Dyslexia, a term now widely recognized and understood, has a history stretching back over a century. But when did dyslexia officially become a diagnosis? The journey from initial observations to formal recognition is a fascinating one, rooted in the work of dedicated physicians, psychologists, and advocates. This article delves into the timeline of dyslexia’s diagnostic evolution, exploring key figures and milestones that shaped our understanding of this learning difference.
Early Observations: Word-Blindness Emerges
The late 19th century marked the dawn of dyslexia’s recognition. In 1887, Rudolf Berlin, a German ophthalmologist, coined the term “dyslexia,” derived from Greek roots meaning “difficulty with words.” Berlin’s interest was piqued by adult patients who struggled with reading despite having normal vision. He hypothesized a physical basis in the brain for this “word-blindness,” even without pinpointing its exact nature.
Rudolf Berlin, the German ophthalmologist who coined the term ‘dyslexia’ in 1887, paving the way for its recognition as a distinct condition.
Berlin’s work was influenced by Adolph Kussmaul, another German physician who, in 1877, identified similar reading difficulties and termed them “Wortblindheit” – also meaning word-blindness. Kussmaul emphasized the isolated nature of this difficulty, a crucial early step in distinguishing it from general intellectual impairment. Berlin’s adoption of “dyslexia” aimed to align the diagnosis with international medical terminology already in use for related conditions like alexia and paralexia. As James Hinshelwood, a contemporary, noted, Kussmaul deserves credit for initially recognizing word-blindness as a distinct symptom.
British Pioneers Broaden the Scope to Children
While initial observations focused on adults, British researchers at the turn of the 20th century broadened the understanding of word-blindness to include children. Ophthalmologist James Hinshelwood, council medical officer James Kerr, and general practitioner William Pringle Morgan played pivotal roles. Their focus on children challenged the prevailing theory of brain injury as the sole cause of word-blindness, leading to the distinction between acquired word-blindness (occurring in adulthood) and congenital word-blindness (present from birth).
Pringle Morgan’s 1896 case study of “Percy F.” became particularly influential. He described Percy, a 14-year-old boy, as bright and intelligent in all areas except reading, which he found remarkably difficult.
An illustration depicting a child encountering difficulties with reading, a common experience for those with dyslexia, highlighting the importance of early identification and support.
Hinshelwood, in his 1900 paper, similarly detailed “Case 2,” a 10-year-old boy with reading difficulties despite general intelligence. Hinshelwood attributed the issue not to visual acuity but to a “congenital deficiency of the visual memory for words.” Peggy Anderson and Regine Meier-Hedde (2001) highlight the significance of this work, noting the clarity and organization of the British physicians’ reports, their focus on children, and the accumulation of case studies that built a body of evidence for this “enigma.” Furthermore, Pringle Morgan and Hinshelwood’s association of word-blindness with high intelligence became a lasting, albeit sometimes debated, aspect of the dyslexia narrative.
Dyslexia, Psychology, and the Rise of Advocacy
Between World War I and World War II, dyslexia research shifted geographically, with the United States becoming a new center of study, particularly through the work of Samuel T. Orton. This neuropathologist challenged existing theories, presenting his findings at the American Neurological Association in 1925. While acknowledging Kussmaul, Morgan, and Hinshelwood, Orton questioned the localization of reading difficulties in the angular gyrus. He proposed instead that dyslexia stemmed from a “lack of cerebral dominance,” a theory that, while ultimately incorrect in its specifics, shifted the focus toward cognitive development in understanding dyslexia.
Samuel T. Orton, a neuropathologist who significantly contributed to the understanding of dyslexia by shifting the focus towards cognitive development and advocating for phonics instruction.
Tim Miles, a prominent dyslexia researcher, considered Orton a key figure in putting “developmental dyslexia on the map.” Orton also advocated for phonics-based instruction for individuals with dyslexia, a method still widely recommended today. In 1949, the Orton Society, founded by Samuel Orton’s widow, June, formalized dyslexia advocacy and research, evolving into the International Dyslexia Association.
The 1960s saw a resurgence of UK-based dyslexia research, with psychologists taking a leading role. The Word Blind Centre in London opened in 1962, spearheaded by Dr. Alfred White Franklin and a committee of neurologists and psychologists including Macdonald Critchley, Oliver Zangwill, and Tim Miles. This center, with directors Alex Bannatyne and later educational psychologist Sandhya Naidoo, became a hub for seminal work on dyslexia.
Key publications emerged from this era. Critchley’s 1970 book, The Dyslexic Child, urged official recognition of “developmental dyslexia.” Naidoo’s Specific Dyslexia (1972) provided the first systematic comparison of dyslexic and non-dyslexic children in Britain, emphasizing the importance of early intervention.
Following the Word Blind Centre’s closure in the early 1970s, numerous organizations dedicated to dyslexia were established, including the Helen Arkell Dyslexia Centre (1971), the British Dyslexia Association (1972), and the Dyslexia Institute (1972), among others. These organizations played a critical role in support, advocacy, and professional development. Figures like Bevé Hornsby, Marion Welchman, and actress Susan Hampshire championed the cause, highlighting the growing social movement around dyslexia awareness.
The Struggle for Recognition and the “Middle-Class Myth”
The period after 1962 was crucial for dyslexia. It witnessed the rise of modern research and advocacy, ultimately leading to government recognition and legal protections like the 2010 Equality Act in the UK. However, this period also saw the emergence of the “middle-class myth” narrative, which controversially framed dyslexia as a fabricated diagnosis used by affluent parents to excuse their children’s reading difficulties.
The discrepancy model, which defined dyslexia by a significant gap between reading age and IQ, contributed to this myth. While intended to identify specific reading difficulties, it was sometimes perceived as favoring children from privileged backgrounds who had access to testing and resources. The higher diagnosis rates in wealthier areas like Surrey further fueled accusations of dyslexia being a “Surrey problem,” rather than a genuine condition.
However, dismissing dyslexia as a myth faced resistance from researchers and advocates who pointed to the mounting evidence of a genuine learning difficulty. Policy makers initially showed reluctance to officially recognize dyslexia, perhaps due to resource implications. The 1972 Tizard Report expressed skepticism about a specific dyslexia syndrome. In 1978, the Warnock Report, while addressing special educational needs, was instructed to avoid suggesting dyslexia as a distinct category, reflecting governmental reluctance to allocate specific resources.
Despite this initial resistance, government attitudes gradually shifted. In 1987, the government publicly acknowledged dyslexia, aiming “to dispel a myth” that they did not recognize the condition. This statement signaled a turning point, recognizing the importance of early identification and appropriate support for dyslexic children.
Formal governmental recognition solidified with the 2009 Rose Review, commissioned to provide recommendations on dyslexia identification and teaching. The review offered a clear and unequivocal definition:
Dyslexia is a learning difficulty that primarily affects the skills involved in accurate and fluent word reading and spelling. Characteristic features of dyslexia are difficulties in phonological awareness, verbal memory and verbal processing speed. Dyslexia occurs across the range of intellectual abilities.
Dyslexia: A Psychological Diagnosis and Social Construct
Despite progress, debates about the term “dyslexia” persist, particularly within educational psychology. Critics, like those in the 2014 book The Dyslexia Debate, question the term’s utility, suggesting “reading disability” as a more neutral and less “politically baggage[d]” alternative. These debates echo historical discussions, as seen in Hinshelwood’s 1896 observation about the loose and misleading use of “word-blindness.”
However, recent critiques also highlight that dyslexia is more than a purely scientific diagnosis. It is also a “social construct,” shaped by social, psychological, political, and emotional factors. The emergence of dyslexia as a recognized condition is intertwined with societal changes like increased literacy demands, the growth of the medical profession, and evolving social structures. Advocacy simplified complex research to gain public and political support, contributing to both the recognition and the politicization of the term.
A classroom scene depicting children learning to read, illustrating the importance of literacy in modern society and the challenges faced by individuals with dyslexia within this context.
Ultimately, understanding dyslexia requires acknowledging both its basis as a psychological diagnosis and its nature as a social construct. While definitional debates continue, it is crucial to remember the individuals who experience genuine difficulties with reading and spelling. The historical efforts of researchers, practitioners, and advocates have been instrumental in providing support and improving outcomes for those with dyslexia, regardless of the evolving terminology.
Sources
- Anderson, P.L. & Meier-Hedde, R. (2001). Early case reports of dyslexia in the United States and Europe. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34(1), 9–21.
- Berlin, R. (1887). Eine besondere art der Wortblindheit (dyslexie). Wiesbaden: J.F. Bergmann.
- Critchley, M. (1970). The dyslexic child. London: William Heinemann.
- Elliott, J.G. & Grigorenko, E.L. (2014). The dyslexia debate. New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Hansard. (1987, 13 July). Dyslexia. HC Debates, vol. 119, cc949–956.
- Hinshelwood, J. (1896, 21 November). A case of dyslexia: A peculiar form of word blindness. The Lancet, 1451–1454.
- Hinshelwood, J. (1900, 26 May). Congenital word-blindness. The Lancet, 1506–1508.
- Hinshelwood, J. (1917). Congenital word-blindness. London: H.K. Lewis.
- Kussmaul, A. (1877). Diseases of the nervous system and disturbances of speech. In H. von Ziemssen (Ed.) Cylopedia of the practice of medicine (pp.770–778). New York: William Wood.
- Miles, T.R. & Miles, E. (1999). Dyslexia: A hundred years on (2nd edn). Buckingham: Open University Press.
- Naidoo, S. (1972). Specific dyslexia. London: Pitman.
- Pringle Morgan, W. (1896, 7 November). A case of congenital word blindness. The Lancet, 1378.
- Rose, J. (2009). Identifying and teaching children and young people with dyslexia and literacy difficulties. London: Department for Children, Schools and Families
- Wagner, R. (1973). Rudolf Berlin: Originator of the term dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 23(1), 57–63.
- Warnock, M. (2013, 8 August). Interview w/ Maggie Snowling. St John’s College, Oxford.
