Cargando…

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

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Share, David L.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8615585/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34827508
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11111510
_version_ 1784604139912691712
author Share, David L.
author_facet Share, David L.
author_sort Share, David L.
collection PubMed
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 proper—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 Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8615585
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-86155852021-11-26 Common Misconceptions about the Phonological Deficit Theory of Dyslexia Share, David L. Brain Sci Review 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 proper—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. MDPI 2021-11-14 /pmc/articles/PMC8615585/ /pubmed/34827508 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11111510 Text en © 2021 by the author. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Review
Share, David L.
Common Misconceptions about the Phonological Deficit Theory of Dyslexia
title 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_short Common Misconceptions about the Phonological Deficit Theory of Dyslexia
title_sort common misconceptions about the phonological deficit theory of dyslexia
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8615585/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34827508
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11111510
work_keys_str_mv AT sharedavidl commonmisconceptionsaboutthephonologicaldeficittheoryofdyslexia