torn between on the one hand adhering to the standard language and on the other hand adapting to the sociolinguistic style of their client and establishing trust. In the present study, we explored SLTs’ views on using standard/colloquial language varieties in their practice.Methods & ProceduresIndividual semistructured interviews were conducted with 13 Flemish SLTs who worked with children, adolescents and adults in special schools, private practices and hospitals. Interview transcripts were analysed with reflexive thematic analysis.Outcomes & ResultsAnalyses yielded three themes. Switching between styles was (1) triggered by client characteristics (age, style, therapeutic needs), and it was shaped by (2) the need for establishing trust and (3) a balance between the SLT's professional and personal identity. Notably, most SLTs described partially converging with their clients’ colloquial style, effectively reconciling their professional identity as expert speakers with their personal identity as a colloquial language user.Conclusions & ImplicationsDespite consensus on the role of the SLT as gatekeeper of standard language, many SLTs felt that colloquial language also plays an important role as it bolsters therapeutic alliance and rehabilitation of functional communication. By implementing reflective mixed methods and integrating the client perspective, future studies should further examine how authentic style‐switching occurs and how various styles used by the SLT are evaluated by clients in different contexts. These findings may guide the development of style‐switching as a communicative strategy that can be addressed in preservice education.What this paper addsWhat is already known on the subjectIn Flanders, the existence of various (non‐)standard varieties of Dutch may evoke some tension regarding the preferred variety in a given context. Flemish teachers switch between standard language and colloquial language (style‐shifting), depending on the foregrounding of the transactional or relational nature of the context. Moving towards students’ colloquial speech builds trust and perceptions of equality. Despite the importance of alliance in speech‐language therapy, little is known about how speech‐language therapists (SLTs) feel about using colloquial speech given that they are considered expert speakers.What this paper adds to existing knowledgeWhile ‘talking properly’ is part of the SLT's professional identity, many Flemish SLTs felt that strict adherence to the standard language variety hinders therapeutic alliance. While standard language was strongly associated with professionalism, strict adherence to standard language was used only when SLTs felt they had to prove their clinical competency or when language scaffolding was in the foreground. Partially converging with the clients’ language use allowed SLTs to reconcile their professional identity as expert speaker with personal identity and authenticity.What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?Both colloquial speech and standard speech serve a function in SLT practice. Therefore, switching between standard and colloquial speech needs further consideration as a communicative strategy rather than instilling in therapists an ideological, normative stance towards language.
