Search

Intact phonological processing is crucial for successful literacy acquisition. While individuals with difficulties in reading and spelling (i.e., developmental dyslexia) are known to experience deficient phoneme discrimination (i.e., segmental phonology), findings concerning their prosodic processing (i.e., suprasegmental phonology) are controversial. Because there are no behavior-independent studies on the underlying neural correlates of prosodic processing in dyslexia, these controversial findings might be explained by different task demands. To provide an objective behavior-independent picture of segmental and suprasegmental phonological processing in impaired literacy acquisition, we investigated event-related brain potentials during passive listening in typically and poor-spelling German school children. For segmental phonology, we analyzed the Mismatch Negativity (MMN) during vowel length discrimination, capturing automatic auditory deviancy detection in repetitive contexts. For suprasegmental phonology, we analyzed the Closure Positive Shift (CPS) that automatically occurs in response to prosodic boundaries. Our results revealed spelling group differences for the MMN, but not for the CPS, indicating deficient segmental, but intact suprasegmental phonological processing in poor spellers. The present findings point towards a differential role of segmental and suprasegmental phonology in literacy disorders and call for interventions that invigorate impaired literacy by utilizing intact prosody in addition to training deficient phonemic awareness.

Illiteracy remains a world-wide problem not only for children but also for adults. Phonological processing has been defined as a crucial factor for the acquisition of written language, which usually occurs in childhood. However, it is unclear to what extent phonological processing is necessary in order for adults to acquire written language skills. We tested 47 illiterate adults before and after a one-year alphabetization course in several cognitive domains relevant to phonological processing and compared their results to 41 matched controls who did not take part in the alphabetization course. Phonological awareness in the narrower sense (e.g., phoneme association) was a stronger predictor of alphabetization outcome than demographic variables such as years of education. In addition, despite improvement of illiterate individuals in phonological awareness, short-term memory, and visual attention from before to after the alphabetization course, they did not reach the phonological processing level of literate controls. Our results confirm that the alphabetization of adults requires and enhances phonological processes similar to those of children. Nevertheless, specific aspects, such as improvements in short-term memory or visual attention, need to be considered in order to improve and optimize alphabetization programs for adults.