Acquired dyslexia and dysgraphia in Chinesedownloads.hindawi.com/journals/bn/2005/323205.pdf160 W....

Behavioural Neurology 16 (2005) 159–167 159IOS Press

Acquired dyslexia and dysgraphia in Chinese

Wengang Yina,∗, Shengxi Hea and Brendan Stuart Weekesb

aChinese Academy of Science, Beijing, ChinabUniversity of Sussex, Bighton, UK

Abstract. Understanding how the mappings between orthography and phonology in alphabetic languages are learned, representedand processed has been enhanced by the cognitive neuropsychological investigation of patients with acquired reading and writingdisorders. During the past decade, this methodology has been extended to understanding reading and writing in Chinese leadingto new insights about language processing, dyslexia and dysgraphia. The aim of this paper is to review reports of patients whohave acquired dyslexia and acquired dysgraphia in Chinese and describe the functional architecture of the reading and writingsystem. Our conclusion is that the unique features of Chinese script will determine the symptoms of acquired dyslexia anddysgraphia in Chinese.

1. Introduction

Reports of patients with selective impairment toreading and/or writing to dictation have had a substan-tial impact on the development of cognitive models ofreading and writing in English [6,12,29]. The primaryexample is the dissociation between acquired surfacedyslexia and phonological/deep dyslexia. Acquiredsurface dyslexia refers to impaired oral reading of irreg-ular words in English such as pint accompanied by pre-served oral reading of regular words such as punt andnonwords such as zint. An irregular word will typicallybe regularised in surface dyslexia e.g. pint read as if itrhymed with mint. These errors are legitimate thoughincorrect alternative readings of the components of anirregular word and thus can be referred to as LARCresponses [25]. An impaired ability to read nonwordsaccompanied by preserved oral reading of irregular andregular words, is called acquired phonological dyslexia.Deep dyslexia is a severe form of phonological dyslexiawherein patients make semantic errors when readinglow imageability words e.g. “justice” read as “peace” inaddition to poor oral reading of nonwords. Analogoussymptoms in writing can be observed in patients who

∗Corresponding author: Wengang Yin, Key Laboratory of MentalHealth, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 10 Datun Road, ChaoyangDistrict, Beijing, China, 100101. Tel.: +8610 64870650; Fax: +861064872070; E-mail: [email protected].

have surface, phonological and deep dysgraphia. Thesedissociations in reading and writing can be explainedby assuming two independent pathways (at least) areused for normal reading and writing and that damage toone or the other pathway results in a pattern of selectivedisorders of dyslexia and dysgraphia [6,29].

The motivation for the present paper is to review re-ports of patients who have acquired dyslexia and dys-graphia in Chinese. These reports have lead to the de-velopment of a functional architecture of the readingand writing system which is described in detail in thelatter part of the paper. Our method is the cognitiveneuropsychological approach to investigating readingand writing disorders pioneered by Marshall and New-combe [19,20] and by colleagues such as Coltheart [4–6], Hillis and Caramazza [11] and Patterson [23–27,29].

2. Chinese languages and script

Chinese languages include Mandarin (Putonghua)which is spoken in Mainland China and Taiwan andCantonese which is spoken in Hong Kong and South-ern China. These languages contain a relatively smallnumber of syllables that can be used in isolation or incombination to represent a single morpheme or multi-morphemic word. Chinese syllables are typically madeup of an onset that is a single consonant (note that some

ISSN 0953-4180/05/$17.00 © 2005 – IOS Press and the authors. All rights reserved

160 W. Yin et al. / Acquired dyslexia and dysgraphia in Chinese

syllables e.g. ai have no consonantal onset) followed bya short or a long vowel that is followed by a coda com-prising at least one consonant. The onset of each syl-lable is invariant however the rime (i.e., the vowel plusthe final consonant combination) can be pronouncedin several different ways. This allows for polysemyamong syllables. One unique feature of Chinese lan-guages is that there are no consonantal blends or clus-ters before or after the nuclear vowel. The Chinesesyllabary contains a total of 22 onsets and 37 rimesand only 2 consonants follow the vowel in the rime ofa syllable (velar and alveolar nasal consonants). Ho-mophonic syllables are prevalent in Chinese and theseare distinguished by supra-segmental changes in tonethat occur in the vowel. Tones change the morphemiccontent of each syllable. In Putonghua there are fourtones and in Cantonese there are eight (at least). Thereare approximately 400 syllables in spoken Putonghua.However, because syllables can be marked by changesin tone there are 1200 “functional” syllables, each witha different meaning.

All Chinese languages use a non-alphabetic script.A non-alphabetic script is a relatively arbitrary systemfor mapping orthography to phonology. All Chinesecharacters are composed of strokes formed into com-ponents that are written together into a square shape toform a single character. The traditional script containsover 40,000 characters. However the modern readerneeds to learn only the most common 3000 charac-ters to become literate. All characters represent onemorpheme in Chinese. This makes the script morpho-graphic meaning that the smallest pronounceable unitin a character is associated with a monosyllable. Thewriting system has also been called logographic. Thisalso means that each written form is associated with amorpheme in the spoken language. This contrasts withletters in an alphabet that do not represent meaning.Ancient Chinese characters were pictographic becausethe written character portrayed the form of the objectthat it symbolised. So for example, the character forhorse “ma” suggests to some [36,44] an abstract fig-ure galloping across a page. However, few of these arein use today.

There are four different types of character in modernuse: (1) pictographic characters that represent a spe-cific object e.g., kou meaning mouth (2) indicativecharacters that represent abstract meanings that can-not be easily sketched e.g. ben which means ‘base’and is derived from mu meaning ‘tree’; (3) associa-tive characters that combine existing characters to pro-duce a new meaning e.g. chen which means ‘dust’

and is derived from xiao meaning ‘small’ and tumeaning ‘earth’); and (4) phonetic-compound charac-ters that are constructed from a meaning componentcalled the semantic radical and a pronunciation compo-nent called the phonetic component e.g. hu meaning‘fox’ which contains a semantic radical denoting ani-mal on the left and a phonetic component pronounced“hu” on the right.

Approximately 80% of characters are compounds.An important point to note is that the phonetic compo-nent of a compound is itself often a character (and thusrepresents a syllable). For example the pronunciationof the character qing is given by the component onthe right side of the character. This component cantherefore provide information about the pronunciationof the whole character. Similarly, the semantic radi-cal component can often give the reader a clue to thecategory membership of a character (e.g. an animal)although the semantic radical component is not alwaysa reliable cue for interpreting the meaning of everycharacter.

In a similar way the phonetic information in a com-pound is also often not a reliable guide to its pronun-ciation. A regular character contains a phonetic com-ponent that is congruent with the pronunciation of thewhole character. For example the regular characterpronounced “ping(2)” which is congruent with its pho-netic component also pronounced “ping(2)”. How-ever, most compounds (>70%) are irregular. This isbecause there is an unpredictable correspondence be-tween components and the pronunciation of the wholecharacter. For example, the irregular character pro-nounced “cheng(4)” is different to the pronunciation ofthe component pronounced “ping(2)”. Furthermore,unlike alphabetic scripts where it is possible to readaloud many words by decoding constituent letters, it isnot possible to read aloud a compound by decoding thecomponent parts. This point can be illustrated by con-sidering two facts about Chinese orthography. First,phonetic radicals can be positioned to the left or to theright (or the top or the bottom) of a character. For ex-ample, the phonetic radical “qi” is on the right handside for the character and means ‘chess’, but it is onthe left hand side for the character which means ‘aperiod of time’. Second, character components can actas both the phonetic radical and the semantic radicalin different words. For example, the character muwhich means ‘wood’ is a semantic radical in over 1500Chinese characters, including qi, however, it is alsothe phonetic in the character mu which means ‘towash’. This means that it is impossible to know which

W. Yin et al. / Acquired dyslexia and dysgraphia in Chinese 161

component in a compound character is the phonetic (orwhich is semantic) prior to lexical access or from or-thographic information alone. To read a character cor-rectly, the reader must know the pronunciation of thecharacter as a whole. In other words reading in Chi-nese is always a lexical-semantic event [5]. Damageto lexical-semantic processes should therefore result inacquired reading and writing disorders. We describethe characteristics of these disorders in detail belowwith a focus on reports of acquired surface dyslexia inChinese.

3. Acquired dyslexia in Chinese

Yin [42] and Yin and Butterworth [43] were the firstto report Chinese (Putonghua) speakers with a selectiveimpairment to the reading of irregular characters. Theirpatients – all of whom had cerebrovascular disease –tended to make ‘regularization’ or more precisely Le-gitimate Alternative Reading of Component or LARCerrors when they read irregular characters aloud [40].A LARC error in Chinese is an incorrect pronunciationof an irregular character appropriate to other charac-ters containing the same component (cf. [25]). So forexample, if the character is read aloud as “ping(2)”this would be a LARC error. Yin and Butterworth [43]reported an association between semantic impairmentand the production of LARC errors when reading irreg-ular characters suggesting that lexical-semantic knowl-edge might have an impact on the ability to read irregu-lar words in Chinese (as in other scripts [9,21,25,26]).This makes intuitive sense given that the relationshipbetween orthography and phonology is arbitrary for themajority of characters so that, unlike alphabetic scripts,knowing the names of character components will notautomatically afford the correct pronunciation of thecharacter.

Weekes and Chen [40] also reported a Chinesespeaker with surface dyslexia. Following the resultsof Yin and Butterworth, they formulated a hypothesisabout their patient’s reading based on reports of an asso-ciation between surface dyslexia and lexical-semanticimpairment in Chinese and other languages [7,25].Weekes and Chen [40] reasoned that correct readingof irregular, low frequency, abstract characters requiressupport from semantic memory and LARC errors arethe result of loss of semantic support from the lexical-semantic pathway used to read in Chinese (also [41]).This hypothesis was motivated by theoretical accountsof reading in English which assume knowledge of word

meaning – accessed via a lexical-semantic pathway –inhibits LARC errors produced when reading wordsthat have unpredictable components [23,29].

Weekes and Chen defined character regularity ac-cording to the predictability of character components.If the name of any character component e.g.,“qing(1)” had the same name as the character as awhole, then the whole character was called regular e.g.,

“qing(1)” which means clean. If no character com-ponent had the same name as the character then thecharacter was called irregular e.g., “cai(1)” whichmeans to guess. Therefore regularity referred to theagreement between the pronunciation of a character andits components. Note however that word regularity inEnglish refers to whether a word conforms to graphemeto phoneme correspondence (GPC) rules, and as Chi-nese does not contain GPC rules, regularity in Chineseis not equivalent to English. Thus, predictable (regu-lar) and unpredictable (irregular) are preferable termsin Chinese.

Weekes and Chen found that their patient LJG’s read-ing of unpredictable characters was worse than pre-dictable characters but only if unpredictable charac-ters were abstract low in word frequency. LJG pro-duced LARC errors e.g. “cai(1)” would be read as“qing(1)”. This is comparable – though not identi-cal – to the regularisation errors reported among pa-tients with surface dyslexia in English. Weekes andChen characterised LJG as surface dyslexic based onthe effects of character predictability on his reading inChinese. This is compatible to reports of surface alexiain Japanese which uses a logographic script calledKanji [25].

Although we were the first to report surface dyslexiain Chinese Coltheart [4,5] was in fact the first to ar-gue that surface dyslexia could be observed in Chinesespeakers. However he did not report patient data anddid not focus on effects of regularity (or predictabil-ity) on reading. Instead, Coltheart argued that surfacedyslexia in Chinese would be characterised by homo-phone confusions in the comprehensionof printed char-acters. He reasoned that homophone confusions are aconsequence of damage to a lexical reading pathwaywhich means that access to word meanings from printis achieved indirectly via phonological representations.Coltheart drew an analogy between reading in Chineseand reading of irregular homophonic words e.g., buryin English by reasoning that in order to understand thecorrect meaning of bury and not to mistake it for fruit ona tree, it is necessary to derive the correct pronunciationvia direct access to the lexicon i.e. from print to mean-


ing. Some patients with surface dyslexia in Englishdo confuse irregularly spelled homophones in readingcomprehension [4,5,37]. Hence, one question of the-oretical interest is whether homophone confusions inreading comprehension will be observed in Chinesespeaking patients who have surface dyslexia.

When Coltheart first theorised about surface dyslexiain Chinese, the question of whether indirect accessto word meaning was possible in Chinese was moot.However, we now know that Chinese readers can re-trieve phonological representations from print withoutaccess to semantic memory. We know this becauseWeekes, Chen and Yin [39] described an anomic pa-tient called YQS who displayed intact reading of highimageability characters (nouns) including the printednames of objects than she could not name from pictures.Weekes et al. [39] called this anomia without dyslexiaand interpreted this pattern of aphasia according to theframework depicted in Fig. 1. This framework assumesthat reading in Chinese can be preserved despite im-paired confrontation naming and reduced category flu-ency in anomia (that results in a disconnection betweenthe semantic and phonological representations depictedin the framework). The pattern of poor picture namingwith superior reading of characters has subsequentlybeen replicated by Weekes and Chen [40] in another Pu-tonghua speaking patient and also by Law and Or [16]who reported a Cantonese speaking patient CML witha similar pattern of spared oral reading together withimpaired naming performance (see also [14,15]; Lawand colleagues this volume).

If it is true that surface dyslexia in Chinese is asso-ciated with indirect access to character meanings fromprint (as argued by Coltheart), then the comprehensionof homophonic characters should be impaired as in pa-tients who have surface dyslexia in other languages.Furthermore, if homophoneconfusions are due to prob-lems with mappings between orthography and meaningthen visually similar homophones might cause moreinterference on comprehension tasks. This hypothesiswas tested with LJG in two tasks. In each task, twentyprinted monosyllabic object names were selected ac-cording to the criterion that LJG could read aloud thecharacter correctly. All items in both tasks are shownin Table 1. In Task 1, LJG was presented with a pictureof an object surrounded by four characters (randomlyon each trial). The printed name of the object (target)and three characters (distractors): one homophonic butvisually dissimilar character and two non-homophoniccharacters one that was visually similar and the othervisually dissimilar to the target. LJG was asked to

Fig. 1. Functional model describing reading and writing in Chinesewith a lexical-semantic pathway (left of figure) and a nonsemanticpathway (right of figure).

match the character to the picture with the instructionnot to read any character aloud. He performed thistask with 100% accuracy. In Task 2, LJG was pre-sented with twenty objects surrounded by five charac-ters (randomly for each trial): the printed name of theobject (target) and four characters as distractors; onehomophonic and visually similar character; one homo-phonic but visually dissimilar character; and two non-homophonic characters – one visually similar and theother visually dissimilar to the target. Phonologicallysimilar and visually similar characters were includedin this task to test the possibility that phonological andvisual interference may have additive effects on perfor-mance. His performance was 15/20 (75%) correct. Er-rors were always the incorrect selection of homophonicand visually similar distractors. In a test of homophonecomprehension, LJG was presented with the stimulifrom Task 1 and asked to point (silently) to the char-acter with the same name as the target. He performedwith100% accuracy on this task.

The results from LJG show that homophone con-fusions in reading comprehension can be observed inChinese surface dyslexia as predicted by Coltheart [5].However errors are limited to visually similar homo-phones. This suggests that homophone confusions aredue to impairment to the mappings between orthogra-phy and word meaning. LJG could retrieve the mean-ing of all characters in Task 1 and he did not selectvisually similar non-homophonous characters on either


Table 1Items used in tests of reading comprehension

task. Thus he was able to use orthographic informa-tion to identify the meaning of homophonic characters.This means that if access to semantics from orthogra-phy is only partially damaged, surface dyslexia can be

observed in Chinese. Moreover, visual similarity didnot interfere with LJG’s ability to retrieve phonologyfrom print as shown by his performance on the homo-phone matching tasks. According to Coltheart [5], ho-


mophone confusions in comprehension show that ac-tivation of meaning from orthography is achieved viaphonological activation that is derived indirectly. How-ever according to Fig. 1, surface dyslexia may arisefrom damage to semantics or the mappings betweenorthography and semantics (O->S) or semantics andphonology (S->P).

The observation that LJG makes homophone confu-sions informs theorists and clinicians about the func-tional architecture of the reading system as well as cog-nitive processes used in normal and impaired readingin Chinese. Firstly, LJG’s performance is compatiblewith the now widely held view that Chinese readerscan activate meaning via phonological mediation [17,28,34]. Second, LJG’s reading errors suggest that themappings between orthography and semantics may beimportant for inhibiting (incorrect) access to semanticsvia phonology. Thus, damage to the mappings betweenorthography and semantic representation of words hasa substantial effect on the comprehension of print inChinese – although reading comprehension may be im-paired in surface dyslexia in English [37] and also inSpanish (see Ferreres and colleagues this volume).

4. Acquired dysgraphia in Chinese

Law and Or [16] reported that their patient CML dis-played superior writing to dictation compared with herwritten picture naming a pattern that was also mirroredin better performance on tests of oral reading comparedto picture naming (as for patient YQS (see [39])). Theyargued that CML’s impairments showed orthographicoutput is produced by an isolated nonsemantic pathwaythat is normally available for writing characters in Chi-nese. Reich, Chou and Patterson [31] reported a Can-tonese speaker with acquired dysgraphia who showeda similar pattern. TUA made few errors writing high-frequency words to dictation, but had error rates of 60–70% with lower-frequency homophonic target words.Most errors were phonologically related to the target.TUA’s deficit in writing was accompanied by good def-inition of the correct lower-frequency homophonic al-ternative. Reich et al. argued that TUA was impairedat writing via the lexical-semantic pathway. Law [13]reported a Cantonese speaker whose errors in writing-to-dictation and written naming were phonologicallyplausible errors that were homophonous or differed intone from the target. Law found that non-characterresponses, particularly involving substitution of con-stituent(s) maintained spatial configuration of the target

and proposed that the orthographic representations ofcharacters contain information on the identity of com-ponents and structural information as a template of theorganisation of the character or specification for posi-tion of occurrence for each constituent within the char-acter. The homophone errors in writing in these studieslend support to the notion of two pathways for writ-ing in Chinese [16]. When isolated, the nonsemanticpathway produces phonologically plausible responses(homophonic characters). This is comparable thoughnot identical to the pattern of surface dysgraphic errorsin alphabetic languages [37]. Of course, the writing er-rors in Chinese dysgraphia cannot be equivalent to thewriting errors in other languages because of the uniquespatial characteristics of the script.

5. A functional account of acquired dyslexia anddysgraphia in Chinese

Weekes et al. [39] argued that normal oral reading inChinese can proceed via at least two pathways: the lex-ical semantic pathway that supports reading for mean-ing; and a nonsemantic pathway that connects the rep-resentations of orthography i.e. strokes, radicals andcharacters to phonological representations i.e. sylla-bles, rimes and tones. Note that this cognitive frame-work can also explain writing to dictation via accessfrom semantics to orthographyand a nonsemantic path-way [16] if mappings between orthographyand phonol-ogy are assumed to be bidirectional.

A character will be processed in both pathways dur-ing the course of normal reading and writing. For read-ing, an orthographic representation will activate lex-ical representations related by meaning via the lexi-cal semantic pathway or by sound via the nonsemanticpathway. Many representations could be produced asa response. The same process is assumed to work inreverse for writing to dictation. However, errors arenot usually observed in normal Chinese reading andwriting (though see [22]). This is because input fromthe nonsemantic pathway can inhibit the semanticallyrelated (incorrect) reading and writing responses gen-erated by the lexical-semantic pathway and input fromthe lexical-semantic pathway can inhibit the phonologi-cally plausible i.e., LARC, homophonic and tonal read-ing and writing responses generated by the nonseman-tic pathway. If either pathway is unavailable (due tobrain damage), selective reading and writing errors willbe observed. Our reasoning is compatible with Hillisand Caramazza’s summation hypothesis [11],which as-


sumes that normal reading (and writing) depends on thesummation of pooled activation at the level of phono-logical output from multiple reading pathways.

Damage to the nonsemantic pathway in Chinesewill result in semantic dyslexia that is characterisedby semantic errors in reading such as those reportedin patients with deep dyslexia in other languages (e.g.see Davies and Cuetos this volume). For exam-ple, Law [14] describes the spoken word output of aCantonese-speaking patient who had intact comprehen-sion but produced semantic errors in reading (and nam-ing) and also produced no LARC errors in oral reading(see also Yin and Butterworth [43] for reports of seman-tic reading errors in Putonghua speakers). Law [14]reasoned that a deficit to processes in the lexical se-mantic pathway results in semantic errors when accom-panied by a damaged nonsemantic pathway (see Ra-man and Weekes and Davies and Cuetos this volumefor similar accounts of deep dyslexia and dysgraphia).Law [15] also reported LKK who made more semanticerrors in picture naming than oral reading suggestingsemantic errors are inhibited if there is input from thenonsemantic reading pathway.

Damage to the lexical semantic pathway results inLARC errors. In reading, the normal system is ableto inhibit competing and more common pronuncia-tions of character components at the level of phono-logical output. This inhibition will prevent LARC er-rors when reading aloud. The reading system will set-tle on the correct but atypical pronunciation of an ir-regular word via input from semantic memory. How-ever without semantic support, more common pronun-ciations of components might dominate computationof phonology from orthography. Thus, impairment tosemantic memory processing is associated with sur-face dyslexia in Chinese (see also papers Patterson andcolleagues for reports in English and Japanese [9,10,25]). According to Law and Or (2001), the nonse-mantic pathway if isolated produces writing errors thatare phonologically plausible (as in surface dysgraphiain English). This is because orthographic output froman isolated nonsemantic pathway will be homophonicwith the target [16]. Therefore the semantic supporthypothesis [23,29] can explain the production of LARCerrors in alphabetic and non-alphabetic scripts [9,25,40] as well as production of homophone errors in writ-ing in both types of script [13,16] i.e., without inputfrom the lexical-semantic pathway there will be no in-hibition over production of phonological reading andwriting errors (see also Hillis & Caramazza [11]).

6. Summary

We have illustrated the similarities between acquireddyslexia and dysgraphia in Chinese and alphabetic lan-guages with a focus on phonological reading and writ-ing errors reported in surface dyslexia and dysgraphia.However, this does not imply that disorders of readingand writing should be viewed as universal across scriptssee [1,8,21,30]. In fact the patterns of acquired dyslexiaand dysgraphia observed in Chinese cannot be identicalto the patterns observed in alphabetic languages. Thisis because certain properties of the Chinese script do notallow direct comparisons between the disorders. Forexample, nonlexical stimuli in alphabetic scripts e.g.zint simply cannot be constructed in Chinese. Thus, itwill not be possible to replicate the pattern of preservednonword processing in surface dyslexia and dysgraphiaobserved in English and Spanish [5].

Instead patterns of acquired dyslexia and dysgraphiain Chinese will be determined by the properties of thelanguage environment. This point can be illustrated bythe intriguing reports of tonal dyslexia in Chinese. Lawand Or [16] reported that CML produced correct mono-syllables on reading tasks but assigned the wrong tonalstress to the syllable. Eng and Obler [8] reported thisphenomenon in a biscriptal Cantonese-English speakerand Luo and Weekes [18] reported this phenomenon ina Putonghua speaker. CML also produced tonal errorsand homophone errors (same syllable and tone) whenwriting from dictation and writing the names of pic-tures (see also [13]). Tonal errors in reading and writ-ing are informative about phonological representationsin the Chinese lexicon. One view of phonological rep-resentations of Chinese words is that they have a non-linear structure containing separate syllabic, segmen-tal (onset and rime) and supra-segmental layers. ForLaw and Or (2001), tonal reading and writing errorsresult from impairment to the tonal tier or associationbetween tonal and segmental tiers which leads to a dis-sociation between segmental and suprasegmental units,thus revealing the structure of the phonological lexicon.

A key question in neurology is how different lan-guages are processed in the brain. The Chinese lan-guage environment is unique and, in the domain ofreading and writing, logographic writing systems haveevolved in a very different way to alphabetic scripts.We have approached the problem of acquired dyslexiaand dysgraphia in Chinese by testing predictions de-rived from a cognitive framework that was developed toexplain oral reading and writing in Chinese. This is thecognitive neuropsychological approach to understand-


ing reading and writing that has been used to explaindyslexia and dysgraphia in a variety of languages [1–3,7,9–11,19–21,23–27,30,37,38].

It has long been recognised that damage to the read-ing/writing system can produce a particular type of er-ror for different reasons (e.g. [32]). This logic canbe applied to explaining the symptoms of acquireddyslexia and dysgraphia across scripts. Our approachto understanding reading and writing has resonancewith more sophisticated computational models of oralreading in Chinese [28] and recent brain imaging stud-ies [33,35]. The next challenge for aphasiologists, cog-nitive neuropsychologists and neurolinguists is to spec-ify how common cognitive processes that have evolvedin the brain have adapted to the properties of differentlanguage environments.

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by Grants from: theAustralian Research Council, the Royal Society and theResearch Grants Council of the Hong Kong Govern-ment (HKU7275/03H).

References

[1] R. Beland and Z. Mimouni, Deep dyslexia in the two languagesof an Arabic/French bilingual patient, Cognition 82 (2001),77–126.

[2] S.D. Breedin, E.M. Saffran and H.B. Coslett, Reversal of theconcreteness effect in a patient with semantic dementia, Cog-nitive Neuropsychology 11 (1994), 617–660.

[3] D. Bub, A. Cancelliere and A. Kertesz, Whole word and ana-lytic translation of spelling to sound in a non-semantic reader,in: Surface Dyslexia, K.E. Patterson, J.C. Marshall and M.Coltheart, eds, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London, 1985,pp. 15–34.

[4] M. Coltheart, The psycholinguistic analysis of acquireddyslexias: Some illustrations, Philosophical Transactions ofthe Royal Society of London B298 (1982), 151–164.

[5] M. Coltheart, Writing systems and reading disorders, in: Or-thographies and reading: Perspectives from cognitive psy-chology, neuropsychology, and linguistics, L. Henderson, ed.,Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, London 1984, pp. 80–94.

[6] M. Coltheart, K. Rastle, C. Perry, R. Langdon and J. Ziegler,DRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognitionand reading aloud, Psychological Review 108(1) (2001), 204–256.

[7] H. Diesfeldt, Impaired and preserved semantic memory func-tions in dementia, in: Memory functioning in dementia, L.Backman, ed., Elsevier Science Publishers Amsterdam, 1992.

[8] N. Eng and L.K. Obler, Acquired dyslexia in a biscript readerfollowing traumatic brain injury: A second case, Topics inLanguage Disorders 22(5) (2002), 5–19.

[9] T. Fushimi, K. Komori, M. Ikeda, K. Patterson, M. Ijuin andH. Tanabe, Surface dyslexia in a Japanese patient with se-mantic dementia: evidence for similarity-based orthography-to-phonology translation, Neuropsychologia 41(12) (2003),1644–1658.

[10] K. Graham, K. Patterson and J. Hodges, Progressive dys-graphia: co-occurrence of central and peripheral impairments,Cognitive Neuropsychology 14 (1997), 975–1005.

[11] A. Hillis and A. Caramazza, Converging evidence for the inter-action of semantic and phonological information in accessinglexical information for spoken output, Cognitive Neuropsy-chology 12 (1995), 187–227.

[12] G. Houghton and M. Zorzi, Normal and impaired spelling ina connectionist dual-route architecture, Cognitive Neuropsy-chology 20(2) (2003), 115–162.

[13] S.P. Law, Writing errors of a Cantonese dysgraphic patientand their theoretical implications, Neurocase 10(2) (2004),132–140.

[14] S.P. Law, A morphological analysis of object naming andreading errors by a Cantonese dyslexic patient, Language andCognitive Processes 19(4) (2004), 473–501.

[15] S.P. Law, Impairment to phonological processes in aCantonese-speaking brain-damaged patient, Aphasiology18(4) (2004), 373–388.

[16] S.P. Law and B. Or, A case study of acquired dyslexia and dys-graphia in Cantonese: evidence for nonsemantic pathways forreading and writing in Chinese, Cognitive Neuropsychology18(8) (2001), 729–748.

[17] K.J. Leck, B.S. Weekes and M.J. Chen, Visual and phonolog-ical pathways to the lexicon: Evidence from Chinese readers,Memory and Cognition 23(4) (1995), 468–476.

[18] Q. Luo and B.S. Weekes, Tonal dyslexia in Chinese, Brainand Language 91(1) (2004), 102–103.

[19] J. Marshall and F. Newcombe, Syntactic and semantic errorsin paralexia, Neuropsychologia 4 (1966), 169–176.

[20] J. Marshall and F. Newcombe, Patterns of paralexia: a psy-cholinguistic approach, Journal of Psycholinguistic Research2 (1973), 175–200.

[21] G. Miceli and A. Caramazza, The assignment of word stressin oral reading: Evidence from a case of acquired dyslexia,Cognitive Neuropsychology 10(3) (1993), 273–296.

[22] D. Moser, Phonetic processes in writing Chinese: evidencefrom written errors, in: Information Processing of ChineseLanguage, Q.C. Jing, H.C. Zhang and D.L. Peng, BeijingNormal University Press. Beijing, 1994.

[23] K. Patterson and J. Hodges, Deterioration of word meaning:implications for reading, Neuropsychologia 30 (1992), 1025–1040.

[24] K. Patterson, N. Graham and J. Hodges, Reading inAlzheimer’s type dementia: A preserved ability? Neuropsy-chology 8 (1994), 395–407.

[25] K. Patterson, T. Suzuki, T. Wydell and S. Sasanuma, Pro-gressive aphasia and surface alexia in Japanese, Neurocase 1(1995), 155–165.

[26] K. Patterson and M. Lambon-Ralph, Selective disorders ofreading? Current Opinion in Neurobiology 9 (1999), 235–239.

[27] K. Patterson, Basic processes of reading: Do they differ inJapanese and English? Japanese Journal of Neuropsychology6 (1990), 4–14.

[28] C. Perfetti, L. Ying and L.H. Tan, The lexical constituencymodel: Some implications of research on Chinese for generaltheories of reading, Psychological Review 112 (2005), 43–59.

[29] D. Plaut, J. McClelland, M. Seidenberg and K. Patterson, Un-derstanding normal and impaired word reading: Computa-


tional principles in quasiregular domains, Psychological Re-view 103(1) (1996), 56–115.

[30] I. Raman and B.S. Weekes, Acquired dyslexia and dysgraphiain a biscriptal Turkish-English Reader, Annals of Dyslexia55(1) (2005), 71–96.

[31] S.L. Reich, T.L. Chou and K. Patterson, Acquired dysgraphiain Chinese: Further evidence on the links between phonologyand orthography, Aphasiology 17(6–7) (2003), 585–604.

[32] T. Shallice and E. Warrington, Single and multiple componentcentral dyslexic syndromes, in: Deep Dyslexia, M. Coltheart,K. Patterson and J. Marshall, eds, Routledge and Keegan Paul,London, 1980.

[33] W.T. Siok, C.A. Perfetti, Z. Jin and L.H. Tan, Biological abnor-mality of impaired reading is constrained by culture, Nature431 (2004), 71–76.

[34] L.H. Tan and C.A. Perfetti, Phonological activation in visualidentification of Chinese two-character words, Journal of Ex-perimental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cognition 25(2)(1999), 382–393.

[35] L.H. Tan, J.A. Spinks, G.F. Eden, C.A. Perfetti and W.T Siok,Reading depends on writing in Chinese, Proceedings of theAmerican Academy of Science 102(24) (1999), 8781–8785.

[36] W.S.Y. Wang, The Chinese Language, Scientific American 228(1973), 50–60.

[37] B. Weekes and M. Coltheart, Surface dyslexia and surface dys-graphia: Treatment studies and their theoretical implications,Cognitive Neuropsychology 13 (1996), 277–315.

[38] B.S. Weekes and G.A. Robinson, Semantic anomia withoutsurface dyslexia, Aphasiology 11(8) (1997), 813–825.

[39] B.S. Weekes, M.J. Chen and W.G. Yin, Anomia withoutdyslexia in Chinese, Neurocase 3 (1997), 51–60.

[40] B.S. Weekes and H.Q. Chen, Surface dyslexia in Chinese,Neurocase 5(2) (1999), 161–172.

[41] B.S. Weekes, Oral reading in Chinese: evidence from demen-tia of the Alzheimer’s type, International Journal of LanguageDisorders 35(4) (2000), 543–559.

[42] W.G. Yin, On reading Chinese characters, Unpublished PhDthesis, University College London, 1991.

[43] W.G. Yin and B. Butterworth, Deep and surface dyslexia inChinese, in: Language Processing in Chinese, H.C. Chen,O.J.L. Tzeng, ed., Elsevier Science Publishers, Amsterdam,1992, pp. 349–366.

[44] B. Yin and J.S. Rohsenow, Modern Chinese Characters, Sino-lingua, Beijing, 1994.

[45] X.L. Zhou and W. Marslen-Wilson, The nature of sublexi-cal processing in reading Chinese characters, Journal of Ex-perimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 25(1999), 819–837.

Submit your manuscripts athttp://www.hindawi.com

Stem CellsInternational

Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014


MEDIATORSINFLAMMATION

of


Behavioural Neurology

EndocrinologyInternational Journal of



Disease Markers


BioMed Research International

OncologyJournal of



Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity


PPAR Research

The Scientific World JournalHindawi Publishing Corporation http://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Immunology ResearchHindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com Volume 2014

Journal of

ObesityJournal of



Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine

OphthalmologyJournal of


Diabetes ResearchJournal of



Research and TreatmentAIDS


Gastroenterology Research and Practice


Parkinson’s Disease

Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine

Volume 2014Hindawi Publishing Corporationhttp://www.hindawi.com

Acquired dyslexia and dysgraphia in Chinesedownloads.hindawi.com/journals/bn/2005/323205.pdf160 W....

Documents

Transcript of Acquired dyslexia and dysgraphia in Chinesedownloads.hindawi.com/journals/bn/2005/323205.pdf160 W....