Dyslexia and Sli: Atypical Psychology Essay Sample
Dyslexia and Specific linguistic communication damage ( SLI ) are two of the most normally happening larning upsets among kids ( Pennington and Bishop. 2009 ) . SLI and dyslexia have similar a prevalence in modern twenty-four hours society and is estimated to impact 3 – 10 % of kids ( Tomblin. 1997 ) . Broadly talking dyslexia has by and large been viewed as a upset that includes a shortage in printed word acknowledgment whereas SLI is more to make with unwritten linguistic communication shortages ( Ramus. Marshall. Rosen and Van der Lely. 2010 ) . Research look intoing both of these upsets over many old ages has been huge but has traditionally been carried out by separate professionals and subjects. Typically SLI research was conducted by speech/language diagnosticians and clinical linguists and dyslexia surveies were chiefly carried out by educational psychologists ( Fraser. Goswami. and Ramsden. 2010 ) . Although dyslexia and SLI have frequently been treated and classified as distinguishable upsets in the yesteryear. the recent reclassification of dyslexia in the 1970’s as a linguistic communication upset has bought attending to the dramatic similarities ( Bishop and Snowling. 2004 ) .
This has resulted in the general consensus sing the nature of the relationship between these upsets as “…different manifestations of the same underlying job differing merely in badness or developmental stage” ( Bishop and Snowling. 2004 ) . However there are assorted research findings and theories that offer persuasive statements and grounds proposing opposing and conflicting positions about the relationship of dyslexia and SLI. This essay aims to find whether dyslexia can be considered as a mild signifier of SLI. This will be achieved by reexamining a scope of factors on varying degrees. foremost by comparing the definitions of each upset pulling on any convergence or similarities that indicate supportive or opposing grounds. Second. rating of current literature and outstanding findings that advocate and oppose the impression of dyslexia being a milder signifier of SLI will be carried out. Third. causational facets: etiology and neurobiology ( biological science and environment ) . knowledge and behavior of dyslexia and SLI will be investigated with consideration to commonalties and disparities.
Finally. this essay will reexamine the most celebrated theoretical accounts and hypotheses that pertain to the relationship between these two upsets. An statement will be made throughout the essay and a decision will be drawn from the grounds presented as to whether dyslexia can be considered as a milder signifier of SLI. First. analyzing the definitions of dyslexia and SLI consequences in an inconclusive decision. Both dyslexia and SLI can be defined in assorted ways due to the varying degrees of badness and subcategories of each upset. For the intent of this essay the definitions that will be used are the definitions that appeared most often cited among the literature reviewed. These definitions are specific yet wide plenty to embrace the scope of different degrees and subcategories. Leonard ( 1998 ) describes SLI as unwritten linguistic communication that is impaired and dawdling behind other countries of development for no evident ground. Snowling ( 2000 ) defines dyslexia as holding hapless literacy accomplishments despite equal intelligence and chance to larn.
The diagnosing standard in both upsets are similar in that they both specify that no other damage should be present that could account for these shortages ( i. e. hearing jobs ) patients must expose an otherwise normal IQ degree and show no marks of any other disabilities or disadvantages that may impact the acquisition procedure ( Newbury et al. 2011 ) . Both dyslexia and SLI have similar facets with diagnosing and overlapping exclusion criteria’s. nevertheless. the definitions are clearly different in that they both specify damages in different facets of development. literacy accomplishments in dyslexia and unwritten accomplishments in SLI. It could be argued that due to the similarities and convergences between the definitions there is supportive grounds that these upsets are related. nevertheless. the clear differentiations in the definitions steadfastly separate the two upsets supplying supportive grounds to the impression that dyslexia should non be considered a milder signifier of SLI. Second. causings of dyslexia and SLI will be considered as research in this country attempts to find the implicit in jobs and shortages of each upset.
If the causings of dyslexia and SLI are the same in both instances so it stands to ground that the upsets should be classified as the same upsets ( that may change due to the badness ) . The first causing to be considered in is the behavior features that are typically exhibited. SLI behaviors are declarative of poor/below mean vocabulary and grammar when comprehending and pass oning orally ( Joanisse & A ; Seidenberg. 1998 ) . Huge sums of research has investigated causing factors of SLI and reveals that the implicit in causes are frequently attributed to assorted facets such as hapless phonological consciousness. inflicted morphology. impaired working memory span. analogical logical thinking. ocular imagination etc ( Catts & A ; Kamhi. 2005 ) . In comparing. the research into dyslexic behavior has preponderantly been attributed to deficient procedures in the phonological procedures ( Fraser. Goswami. & A ; Ramsden. 2010. ) much like one of the behavioral facets of SLI.
Overall the research into the causings of the behavior surely appear to overlap to a certain grade. particularly when sing phonological shortages as it is an of import contributing factor in both upsets ( Bishop & A ; Snowling. 2004 ) . more so in dyslexia than SLI. SLI involves many more implicit in procedures and is a more complex upset with assorted underlying factors. Therefore findings give supportive grounds to the impression that dyslexia is a milder signifier of SLI as its primary causing. is the same as one of the causing factors underlying SLI. Although dyslexia and SLI have this common causing in common it produces somewhat different outcomes/behaviours ( shortage in literacy and unwritten severally ) . The 2nd causing to be considered is the alone biological underpins of these upsets ( specifically neurobiology and etiology ) . A reappraisal of the literature suggests that a complex familial etiology which involves assorted interactions between familial and environmental factors is a strong causational factor. Findingss have systematically found that relations of those with dyslexia and/or SLI have a 30 – 50 % opportunity of developing the upset. giving supportive grounds of these upsets being familial ( Newbury et al. 2011 ) .
Familial hazard discrepancies for dyslexia and SLI have been identified and current findings indicate shared familial influences ( Newbury et al. 2011 ) . These familial similarities imply a close biological relationship between dyslexia and SLI. but it is imperative to be cognizant that gene/environmental interaction should besides be considered. Neurological research shows that dyslexia could be attributed to a decrease in the left hemisphere during linguistic communication procedure ( Newbury et al. 2011 ) . Additionally neurological research has found that SLI appears to demo grounds for untypical left-right planum temporal and perisylvian dissymmetry ( Newbury et al. 2011 ) . These neurological findings suggest separate shortages in different parts of the encephalon being responsible for the causing of the upsets. opposing the impression of dyslexia being considered a milder signifier of SLI as they do non portion alone neurological underpinnings. Further biological research has shown that birth upsets are associated with early abnormalcies in neurological development ensuing in dyslexia and/or SLI ( Newbury et al. 2011 ) . Overall. conflicting grounds has emerged sing the relationship between dyslexia and SLI when looking at biological causings.
The concluding causing to be considered is the cognitive facet. Cognition was briefly mentioned when discoursing the causing of behavior manifested in dyslexia and SLI. As already stated phonological consciousness is attributed as the cardinal implicit in lack in dyslexia and SLI. However SLI appears to integrate many more cognitive shortages such as low auditory degree accomplishments. phonological processing and phonological memory every bit good as sentence structure jobs and semantic issues ( Bailey & A ; Snowling. 2002 ) . This shows that SLI is a much more complex upset than dyslexia affecting more cognitive shortages and damages. nevertheless. the cognitive causings in each upset to a great extent overlap which gives supportive grounds reasoning that dyslexia is a milder signifier of SLI. Investigating the causings of dyslexia and SLI highlights the complexnesss of both upsets and the many procedures involved. Additionally the literature identifies and indicates that there is persuasive grounds associating both dyslexia and SLI.
While the causational research has provided a wealth of information sing the implicit in causes involved in dyslexia and SLI it is unspecified and unable to measure to what extent and how are they linked? Therefore causational accounts are limited when it comes to set uping the exact relationship between these upsets. In order to derive a farther apprehension of the relationship. and to look into whether dyslexia can be considered as a milder signifier of SLI. consideration to theoretical accounts and hypotheses need to be reviewed. These theoretical accounts and hypotheses attempt to explicate the nature of the relationship ( if any ) between dyslexia and SLI and to what extent they may be linked. Literature reviewed suggests that there are two chief positions sing the relationship between these upsets. The first position suggests that both upsets are related and that they are qualitatively similar in that they both exhibit linguistic communication damages at an early age and reading jobs at a school age ( Tallal. Allard. Miller & A ; Curtiss. 1997 ) . Opposing this position is the impression that dyslexia and SLI should be classified as clearly upsets. although both upsets portion many behavioral similarities ( Tallal et al. 1997 ) .
There are presently 3 chief models/interpretations of that effort to explicate the relationship between dyslexia and SLI. The first theoretical account to be considered is the “single beginning hypothesis” . This hypothesis holds 2 positions. and attributes the cause of dyslexia and SLI to one individual beginning ; shortages in audile procedures or phonological troubles. The first position of this theoretical account suggests that troubles in both upsets are a consequence of shortages in the basic temporal processing. This interferes with audile processing of quickly altering acoustic characteristics of address. This in bend influences the acquisition of speech/learning of linguistic communication. impacting lingual representations ( Tallal et al. 1997 ) . The other position of the “‘single beginning hypothesis” suggests that troubles in both upsets are due to phonological troubles instead than audile shortages ( Bailey & A ; Snowling. 2002 ) . Harmonizing to this theoretical account the relationship between the two upsets are the same but manifested by differing grades of badness and is discernable by age ( Bailey & A ; Snowling. 2002 ) . This gives supportive grounds reasoning that dyslexia is a milder signifier of SLI as the same basic underlying jobs are attributed to both upsets.
The 2nd theoretical account looking at the relationship is the “comorbidity hypothesis” . This theoretical account advocates that dyslexia and SLI are distinguishable upsets but are typically found happening together ( comorbid ) . This hypothesis suggests that the implicit in cause for dyslexia is hapless phonological processing. whereas. SLI is the consequence of troubles with sentence structure. semantics and discourse that consequence unwritten linguistic communication accomplishments ( Catts. Adlof. Hogan. & A ; Ellis Weismer. 2005 ) . Harmonizing to this theoretical account phonological lacks are merely seen in kids with SLI if the SLI is accompanied by dyslexia ( Bishop & A ; Snowling. 2004 ) . This theoretical account proposes that dyslexia and SLI have no relationship to one another as they involve different cognitive defects that result in different behavioral manifestations. hence this theoretical account argues against the impression of dyslexia being a milder signifier of SLI. The last theoretical account to be considered is the “qualitative difference hypothesis” . This hypothesis sits between the “single beginning hypothesis” . which suggests that dyslexia and SLI are linked. and the “comorbidity hypothesis” which suggests that the two upsets are non linked.
The “qualitative difference hypothesis” suggests that dyslexia and SLI should be viewed as two distinguishable upsets but on the same continuum ( Catts. et Al. 2005 ) . This theoretical account proposes that hapless phonological processing underpins the lacks found in both upsets but result in different profiles. Phonological jobs in dyslexia effects word reading abilities where as in SLI if consequence unwritten linguistic communication accomplishments which consequences in assorted results that interfere with literacy acquisition accomplishments. These theoretical accounts incorporate the causational facets considered at the beginning of this essay and have theorised about the relationship between dyslexia and SLI and to what extent they are linked. if at all. The theoretical accounts offer three really different positions that struggle with one another. There doesn’t appear to be a clear cut reply to whether dyslexia can be considered a milder signifier of SLI. There is a wealth of literature that looks at the similarities and differences between these upsets ; causings. relationships. definitions and many more facets.
However. due to the complexnesss of understanding what precisely dyslexia and SLI is and the jobs specifying and placing once and for all implicit in causes it is hard to find whether dyslexia is a milder signifier of SLI. Using the grounds reviewed in this essay it appears that there is more research and literature supplying a persuasive statement for the possibility of dyslexia being a milder signifier of SLI. This essay is non an thorough reappraisal of the research in this country as other factors need to be taken into consideration such as definitions. historical histories and varying degrees and sub classs of each upset. However with the grounds reviewed it appears that there seems to be more support for the impression that dyslexia is a milder signifier of SLI. The causational facets of these upsets showed that dyslexia shared implicit in causes with SLI. nevertheless SLI by and large incorporated more causings. It is of import to find the extent of the relationship of dyslexia and SLI and if they are of the same class merely on differing degrees as it affects the manner the upsets are treated and identified. With a Fuller understand of dyslexia and SLI it would be possible for early sensing and disposal of effectual intercessions. Word count: 2081
Mentions
Bailey. P. J. . and Snowling. M. J. ( 2002 ) . Auditory processing and the development of linguistic communication and literacy. British Medical Bulletin. 63. 135 –
146. Bishop. D. V. . and Snowling. M. J. ( 2004 ) . Developmental dyslexia and specific linguistic communication damage: Lapp or different? Psychological Bulletin. 130 ( 6 ) . 858-886.
Catts. H. . Adlof. S. . Hogan. T. . and Ellis Weismer. S. ( 2005 ) . Are specific linguistic communication damage and dyslexia distinct upsets? Journal of Speech. Language. and Hearing Research. 48. 1378-1396.
Catts. H. W. . and Kamhi. A. G. ( 2005 ) . The connexions between linguistic communication and reading disablements. Mahwah. NJ. Erlbaum. Fraser. J. . Goswami. U. . and Ramsden. G. ( 2010 ) . Particular Issue: Researching the convergence between dyslexia and SLI: The function of phonemics. Dyslexia and specific linguistic communication damage: The function of phonemics and auditory processing. Scientific Studies of Reading. 14 ( 1 ) . 8-29. Joanisse. M. F. . and Seidenberg. M. S. ( 1998 ) . Specific linguistic communication damage: a shortage in grammar or processing? Tendencies in cognitive scientific disciplines. 2 ( 7 ) . 240 – 247. Leonard. L. B. ( 1998 ) . Children with specific linguistic communication damage. Cambridge. Ma: MIT Press. Newbury. D. F. . Paracchini. S. . Scerri. T. S. . Winchester. L. . Assis. L. . Richardson. A. J. . Waleter. J. . Stein. J. F. . Talcott. J. B. . and Monaco. A. P. ( 2011 ) . Probe of dyslexia and SLI hazard discrepancies in reading and linguistic communication impaired topics. Behavioral Genetics. 41. 90 – 104. Pennington. B. F. . and Bishop. D. V. M. ( 2009 ) . Relations among address. linguistic communication. and reading upsets. Annual Review of Psychology. 60. 283-306. Ramus. F. . Marshall. C. . Rosen. S. . and. Van Der Lely. H. K. J. ( 2010 ) . Phonological shortages in specific linguistic communication damage and developmental dyslexia: towards a multi dimensional theoretical account. A Journal of Neurology. 1 – 56. Snowling. M. J. ( 2000 ) . Dyslexia ( 2nd Edition ) Oxford. England. Blackwell. Tallal. P. . Allard. L. . Miller. S. . and Curtiss. S. ( 1997 ) . Academic results of linguistic communication impaired kids. In: Dyslexia. biological science. knowledge and intercession. Hulme. C. . and Snowling. M. Whurr Press. London. UK. Tomblin. J. B. . Records. N. L. . Buckwalter. P. . Zhang. X. . Smith. E. . O’Brien. M. ( 1997 ) . Prevalence of specific linguistic communication damage in kindergarten kids. Journal of address and hearing research. 40 ( 6 ) . 1245-60.
