The validity of the term apraxia of speech is discussed. The major objection to the term is the implication that the observed phonological impairment is a motor impairment, separate and distinct from other language systems. The rationale for the term is examined from three vantage points: the definitions of the terms aphasia and apraxia of speech, the separation of the phonological symptom complex from other systems necessary for language behavior, and the interpretations of the symptoms themselves. The author concludes that the given definitions of aphasia and apraxia are not that clearly differentiated; that tasks used to demonstrate the adequacy of perceptual acuity were inadequate and did not truly test the required perceptual processes; that the evident influence of other linguistic variables on phonological production demonstrates that there is not a discrete separation of motor activity from other language processes, or their possible impairment (aphasia); and finally, that the various symptoms, taken separately or together, may have alternate interpretations that do not lend themselves to the concept of motor impairment.