-Language and literacy skills were assessed in 83 8 54 -year olds whose language development had been impaired at 4 years of age. Provided that language problems had resolved by age 5 V2 years, literacy development was normal, but many of the children who still had verbal deficits at 5 V2 years of age did have reading difficulties and persisting oral language impairments later on. In these children, reading comprehension tended to be poor relative to reading accuracy. Syntactic competence in the preschool period accounted for a substantial proportion of the variance in literacy attainments, after allowing for the effects of non-verbal ability. There were only weak links between expressive phonological disorders and later ability to read either meaningful text or non-words.

A Randomised Treatment Trial design of this kind in classical autism is feasible and acceptable to patients. This pilot study suggests significant additional treatment benefits following a targeted (but relatively non-intensive) dyadic social communication treatment, when compared with routine care. The study needs replication on larger and independent samples. It should encourage further RCT designs in this area.

A core set of pragmatic assessment tools can be identified from the proliferation of instruments in current use. Further research is required to establish clearer norms and ranges in the development of pragmatic ability, particularly with respect to the understanding of inference, topic management and coherence.

A group of 61 schoolchildren with specific language impairment (SLI) was compared with a control group on a comprehension task, in which the child was questioned about a story that had been presented either orally or as a series of pictures. Half the questions were literal, requiring the child to provide a detail that had been mentioned or shown explicitly in the story. The remainder required the child to make an inference about what had not been directly shown or stated. SLI children were impaired on this task, even after taking into account "comprehension age," as assessed on a multiple-choice test. However, the effects of mode of presentation and question type were similar for control and SLI groups. Children who fitted the clinical picture of semantic-pragmatic disorder had lower scores than other SLI children on this task. In addition, they were more prone to give answers that suggested they had not understood the question. However, as with the other SLI children, there was no indication that they had disproportionate difficulty with inferential questions. It is concluded that SLI children are impaired in constructing an integrated representation from a sequence of propositions, even when such propositions are presented nonverbally.

Eighteen children with specific language impairment (SLI), from 6 to 8 years of age, were compared with 9 control children matched on age and nonverbal ability (CA controls) and with 9 younger control children of comparable language level (LA controls). Half of the SLI group were rated on a teacher checklist as having pragmatic difficulties: these were referred to as the pragmatic language impairment (PLI) group; the remainder were the typical (SLI-T) group. Children's responses to adult soliciting utterances were compared. All children usually responded to conversational solicitations, but children in the PLI group were more likely than control children to give no response, and they also made very little use of nonverbal responses, such as nodding. Nonverbal responding was closely related to the quality of children's responses. Children who failed to use nonverbal responses also had a relatively high level of pragmatically inappropriate responses that were not readily accounted for in terms of limited grammar or vocabulary. This study lends support to the notion that there is a subset of the language-impaired population who have broader communicative impairments, extending beyond basic difficulties in mastering language form, reflecting difficulty in responding to and expressing communicative intents. The analytic methods developed for this project have promise for the study of pragmatic difficulties in other clinical groups.

There is some evidence of an intervention effect on blind and parent/teacher-reported communication outcomes, but not standardized language assessment outcomes, for 6-11-year-old children who have pragmatic and social communication needs. These findings are discussed in the context of the increasingly central role of service user outcomes in providing evidence for an intervention. The substantial overlap between the presence of PLI and ASD (75%) across the whole cohort suggests that the intervention may also be applicable to some verbally able children with ASD who have pragmatic communication needs.

Independent raters scanned transcribed conversations from 57 language‐impaired children and 67 control children aged from 4 to 12 years and identified instances where the normal flow of conversation appeared to be disrupted because the child's utterance was in some way inappropriate. It was found that adequate inter‐rater reliability could be obtained using this procedure. Furthermore, test‐retest correlations for inappropriacy were significant, indicating that this is a stable conversational characteristic. The measure of inappropriacy decreased with age in control children, and it distinguished language‐impaired from control children. Those identified as having ‘semantic‐pragmatic disorder’ obtained particularly high scores. In a subsidiary analysis, inappropriate responses were subcategorised. A wide range of semantic, syntactic and pragmatic peculiarities was identified as leading to a sense of inappropriacy. Some instances of inappropriacy appeared to indicate cognitive rather than linguistic difficulties. Children with semantic‐pragmatic disorder resembled younger normal children in that they frequently misunderstood the literal or implicit meaning of adult utterances and they violated normal rules of exchange structure. In other respects, however, the semantic‐pragmatic group did not resemble normally developing children of any age. In particular, they tended to provide the listener with too much or too little information.

The results showed that in these contexts children with Asperger syndrome were no more verbose as a group than controls, though they showed a tendency to talk more in more emotion-based conversations. Children with Asperger syndrome, as a group, performed similarly to control subjects in ability to respond to questions and comments. However, they were more likely to show responses which were problematic in both types of conversation. In addition, individuals with Asperger syndrome showed more problems in general conversation than during more emotionally and socially loaded topics. The group with Asperger syndrome was found to contain a small number of individuals with extreme verbosity but this was not a reliable characteristic of the group as a whole.