Do language disorders go away?

In 2017, a panel of international experts described a language disorder as language difficulties that are likely to persist into middle childhood and beyond (Bishop et al, 2017). So, by definition, a language disorder is a condition that does not go away or resolve on its own. Indeed, there is now plenty of research suggesting that many early language difficulties endure into adolescence, and even adulthood.

In one longitudinal study, Stothard et al (1998) found that two thirds of children who had impaired language skills at ages five to six continued to have significant difficulties at ages 15 to 16. And in Walter Loban’s groundbreaking study (1976), he found that the language abilities of his three groups remained surprisingly stable over time. That is, most of those in the high and low language ability groups stayed in those same groups all the way from kindergarten to Grade 12 and did not get much better or worse.

Despite this evidence, there is a lot of misinformation and confusion surrounding this issue, even amongst professionals. In a series of online interviews conducted with young people with Developmental Language Disorder (DLD) and their families, many felt that their concerns were not taken seriously by General Practitioners (GPs), who claimed that “children often grow out of it” (RCSLT, 2023). Part of this confusion probably stems from the difficulties involved in diagnosing very young children.

It is likely that a certain amount of normal variability exists in the language abilities of pre-schoolers. A child who begins talking late may be considered a “late bloomer” who does not have anything particularly “wrong” with them (Paul & Norbury, 2012). In fact, many children identified as “late talkers” around the age of 2 do catch up without any special help and go on to have normal language abilities (Bishop, 2014, Bishop et al, 2016).

However, some do not. And other studies have found that even those who appeared to catch up with their peers were at continued risk later on in their development. For example, Rescorla (cited in Paul & Norbury, 2012) found in 2002 and 2009 that late talkers who were judged to have normal language abilities at ages 5 and 6 went on to display subtle, residual difficulties in language and literacy skills later on.

The picture is unclear, and it is difficult to predict which late talkers will go on to have long-term problems and which will not (Bishop et al, 2017). However, the older the child is, the easier it is to judge. Whilst it is particularly difficult before the age of 3 (Bishop et al, 2017), Stothard et al (1998) noted that outcomes at 15 to 16 could be predicted fairly accurately by a child’s score at 5 to 6 years of age. A child identified at this point could be reasonably expected to have lifelong difficulties.

But if a language disorder is a lifelong condition, then why don’t we treat it as one? Whilst Speech and Language Therapy (SALT) support for early years is widely available, along with a fair amount at primary school, this drops off considerably thereafter. Larson and McKinley (2003) found that only a fraction of older students were receiving services. And more recently, the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists (RCSLT) (2023) observed that services were rationed, with little support available at secondary schools, and even less at further education colleges. No DLD services are currently provided for adults on the National Health Service (NHS).

Early intervention may be effective (Paul & Norbury, 2012) in improving language skills, school success and longer term outcomes, but it is not a cure-all. In my opinion, the heavy emphasis placed on it risks undermining the need for ongoing support at different stages in a young person’s development.

Larson and McKinley (2003) note that these early programs perform only part of the task, and that children’s difficulties are likely to re-emerge later, especially when the linguistic demands of a new context increase, such as in the transition to secondary school. They observe that discharging children in Year 6 only makes sense if the end goal is Year 6 level language skills.  

Many experts in the field now advocate for services to be made available not just throughout childhood and adolescence, but also periodically throughout adulthood (RCSLT, 2023). This is something I feel strongly about, given the high costs to both the individual and society of not providing support.

For more information on DLD, please see my post: https://secondaryschoolslt.wordpress.com/2026/01/02/what-is-developmental-language-disorder-dld/

Notes

Bishop, D.V.M. (2014). Ten questions about terminology for children with unexplained language problems. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 49(4), pp. 381-415.

Bishop DVM, Snowling MJ, Thompson PA, Greenhalgh T, CATALISE consortium (2016) CATALISE: A Multinational and Multidisciplinary Delphi Consensus Study. Identifying Language Impairments in Children.

Bishop, D.V.M., Snowling, M.J., Thompson, P.A., Greenhalgh, T., and the CATALISE-2 consortium (2017). ​ Phase 2 of CATALISE: a multinational and multidisciplinary Delphi consensus study of problems with language development: Terminology. ​ Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 58(10), pp. ​ 1068–1080.

Larson, V.L. and McKinley, N.L. (2003) Communication solutions for older students. Thinking Pub. 

Loban, W. (1976) Language Development: Kindergarten through Grade Twelve. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Paul, R. and Norbury, C. (2012) Language Disorders from Infancy Through Adolescence: Listening, Speaking, Reading, Writing, and Communicating. 4th edn. St. Louis, MO: Elsevier.

Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists (RCSLT). “A Vision for Developmental Language Disorder (DLD) for the UK” London: RCSLT, 2023. https://www.rcslt.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/A-Vision-for-Developmental-Language-Disorder.pdf. 

Stothard, S. E., Snowling, M. J., Bishop, D. V. M., Chipchase, B. B., & Kaplan, C. A. “Language-impaired preschoolers: A follow-up into adolescence.” Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 41, no. 2 (1998): 407-418.