Developmental Language Disorder: Current Understanding, Clinical Implications, and Future Directions

Youngkyu Shim; Dong Hwa Yang; Baik-Lin Eun; Jung Hye Byeon

doi:10.26815/acn.2025.01144

Ann Child Neurol > Volume 34(1); 2026 > Article

Shim, Yang, Eun, and Byeon: Developmental Language Disorder: Current Understanding, Clinical Implications, and Future Directions

Review article

Annals of Child Neurology 2026;34(1):5-12.

Published online: December 30, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.26815/acn.2025.01144

Developmental Language Disorder: Current Understanding, Clinical Implications, and Future Directions

Youngkyu Shim, MD

, Dong Hwa Yang, MD, Baik-Lin Eun, PhD, Jung Hye Byeon, PhD

Department of Pediatrics, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Corresponding author: Jung Hye Byeon, PhD Department of Pediatrics, Korea University Anam Hospital, Korea University College of Medicine, 73 Goryeodae-ro, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul 02841, Korea
Tel: +82-2-920-5090 Fax: +82-2-922-7476 E-mail: agnes4@korea.ac.kr

Received September 24, 2025 Revised November 6, 2025 Accepted November 6, 2025

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Developmental language disorder (DLD) is a common yet under-recognized neurodevelopmental condition characterized by persistent difficulties in acquiring and using language that cannot be explained by hearing loss, intellectual disability, or known neurological injury. Children with DLD exhibit deficits across phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics, which have downstream effects on literacy and academic attainment. DLD frequently co-occurs with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, dyslexia, and speech sound disorders. Early identification requires attention beyond vocabulary counts to subtler markers such as syntactic comprehension, working memory, and processing speed. Converging genetic and neurobiological evidence suggests a polygenic risk profile and subtle alterations in brain connectivity. Cross-linguistic research is essential for distinguishing universal from language-specific markers and refining culturally appropriate standardized assessments. Because DLD is heterogeneous and multidimensional, it demands early detection, evidence-based intervention, and robust policy support that account for linguistic and cultural diversity to improve long-term outcomes.

Keywords: Language development disorders; Child; Neurodevelopmental disorders

Definition and Diagnostic Criteria

Developmental language disorder (DLD) is a prevalent neurodevelopmental condition that affects approximately 7% of school-aged children, with severe forms occurring in about 2% [1-3]. Although more common than autism spectrum disorder (ASD), DLD remains significantly under-recognized both publicly and clinically [4]. DLD is defined as persistent difficulties in language comprehension and/or expression that cannot be attributed to hearing loss, intellectual disability (ID), ASD, neurological damage, or insufficient language exposure [4]. The term DLD was introduced by the Criteria and Terminology Applied to Language Impairments: Synthesising the Evidence (CATALISE) consortium to establish a unified diagnostic framework for children with persistent, unexplained language difficulties, replacing earlier labels such as specific language impairment (SLI) [5].

According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision, a language disorder diagnosis should not be made if the language deficit can be better explained by ID or sensory impairment [6]. Traditional diagnostic criteria for SLI required nonverbal intelligence quotient (IQ) within the normal range, but growing evidence shows that language ability and nonverbal intelligence can dissociate in complex ways. For example, a child with average nonverbal reasoning may still present with severe language deficits consistent with DLD [7]. Conversely, some children with below-average nonverbal IQ may still benefit from language intervention despite falling outside traditional DLD criteria. This has led to ongoing debate over whether nonverbal IQ thresholds should be retained in DLD diagnosis [8]. The term ‘language disorder with X’ has been proposed as an alternative to focus on more homogeneous subgroups rather than DLD as a broad category [6].

Children with DLD show impairments across multiple domains of language, including phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, and pragmatics. These deficits may manifest as difficulty following spoken instructions, limited vocabulary, frequent grammatical errors, and challenges in organizing discourse. Importantly, DLD may present as an expressive language impairment (e.g., difficulty formulating sentences) alone or in combination with receptive language deficits (e.g., difficulty understanding speech). Without targeted intervention, these difficulties often persist into adulthood, adversely affecting literacy, academic achievement, employment, and social integration [9].

An isolated impairment in phonology without broader language deficits does not meet the criteria for DLD and may instead indicate a speech sound disorder (SSD), characterized by difficulties in speech perception and production, or dyslexia, which involves impaired word recognition.

Diagnosing DLD is complex and requires a comprehensive behavioral analysis combining standardized assessments, parental interviews, classroom observations, and developmental histories. Because DLD frequently co-occurs with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), dyslexia, and SSD, careful differential diagnosis is essential [10]. Assessments must capture both the breadth and depth of a child’s language ability across multiple contexts and tasks. Furthermore, DLD presentations vary depending on linguistic and cultural factors. In bilingual children, it is critical to assess both languages while accounting for cultural norms and exposure levels, as symptoms may be masked or misinterpreted as typical language variation [11].

Another diagnostic challenge is distinguishing DLD from late language emergence (LLE), commonly referred to as being a ‘late talker.’ While many late talkers (LLE) eventually catch up to their peers by preschool age, children with DLD continue to experience language difficulties that interfere with academic achievement and social communication into school age and beyond [12]. Persistent grammatical and syntactic difficulties, such as limited syntactic comprehension at ages 2-3, are strong indicators of long-term impairment. Longitudinal studies in both English- and Italian-speaking children have demonstrated that poor performance on sentence comprehension tasks is strongly predictive of meeting DLD criteria at ages 4-5. These findings underscore the importance of screening for grammatical comprehension—not only expressive vocabulary—during early assessments [13]. The spectrum of various neurodevelopmental delay disorders including DLD is shown in Fig. 1.

Adding to the complexity, DLD presents differently across languages. In morphologically rich languages such as Korean and Turkish, children with DLD often show more pronounced errors in verb inflections and particle use than children acquiring less inflected languages like English [14,15]. Such cross-linguistic differences must be considered in diagnosis and treatment planning.

In Korea, the lack of standardized tools adapted to the Korean language has historically limited reliable DLD diagnosis. However, the recent nationwide adoption of the Korean Developmental Screening Test (K-DST) as part of the national health check-up program has expanded opportunities for early screening, leading to improved diagnostic rates.

Language Features and Subdomains Affected in DLD

Children with DLD exhibit impairments across a broad spectrum of linguistic subdomains, affecting the form (phonology, morphology, and syntax), content (semantics), and use (pragmatics) of language. These impairments can occur in either or both expressive and receptive modalities. The severity and combination of deficits vary widely among individuals, making DLD a heterogeneous condition with complex diagnostic and therapeutic implications [4].

1. Expressive language deficits

One of the most recognizable features of DLD is difficulty with expressive language. Children often struggle to retrieve appropriate words, construct grammatically correct sentences, and organize ideas into coherent discourse. Their speech tends to include short, telegraphic sentences, frequent omission of grammatical morphemes (e.g., -ed, -s), and numerous word-finding errors [16]. These difficulties may persist into adolescence, affecting not only verbal communication but also academic writing and social relationships [17].

In vocabulary production, children with DLD typically display reduced lexical diversity, an overreliance on general terms (e.g., ‘thing,’ ‘stuff’), and slower rates of word learning. They may also produce semantic substitution errors, such as calling a ‘ladder’ a ‘climber’ or saying ‘plate’ for ‘bowl’ [18]. These patterns reflect both word retrieval difficulties and weaknesses in the organization of semantic networks.

2. Receptive language difficulties

Although expressive deficits are often more apparent, many children with DLD also experience receptive language difficulties—trouble understanding spoken language. This may include challenges following multi-step directions, comprehending figurative language, parsing complex syntactic structures, and processing narratives [1]. Receptive impairments are frequently underdiagnosed, yet they serve as strong predictors of academic underachievement [19].

Syntactic comprehension has been identified as a particularly robust marker of persistent language impairment. Children who struggle to understand passive constructions, embedded clauses, or negation (e.g., ‘The boy who is not running is fast’) are more likely to meet diagnostic criteria for DLD at school age [19,20]. Poor syntactic comprehension at ages 2-3 is now recognized as an early indicator of long-term language difficulties [13].

3. Grammar and morphosyntax

Grammatical impairment represents a core deficit in DLD, especially in morphologically rich languages such as Korean, Finnish, or Italian. Affected children often omit or misuse verb inflections, function words, and agreement markers. In English, common examples include omission of the third-person singular -s (‘She eat’), past tense -ed (‘He walk’), and auxiliary verbs (‘He going home’) [14].

Cross-linguistic research, including findings from the Helsinki Longitudinal SLI Study (HelSLI), demonstrates that grammatical errors in DLD are language-specific. For instance, Finnish-speaking children often struggle with case inflections, while Korean-speaking children may omit or misuse topic and subject markers or verb endings that encode politeness and tense [15,21]. These findings highlight the necessity of language-specific diagnostic frameworks.

Grammatical development also plays a critical role in literacy acquisition. Delayed mastery of morphosyntax impedes comprehension of complex texts, the ability to produce structured written compositions, and the understanding of academic language, thereby contributing to ongoing learning difficulties [22].

4. Vocabulary and semantics

DLD is commonly characterized by slow and inefficient vocabulary acquisition. Children with the disorder typically require more exposures to learn new words and are less likely to retain them over time compared to typically developing peers [12]. Their semantic networks tend to be less elaborated, resulting in weaker word associations, limited categorical knowledge, and difficulty understanding relationships such as synonyms, antonyms, or hierarchies (e.g., dog-animal) [23].

Intervention studies suggest that children with DLD benefit most from instructional approaches that combine explicit semantic elaboration (e.g., definitions, synonyms) with phonological cues and repeated contextual exposure [24]. These strategies strengthen semantic representations and enhance long-term retention.

Children with DLD also exhibit difficulties with abstract vocabulary and metalinguistic knowledge—skills essential for academic performance. These include understanding time-related concepts, emotion words, and idiomatic expressions, all of which are critical for following school instructions and participating effectively in classroom discussions [25].

5. Phonology and pronunciation

Although DLD is distinct from phonological disorders, many children show mild phonological processing weaknesses, such as speech sound errors, reduced phonological working memory, and poor nonword repetition [13]. These deficits contribute to early literacy challenges and are closely linked to reduced phonological awareness—a fundamental precursor to reading development [26].

Nonword repetition tasks are widely used in diagnosis because they assess the ability to encode, store, and reproduce unfamiliar phonological strings. Across languages, children with DLD tend to perform poorly on these tasks, suggesting a core limitation in phonological memory [27].

6. Pragmatics and discourse

Some children with DLD also display pragmatic deficits—difficulties using language appropriately in social contexts. They may struggle with conversational skills such as turn-taking, topic maintenance, repair strategies, and interpreting indirect requests or sarcasm (‘Can you open the window?’) [28].

Although pragmatic difficulties are often associated with ASD, research indicates that children with DLD also experience challenges in narrative discourse. Their stories are typically shorter, less cohesive, and poorly organized, with limited use of causal connectives such as ‘because,’ ‘so,’ or ‘then‘ [29].

Children with receptive-expressive DLD are especially vulnerable to pragmatic difficulties during peer interactions, which can increase the risk of social exclusion and bullying [30].

Comorbidities and Differential Diagnosis

DLD frequently co-occurs with other neurodevelopmental and psychiatric conditions, complicating both diagnosis and treatment planning. Although DLD is defined by language deficits that cannot be attributed to other disorders, comorbidities are common and often interact with core language impairments to exacerbate developmental risks. Differentiating DLD from related conditions—while recognizing overlapping features—is crucial for accurate diagnosis and the design of effective, individualized interventions [4].

1. DLD vs. ID

The most fundamental differential diagnosis for DLD is with ID, which is characterized by global cognitive impairment and limitations in adaptive functioning. Historically, many diagnostic frameworks excluded children with below-average nonverbal IQ from receiving a DLD diagnosis, but this perspective has been increasingly challenged in recent research.

Evidence now suggests that language impairment can occur independently of nonverbal cognitive ability, and vice versa. Children with nonverbal IQ scores between 70 and 85 may still display disproportionately severe language deficits consistent with DLD [31]. Consequently, the CATALISE consensus recommended removing rigid IQ cutoffs and adopting a dimensional framework emphasizing functional communication difficulties rather than relying solely on psychometric thresholds [5].

While children with ID may show language delays, their impairments are generally global and proportional, affecting cognitive, social, and linguistic domains alike. In contrast, children with DLD tend to exhibit isolated language difficulties despite having age-appropriate nonverbal reasoning skills [16].

2. DLD vs. ASD

DLD and ASD share overlapping features, particularly in language delay and pragmatic difficulties, but the nature and origin of their impairments differ substantially.

In DLD, deficits primarily affect structural language components—grammar, vocabulary, and syntax. Children with DLD generally have an intact desire to communicate but struggle with linguistic form and content [28]. In contrast, children with ASD typically exhibit broader impairments in social communication, joint attention, and symbolic play, which are rooted in theory of mind and social cognition deficits [32].

Pragmatic deficits in ASD are more pervasive and qualitatively distinct. For example, children with ASD may fail to recognize when a conversational partner loses interest or may use language in repetitive or stereotyped ways. In contrast, pragmatic challenges in DLD are typically secondary to structural language deficits and are generally less severe [33].

Distinguishing DLD from ASD is especially difficult in minimally verbal preschoolers, where social behaviors such as pointing, gaze following, and shared attention are stronger indicators of ASD than expressive language delays alone. Neuropsychological assessments and parent-report instruments such as the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS) and the Children’s Communication Checklist 2 (CCC-2) are valuable tools for differential diagnosis [9].

3. DLD and ADHD

The co-occurrence of DLD and ADHD is well documented, with studies suggesting that 30% to 50% of children with DLD meet criteria for ADHD and vice versa [34]. Children with both conditions show more pronounced impairments in verbal working memory, narrative organization, and academic performance than those with either disorder alone [9].

This overlap likely reflects shared deficits in executive functioning—particularly inhibition, attentional control, and processing speed. Symptoms of ADHD, including impulsivity and distractibility, can obscure or amplify language difficulties, making differential diagnosis challenging [35].

Clinicians must distinguish between performance breakdowns due to inattention and genuine language processing deficits. Comprehensive evaluations combining sustained attention tasks, targeted language assessments, and behavioral checklists are recommended to disentangle these overlapping profiles [36].

Children with co-occurring DLD and ADHD are also at heightened risk for academic failure, peer rejection, and emotional dysregulation, underscoring the need for integrated interventions that address both domains concurrently [37].

4. DLD and specific learning disorders

A strong association exists between DLD and specific learning disorders, particularly those affecting reading (dyslexia) and written expression. Approximately 50% to 60% of children with DLD also meet diagnostic criteria for a reading disorder by school age [38].

According to the simple view of reading model, reading comprehension relies on two components: decoding and language comprehension. Children with DLD often exhibit adequate decoding skills but poor comprehension due to deficits in vocabulary and syntax [38]. Conversely, children with dyslexia may possess good oral language skills but impaired phonological decoding.

In practice, many children demonstrate mixed profiles, showing weaknesses in both decoding and comprehension, suggesting that DLD and dyslexia frequently co-occur rather than exist as distinct categories. Such children benefit most from dual-intervention approaches that address both phonological decoding and oral language development.

5. DLD and SSD

SSD, including articulation and phonological disorders, frequently co-occur with DLD. While SSD primarily affects the production of speech sounds, DLD involves deficits in the underlying linguistic representations.

Children with both DLD and SSD tend to exhibit more severe expressive language deficits, reduced phonological awareness, and a heightened risk of later reading difficulties. Tasks assessing nonword repetition and phonological memory can help differentiate SSD-only cases from those with co-occurring DLD [39].

6. Other neurodevelopmental and psychiatric overlaps

DLD is also associated with elevated rates of anxiety, depression, and behavioral difficulties, particularly during adolescence. These emotional and behavioral problems may arise from social exclusion, academic frustration, and repeated communication failures rather than shared neurobiological mechanisms [40]. Recognizing and addressing these secondary sequelae is crucial, as they can further impair communication, reduce treatment adherence, and limit participation in educational and social contexts. Integrated care models involving speech-language pathologists, psychologists, and educators are crucial for managing these complex profiles.

Early Identification, Intervention Response, and Prognosis

Although DLD is often not formally diagnosed until school age, early indicators of delayed language development can emerge during toddlerhood. In particular, late talkers—children with LLE, typically producing fewer than 50 words and limited word combinations by around 24 months—are at increased risk for later DLD [17]. Not all children with LLE go on to develop DLD, but a significant proportion continue to experience language challenges, emphasizing the importance of identifying subtler early markers such as syntactic comprehension, working memory, and processing speed.

Early identification tools include parent-report instruments such as the MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventories (CDI) and standardized assessments like Sequenced Language Scale for Infants (SELSI), Preschool Receptive-Expressive Language Scale (PRES), Receptive and Expressive Vocabulary Test (REVT), Language Scale for School-aged Children (LSSC), Korean Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals (K-CELF), and Urimal Test of Articulation and Phonology (UTAP), as well as developmental measures such as the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development. In Korea, the communication subdomains of the K-DST—administered via parent report as part of the national health check-up program—serve as an important early screening tool. Cognitive tests, including the language subtests of the Korean-Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence (K-WPPSI) and Korean-Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (K-WISC) can provide supplementary diagnostic insights. In addition, nonword repetition, rapid naming, and processing speed tasks are valuable for identifying children at heightened risk.

Speech-language intervention remains the cornerstone of DLD management. Explicit methods (rule explanation, structured practice, metalinguistic feedback) are effective for grammar acquisition, while implicit approaches (naturalistic input, enriched interaction) promote learning in communicative contexts. Hybrid interventions that integrate both methods have shown strong evidence of efficacy. Meta-analyses indicate that early, intensive, and structured programs targeting vocabulary, grammar, and discourse yield the best outcomes. Parent-implemented strategies are particularly beneficial, facilitating generalization and long-term retention. For children with co-occurring attention or working memory deficits, modifications such as shorter but more frequent sessions, visual scaffolds, and multimodal learning approaches can enhance engagement and effectiveness [41].

DLD should not be viewed as a transient developmental delay but as a persistent neurodevelopmental condition. Although some children show improvement, many continue to experience significant difficulties into adolescence and adulthood, affecting literacy, academic performance, employment, and social relationships. Persistent deficits in discourse and academic language contribute to ongoing learning challenges, while repeated social communication failures heighten the risk of anxiety, depression, and low self-esteem. Nevertheless, early intervention is strongly associated with improved academic and social trajectories, highlighting the risks of a ‘wait and see’ approach and the need for timely screening and treatment.

Genetic and Neurobiological Foundations of DLD

Twin and family studies demonstrate substantial heritability of language disorders, providing strong evidence for genetic contributions [42]. While early research focused on single candidate genes such as forkhead box P2 (FOXP2) and contactin associated protein 2 (CNTNAP2), contemporary findings support a polygenic model [43]. Recent genomic studies have identified recurrent copy number variants (e.g., 15q13.3 deletions, 16p11.2 duplications) and novel variants such as zinc finger protein 292 (ZNF292), indicating incomplete penetrance and partial overlap with other neurodevelopmental conditions [2]. Large-scale single nucleotide polymorphism-based analyses estimate the heritability of DLD at 27%-52% but reveal limited genetic correlation with ADHD, ASD, or schizophrenia, underscoring its distinct genetic profile [12].

Neuroimaging studies reveal reduced gray matter volume in left fronto-temporal regions, disrupted white matter integrity in the arcuate fasciculus, and atypical right-hemisphere recruitment during language tasks [44,45]. These findings are associated with deficits in phonological processing, syntactic comprehension, and working memory, suggesting that inefficient neural network engagement functions as a limiting factor.

DLD is best understood as a multifactorial neurodevelopmental disorder shaped by multiple genetic variants, subtle brain connectivity alterations, and cognitive processing constraints.

Conclusion

DLD is a prevalent yet under-recognized neurodevelopmental condition with substantial long-term implications. Advances in genetics, neuroimaging, and longitudinal behavioral research have shed light on its complex etiology, but significant challenges persist in diagnosis and intervention. Early identification, culturally sensitive assessment tools, and evidence-based interventions are essential to improving developmental and academic outcomes. Greater public awareness, robust policy frameworks, and international collaboration are needed to ensure that children with DLD receive appropriate recognition, support, and opportunities for success.

Conflicts of interest

Baik-Lin Eun is an editorial board member of the journal, but he was not involved in the peer reviewer selection, evaluation, or decision process of this article. No other potential conflicts of interest relevant to this article were reported.

Author contribution

Conceptualization: DHY and JHB. Data curation: DHY. Funding acquisition: BLE. Project administration: BLE. Writing - original draft: YS and DHY. Writing - review & editing: BLE and JHB.

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by a grant of the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI), funded by the Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (RS-2023-00266781).

Fig. 1.

Concepts of neurodevelopmental disorders.

References

1. Norbury CF, Gooch D, Wray C, Baird G, Charman T, Simonoff E, et al. The impact of nonverbal ability on prevalence and clinical presentation of language disorder: evidence from a population study. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 2016;57:1247-57.

2. Ormieres C, Lesieur-Sebellin M, Siquier-Pernet K, Delplancq G, Rio M, Parisot M, et al. Deciphering the genetic basis of developmental language disorder in children without intellectual disability, autism or apraxia of speech. Mol Autism 2025;16:10.

3. Weindrich D, Jennen-Steinmetz C, Laucht M, Esser G, Schmidt MH. Epidemiology and prognosis of specific disorders of language and scholastic skills. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 2000;9:186-94.

4. Bishop DV, Snowling MJ, Thompson PA, Greenhalgh T. Phase 2 of CATALISE: a multinational and multidisciplinary Delphi consensus study of problems with language development: terminology. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 2017;58:1068-80.

5. Bishop DV, Snowling MJ, Thompson PA, Greenhalgh T. CATALISE: a multinational and multidisciplinary Delphi consensus study. identifying language impairments in children. PLoS One 2016;11:e0158753.

6. Georgiopoulos AM, Weinstein SJ, Donovan AL. The DSM-5 and DSM-5-text revision: a system for psychiatric diagnosis. In: Stern TA, Wilens TE, Fava M, editors. Massachusetts general hospital comprehensive clinical psychiatry. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2025. p. 191-8.

7. Norbury CF, Tomblin JB, Bishop DVM. Understanding developmental language disorders: from theory to practice. Hove: Psychology Press; 2008.

8. Bishop DV. Why is it so hard to reach agreement on terminology?: the case of developmental language disorder (DLD). Int J Lang Commun Disord 2017;52:671-80.

9. Snowling MJ, Nash HM, Gooch DC, Hayiou-Thomas ME, Hulme C. Developmental outcomes for children at high risk of dyslexia and children with developmental language disorder. Child Dev 2019;90:e548-64.

10. Nitin R, Shaw DM, Rocha DB, Walters CE, Chabris CF, Camarata SM, et al. Association of developmental language disorder with comorbid developmental conditions using algorithmic phenotyping. JAMA Netw Open 2022;5:e2248060.

11. Marini A, Sperinde P, Ruta I, Savegnago C, Avanzini F. Linguistic skills in bilingual children with developmental language disorders: a pilot study. Front Psychol 2019;10:493.

12. Nudel R, Christensen RV, Kalnak N, Schwinn M, Banasik K, Dinh KM, et al. Developmental language disorder: a comprehensive study of more than 46,000 individuals. Psychiatry Res 2023;323:115171.

13. Chilosi AM, Pfanner L, Pecini C, Salvadorini R, Casalini C, Brizzolara D, et al. Which linguistic measures distinguish transient from persistent language problems in Late Talkers from 2 to 4 years?: a study on Italian speaking children. Res Dev Disabil 2019;89:59-68.

14. Leonard LB, Kueser JB. Five overarching factors central to grammatical learning and treatment in children with developmental language disorder. Int J Lang Commun Disord 2019;54:347-61.

15. Shin GH. Awareness is one thing and mastery is another: Korean-speaking children’s comprehension of a suffixal passive construction in Korean. Cogn Dev 2022;62:101184.

16. Leonard LB. Children with specific language impairment. 2nd ed. Cambridge: MIT press; 2017.

17. Rescorla L. Age 17 language and reading outcomes in late-talking toddlers: support for a dimensional perspective on language delay. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2009;52:16-30.

18. McGregor KK, Oleson J, Bahnsen A, Duff D. Children with developmental language impairment have vocabulary deficits characterized by limited breadth and depth. Int J Lang Commun Disord 2013;48:307-19.

19. Bishop DV, Adams CV, Norbury CF. Distinct genetic influences on grammar and phonological short-term memory deficits: evidence from 6-year-old twins. Genes Brain Behav 2006;5:158-69.

20. Lai J, Chan A, Kidd E. Production of relative clauses in Cantonese-speaking children with and without developmental language disorder. Brain Lang 2024;254:105425.

21. Kunnari S, Savinainen-Makkonen T, Leonard LB, Makinen L, Tolonen AK, Luotonen M, et al. Children with specific language impairment in Finnish: the use of tense and agreement inflections. J Child Lang 2011;38:999-1027.

22. Kan PF, Windsor J. Word learning in children with primary language impairment: a meta-analysis. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2010;53:739-56.

23. Gray S. Word learning by preschoolers with specific language impairment: effect of phonological or semantic cues. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2005;48:1452-67.

24. Steele SC, Mills MT. Vocabulary intervention for school-age children with language impairment: a review of evidence and good practice. Child Lang Teach Ther 2011;27:354-70.

25. Lin J, Chen X, Huang X, Wong PC, Chan AW, Ullman MT, et al. Semantic overreliance as a suboptimal compensation for syntactic impairments in children with developmental language disorder. Brain Lang 2025;266:105571.

26. Kelly D, Natale M, Kliegman R, St Geme J. Neurodevelopmental and executive function and dysfunction. In: Kliegman R, Stanton B, St Geme JW, Schor NF, Behrman RE, Nelson WE, editors. Nelson textbook of pediatrics. 21st ed. Philadelphia: Elsevier; 2020.

27. Fu NC, Chan A, Chen S, Polisenska K, Chiat S. Revisiting nonword repetition as a clinical marker of developmental language disorder: evidence from monolingual and bilingual L2 Cantonese. Brain Lang 2024;257:105450.

28. Bishop DV, Norbury CF. Exploring the borderlands of autistic disorder and specific language impairment: a study using standardised diagnostic instruments. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 2002;43:917-29.

29. Fey ME, Catts HW, Proctor-Williams K, Tomblin JB, Zhang X. Oral and written story composition skills of children with language impairment. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2004;47:1301-18.

30. Mok PL, Pickles A, Durkin K, Conti-Ramsden G. Longitudinal trajectories of peer relations in children with specific language impairment. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 2014;55:516-27.

31. Tomblin JB, Zhang X. The dimensionality of language ability in school-age children. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2006;49:1193-208.

32. Tager-Flusberg H. Defining language phenotypes in autism. Clin Neurosci Res 2006;6:219-24.

33. Loucas T, Charman T, Pickles A, Simonoff E, Chandler S, Meldrum D, et al. Autistic symptomatology and language ability in autism spectrum disorder and specific language impairment. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 2008;49:1184-92.

34. Sciberras E, Mueller KL, Efron D, Bisset M, Anderson V, Schilpzand EJ, et al. Language problems in children with ADHD: a community-based study. Pediatrics 2014;133:793-800.

35. Redmond SM. Differentiating SLI from ADHD using children's sentence recall and production of past tense morphology. Clin Linguist Phon 2005;19:109-27.

36. Mueller KL, Tomblin JB. Examining the comorbidity of language disorders and ADHD. Top Lang Disord 2012;32:228-46.

37. Cohen NJ, Vallance DD, Barwick M, Im N, Menna R, Horodezky NB, et al. The interface between ADHD and language impairment: an examination of language, achievement, and cognitive processing. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 2000;41:353-62.

38. Snowling MJ, Hayiou-Thomas ME, Nash HM, Hulme C. Dyslexia and developmental language disorder: comorbid disorders with distinct effects on reading comprehension. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 2020;61:672-80.

39. Conti-Ramsden G, Botting N. Emotional health in adolescents with and without a history of specific language impairment (SLI). J Child Psychol Psychiatry 2008;49:516-25.

40. Yew SG, O'Kearney R. Emotional and behavioural outcomes later in childhood and adolescence for children with specific language impairments: meta-analyses of controlled prospective studies. J Child Psychol Psychiatry 2013;54:516-24.

41. Ebbels S. Effectiveness of intervention for grammar in school-aged children with primary language impairments: a review of the evidence. Child Lang Teach Ther 2013;30:7-40.

42. Araki T, Hirata M, Yanagisawa T, Sugata H, Onishi M, Watanabe Y, et al. Language-related cerebral oscillatory changes are influenced equally by genetic and environmental factors. Neuroimage 2016;142:241-7.

43. Mountford HS, Braden R, Newbury DF, Morgan AT. The genetic and molecular basis of developmental language disorder: a review. Children (Basel) 2022;9:586.

44. Krishnan S, Watkins KE, Bishop DV. Neurobiological basis of language learning difficulties. Trends Cogn Sci 2016;20:701-14.

45. Badcock NA, Bishop DV, Hardiman MJ, Barry JG, Watkins KE. Co-localisation of abnormal brain structure and function in specific language impairment. Brain Lang 2012;120:310-20.