The language problems have a significant impact on everyday social interactions or educational progress, and occur in the absence of autism spectrum disorder, intellectual disability or a known biomedical condition.

The field of developmental language disorders (DLD) has evolved significantly in recent years, with a move towards standardizing terminology to address confusion and improve communication.

This shift aimed to clarify understanding, increase public awareness, and improve access to services for affected children.

The term developmental language disorder (DLD) was endorsed in a consensus study involving a panel of experts (CATALISE Consortium) in 2017.

[3] The study was conducted in response to concerns that a wide range of terminology was used in this area, with the consequence that there was poor communication, lack of public recognition, and in some cases children were denied access to services.

The terminology for children's language disorders has been extremely wide-ranging and confusing, with many labels that have overlapping but not necessarily identical meanings.

[6] The definition of SLI overlaps with DLD, but was rejected by the CATALISE panel because it was seen as overly restrictive in implying that the child had relatively pure problems with language in the absence of any other impairments.

The areas which can be affected are: Speech is the act of articulating sounds, and this can be impaired for all kinds of reasons – a structural problem such as cleft lip and cleft palate, a neurological problem affecting motor control of the speech apparatus dysarthria, or inability to perceive distinctions between sounds because of hearing loss.

[31] When a child fails to produce distinctions between speech sounds for no obvious reason, this is typically regarded as a language problem affecting the learning of phonological contrasts.

[40] Current evidence suggests that there are many different genes that can influence language learning, and DLD results when a child inherits a particularly detrimental combination of risk factors, each of which may have only a small effect.

[37] Nevertheless, study of the mode of action of the FOXP2 gene has helped identify other common genetic variants involved in the same neural pathways that may play a part in causing DLD.

Twin studies, however, show that two children in the same home environment can have very different language outcomes, suggesting we should consider other explanations for the link.

There are three points that need to be met for a diagnosis of DLD:[3] For research and epidemiological purposes, specific cutoffs on language assessments have been used to document the first criterion.

Tomblin et al.[50] proposed the EpiSLI criterion, based on five composite scores representing performance in three domains of language (vocabulary, grammar, and narration) and two modalities (comprehension and production).

Language samples can be transcribed using computer software such as the Systematic Analysis of Language Software, and then analyzed for a range of features: e.g., the grammatical complexity of the child's utterances, whether the child introduces characters to their story or jumps right in, whether the events follow a logical order, and whether the narrative includes a main idea or theme and supporting details.

[citation needed] There is, however, a large gap in assessment of developmental language disorder, specifically in bilingual and multilingual children.

Sociability and Empathy: Search for limitations in the child's capacity to participate in social interactions, comprehend others' emotions, and deduce their viewpoints.

These children generally have good comprehension of language and can understand conversations and instructions, but they struggle to communicate verbally in specific scenarios.

[55] In the past, there was a vogue for drilling children in grammatical exercises, using imitation and elicitation, but such methods fell into disuse when it became apparent that there was little generalization to everyday situations.

Contemporary approaches to enhancing development of language structure, for younger children at least, are more likely to adopt 'milieu' methods, in which the intervention is interwoven into natural episodes of communication, and the therapist builds on the child's utterances, rather than dictating what will be talked about.

[58] Another way in contemporary remediation differ from the past is that parents are more likely to be directly involved, but this approach is largely used with preschool children, rather than those whose problems persist into school age.

[62] In this field, randomized controlled trial methodology has not been widely used, and this makes it difficult to assess clinical efficacy with confidence.

Children's language will tend to improve over time, and without controlled studies, it can be hard to know how much of observed change is down to a specific treatment.

[65][66][67] Longitudinal studies indicate that problems are largely resolved by five years of age in around 40% of four-year-olds with early language delays who have no other presenting risk factors.

[73] For instance, in a UK survey, 64% of a sample of 11-year-olds with DLD scored above a clinical threshold on a questionnaire for psychiatric difficulties, and 36% were regularly bullied, compared with 12% of comparison children.

[74] In the longer-term, studies of adult outcomes of children with DLD have found elevated rates of unemployment, social isolation and psychiatric disorder among those with early comprehension difficulties.

[80] A major divide is between theories that attribute the difficulties to a low-level problem with auditory temporal processing, and those that propose there is a deficit in a specialised language-learning system.

Children with DLD experience lower levels of acceptance, particularly during the early school years, as indicated by peer nominations.

Improvement in peer acknowledgments may not be solely attributed to language and communication interventions, suggesting that other factors influence friendships.

In their mid-thirties, the DLD cohort had significantly worse social adaptation (with prolonged unemployment and a paucity of close friendships and love relationships) compared with both their siblings and National Child Development Study control cohorts, matched on childhood IQ and social class.