The science of reading has made genuine progress in understanding reading and the teaching of reading, but is the science of reading just the science of reading English? Worldwide, a majority of students learn to read and write in non-European, nonalphabetic orthographies such as abjads (e.g., Arabic), abugidas/alphasyllabaries (e.g., Hindi), or morphosyllabaries (e.g., Chinese). Over a decade ago, I argued that the extreme inconsistency of English spelling–sound correspondence had confined the science of reading to an insular, Anglocentric research agenda addressing theoretical and applied issues with limited relevance for a universal science of reading. Here, I ask if the science of reading has moved forward. Acknowledging some limited progress over the past decade, it is evident that even today, mainstream reading research remains entrenched in Anglocentrism, Eurocentrism, and another form of ethnocentrism that I call alphabetism. Even the two dominant theoretical frameworks for describing cross-script diversity, orthographic depth and psycholinguistic grain size theory, give little or no consideration to non-European alphabets or nonalphabetic scripts, promoting a one-dimensional view of script variation (i.e., spelling–sound consistency). Consideration of the full spectrum of the world’s languages and writing systems reveals multiple dimensions of writing system complexity, each liable to create obstacles for the developing reader. If the science of reading is to contribute meaningfully to assessment, diagnosis, instruction, and intervention for all readers around the world, then we must extricate our field from entrenched ethnocentrism and embrace global diversity.

中文翻译：

---

阅读科学只是阅读英语的科学吗？

阅读科学在理解阅读和阅读教学方面取得了真正的进步，但阅读科学仅仅是阅读英语的科学吗？在世界范围内，大多数学生学习使用非欧洲、非字母正字法进行阅读和书写，例如 abjads（例如阿拉伯语）、abugidas/alphasyllabaries（例如，印地语）或 morphosyllabaries（例如，中文）。十多年前，我认为英语拼写-声音对应的极端不一致将阅读科学限制在一个孤立的、以英语为中心的研究议程中，解决与普遍阅读科学相关性有限的理论和应用问题。在这里，我问阅读的科学是否向前发展了。承认过去十年取得的一些有限进展，很明显，即使在今天，主流阅读研究仍然根植于盎格鲁中心主义、欧洲中心主义和另一种我称之为字母主义的种族中心主义。即使是描述跨文字多样性的两个主要理论框架，正字法深度和心理语言粒度理论，也很少或根本没有考虑非欧洲字母或非字母文字，促进了文字变异的一维视图（即拼写 - 声音一致性）。对世界语言和书写系统的全方位考虑揭示了书写系统复杂性的多个方面，每个方面都可能为发展中的读者造成障碍。如果阅读科学要为全世界所有读者的评估、诊断、指导和干预做出有意义的贡献，