Annotation: does dyslexia exist?

Abstract

Obviously, in order to answer the question posed in the title, we must specifywhat we mean by the term dyslexia. And, in doing so, we immediately encounterthe crux of the problem. This problem is a recurring one in the field ofdevelopmental disabilities, and it arises because the field has repeatedlydisplayed a preference for terminology that connotes unverified theories aboutcausation. For example, in this journal Bishop (1992) has recendy noted how theterms developmental dysphasia and developmental aphasia have fallen intodisfavour in the U.K. and tj.S.A,, largely because they misleadingly imply that weare dealing with a single condition with a known neurological basis (p. 3).Likewise, the term dyslexia is out of favor in many educational and researchcommunities within North America—and for similar reasons. As we shall see,dyslexia carries with it so many empirically unverified connotations andassumptions that many researchers and practitioners prefer to avoid the term.Indeed, it does seem that reading research could benefit from adopting moreneutral terms for the phenomena that it studies. Terminology that is less likely tocarry with it a speculative theory is to be preferred in the early stages of scientificinvestigation. The reading field seems unnaturally prone to popularizingterminology that carries with it unproven theory. For example, publications inearly research in North America are currently littered with the termsemergent literacy and invented spelling. But, just as with dyslexia, these arenot neutral terms. They are not descriptions of certain operationally-definedperformance patterns in early literacy. These terms convey a theory of earlyliteracy acquisition (e.g. that it is natural and will normally progress withoutmuch formal tuition) that is without empirical support (Adams, 1990; Liberman