Recent research emphasizes that understanding Specific Language Learning Difficulties (SLLD), such as dyslexia and ADHD, in EFL (English as a Foreign Language) contexts requires a multi-layered theoretical framework that integrates cognitive, linguistic, and educational perspectives. SLLD are no longer seen merely as domain-specific deficits; rather, they involve cross-domain interactions among phonological processing, working memory, attention, orthographic depth, and language exposure (García & López, 2022). Traditionally, dyslexia has been understood primarily through deficits in phonological awareness, rapid automatized naming (RAN), and decoding. However, newer studies point out that learners with dyslexia often have broader language weaknesses beyond phonology: vocabulary, syntax, discourse comprehension, and even meta-linguistic awareness are implicated. For example, Santos and Fernández (2025) find that Spanish-speaking adults with dyslexia underperform in multiple domains (reading, oral comprehension, written & oral production) and suggest that spontaneous language use (oral production under less controlled conditions) reveals weaknesses not always visible in written or highly structured tasks. The relation between Dyslexia and DLD (Developmental Language Disorder) is also crucial: though distinct diagnostic categories, there is overlap in language deficits; many children with dyslexia show DLD-like profiles in vocabulary and grammar even if phonology is more impaired. Interventions that target multiple components of language (not just phonology) show better long-term results. While dyslexia research in EFL has been more abundant, recent studies have begun to clarify how ADHD impacts language learning. A theoretical study by Kim and Patel (2024) shows that executive function deficits, such as poor working memory, difficulties in inhibition, and fluctuating attention, directly impede language tasks requiring sustained processing (e.g., reading, writing, comprehension) and learning of new vocabulary. It argues for combining executive function training with structured phonics-based instruction to ameliorate those deficits. Theories such as the Linguistic Coding Differences Hypothesis (LCDH) and script-dependent hypotheses suggest that if learners struggle in L1 with phonological, orthographic or syntactic literacy, they are likely to show similar or intensified difficulties when learning L2, especially one with deeper/irregular orthography such as English. The deeper the orthography, the more demands are placed on decoding, mapping between graphemes and phonemes, and orthographic memory. For EFL learners with dyslexia, English’s irregular spelling makes cross-linguistic transfers less helpful, prolonging decoding and slowing reading fluency. (E.g., in recent work with Spanish adult learners with dyslexia; also seen in children in various L1 backgrounds.) Evidence now favors multicomponent reading interventions that combine phonological, decoding, fluency, comprehension, and meaning-based instruction. A large observational study by Thompson, Miller, and Zhang (2024) showed that with two academic years of intensive, multi-componential reading intervention, students with dyslexia (both those whose first or primary exposure is English learners and those whose first education is in English) improved significantly, almost closing some gaps in reading skills.

Similarly, recent systematic reviews show that many EFL teachers lack specific training in dyslexia, especially how to adapt materials and assessments, deliver structured literacy instruction, scaffold learning, and incorporate accommodations (e.g., extended time, alternative assessment formats). These reviews argue that teacher beliefs, self-efficacy, and prior experience are significant predictors of whether inclusive, evidence-based practices are used. Theoretical and empirical works converge on the necessity of early screening for SLLD in EFL settings, before deficits become entrenched. Cognitive markers (phonological awareness, RAN, working memory), attention profiles, error patterns in L1, and mismatch between ease of comprehension vs. production are among early red flags. Once identified, assessment practices should be flexible: allowing oral vs. written modes, untimed vs. timed measures, scaffolding or choice of modality. Assessment should also accurately measure competence, not penalize slower processing or attention issues.
Finally, holistic development requires collaboration: special education, psychologists, speech-language pathologists, parents, and teachers as well as the learner themselves. The neurodevelopmental overlap (comorbidity of dyslexia with ADHD, DLD etc.) means siloed approaches are less effective than integrated ones. Reviews of interventions for neurodevelopmental disorders in foreign language learning contexts by Novák and Dimitrova (2025) show that projects which include stakeholder communication, co-planning, and shared goals tend to have more sustainable success.