The Keynote Article is a very welcomed, timely, and incisive review article that examines theoretical and clinical implications of research on bilingual development and specific language impairment (SLI). Paradis provides a considered examination of the available evidence and takes into account a number of potential influencing factors. In particular, I want to commend her discussion of potential compensatory mechanisms that may play a role in bilingual development in SLI. This is often a neglected area in discussions concerning SLI. I also want to highlight that I agree wholeheartedly with her conclusion that the evidence to date “leans toward a positive attitude toward dual language learning for children with SLI who are in a supportive context for bilingualism.” This message is by no means universally accepted, nor is it put into action in therapeutic contexts across the United Kingdom and Europe. There is still much debate as to what type of advice should be given to parents and what the target language or languages of therapy should be (Harulow, 2008). This review article has therefore the potential not only to make a significant contribution to theory but also to practice.

In this study we compared the conversations of mothers and fathers with their children at 1;3 and 159, with special attention to breakdown-repair sequences. We found that, overall, children and secondary caregiver fathers experienced more communicative breakdowns than did children and primary caregiver mothers. More specifically, fathers requested clarification of their children more often than did mothers, and they most often used a non-specific query (e.g. What?). Mothers used more specific queries (e.g. Put it where?) and were involved in more ‘looped’ sequences involving multiple requests for clarification. Fathers also failed to acknowledge child utterances more often than did mothers. After a father non-acknowledgement, children tended not to persist and when they did they often received further non-acknowledgements; the dyad did not often return to the child's original topic. After a maternal non-acknowledgement, on the other hand, children persisted and the dyad more often returned to its previous topic. The results are interpreted as support for the Bridge Hypothesis which claims that fathers present children with communicative challenges that help prepare them for communication with less familiar adults.

The Agreement/Tense Omission Model (ATOM) predicts that English-speaking children will show similar patterns of provision across different tense-marking morphemes (Rice, Wexler & Hershberger, 1998). The aim of the present study was to test this prediction by examining provision rates for third person singular present tense and first and third person singular forms of copula BE and auxiliary BE in longitudinal data from eleven English-speaking children between the ages of 1 ; 10 and 3 ; 0. The results show, first, that there were systematic differences in the provision rates of the different morphemes; second, that there were systematic differences in the rate at which all of the three morphemes were provided with pronominal and lexical subjects; and, third, that there were systematic differences in the rate at which copula BE and auxiliary BE were provided with the third person singular pronominal subjects It and He and the first person singular subject pronoun I. These results replicate those of Wilson (2003), while controlling for some possible objections to Wilson's analysis. They thus provide further evidence against the generativist view that children's rates of provision of different tense-marking morphemes are determined by a single underlying factor, and are consistent with the constructivist view that children's rates of provision reflect the gradual accumulation of knowledge about tense marking, with much of children's early knowledge being embedded in lexically specific constructions.

A longitudinal comparison was made between development of verbal and visuo-spatial short-term memory and vocabulary in children with Down syndrome (DS), children with specific language impairment (SLI), and typically developing children as a control group. Participants were 12 children with DS (6 males, 6 females; mean chronological age 9y 9mo [SD 2.8mo], range 8y 6mo to 11y 4mo); nine children with SLI (4 males, 5 females; mean chronological age 3y 9mo [SD 4.8mo], range 3y 3mo to 4y 5mo); and 12 typically developing children (5 males, 7 females; mean chronological age 4y 4mo [SD 3.9mo], range 3y 3mo to 4y 3mo). Participants were matched on mental age (mean mental age 4y 3mo). All participants completed verbal short-term memory, visuo-spatial short-term memory, and expressive and receptive vocabulary tasks on three occasions over 1 year. Similarities were seen in the clinical groups for verbal short-term memory. There was some evidence of difficulty in visuo-spatial short-term memory in the children with SLI relative to the other groups, but all three groups showed overlap in visuo-spatial short-term memory performance. At the final time-point vocabulary performance in the clinical groups was similar; the typically developing children showed higher vocabulary abilities than both clinical groups.

Three groups of children with communication disorders were examined using a series of psycholinguistic markers to explore whether the tasks could identify children with impairments other than specific language impairment (SLI), and to examine whether the different groups within this clinical population could be distinguished reliably from one another. The groups comprised children with autistic spectrum disorders (ASD; n=13, all males; mean age 10 years 10 months, range 10 years 2 months to 12 years 6 months); children with primary pragmatic language impairment (PLI) but who did not have definite ASD diagnoses (n=25, 22 males, three females; mean age 11 years 3 months, range 10 years 2 months to 12 years 5 months); and children with specific language impairment (SLI) without marked pragmatic language difficulties (n=29, 25 males, 4 females; mean age 10 years 10 months, range 10 years 2 months to 11 years 9 months). Clinical markers examined were: the Children's Non-Word Repetition (CNRep), the Past Tense Task (PTT), and the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals, Recalling Sentences. First, it was found that the a priori groupings were not sufficiently defined and that four groups were actually present. The PLI group was in fact two separate samples: those with PLI pure and those with some autistic-like behaviours (referred to here as PLI plus, following Bishop 1998). Second, group comparisons indicated that CNRep was significantly lower for children with SLI than all other groups (although this measure was not such a good discriminator using a specificity analysis). Third, the markers were able to discriminate between all types of communication impairment in normal control participants (n=100; 51 females, 49 males; mean age 11 years, range 10 years 5 months to 11 years 6 months) with sensitivity levels of at least 75% and specificity of 80%. Recalling Sentences was the most efficient marker for all groups. Finally, analysis showed that children with PLI plus could be accurately distinguished from all others, scoring most favourably overall on communication markers and on performance IQ scores.

A group of 117 children who met criteria for Specific Language Impairment (SLI) at 7 years of age were reassessed at 11 years of age. The data gathered from both stages were used to identify predictors of good and poor outcome from earlier test assessments. Results of logistic regressions indicated that measures of narrative retelling skills and expressive syntax were the strongest predictors of overall prognosis. This finding persisted when a nonverbal measure was included as a predictor alongside language measures in the regression model. There was found to be a lack of independent predictive contribution of early measures of articulation to later overall prognosis. Demographic factors (maternal education and family income) were not differently distributed across outcome groups. The theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed.

In this study 160 children, aged 11 years with a definite history of specific language impairment (SLI), completed four tasks that could be potential positive psycholinguistic markers for this impairment: a third person singular task, a past tense task, a nonword repetition task, and a sentence repetition task. This allowed examination of more than one type of marker simultaneously, facilitating both comparisons between markers and also evaluation of combinations of markers in relation to identifying SLI. The study also provided data regarding the markers in relation to nonverbal IQ, made use of new normative data on all tasks, and examined marker accuracy in relation to current language status. The results show that markers vary in accuracy, with sentence repetition (a previously unused marker) proving to be the most useful. This psycholinguistic marker shows high levels of sensitivity (90%), specificity (85%), and overall accuracy (88%), as well as being able to identify the majority of children whose current language status falls in the normal range despite a history of SLI.