Common Misconceptions about the Phonological Deficit Theory of Dyslexia

In this discussion paper, I review a number of common misconceptions about the phonological deficit theory (PDH) of dyslexia. These include the common but mistaken idea that the PDH is simply about phonemic awareness (PA), and, consequently, is a circular “pseudo”-explanation or epiphenomenon of rea...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal:	David L. Share
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN
Publicado:	MDPI AG 2021
Materias:	dyslexia reading phonological neurobiology Neurosciences. Biological psychiatry. Neuropsychiatry RC321-571
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/289cedb4844f4912bfddce72ffa4e60c
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:289cedb4844f4912bfddce72ffa4e60c
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:289cedb4844f4912bfddce72ffa4e60c2021-11-25T16:58:42ZCommon Misconceptions about the Phonological Deficit Theory of Dyslexia10.3390/brainsci111115102076-3425https://doaj.org/article/289cedb4844f4912bfddce72ffa4e60c2021-11-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.mdpi.com/2076-3425/11/11/1510https://doaj.org/toc/2076-3425In this discussion paper, I review a number of common misconceptions about the phonological deficit theory (PDH) of dyslexia. These include the common but mistaken idea that the PDH is simply about phonemic awareness (PA), and, consequently, is a circular “pseudo”-explanation or epiphenomenon of reading difficulties. I argue that PA is only the “tip of the phonological iceberg” and that “deeper” spoken-language phonological impairments among dyslexics appear well before the onset of reading and even at birth. Furthermore, not even reading-specific expressions of phonological deficits—PA or pseudoword naming, can be considered circular if we clearly distinguish between reading <i>proper</i>—real meaning-bearing words, or real text, and the mechanisms (subskills) of reading development (such as phonological recoding). I also explain why an understanding of what constitutes an efficient writing system explains why phonology is necessarily a major source of variability in reading ability and hence a core deficit (or at least one core deficit) among struggling readers whether dyslexic or non-dyslexic. I also address the misguided notion that the PDH has now fallen out of favor because most dyslexia researchers have (largely) ceased studying phonological processing. I emphasize that acceptance of the PDH does not imply repudiation of other non-phonological hypotheses because the PDH does not claim to account for all the variance in reading ability/disability. Finally, I ask where neurobiology enters the picture and suggest that researchers need to exercise more caution in drawing their conclusions.David L. ShareMDPI AGarticledyslexiareadingphonologicalneurobiologyNeurosciences. Biological psychiatry. NeuropsychiatryRC321-571ENBrain Sciences, Vol 11, Iss 1510, p 1510 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN
topic	dyslexia reading phonological neurobiology Neurosciences. Biological psychiatry. Neuropsychiatry RC321-571
spellingShingle	dyslexia reading phonological neurobiology Neurosciences. Biological psychiatry. Neuropsychiatry RC321-571 David L. Share Common Misconceptions about the Phonological Deficit Theory of Dyslexia
description	In this discussion paper, I review a number of common misconceptions about the phonological deficit theory (PDH) of dyslexia. These include the common but mistaken idea that the PDH is simply about phonemic awareness (PA), and, consequently, is a circular “pseudo”-explanation or epiphenomenon of reading difficulties. I argue that PA is only the “tip of the phonological iceberg” and that “deeper” spoken-language phonological impairments among dyslexics appear well before the onset of reading and even at birth. Furthermore, not even reading-specific expressions of phonological deficits—PA or pseudoword naming, can be considered circular if we clearly distinguish between reading <i>proper</i>—real meaning-bearing words, or real text, and the mechanisms (subskills) of reading development (such as phonological recoding). I also explain why an understanding of what constitutes an efficient writing system explains why phonology is necessarily a major source of variability in reading ability and hence a core deficit (or at least one core deficit) among struggling readers whether dyslexic or non-dyslexic. I also address the misguided notion that the PDH has now fallen out of favor because most dyslexia researchers have (largely) ceased studying phonological processing. I emphasize that acceptance of the PDH does not imply repudiation of other non-phonological hypotheses because the PDH does not claim to account for all the variance in reading ability/disability. Finally, I ask where neurobiology enters the picture and suggest that researchers need to exercise more caution in drawing their conclusions.
format	article
author	David L. Share
author_facet	David L. Share
author_sort	David L. Share
title	Common Misconceptions about the Phonological Deficit Theory of Dyslexia
title_short	Common Misconceptions about the Phonological Deficit Theory of Dyslexia
title_full	Common Misconceptions about the Phonological Deficit Theory of Dyslexia
title_fullStr	Common Misconceptions about the Phonological Deficit Theory of Dyslexia
title_full_unstemmed	Common Misconceptions about the Phonological Deficit Theory of Dyslexia
title_sort	common misconceptions about the phonological deficit theory of dyslexia
publisher	MDPI AG
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/289cedb4844f4912bfddce72ffa4e60c
work_keys_str_mv	AT davidlshare commonmisconceptionsaboutthephonologicaldeficittheoryofdyslexia
_version_	1718412826336296960

Common Misconceptions about the Phonological Deficit Theory of Dyslexia

Ejemplares similares