Aside from the general agreement that there are people with pragmatic impairments, all other issues starting from the nosological status, through terminology, key clinical symptoms, assessment methods, and appropriate support remain unsolved. So it is essential to present, in one place, the main trends in the apprehension of the PLI, from the 1980s to the present days, using the form of scoping review. The paper titled „Conceptualizing, defining, and assessing ‎pragmatic language impairment in ‎clinical settings among ‎preschoolers: a scoping review” is well-founded and precisely methodologically developed. As there were no time limitations, in the literature review, a large amount of information was gathered, but they were presented clearly and transparently and were conveniently discussed. I think that the paper can be accepted with some minor changes:
The title, the objective and the results presented in the paper seem to be inconsistent. Although the research aims was to conceptualize, define and estimate PLI in preschoolers, this scoping review has also included 70 studies that do not consider the age of the responders. The paper should indicate that particular focus has been placed on pre-school age, but it may not be necessary to mention the age in the title and objective.
In the introductory paragraph, when you mention the inconsistent use of the PLI terms, it would be interesting to compare pragmatic communication disorder in DSM-5 and DLD with impairment of mainly pragmatic language in ICD-11 as an example of the differences you write about (specific disorder vs symptom, disorder or impairment, etc.)
Page 3, line 28, Please, explain the meaning of the abbreviation SPCD
Page 5, line 28, Please, write the number five in Arabic, not Roman numerals
The Discussion should address the trend of increasing the number of papers covered by scoping reviews over time. Almost two-thirds of the papers from the first Table and half papers from the second Table were published over the past decade.
Maybe you could shorten it a little bit in the Implications section. Consideration of the dictionary definitions appears to be unnecessary. Just point out the differences.

Well done! The revised paper could be accepted without further revision.