A recently completed project, CATALISE, used the Delphi method to reach consensus on terminology to address unexplained language problems in children. „Developmental Language Disorder“ (DLD) was the term agreed upon by a 57-member panel of experts. Here, I echo the difficulties encountered in trying to reach consensus by using qualitative information from the comments of panel members to illustrate the type of arguments. One of the themes addressed was the use of labels, in particular the term „dysfunction,“ which was considered both pros and cons. The potential of labels to stigmatize or raise low expectations was a particular concern. However, labels could also ensure that language problems are not minimized and help avoid stigma by explaining behaviours that might otherwise be rejected. Other debates have raised questions about how best to identify cases of disorder. While it was agreed to focus on cases of poor forecasts, it was recognized that our knowledge of forecast factors was still incomplete. In addition, there was a tension between the use of standardized tests for a relatively objective and reliable assessment of language and more qualitative observations that may cover functional aspects of communication that are not always taken into account in the formal assessment. The debate also circumvented the question of the relationship between the LDD and other conditions. Some argued for a distinction between LDD and language disorders related to other conditions, while others felt that such distinctions were not necessary.
We concluded that it was misleading to believe that co-existing diseases were the cause of language disorders, but it was useful to distinguish DLD from cases of language disorders associated with „different conditions“ with known or probable biomedical origin, including brain injury, sensory hearing loss, genetic syndromes, mental disorders and autism spectrum disorders. In addition, DLD could be associated with milder neurodevelopmental disorders that did not have clear biomedical etiology. Normal non-verbal IQ has traditionally been incorporated into the diagnosis of DLD, but this has been rejected as unsubstantiated by evidence. DLD is a useful category for identifying children who would benefit from voice therapy services, but it should not be considered a clearly defined condition. DLD has a multifactorial etiology, is heterogeneous in terms of linguistic characteristics and overlaps with other neurodevelopmental disorders. Our designs of the DLD will likely be refined by further research on etiology, associated properties and intervention effectiveness. The third criterion indicates that DLD is used in children whose language disorder is not part of another biomedical disease, such as a genetic syndrome. B, sensory hearing loss, neurological disorders, autism spectrum disorders or mental disorders, which have been referred to by the CATALISE panel as „different conditions.“  Language disorders related to these diseases need to be assessed and children have proposed appropriate intervention, but a terminology distinction is established, so that these cases are diagnosed as a language disorder related to the mention of the main diagnosis: for example. B, „language disorder associated with autism spectrum disorder.“ The rationale for these diagnostic distinctions will be further examined by Bishop (2017).
 In addition, the centre of gravity has shifted from exclusive grammar and phonology to interventions to forms that develop the social language of children and often work in small groups, which can generally include people of the same age with both developmental disabilities and languages.  Although the term LDD has been used for many years, it is less common than the term specific linguistic disability (SLI) , which is particularly prevalent in North America.  The definition of the SLI intersects with the DLD, but it was rejected by the CATALISE PANEL