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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Brain Sciences
Main Author: David L. Share
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: MDPI AG 2021-11-01
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3425/11/11/1510
_version_ 1850103649115570176
author David L. Share
author_facet David L. Share
author_sort David L. Share
collection DOAJ
container_title Brain Sciences
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
id doaj-art-289cedb4844f4912bfddce72ffa4e60c
institution Directory of Open Access Journals
issn 2076-3425
language English
publishDate 2021-11-01
publisher MDPI AG
record_format Article
spelling doaj-art-289cedb4844f4912bfddce72ffa4e60c2025-08-20T00:03:20ZengMDPI AGBrain Sciences2076-34252021-11-011111151010.3390/brainsci11111510Common Misconceptions about the Phonological Deficit Theory of DyslexiaDavid L. Share0Department of Learning Disabilities, Edmond J. Safra Brain Research Center for the Study of Learning Disabilities, University of Haifa, Haifa 3498838, IsraelIn 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.https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3425/11/11/1510dyslexiareadingphonologicalneurobiology
spellingShingle David L. Share
Common Misconceptions about the Phonological Deficit Theory of Dyslexia
dyslexia
reading
phonological
neurobiology
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 dyslexia
reading
phonological
neurobiology
url https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3425/11/11/1510
work_keys_str_mv AT davidlshare commonmisconceptionsaboutthephonologicaldeficittheoryofdyslexia