Acquired Dyslexia in a Turkish-English Speaker
Ilhan Raman
Middlesex University, United Kingdom

Brendan S. Weekes
University of Sussex, United Kingdom

The Turkish script is characterised by completely transparent bidirectional mappings between orthography and phonology. To date, there
has been no reported evidence of acquired dyslexia in Turkish speakers
leading to the nai've view that reading and writing problems in
Turkish are probably rare. We examined the extent to which phonological impairment and orthographic transparency influence reading disorders in a native Turkish speaker. BRB is a bilingual Turkish-English
speaker with deep dysphasia accompanied by acquired dyslexia in both
languages. The main findings are an effect of imageability on reading
in Turkish coincident with surface dyslexia in English and preserved
nonword reading. BRB's acquired dyslexia suggests that damage to
phonological representations might have a consequence for learning to
read in Turkish. We argue that BRB's acquired dyslexia has a common
locus in chronic underactivation of phonological representations in
Turkish and English. Despite a common locus, reading problems manifest themselves differently according to properties of the script and the
type of task.

Key Words: Acquired dyslexia, orthographic transparency,
phonological deficit, Turkish-English bilingual and
biscriptal reader

Annals of Dyslexia, Vol. 55, No.l, 2005
Copyright ©2005 by The International Dyslexia Association®
ISSN 0736-9387

79

80

RAMAN AND WEEKES

INTRODUCTION
Research investigating the effects of orthographic transparency
on reading and writing has flourished in recent years. However,
the study of individuals with acquired reading and writing impairments has ignored the effects of orthographic transparency.
This is regrettable since cognitive neuropsychological studies of
patients with acquired dyslexia can reveal much about the functioning of the normal reading system as well as how impairments to the normal system can lead to developmental dyslexia
(see Coltheart, Rastle, Perry, Langdon, & Ziegler, 2001 for a discussion). Current theories of reading do not commit to a view
about effects of orthographic transparency on reading and writing impairments. However, in our view, case studies of acquired dyslexia can contribute to understanding patterns of
developmental dyslexia seen in languages other than English.
We know that problems processing the phonological properties of a word are a precursor to dyslexia in several languages
(Goswami, 2003; Goswami, Ziegler, Dalton, & Schneider, 2003;
Ramus, 2003; Snowling, 2000; Wagner & Torgesen, 1987; Ziegler,
Perry, Ma-Wyatt, Ladner, & Shulte-K6rne, 2003). These problems include difficulties on verbal short-term memory tasks including n o n w o r d repetition and rapid naming, as well as
meta-linguistic tasks such as phonological awareness and
phonological recoding, leading to the phonological deficit hypothesis, which is now supported by numerous studies. A coherent account of dyslexia must explain how these phonological
i m p a i r m e n t s lead to reading and writing problems across
scripts, although clearly, the unique features of a script must
constrain the phenotype of dyslexia that is observed in any
given language (Yin & Weekes, 2003). There is an emerging
view that phonological problems observed in children with
reading and writing problems may be independent of language
and hence type of script (Goswami, 2003; Goswami et al., 2003;
Ziegler et al., 2003).
Type of script can be characterised in terms of the predictability
of the mappings between orthography and phonology (O->P). In
English, O->P mappings are relatively unpredictable and thus can
be called opaque. In other languages such as German, Greek,
Italian, and Spanish, O->P mappings are relatively predictable
and, therefore, transparent. English orthography is opaque as it is
characterised by irregularity and inconsistency, and these variables
are highly correlated (see Henderson, 1982 for a review; Venezky,
1970; Wijk, 1966, for an account of spelling-sound rules in English).

ACQUIRED DYSLEXIA IN A TURKISH-ENGLISH SPEAKER

81

Word regularity refers to whether a word conforms to grapheme to
phoneme rule knowledge, whereas consistency refers to whether
subword units such as the rime can be pronounced in more than
one way (e.g.,/ead/). Both regularity and consistency have an effect on reading in English although their relative importance is still
being debated (see Cortese & Simpson, 2000).
It is not clear how phonological impairments would manifest in a script such as Turkish in which O->P (and P->O) mappings are entirely predictable (Raman, 2003). One hypothesis is
that phonological impairments lead to reading and writing
problems in any language regardless of the predictability of the
script. There is growing evidence to support this from studies of
dyslexia in languages ranging from Chinese to Slovakian (see
Smythe, Everatt, & Salter, 2004). A different hypothesis is that
predictability--or more precisely grain size--of the script is
critical to whether or not phonological impairments will manifest as reading and writing impairments (Wydell & Butterworth, 1999). Turkish was omitted from the Smythe et al. review
of dyslexia across languages despite reports of dyslexia in transp a r e n t o r t h o g r a p h i e s (Finnish, Italian, P o r t u g u e s e , a n d
Spanish). This must not be taken as support for the view that
dyslexia is not present in Turkish speakers. Rather, we believe
that reading and writing problems can be observed in Turkish if
the critical features of the language are considered when tests
for dyslexia are administered.
M O D E L S OF R E A D I N G

Orthographic transparency has a central role in models of oral
reading in English (e.g., Coltheart, 1978; Coltheart, Curtis,
Atkins, & Haller, 1993; Coltheart et al., 2001; Plaut, McClelland,
Seidenberg, & Patterson, 1996) and also in German (Perry &
Ziegler, 2000; Ziegler, Perry, & Coltheart, 2000). The dual-route
computational (DRC) model assumes that independent pathways are used to convert print to sound for reading in English
(see figure 1). One route is lexical (route A) where stored information about words is retrieved from the mental lexicon.
Presentation of a word results in cascaded activation across feature, letter, and word levels, which spread to whole word nodes
in the phonological output lexicon, and then to the phonemic
buffer and speech. The other route is nonlexical (route D) where
phonology is generated using grapheme to phoneme translation rules. This route translates print into a phonological code

82

RAMANAND WEEKES

via the assembly of sublexical spelling-sound correspondences.
O u t p u t activates the p h o n e m i c buffer and speech. Although
lexical and nonlexical routes are assumed to operate simultaneously, they may not necessarily deliver output at the same time.
This is because different factors influence their operation. For
example, word frequency has an impact on route A but not on
route D (e.g., Baluch & Besner, 1991; McCann & Besner, 1987),
while n u m b e r of letters has an impact on route D but not on
route A (Weekes, 1997). In the extended, three-route model (see
Besner, 1999), an additional lexical-semantic route (route B-C) is
a d d e d to accommodate the effects of rated w o r d imageability
on r e a d i n g in English (e.g., Strain, Patterson, & Seidenberg,
1995). Rated imageability refers to the ease with which a word
arouses an image (e.g., apple is a high imageability word and
justice is a low imageability word). Imageability is correlated
with word class (i.e., nouns are more imageable than verbs).
Print

o

Speech

Figure 1: Dual-route model of reading aloud, adapted from Besner
(1999).

ACQUIRED DYSLEXIA IN A TURKISH-ENGLISHSPEAKER

83

The DRC model can explain the effects of orthographic
transparency (O->P) on reading whereby less predictable words
are read more slowly than predictable words (be they irregular
or inconsistent). This is because less predictable words generate
c o m p e t i n g o u t p u t from the lexical and nonlexical routes
whereas predictable words do not. Also, the DRC model can explain different effects of grain size on reading across orthographies (Ziegler, Perry, Jacobs, & Braun, 2001). However, to date,
there has been little attempt to apply the DRC model to acquired disorders of reading in languages other than English.
The DRC model can explain all of the acquired reading disorders reported in English. Phonological dyslexia is characterized by poor reading of nonwords and spared ability to read
w o r d s (e.g., Beauvois & Derouesne, 1979; W a r r i n g t o n &
Shallice, 1979). Phonological dyslexia is due to impairment in
route D, which fails to generate phonology from novel print
(Funnell, 1983) while route A is intact. Deep dyslexia is an acquired reading impairment that involves production of semantic errors and the inability to read nonwords. Patients with deep
dyslexia are assumed to have multiple damage including the
components of routes A and D, leading to reliance on reading
via route B-C (though see Weekes, Coltheart, & Gordon, 1997;
Coltheart, 2000 for a different view). In surface dyslexia, reading of irregular words (e.g., yacht) is poor and typically accompanied by regularization errors while reading of nonwords and
regular words is preserved (Coltheart, Masterson, Byng, Prior,
& Riddoch, 1983; M a r s h a l l & N e w c o m b e , 1973). Surface
dyslexia results from reliance on route D because one or more
parts of the lexical reading system is damaged. Surface dyslexia
could result from damage to route A, including damage to the
orthographic input lexicon or the phonological output lexicon
or damage to route B-C, including the semantic system itself. A
related idea is the summation hypothesis, which assumes that surface dyslexia is the product of output from a partially preserved
semantic route and a partially preserved nonlexical route (Hillis
& Caramazza, 1991, 1995).
Surface dyslexia can result from damage at more than one
locus according to figure I including direct access to the phonological output lexicon from orthographic input, the phonological input lexicon or semantics; impaired semantic system
damage; and damage to the phonological output lexicon itself.
Weekes and Coltheart (1996) reported patient NW who displayed surface dyslexia, which they showed was the result of
damage located at or around the orthographic input lexicon.

84

RAMAN AND WEEKES

Damage to the orthographic lexicon is seen on tests of homophone definition since precise orthographic knowledge is required to perform this type of task. Several other studies report
that damage to the semantic system is associated with surface
dyslexia (Breedin, Saffran, & Coslett 1994; Graham, Hodges, &
Patterson, 1994; Patterson & Hodges, 1992; Patterson, Graham,
& Hodges, 1994; Plaut et al., 1996) although some patients with
semantic memory problems do not show surface dyslexia
(Lambon-Ralph, Ellis, & Sage, 1998). Damage to the semantic
system is revealed by poor performance on matching tasks such
as word-picture matching tasks and synonym judgment tasks.
Watt, Jokel, and Behrmann (1997) argued that damage to the
mappings between semantics and phonological output (route
C) leads to surface dyslexia although damage to route C does
not n e c e s s a r i l y lead to surface dyslexia (see Weekes &
Robinson, 1997). Deep dysphasic patients who show poor word
and n o n w o r d repetition performance also display surface
dyslexia in reading (Majerus, Lekeu, Van der Linden, & Salmon,
2001; Valdois, Carbonnel, David, Rousset, & Pellat, 1995). Thus
damage to the phonological lexicon--as revealed by poor repetition in deep dysphasia--is also associated with surface dyslexia.
Surface dyslexia has most often been reported in languages
with opaque, nonalphabetic scripts such as Chinese (Law & Or,
2001; Weekes & Chen, 1999), and Japanese (Patterson, Suzuki,
Wydell, & Sasanuma, 1995), but has also been reported in languages with transparent scripts including Dutch (Diesfeldt,
1992), Italian (Miceli & Caramazza, 1993), and Spanish (Cuetos
& Labos, 2001; Iribarren, Jarema, & Lecours, 1999). There also
are reports of parallels between the impaired lexical reading of
brain damaged patients and developmental reading and writing disorders in Italian (Angelelli, Judica, Spinelli, Zoccolotti, &
Luzzatti, 2004) and Spanish (see Weekes, 2005). Although
Italian and Spanish have relatively predictable O->P mappings
and are thus transparent, they are not completely transparent. It
is, therefore, of interest to examine reading and writing impairments in languages in which phonology is entirely predictable
from orthography.
C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S OF T U R K I S H

Turkish is an extreme case of a transparent orthography as it
has completely predictable one-to-one mappings between orthography and phonology. Thus, regularity and consistency are

ACQUIRED DYSLEXIA IN A TURKISH-ENGLISHSPEAKER

85

not relevant to reading in Turkish. Modern Turkish (Tfirkge) belongs to the Turkic languages cluster and is currently the official
language of several nations (Turkey, Azarbaijan, Turkmenistan,
Uzbekistan, and northern Cyprus). The modern Turkish orthography consists of 29 Roman letters (8 vowels and 21 consonants)
and was designed to embody sounds in the spoken language in
a totally transparent manner. Each letter in the alphabet directly
corresponds to a single phoneme and each phoneme is represented by a single letter. Turkish is, therefore, characterised by
total bidirectional transparency in reading (feed-forward) and
spelling (feedback). In addition, a high number of vowels allows transparency. There are no silent letters in Turkish. Unlike
Italian, stress is not required for monosyllabic and bisyllabic
words; and unlike Spanish, stress is always assigned on the
penultimate syllable of multisyllabic words. Hence, the salient
aspect of Turkish is the computation of nonlexical phonology in
an entirely reliable and context independent manner. It thus allows derivation of correct pronunciation from print without any
lexical information and is learned with a minimal amount of
training. A further remarkable linguistic property of Turkish is
its morphology. Languages can be classified into one of three
types: isolating or noninflective (e.g., Chinese), agglutinating
(e.g., Turkish), and inflecting (e.g., English). The hallmark of ag=
glutinative languages is multisyllabic words composed of linear
sequences of morphemes. For example, from the root KAL
(meaning stay), KAL-MI-YOR (meaning he or she is not staying), and KAL-MI-YOR-LAR (meaning they are not staying) are
typical derivations by adding tense and person suffixes. Thus
Turkish orthography is also predictable at the morpheme level
with clearly defined syllable boundaries.
We report the oral reading of a biscriptal (Turkish-English)
patient (BRB) who has previously been diagnosed with deep
dysphasia in Turkish (Raman & Weekes, 2003). Our motivation
for testing BRB's oral reading was twofold. First, we wished to
know if BRB's reading in English was surface dyslexic. We expected it was, given the evidence from other deep dysphasic patients showing that poor repetition is associated with surface
dyslexia (Majerus et al., 2001; Valdois et al., 1995). Second, we
wanted to know whether damage to lexical reading would have
any impact on oral reading in a transparent script. This was motivated by our assumption that biscriptal reading relies on components in figure 1 that are shared for the two languages (see
also Dijkstra & Van Heuven, 1998; Jared & Kroll, 2001). There
have been no reports to date of acquired dyslexia in Turkish

86

RAMAN AND WEEKES

speakers although according to figure 1, damage to a lexical
reading system could result in acquired dyslexia in Turkish.
CASE DESCRIPTION

BRB is a right-handed male who was 67 years of age at the time
of testing. Although he is a native speaker of Turkish, BRB's secondary and tertiary education was in English (conducted between the ages of 11 and 21). He is a retired senior civil servant
from Cyprus where Turkish is a co-official language. BRB used
both languages daily in his working life. Cyprus was a British
colony until 1960 and civil servants were highly proficient bilinguals (Turkish-English or Greek-English) in speaking, reading,
and writing prior to employment. BRB's premorbid IQ was estimated in the average range based on previous education and
work history. BRB was hospitalized in 1999 following an acute
CVA to the left parietal-occipital region. BRB's speech was
severely reduced after the stroke and he presented with deep
dysphasia (i.e., profound repetition impairment in both languages) (Raman & Weekes, 2003). BRB's repetition was severely
impaired for words and nonwords, and he had marked shortterm auditory-verbal memory problems; for example, he displayed very poor performance on the Digit Span (repeating
digits) in Turkish = 1 forward and 1 backward, and English = 1
forward and 1 backward. He produced circumlocutory errors
on tests of confrontation naming. BRB's close relatives reported
no premorbid difficulties with vision, hearing, or language.
TESTS OF LANGUAGE IMPAIRMENT IN ENGLISH AND
TURKISH

We first assessed BRB's language problems in English using the
Psycholinguistic Assessment of L a n g u a g e Processing and
Aphasia (PALPA) battery (Kay, Lesser, & Coltheart, 1992). Test
results are summarized in table I.
BRB completed the written-word picture matching task and
the spoken word picture matching test from PALPA with only
two errors (no worse than controls), demonstrating that he
could recognize objects and that he understood the meaning of
printed and spoken words. BRB's auditory lexical decision with
high frequency words was also perfect. His knowledge of written synonyms for high imageability words (e.g., start--beginning) was excellent but there was impairment with knowledge
of some low imageability words (e.g., detection--discovery).

ACQUIRED DYSLEXIA IN A TURKISH-ENGLISH SPEAKER

87

Table I. N u m b e r and percentage correct on PALPA tests for BRB.
Task

Number

% correct

Spoken word-picture matching
Written word-picture matching
Auditory lexical decision
Written synonym judgement
High imageability
Low imageability
Repetition
English
Turkish
Speaking picture names
English
Turkish
Writing picture names
English
Turkish

38/40
38/40
40/40

95
95
100

30/30
23/30

100
76

26/40
33/40

65
82

29/40
32/40

72
80

31/40
33/40

77
82

BRB's performance on the PALPA homophone definition task
revealed that he could comprehend the meaning of print although he often produced the correct definition in Turkish. This
is a feature of biscriptal reading reported in other case studies
(e.g., Eng & Obler, 2002; Masterson, Coltheart, & Meara, 1985).
Subsequent tests were conducted in English and Turkish (on
separate occasions). Word and nonword repetition was poor in
both languages suggesting damage to the phonological output
lexicon. BRB's performance on the PALPA test of picture naming was poor in both English and Turkish (control subjects
made no more than I error on this task) and he tended to make
semantic intrusion errors (e.g., t h u m b ba~parmak as finger
parmak) although phonological errors were also observed (e.g.,
rabbit--raffit). His writing of picture names was impaired in
both languages.
BRB's performance can be summarized with reference to
figure 1. There is evidence that BRB is able to understand spoken words, suggesting the phonological input lexicon is intact;
he can define printed homophones, suggesting the orthographic
input lexicon is intact; and he knows word meanings, so the semantic system is intact. However, BRB is unable to repeat
words and name pictures, suggesting damage to the phonological output lexicon or connections to this system (route C). Thus,

88

RAMAN AND WEEKES

according to our reasoning above about deep dysphasic patients, BRB might show surface dyslexia in English.
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS

Our first hypothesis was that impaired access to the phonological output lexicon (route C) would result in surface dyslexia. If
BRB's lexical reading system is impaired, then effects of predictability on reading should be observed but nonword reading
should be intact (via route D). It is not possible to test for effects
of predictability on reading in a transparent script (Coltheart,
1984). However, in order to test lexical reading in Turkish, we
devised tests that we assumed involved at least some lexical
knowledge. Our second hypothesis was that BRB's impairments
might lead to an effect of imageability on reading in Turkish.
We tested for effects of imageability on reading since it is universally assumed that imageability effects reflect reading via the
lexical-semantic system (route B-C). We also tested for effects of
word class (nouns versus verbs and verbal nouns) on reading
since patients who produce semantic errors--and hence rely on
lexical-semantic reading--show effects of word class on reading
(Coltheart, 1980a, 1980b). Finally, we predicted that impaired
lexical reading in Turkish would cause BRB to have difficulty
translating Turkish print into English spoken words, a task we
assumed is performed via lexical knowledge (cf., Jared & Kroll,
2001; Kroll & Stewart, 1994).
TESTS OF READING

We tested the first hypothesis by examining BRB's reading of 40
consistent and 40 inconsistent English words using items from
Monaghan and Ellis (2002) matched for word frequency, length,
neighborhood size, and age of acquisition (AoA), and reading
of irregular words and nonwords taken from the PALPA battery. Results are summarized in table II. There was an effect of
consistency on BRB's reading with consistent words read better
than inconsistent words (note some items are abstract words
such as death) t(39) = 9.2, p <.01]. Irregular words from the
PALPA were read poorly and nonwords read perfectly.
We tested the second hypothesis by examining BRB's reading of words rated high and low in imageability. We used four
sets of experimental trials, 20 in each condition, matched on initial letter, number of syllables, and number of letters. Statistics
for each set are reported in Appendix A. Note that low values

ACQUIRED DYSLEXIA IN A TURKISH-ENGLISH SPEAKER

89

Table II. Number and percentage correct on tests of reading in English for
BRB.
Task

Consistent words (written
words with consistent OP
mappings [e.g., drill])
Inconsistent words (written
words with inconsistent OP
mappings [e.g., dough])
Irregular words taken
from PALPA
Nonwords taken from PALPA

Number

% correct

31/40

77

19/40

47

17/40
40/40

42
100

indicate low frequency but are rated high imageability. Word
imageability and word frequency norms were from Raman and
Baluch (2001). The following are examples of four types of stimuli: high i m a g e a b i l i t y - h i g h f r e q u e n c y (YATAK bed); high
imageability-low frequency (YOKU~ uphill); low imageability
-high frequency (YEMIN vow); and low imageability-low frequency (YORUM interpretation). BRB was asked to read each
word from the experimental list printed in Arial typeface, size
14. Stimuli and data are presented in table III. There was a reliable effect of Imageability X2 (1) = 3.8, p < 0.05. Errors were
phoneme substitutions (e.g., in balkon balcony - 1 was substituted with r leading to barkon).
BRB shows the classic dissociation of poor reading of unpredictable words with intact nonword reading that is the hallmark
of surface dyslexia in English, and there is evidence that he is
reading via the lexical-semantic reading pathway (route B-C) in
Turkish. Thus, although the lexical reading pathway is used for
reading in Turkish, he is surface dyslexic.
TESTS OF W O R D C L A S S O N R E A D I N G

Test results are summarized in table IV. We presented 34 nouns,
34 verbs, and 34 verbal (derived) nouns for oral reading in
Turkish. Given the results from Experiment 2, stimuli were
matched for rated word imageabili~. There was no significant effect of word class on performance (F<I). This suggests that morphological complexity has little impact on BRB's oral reading.
READING TRANSLATION

Our observation that BRB spontaneously defined irregular and
inconsistent words in English (e.g., break, colonel, bear, heir,
suite, prophet) from the PALPA by producing phonological out-

High FrequencyHigh Imageability
anne
ate~
bardak
bahqe
~i~ek
dfinya
g6z
gfine~
insan
kan
karde~
kilit
kitap
mavi
para
sat
sigara
tava
tarak
yatak t=r
Correct
19/20 (95%)

High FrequencyLow Imageability
artlk
aylp
bencil
biqim n w
~6zfim
duygu nw
gizli
gfi~
inat
kaylt n w
kibar
lisan
mantlk n w
onur
6nlem
sanat
tarih
tasa nw
yalan nw
yemin
14/20 (70%)

Low FrequencyHigh Imageability
ayran
arpa
balkon l=r
baston
~ilek
dfi~ne
gaz
gitar
incir
kaygan
kukla
kumar
kfip
maske
pete
saz
sevin~
tepe
tfirbe
yoku~

19/20 (95%)

14/20 (70%)

Low FrequencyLow Imageability
ablak
ayar
bellek
buhran n w
~i~ir n w
doyum
g6~
g6nfil
ilim
kavram
kislr
Iasan
menzil
oru~ n w
i~l~ek n w
sfirgtin
tekel nw
t/ire n w
yazgi
yorum

Nonwords
ahf
apuk
ab
aj
aruy
apran
bikaf
botkan
banim
berzik
cava
cuto
~iren
~ifre
dopul
deset
eknez
evsol s=z
fIran
fazur
gep
gaj
gicar
genzit
hosu
hesel
inser
ircin
kof
kenyip
kitel
kti~
meyu
merki m=k
pese
pepi
sef
sfip
teley
tapul
Correct
38/40 (95%)

Table III. Number and percentage correct on tests of reading words and nonwords in Turkish for BRB in Experiment I (note errors are in bold; nw = nonword; phoneme substitutions are in bold and denoted).

ACQUIRED DYSLEXIA IN A TURKISH-ENGLISH SPEAKER

97l

Table IV. N u m b e r and percentage correct on tests of reading n o u n s , verbs
and derived n o u n s for BRB in Turkish (Note errors are in bold).
Nouns

Verbs

aday
anne
a~a~
ate~
ayakkabi
ayna
bah~e
bahk
balkon
bardak
bebek
~ocuk
~i~ek
defter
deniz
doktor
dfinya
ekmek
erkek
gazete
gece

asmak
a~mak
akmak
atmak
aldatmak
anmak
bi~mek
b61mek
basmak
bilmek
bo~nak
qarpmak
~izmek
d/~vmek
dolmak
delmek
do~mak
ezmek
e~mek
gegmek
gezmek
gitmek
giilmek
ha~lamak
inmek
kirmak
kazmak
olmak
parlamak
satmak
sermek
tatrnak
ta~mak
yakmak
30/34 (88%)

giysi

gfine~
haber
insan
kitap
karde~
okul
para
sabah
sigara
tarak
toplum
yatak
Correct 33/34 (97%)

Derived Nouns

asma
a~ma
akma
atma
aldatma
anma
bi~me

b61me
basma
bilme
bo~na
~arpma
~izme
d6vme
dolma
delme
dogma
ezme
e~me
geqme
gezme
gitme
gfilme
ha~lama
inme
kirma
kazma
olma
parlama
satma
serme
tatma
ta~ma
yakma
33/34 (97%)

92

RAMAN AND WEEKES

put in Turkish, suggested that the lexical reading routes m a y be
shared by the two languages supporting "visual translation" of
print in one language to phonological output in another. It has
been k n o w n for some time that biscriptal readers can produce
o r a l r e a d i n g r e s p o n s e s in t h e n o n t a r g e t l a n g u a g e (e.g.,
Masterson et al., 1985). However, the results m a y apply to concrete nouns only. Therefore, we w a n t e d to k n o w if there was an
effect of w o r d class on visual translation performance for BRB.
Test results are s u m m a r i z e d in tables Va and Vb. We pres e n t e d the p r i n t e d w o r d s d e s c r i b e d in Section 2 (hence the
w o r d s w e r e m a t c h e d for r a t e d i m a g e a b i l i t y a n d w o r d frequency), and asked BRB to read them aloud in English. He was
better at t r a n s l a t i n g n o u n s (31/34, 91%) t h a n verbs (18/34,
53%), and could not translate verbal nouns at all (0/34, 0%). The
most c o m m o n error was semantic (e.g., ate~ fire was translated
to burn; tarak comb to brush; biqmek reap to harvest), suggesting that he translated p r i n t e d Turkish w o r d s via the lexicalsemantic reading route (route B-C).
BRB's poor performance with verbal nouns is not due to imageability nor to phonological complexity as verbal nouns were
often shorter than verbs. His performance could be either due
to difficulties processing polysemous words, which have an effect on w o r d recognition (Hino & Lupker, 1996), or to a morphological effect as the morphological structure of verbal nouns
in Turkish is quite complex. We favor the latter possibility as his
performance was poor with nearly identical words (i.e., verbs
and verbal nouns) that were, nevertheless, m o r e complex in
morphology w h e n presented as derived forms.
DISCUSSION
BRB is the first reported case of acquired dyslexia in Turkish.
Although BRB's reading of m a n y Turkish words was preserved,
he was unable to read some low imageability w o r d s including
words that were high in frequency. This pattern of reading impairment shows that dyslexia can be observed in a transparent
o r t h o g r a p h y , M o r e v e r , BRB's p r e s e r v e d n o n w o r d r e a d i n g
shows dyslexia in Turkish can be selective (i.e., the nonlexical
route can remain intact if lexical reading becomes impaired).
BRB's pattern of acquired dyslexia in Turkish is reminiscent of
surface dyslexia in Italian and Spanish, which is attributed to
loss of lexical k n o w l e d g e (e.g., Iribarren et al., 1999; Miceli &
Caramazza, 1993). We believe that the effect of imageability on

ACQUIRED DYSLEXIA IN A TURKISH-ENGLISH SPEAKER

93

T a b l e Va: N u m b e r a n d p e r c e n t a g e correct o n tests of t r a n s l a t i n g n o u n s a n d
v e r b s for BRB f r o m T u r k i s h to E n g l i s h i n E x p e r i m e n t 3 ( N o t e errors are i n
b o l d ; n w = n o n w o r d ; s e m = s e m a n t i c error a n d nr = n o r e s p o n s e ) .
Nouns

Visual Translation

aday
anne
a~aq
ate~ fire
ayakkabi
ayna
bahqe
bahk
balkon
bardak glass
bebek
~ocuk
qiqek
defter excercise
book
deniz
doktor
diinya
ekmek
erkek
gazete
gece
giysi
giine~
haber news
insan
kitap
karde~
okul
para
sabah
morning
sigara
tarak comb
toplum
community
yatak

candidate
mother
tree
burn sem

shoe
mirror
garden
fish
balcony
glass
baby
child
flower
copybook
sea
doctor
globe
bread
male
gazette
night
clothes
sun
new

human
book
brother
school
money
morning
cigarette
brush sem

people
bed
31/34 (91%)

Verbs

asmak
aqmak
akmak flow
atmak
aldatmak cheat
anmak
biqmek reap
b61mek
basmak
bilmek
bogrnak suffocate
qarpmak
qizmek draw
d6vmek
dolmak fill
delmek pierce, drill
dogmak born
ezmek
e~mek light digging
geqmek
gezmek stoll
gitmek
g~ilmek laugh
ha~lamak boil
inmek climb down
klrmak break
kazmak dig
olmak
parlamak shine
satmak sell
sermek spread
tatmak
ta~mak
yakmak

Visual Translation

hang
open
current sere

throw
lie s e m

remember
harvest sem

separate
press
know
choke sem

multiply
line sem

beat
nr
hole sem
create s e m

crush
equal

pass
picnic sem

go
smile sem

nr
inside

break
d u g {past t e n s e )

be
shine
sale sem

nr
taste
carry
burn
18/34 (53%)

94

RAMAN AND WEEKES

T a b l e V b : N u m b e r a n d p e r c e n t a g e correct o n t e s t s o f t r a n s l a t i n g d e r i v e d
n o u n s for B R B f r o m T u r k i s h to E n g l i s h i n E x p e r i m e n t 3. ( N o t e errors are i n
b o l d ; n w = n o n w o r d ; s e m = s e m a n t i c error a n d nr = n o r e s p o n s e ) .
Derived Nouns

Visual Translation

a s m a vine, suspension

grape sem

a ~ m a opening

open sem

a k m a flowing

current sem/spell.

a t m a throwing

Throw sem

a l d a t m a adultery

lie s e m

a n m a memorial

memory/remember

blame reaping
b61me division
b a s m a printed cloth
b i l m e knowing
b o ~ ' n a suffocating
~ a r p m a multiplication
~izme drawing, boots
d 6 v m e beating, tatoo
d o l m a filling, dolmades
d e l m e piercing
d o ~ n a birth
e z m e crushed food
e~me digging
g e q m e passage, passing
g e z m e stoll
g i t m e going
g f i l m e laugh
h a ~ l a m a boiled
i n m e climbing down
k l r m a pleat, breaking
k a z m a digging, hoe
o l m a being
p a r l a m a shining
s a t m a sale
s e r m e , hanging on line
t a t m a tasting
ta~ma ovelflow
y a k m a burning

scorriah nw
separate sem
nr
know sem
choke sem
multiply sem
line sem
beat sem
nr
nr
nr
crush sem
equal phono
pass sem
picnic sere
go sem
smile sem
inside
nr
break sem
dug sem
be sem
shine sere
buy sem
nr
taste sem
carry sem
burn sem
0 / 3 4 (0%)

sem

ACQUIRED DYSLEXIA IN A TURKISH-ENGLISHSPEAKER

95

BRB's reading in Turkish is the result of damage to the lexicalsemantic reading route (route B-C) in figure 1.
The data from BRB make a contribution to understanding
dyslexia in Turkish. BRB's dyslexia in Turkish was observed in
the context of deep dysphasia. BRB's poor repetition and confrontation naming suggest damage to phonological representations. A correlation between poor repetition and lexical reading
impairments has been reported for French speaking deep dysphasic patients (Majerus et al., 2001; Valdois et al., 1995). Raman
and Weekes (2003) argued BRB's repetition and naming disorders were the result of abnormally rapid decay of activation in
the phonological word form system as in the computational
model of Martin, Saffran, and Dell (1996). BRB's results show
that phonological damage is correlated with acquired dyslexia
in Turkish. One inference is that the poor repetition observed in
some children with dyslexia may also be observed in Turkish
speakers. Also, repetition problems may be associated with
poor reading of low imageability words in particular. We also
noted that late acquired words tend to be less imageable when
compared to early acquired words.
The association between BRB's phonological impairments
and his reading can be explained by the lexicalization hypothesis
proposed by Newton and Barry (1997). They argued that imageability effects on reading result from "lexicalization," which
describes how a semantic representation selects the appropriate
word (lexeme) in the phonological output lexicon for production. Semantic representations drive word production according
to concreteness, which is correlated with the rated imageability
of a word. The normal lexicalization process is sensitive to imageability (i.e., high imageable, concrete concepts are easier to
lexicalize than low imageability, abstract concepts). Concrete
concepts have a high degree of specificity in lexicalization so
that high imageability printed words activate only a few related
concepts. Therefore, high imageabitity words will easily and
uniquely access their corresponding lexemes. The semantic representations of abstract concepts have less specificity and there
is more spreading activation to related concepts. Therefore, it
will be more difficult to access the corresponding lexeme.
According to Newton and Barry (1997), these processes would
not necessarily be revealed in skilled reading. However, an effect of imageability may be revealed after brain damage and in
reading under speeded naming conditions (Strain et al., 1995).
Our interpretation of imageability effects on BRB's oral
reading is controversial. An effect of imageability is typically

96

RAMAN AND WEEK,S

thought to reflect a semantic deficit for abstract words and to be
a signature of deep dyslexia. BRB has no semantic deficit that
we could detect and he does not exhibit deep dyslexia (he reads
n o n w o r d s well). We believe that an effect of imageability on
oral reading in Turkish can be observed without a semantic impairment if route C alone is d a m a g e d or phonological activation
is poor. Note that Watt et al. (1997) offered a similar account of
poor reading of abstract, irregular words in surface dyslexia in
English.
BRB is the first reported case of a biscriptal reader with acquired reading impairments in English and Turkish. The data
f r o m BRB m a k e a c o n t r i b u t i o n to u n d e r s t a n d i n g a c q u i r e d
dyslexia in biscriptal readers. We assumed that the same archit e c t u r e is a v a i l a b l e for oral r e a d i n g T u r k i s h a n d English.
However, the lexical route (route A) is not necessary for reading
in Turkish. We also assume one potential locus for BRB's surface
dyslexia is the lexical-semantic reading route (route B-C). Thus, a
d a m a g e d lexical-semantic reading route m a y be sufficient to explain BRB's surface dyslexia in English as well as impaired reading in Turkish. This w o u l d be the most parsimonious account
since a c o m m o n locus of d a m a g e can lead to surface dyslexia
and imageability effects in Turkish. This m a y be a consequence
of abnormally rapid decay of lexemes in the phonological output lexicon. If our view is correct, it should be possible to find a
biscriptal Turkish-English speaker w h o has d e e p dyslexia in
Turkish but retains the ability to read irregular words in English.
This point illustrates the value of cognitive neuropsychological
studies of patients with acquired dyslexia as novel predictions
can be generated on the basis of each n e w patient.
It is p o s s i b l e , h o w e v e r , t h a t BRB's s u r f a c e d y s l e x i a in
English results from damage to the lexical route alone. Indeed,
according to Coltheart et al. (2001), surface dyslexia is independent of d a m a g e to the semantic system. Damage to the lexical
r e a d i n g r o u t e is best m e a s u r e d w i t h tests of o r t h o g r a p h i c
knowledge. This part of our assessment of BRB was weak. We
found some evidence of orthographic d a m a g e on a h o m o p h o n e
definition task though he did produce correct spoken words (in
Turkish). W h a t the results do s h o w is that semantic support
from reading via the lexical-semantic p a t h w a y is not sufficient
to support reading of unpredictable words in English, at least in
a biscriptal reader. Thus, we w o u l d not exclude the possibility
that BRB's surface dyslexia results from d a m a g e to the lexical
route alone, nor w o u l d we d e n y the need for a lexical route to
read in English.

ACQUIREDDYSLEXIA IN A TURKISH-ENGUSH SPEAKER

97

The extent to which models of reading can be applied to
reading in other writing systems is now debated (Beland &
Mimouni, 2001; Eng & Obler, 2002; Perry & Ziegler, 2000; Yin &
Weekes, 2003; Ziegler et al., 2001). The strength of any model
depends on its ability to explain a range of phenomena including biscriptal reading. This is important for theoretical as well
as practical reasons (e.g., the design of specialized tests of reading and writing problems in biscriptal readers and the rehabilitation of reading impairments). Reading in scripts that have an
unpredictable orthography such as English encourages the development of a lexical route. However, reading in transparent
scripts such as Turkish may not require the development of
such a route. The key evidence for a lexical route in English
comes from patients who can read irregular words but who
cannot access their meaning (e.g., Franklin, Turner, LambonRalph, & Morris, 1996; Lambon-Ralph, Ellis, & Sage, 1998;
Schwartz, Marin, & Saffran, 1979; Shallice, Warrington, &
McCarthy, 1983). It is impossible to find this type of patient in
Turkish. However, it may be possible to find a patient who
reads Turkish words but does not know their meaning. If the
same patient cannot read nonwords, this would be evidence for
a lexical route in Turkish. Thus, the need for separate lexical
and lexical-semantic routes for reading in Turkish is moot. This
issue was discussed in relation to developing strategies in attentional control in reading Turkish, and regular versus irregular
orthographies (Raman, Baluch, & Besner, 2004).
Yin and Weekes (2003) made a similar case to ours about
oral reading in Chinese, which is a relatively opaque script. The
claim made by them was the converse of the one made here
(i.e., reading cannot be nonlexical in Chinese because each of
the components of a character is lexical and thus a nonlexical
route [route D] is unnecessary) (see also Coltheart, 1984). Note
that the question of whether a lexical route (route A) is necessary for reading in English is still a matter for debate (cf., Hillis
& Caramazza, 1991, 1995).
What is the relevance of BRB's data to understanding the
impact of type of script on dyslexia? We know already that
culture has an effect on reading disability. Paulesu and colleagues (2001) found that Italian dyslexics read more accurately
than English and French dyslexics, although all groups read
slowly and had phonological impairments, suggesting that orthographic transparency has an effect on the p h e n o t y p e of
dyslexia in different languages. In a study of Chinese dyslexia,
Siok, Perfetti, Jin, and Tan (2004) found that script affects the

98

RAMAN AND WEEKES

neurobiological abnormality leading to impaired reading. BRB
shows that dyslexia is possible in a completely transparent orthography~ This is of interest because it seems counterintuitive
(i.e., literate speakers learn such scripts quickly).
We also found evidence of morphological constraints on
translation, suggesting that damage to the lexical reading system may manifest itself differently according to the morphological complexity of the language. Morphological effects may be
restricted to translation tasks resulting from weak lexicalization
of the lexemes in a second language for morphologically dense
words. However, it may be fruitful to examine morphological
effects on dyslexia in Turkish. Children with dyslexia are
known to have more difficulties writing the regular (-ed) than
the irregular past tense of verbs in English (Egan & Pring, 2004;
Leong & Parkinson, 1995). Turkish is a highly inflected language with many morphologically complex words that do not
have a single, addressable lexeme, but are assembled on the
basis of inflections (Durguno~u, 2002). Given that we found a
link between phonological impairment and dyslexia, one suggestion for future research is to investigate morphological processing in c h i l d r e n and adults w i t h r e a d i n g and writing
difficulties. This phenomenon also could be explored in other
cases of acquired reading and writing impairments in Turkish.
CONCLUSION
BRB's data suggest that lexical reading problems in Turkish follow phonological impairments. Thus the naive view that developmental dyslexia does not exist in Turkish can be rejected. What
relevance does the data from a single case study have to our understanding of developmental dyslexia in Turkish? The transparent O->P mappings in Turkish may.. enhance the acquisition of
literacy compared to English (e.g., Oney & Durguno~u, 1997).
However, this does not preclude difficulties learning to read and
write. Developmental dyslexia in Turkish deserves further investigation given the data obtained from BRB.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank three anonymous reviewers and the editor, Professor
Che Kan Leong, for their useful commentary on an earier version
of this paper.

ACQUIRED DYSLEXIA IN A TURKISH-ENGLISH SPEAKER

99

Address correspondence to: Brendan S. Weekes, Department of
Psychology, University of Sussex, Brighton, East Sussex, BN1
9QN, UK. E-mail: bsw@biols.susx.ac.uk

References
Angelelli, P., Judica, A., Spinelli, D., Zoccolotti, P., & Luzzatti, C. (2004). Characteristics
of writing disorders in Italian dyslexic children. Cognitive and Behavioral
Neurology, 17, 18-31.
Baluch, B., & Besner, D. (1991). Visual word recognition: Evidence for strategic control
of lexical and nonlexical routines in oral reading. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 17, 644-652.
Beauvois, M. F., & Derouesne, J. (1979). Phonological alexia: Three dissociations. Journal
of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 42, 1115-1124.
Beland, R., & M i m o u n i , Z. (2001). D e e p d y s l e x i a in the t w o l a n g u a g e s of an
Arabic/French bilingual patient. Cognition, 82, 77-126.
Besner, D. (1999). Basic processes in reading: Multiple routines in localist and connectionist models. In P. A. McMullen & R. M. Klein (Eds.), Converging methods
for understanding reading and dyslexia (pp. 413-458). Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Breedin, S. D., Saffran, E. M., & Coslett, H. B. (1994). Reversal of the concreteness effect
in a patient with semantic dementia. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 11,617-660.
Coltheart, M. (1978). Lexical access in simple reading tasks. In G. Underwood (Ed.),
Strategies of information processing (pp. 151-216). San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
Coltheart, M. (1980a). Deep dyslexia: A review of the syndrome. In M. Coltheart, K.
Patterson, & J. C. Marshall (Eds.), Deep dyslexia (pp. 22-47). London: Routledge &
Kegan Paul.
Coltheart, M. (1980b). Deep dyslexia: A right hemisphere hypothesis. In M. Coltheart, K.
Patterson, & J. C. Marshall (Eds.), Deep dyslexia (pp. 326-380). London: Routledge
& Kegan Paul.
Coltheart M. (1984). Writing systems and reading disorders. In L. Henderson (Ed.),

Orthographies and reading: Perspectives from cognitive psychology, neuropsychology,
and linguistics (pp. 67-80). London: Erlbaum.
Coltheart, M. (2000). Deep dyslexia is right-hemisphere reading. Brain and Language, 71,
299-309.
Coltheart, M., Curtis, B., Atkins, P., & Hailer, M. (1993). Models of reading aloud: Dualroute and parallel-distributed-processing approaches. Psychological Review, 100,
589-608.
Coltheart, M., Masterson, J., Byng, S., Prior, M., & Riddoch, M. J. (1983). Surface
dyslexia. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,35, 469-495.
Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Langdon, R., & Ziegler, J. (2001). DRC: A dual route
cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological
Review, 108, 204-256.
Cortese, M., & Simpson, G. (2000). Regularity effects in word naming: What are they?
Memory and Cognition, 28, 1269-1276.
Cuetos, F., & Labos, E. (2001). The autonomy of the orthographic pathway in a shallow
language: Data from an aphasic patient. Aphasiology, •5(4), 333-342.

100

RAMAN AND WEEKES

Diesfeldt, H. F. A. (1992). Impaired and preserved semantic memory functions in dementia. In L. Beckman (Ed.), Memory functioning in dementia. Advances in psychology, 89 (pp. 227-263). Oxford, England: North-Holland.
Dijkstra, A., & Van Heuven, W. J. B. (1998). The BIA-model and bilingual word recognition. In J. Grainger & A. M. Jacobs (Eds.), Localist connectionist approaches to hunTan
cognition (pp. 189-225). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Durguno~lu, A. Y. (2002). Cross-linguistic transfer in literacy development and implications for language learners. Annals of Dyslexia, 52, 189-204.
Egan, J., & Pring, L. (2004). The processing of inflectional morphology: A comparison of
children with and without dyslexia. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary
Journal, 17, 567-591.
Eng, N., & Obler, L. K. (2002). Acquired dyslexia in a biscript reader following traumatic brain injury: A second case. Topics in Language Disorders, 22(5), 5-19.
Franklin, S., Turner, J., Lambon-Ralph, M. A., & Morris, J. (1996). A distinctive case of
word meaning deafness? Cognitive Neuropsychology, 13, 1139-1162.
Funnell, E. (1983). Phonological processes in reading: New evidence from acquired
dyslexia. British Journal of Psychology, 74, 159-180.
Goswami, U. (2003). Phonology, learning to read and dyslexia: A cross-linguistic analysis. In V. Csepe (Ed.), Dyslexia: Different brain, different behaviour (pp. 1-40).
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Goswami, U., Ziegler, J. C., Dalton, L., & Schneider, W. (2003). Nonword reading across
orthographies: How flexible is the choice of reading units? Applied Psycholinguistics, 24, 235-247.
Graham, K. S., Hodges, J. R., & Patterson, K. E. (1994). The relationship between comprehension and oral reading in progressive fluent aphasia. Neuropsychologia. 32, 299-316.
Henderson, L. (1982). Orthography and word recognition in reading. London: Academic Press.
Hillis, A., & Caramazza, A. (1991). Mechanisms for accessing lexical representations for output: Evidence from a category specific semantic deficit. Brain and Language,40,106-144.
Hillis, A. E., & Caramazza, A. (1995). Converging evidence for the interaction of semantic and sublexical phonological information in accessing lexical representation for
spoken output. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 12, 187-227.
Hino, Y., & Lupker, S. J. (1996). The effects of polysemy in lexical decision and naming:
An alternative to lexical access accounts. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Human Perception and Performance, 22, 1331-1356.
Iribarren, I. C., Jarema, G., & Lecours, A. R. (1999). Lexical reading in Spanish: Two
cases of phonological dyslexia. Applied Psycholinguistics, 20, 407-428.
Jared, D., & Kroll, J. F. (2001). Do bilinguals activate phonological representations in one or
both of their languages when naming words? Journal of Memory and Language,44, 2 31.
Kay, J., Lesser, R., & Coltheart, M. (1992). Psycholinguistic assessments of language processing in aphasia (PALPA). Hove, UK: Erlbaum.
Kroll, J. F., & Stewart, E. (1994). Category interference in translation and picture naming: Evidence for asymmetric connections between bilingual memory representations. Journal of Memory and Language, 33, 149-174.
Lambon-Ralph, M., Ellis, A. W., & Sage, K. (1998). Word meaning blindness revisited.
Cognitive-Neuropsychology, 15, 389-400.
Law, S. P., & Or, B. (2001). A case study of acquired dyslexia and dysgraphm in
Cantonese: Evidence for nonsemantic pathways for reading and writing Chinese.
Cognitive Neuropsychology, 18, 729-748.
Leong, C. K., & Parkinson, M. E. (1995). Processing of English morphological structure
by poor readers. In C. K. Leong & R. M. Joshi (Eds.), Developmental and acquired
dyslexia: Neuropsychological and neurolinguistic perspectives (pp. 237-261).
Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

ACQUIRED DYSCEXIA IN A TURKISH-ENGLISH SPEAKER

101

Majerus, S., Lekeu, F., Van der Linden, M., & Salmon, E. (2001). Deep dysphasia:
Further evidence on the relationship between phonological short term memory
and language processing impairments. Cognitive Neu ropsychology, 18, 385-410.
Marshall, J. C., & Newcombe, F. (1973). Patterns of paralexia: A psycholinguistic approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 2, 175-199.
Martin, N., Saffran, E. M., & Dell, G. S (1996). Recovery in deep dysphasia: Evidence for
a relation between auditory verbal STM capacity and lexical errors in repetition.
Brain and Language, 52, 83-113.
Masterson, J., Coltheart, M., & Meara, P. (1985). Surface dyslexia in a language without
irregularly spelled words. In K. Patterson, J. C. Marshall, & M. Coltheart, (Eds.),
Surface dyslexia: Neuropsychological and cognitive studies of phonological reading (pp.
215-223). Hove, UK: Lawrence Erlbaum.
McCann, R. S., & Besner, D. (1987). Reading pseudohomophones: Implications for models of pronunciation and the locus of word frequency effects in word naming.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13, 14-24.
Miceli, G., & Caramazza, A. (1993). The assignment of word stress in oral reading:
Evidence from a case of acquired dyslexia. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 10, 273-295.
Monaghan, J., & Ellis, A. W. (2002). What exactly interacts with spelling-sound consistency in word naming? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and
Cognition, 28, 183-206.
Newton, P. K., & Barry, C. (1997). Concreteness effects in word production but not word
comprehension in deep dyslexia. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 14, 481-509.
Oney, B., & Durguno~lu, A. Y. (1997). Beginning to read Turkish: A phonologically
transparent orthography. Applied Psycholinguistics, 18, 1-15.
Patterson, K., & Hodges, J. R. (1992). Deterioration of word meaning: Implications for
reading. Neuropsychologia. 30, 1025-1040.
Patterson, K. E., Graham, N., & Hodges, J. R. (1994). Reading in dementia of the
Alzheimer type: A preserved ability? Neuropsychology, 8, 395-412.
Patterson, K., Suzuki, T., Wydell, T., & Sasanuma, S. (1995). Progressive aphasia and
surface alexia in Japanese. Neurocase, 1,155-165.
Paulesu, E., Demonet, J. F., Fazio, F., McCrory, E., Chanoine,V., Brunswick, N., Cappa,
S. F., Cossu, G., Habib, M., Frith, C. D., & Frith, U. (2001). Dyslexia: Cultural diversity and biological unity. Science, 291(5511), 2165-2167.
Perry, C., & Ziegler, J. C. (2000). Cross-language computational investigation of the
length effect in reading aloud. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
Perception & Performance,28, 990-1001.
Plaut, D. C., McClelland, J. L., Seidenberg, M. S., & Patterson, K. (1996). Understanding
normal and impaired word reading: Computational principles of quasi-regular
domains. Psychological Review, 103, 56-115.
Raman, I. (2003). Lexicality effects in single-word naming in alphabetic Turkish orthography. In M. Joshi, C. K. Leong, & B. L. J. Kaczmarek (Eds.), Literacy acquisition:
Role of phonology, morphology and orthography (pp. 83-93). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Raman, I., & Baluch, B. (2001). Semantic effects as a function of reading skill in word
naming of a transparent orthography. Reading & Writing. An Interdisciplinary
Journal, 14, 599-614.
Raman, I., Baluch, B., & Besner, D. (2004). On the control of visual word recognition:
Changing routes versus changing deadlines. Memory and Cognition, 32, 489-500.
Raman, I., & Weekes, B. (2003). Deep dysphasia in Turkish. Brain and Language. 87, 38-39.
Ramus, F. (2003). Developmental dyslexia: Specific phonological deficit or general sensorimotor dysfunction? Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 3(2), 212-218.
Schwartz, M. F., Marin, O. S., & Saffran, E. M. (1979). Dissociations of language function
in dementia: A case study. Brain and Language. 7, 277-306.

102

RAM,4N AND WEEK,S

Shallice, T., Warrington, E. K., & McCarthy, R. (1983). Reading without semantics.
Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 35(A), 111-138.
Siok, W. T., Perfetti, C. A., Jin, Z., & Tan, L. H. (2004). Biological abnormality of impaired reading is constrained by culture. Nature, 431 (7004), 71-76.
Smythe, I., Everatt, J., & Salter, R. (Eds.). (2004). The International book of dyslexia: A cross
language comparison and practiceguide. Chichester, UK: John Wiley.
Snowling, M. J. (2000). Dyslexia (2nd ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Strain, E., Patterson, K., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1995). Semantic effects in single-word
naming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 21,
1140-1154.
Valdois, S., Carbonnel, S., David, D., Rousset, S., & Pellat, J. (1995). Confrontation of
PDP models and dual route models through the analysis of a case of deep dysphasia. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 12, 681-724.
Venezky, R. (1970). The structure of English orthography. The Hague: Mouton.
Wagner, R. K., & Torgesen, J. (1987). The nature of phonological processing and its
causal role in the acquisition of reading skills. Psychological Bulletin, 101,192-212.
Warrington, E. K., & Shallice, T. (1979). Semantic access dyslexia. Brain, 102, 43-63.
Watt, S., Jokel, R., & Behrmann, M. (1997). Surface dyslexia in nonfluent progressive
aphasia. Brain and Language, 56, 211-233.
Weekes, B. S. (1997). Differential effects of number of letters on word and nonword
naming latency. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50A, 439-456.
Weekes, B. S. (2005). Dyslexia and dysgraphia among Spanish speakers: A cognitive
neuropsychological approach. In J. G. Centeno, L. K. Obler, & R. Anderson
(Eds.), Studying communication disorders in Spanish speakers: Theoretical, research &
clinical aspects. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Weekes, B. S., & Chen, H. Q. (1999). Surface dyslexia in Chinese. Neurocase, 5, 161-172.
Weekes, B., & Coltheart, M. (1996). Surface dyslexia and surface dysgraphia: Treatment
studies and their theoretical implications. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 13, 277-315.
Weekes, B., Coltheart, M., & Gordon, E. (1997). Deep dyslexia and right hemisphere
reading--a regional cerebral blood flow study. Aphasiology, 11, 1139-1158.
Weekes, B. S., & Robinson, G. (1997). Semantic anomia without surface dyslexia.
Aphasiology, 11,813-825.
Wijk, A. (1966). Rules of pronunciation for the English language. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Wydell, T. N., & Butterworth, B. (1999). A case study of an English-Japanese bilingual
with monolingual dyslexia. Cognition, 70, 273-305.
Yin, W. G., & Weekes, B. S. (2003). Dyslexia in Chinese: Clues from cognitive neuropsychology. Annals of Dyslexia, 53,255-279.
Ziegler, J. C., Perry, C., & Coltheart, M. (2000). The DRC model of visual word recognition and reading aloud: An extension to German. European Journal Of Cognitive
Psychology, 12, 413-430.
Ziegler, J. C., Perry, C., Jacobs, A. M., & Braun, M. (2001). Identical words are read differently in different languages. Psychological Science, 12, 379-384.
Ziegler, J., Perry, C., Ma-Wyatt, A., Ladner, D., & Schulte-K6rne, G. (2003).
Developmental dyslexia in different languages: Language-specific or universal?
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 86, 169-193.
Manuscript received January 30, 2004.
Final version accepted January 31, 2005.

1.51
Mean = 1.77
SD = .51

SD = .38

1.96

3.04

2.20

1.32

1.32

1.62

1.52

2.58

1.54

1.28

1.32

1.64

1.54

1.72

1.26

2.26

1.76

1.92

2.04

1.92

1.42

2.25

1.35

1.54
2.60

Mean = 1.67

bed

yatak

2.49

cigarette

sigara

frying pan

hair

sa~

comb

money

para

tava

blue

mavi

tarak

1.68

book

kitap

2.35

1.44

1.56

1.33

1.38

1.50

lock

giine~

brother

sun

g6z

1.29

kilit

eye

diinya

1.44

karde~

earth

~i~ek

1.70

human

flower

bah~e

1.88

blood

garden

bardak

1.12

1.48

kan

glass

ate~

insan

mother

fire

anne

yoku~

tiirbe

tepe

sevin~

saz

pete

maske

k6p

kumar

kukla

kaygan

incir

gitar

gaz

dLi~ne

~ilek

baston

balkon

arpa

ayran

uphill

monument

hill

joy

musical inst.

veil

mask

water butt

gamble

puppet

slippery

fig

guitar

gas

button

strawberry

walking stick

balcony

barley

yoghurt drink

SD = .39

Mean = 2.04

1.80

2.44

2.38

1.78

2.22

2.46

1.50

1.47

2.14

2.34

2.56

2.00

1.24

1.98

2.35

2.40

1.60

2.00

1.70

2.46

SD = .68

Mean = 4.09

3.80

4.76

3.04

2.60

4.30

5.44

4.22

4.06

3.64

4.38

3.53

4.22

3.76

3.99

3.84

3.90

4.56

3.74

5.28

4.84

Imageability and frequency norms of the Turkish words used in Experiment 1, and their corresponding translations in English.
Translation
Translation
HFHI
in English
Imageability
Frequency
LFHI
in English
Imageability Frequency

APPENDIX A

pr~

pr~

pr~

¢3

Vr~

¢3
K3

5.77

selfish

shape

solution

emotion

secret

power/difficult 4.98

5.14

shame

stubborn

register

polite

language

logic

honor

prevention

art

history

anxiety

lie

vow

ayip

bencil

bi~im

~6ziim

duygu

gizli

giiq

inat

kayit

kibar

lisan

mantik

onur

6nlem

sanat

tarih

tasa

yalan

yemin
2.20
Mean = 2.23
SD = .40

5.21

SD = .48

2.04

1.90

2.14

2.22

1.76

2.53

1.88

2.79

2.22

2.88

1.96

2.02

2.12

1.60

2.14

3.16

2.60

1.89

2.56

Frequency

Mean = 5.09

5.20

5.94

4.58

5.88

5.13

4.93

5.06

4.19

5.24

5.40

5.71

5.00

4.37

4.60

4.90

4.74

leftover

artik

Imageability

Translation
in English

HFLI

yorum

yazgi

t6re

tekel

sfirgfin

61qek

oru~

menzil

lasan

klsir

kavram

ilim

g6nfil

g6~

doyum

~t~ir

buhran

bellek

ayar

LFLI
ablak

interpretation

destiny

custom

monopoly

exile

scale

fasting

firing range

seedling

infertile

concept

science

heart/mind

migration

content

era

depression

memory

timing

dull person

Translation
in English

SD = .64

Mean = 4.53

4.78

6.42

4.31

5.09

4.52

4.32

4.84

4.72

3.90

4.95

3.98

4.16

4.35

4.92

4.44

3.20

3.70

4.59

4.73

4.78

3.87

4.65

3.94

4.10

4.49

3.92

3.64

5.04

6.23

4.30

4.32

3.63

3.50

2.03

3.90

5.00

5.51

4.29

3.50

6.29

Frequency

SD = .98

Mean = 4.31

Imageability