On subtypes of developmental dyslexia: evidence from processing time and accuracy scores.

International audiencePhonological dyslexics (Ph-DYS) are characterized by a phonological deficit, while surface dyslexics (S-DYS) are characterized by an orthographic deficit. Four issues were addressed in this study. First, we determined the proportion of Ph-DYS and S-DYS in a population of French dyslexics by applying Castles and Coltheart's (1993) regression method to two previously unused diagnostic measures: pseudo-word and irregular-word processing time. Thirty-one dyslexics were matched to 19 average readers of the same age (10 years, CA controls) and to 19 younger children of the same reading level (8 years, RL controls). Compared to CA controls, there were more Ph-DYS than S-DYS. Compared to RL controls, there were still a high number of Ph-DYS; however, the S-DYS profile almost disappeared. Next, we examined the reliability of these subtypes across different measures of phonological and orthographic skills. Compared to RL controls, both groups of dyslexics were found to be impaired only in phonological skills, either in processing time (Ph-DYS) or in accuracy (S-DYS). Then we assessed the moment at which the two dissociated profiles emerged in the course of cognitive development. In order to do so, we examined earlier longitudinal data, collected when the children were 7 and 8 years old, and found that only the S-DYS's orthographic deficit increased with development. Last, we looked at whether the Ph-DYS and S-DYS profiles were associated with other specific cognitive deficits. Specific deficits in phonemic awareness and in phonological short-term memory were found for both Ph-DYS and S-DYS. These data suggest that developmental dyslexia could be largely accounted for by an underlying phonological impairment

Stabilité dans le temps et inter-langues des sous-types de dyslexie développementale

Three goals were set for the present paper. First we reviewed different studies on dyslexia subtypes to determine the prevalence of each subtype across languages (English or French), measures (accuracy scores or time latencies), and methods (the classical method and the regression method). Next, we assessed the reliability across time of the subtypes. Last, we examined whether different subtypes could be induced by specific underlying deficits, for example, specific phonological deficits underlying phonological dyslexia, and specific visual deficits underlying surface dyslexia. This review lead to a striking result as it showed that the classification in surface versus phonological dyslexia subtypes is all but reliable. The proportion of these two subtypes, not only strongly differed according to the language, but also according to the method they were classified with, and even in a given language, according to the measure used. All the more, longitudinal data surprisingly showed that over time the relative proportion of each these two subtypes was totally inconsistent. Finally, no consistent data have been found to support the hypothesis that different profiles in developmental dyslexia were induced by different underlying deficits. Conversely, the data suggested that most of the dyslexies suffered from a double deficit in both the phonological and the orthographic reading routes, one of these reading routes just appearing less efficient than the other at a given point of the development and/or according to a given measure. Longitudinal data also showed that specific deficits in phonemic awareness and in phonological short-term memory were found in both phonological and surface subtypes. We tentatively suggest that differences in environmental factors could better explain the observed differences in dyslexic behavior than differences in cognitive profiles.SCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Au pairs are rarely male: Norms on the gender perception of role names across English, French, and German.

A list of role names for future use in research on gender stereotyping was created and evaluated. In two studies, 126 role names were rated with reference to their gender stereotypicality by English-, French-, and German-speaking students of universities in Switzerland (French and German) and in the U.K. (English). Role names were either presented in specific feminine and masculine forms (Study 1) or in the masculine form (generic masculine) only (Study 2). The rankings of the stereotypicality ratings were highly reliable across languages and questionnaire versions, but the overall mean of the ratings was less strongly male if participants were also presented with the female versions of the role names and if the latter were presented on the left side of the questionnaires

Some grammatical rules are more difficult than others: the case of the generic interpretation of the masculine

In this paper we argue that the generic use of the masculine represents a grammatical rule that might be easy to learn but difficult to apply when understanding texts. This argument is substantiated by reviewing the relevant literature as well as, the recent work conducted by the GREL Group (Gender Representation in Language) on the interaction between stereotypical and grammatical information in the construction of a representation of gender when reading role names. The studies presented in this paper show that the masculine form used as a generic to refer to persons of both sexes, or to persons of indefinite sex or whose sex is irrelevant, in gender marked languages is likely to be associated with its specific meaning (i.e., masculine refers only to men). This is true even though the generic nature of the masculine is a very common grammatical rule learnt at school. People may have learned this rule and may understand it, but may not readily apply it