Background: The term ‘specific language impairment’ (SLI), in use since the 1980s, describes children with language impairment whose cognitive skills are within normal limits where there is no identifiable reason for the language impairment. SLI is determined by applying exclusionary criteria, so that it is defined by what it is not rather than by what it is. The recent decision to not include SLI in DSM‐5 provoked much debate and concern from researchers and clinicians.Aims: To explore how the term ‘specific language impairment’ emerged, to consider how disorders, including SLI, are generally defined and to explore how societal changes might impact on use the term.Methods & Procedures: We reviewed the literature to explore the origins of the term ‘specific language impairment’ and present published evidence, as well as new analyses of population data, to explore the validity of continuing to use the term.Outcomes & Results and Conclusions & Implications: We support the decision to exclude the term ‘specific language impairment’ from DSM‐5 and conclude that the term has been a convenient label for researchers, but that the current classification is unacceptably arbitrary. Furthermore, we argue there is no empirical evidence to support the continued use of the term SLI and limited evidence that it has provided any real benefits for children and their families. In fact, the term may be disadvantageous to some due to the use of exclusionary criteria to determine eligibility for and access to speech pathology services. We propose the following recommendations. First, that the word ‘specific’ be removed and the label ‘language impairment’ be used. Second, that the exclusionary criteria be relaxed and in their place inclusionary criteria be adopted that take into account the fluid nature of language development particularly in the preschool period. Building on the goodwill and collaborations between the clinical and research communities we propose the establishment of an international consensus panel to develop an agreed definition and set of criteria for language impairment. Given the rich data now available in population studies it is possible to test the validity of these definitions and criteria. Consultation with service users and policy‐makers should be incorporated into the decision‐making process.

Aim: The epidemiology of preschool speech sound disorder is poorly understood. Our aims were to determine: the prevalence of idiopathic speech sound disorder; the comorbidity of speech sound disorder with language and pre‐literacy difficulties; and the factors contributing to speech outcome at 4 years.Method: One thousand four hundred and ninety‐four participants from an Australian longitudinal cohort completed speech, language, and pre‐literacy assessments at 4 years. Prevalence of speech sound disorder (SSD) was defined by standard score performance of ≤79 on a speech assessment. Logistic regression examined predictors of SSD within four domains: child and family; parent‐reported speech; cognitive‐linguistic; and parent‐reported motor skills.Results: At 4 years the prevalence of speech disorder in an Australian cohort was 3.4%. Comorbidity with SSD was 40.8% for language disorder and 20.8% for poor pre‐literacy skills. Sex, maternal vocabulary, socio‐economic status, and family history of speech and language difficulties predicted SSD, as did 2‐year speech, language, and motor skills. Together these variables provided good discrimination of SSD (area under the curve=0.78).Interpretation: This is the first epidemiological study to demonstrate prevalence of SSD at 4 years of age that was consistent with previous clinical studies. Early detection of SSD at 4 years should focus on family variables and speech, language, and motor skills measured at 2 years.

Meta-analysis and meta-regression were used to evaluate whether evidence to date demonstrates deficits in procedural memory in individuals with specific language impairment (SLI), and to examine reasons for inconsistencies of findings across studies. The Procedural Deficit Hypothesis (PDH) proposes that SLI is largely explained by abnormal functioning of the frontal-basal ganglia circuits that support procedural memory. It has also been suggested that declarative memory can compensate for at least some of the problems observed in individuals with SLI. A number of studies have used Serial Reaction Time (SRT) tasks to investigate procedural learning in SLI. In this report, results from eight studies that collectively examined 186 participants with SLI and 203 typically-developing peers were submitted to a meta-analysis. The average mean effect size was .328 (CI95: .071, .584) and was significant. This suggests SLI is associated with impairments of procedural learning as measured by the SRT task. Differences among individual study effect sizes, examined with meta-regression, indicated that smaller effect sizes were found in studies with older participants, and in studies that had a larger number of trials on the SRT task. The contributions of age and SRT task characteristics to learning are discussed with respect to impaired and compensatory neural mechanisms in SLI.

Genetic investigations of people with impaired development of spoken language provide windows into key aspects of human biology. Over 15 years after FOXP2 was identified, most speech and language impairments remain unexplained at the molecular level. We sequenced whole genomes of nineteen unrelated individuals diagnosed with childhood apraxia of speech, a rare disorder enriched for causative mutations of large effect. Where DNA was available from unaffected parents, we discovered de novo mutations, implicating genes, including CHD3, SETD1A and WDR5. In other probands, we identified novel loss-of-function variants affecting KAT6A, SETBP1, ZFHX4, TNRC6B and MKL2, regulatory genes with links to neurodevelopment. Several of the new candidates interact with each other or with known speech-related genes. Moreover, they show significant clustering within a single co-expression module of genes highly expressed during early human brain development. This study highlights gene regulatory pathways in the developing brain that may contribute to acquisition of proficient speech.