Morphographic Units in Dutch Polysyllabic Words: In Search of the Body of the BOSS

Knuijt, Paul P. N. A.; Assink, Egbert M. H.

doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr0102_1

Cited by 3 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although we demonstrated the importance of the BOSS structure in English in the present study, it is possible that it may not emerge in orthographies with clear syllable boundaries (e.g., Spanish and Dutch) in which syllable units are presumed to be based on phonological structure (Á lvarez, Carreiras, & Perea, 2004;Knuijt & Assink, 1997). Á lvarez, Taft, and Carreiras (1998) found that Spanish readers preferred a Maximum Onset analysis whereas English good readers preferred a BOSS analysis when homographs in English and Spanish were directly compared using a splitword LDT.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 56%

“…Besides, Á lvarez et al (2001) demonstrated syllable frequency effects on both LDT and naming tasks in Spanish and Conrad and Jacobs (2004) replicated these effects in German. In other orthographies with clear syllable boundaries such as Dutch, Knuijt and Assink (1997) failed to find a BOSS advantage on a primed naming task and the split-word LDT.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 74%

“…Lima and Pollatsek (1983) found that BOSS primes and MOP primes were both responded to faster than BOSS'/1 primes in English lexical decision. In Dutch, Knuijt and Assink (1997) found that lexical decision latencies for BOSS primes were equivalent to those to MOP primes and MOP-1 primes (e.g., THUN or THU of THUNDER) but were faster than those to BOSS'/1 primes (THUNDE).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Word frequency modulates the Basic Orthographic Syllabic Structure (BOSS) effect in English polysyllable word recognition

Chen

Vaid

2007

Language and Cognitive Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Do native readers segment polysyllabic words based on orthographic/ morphological criteria or phonological criteria? Research by Taft (1979Taft ( , 2001 argues in support of the former, as readers were faster in split-word lexical decision tasks when the words were segmented by orthographic/ morphological principles based on Basic Orthographic Syllable Structure (or BOSS) units than when they were phonologically segmented following the Maximum Onset Principle (MOP). However, a BOSS-based preference has been difficult to replicate. The present research examined three factors potentially modulating a BOSS-based segmentation preference: whether a given BOSS unit is or is not present in other words, reading experience, and word frequency. The results showed that across higher and lower ability readers, and across words with shared or unique BOSSes, a BOSS preference was reliably obtained in low but not in high frequency words. Thus, word frequency appears to modulate the segmentation strategy of polysyllabic English words.The question of how complex, polysyllabic words are segmented and represented in the lexicon is of increasing interest in reading research. Several studies suggest that sublexical units such as syllables are relevant functional units affecting word recognition. For example, in speakers of Spanish, words with low syllable frequency are slower to recognise than

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 56%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 74%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Word frequency modulates the Basic Orthographic Syllabic Structure (BOSS) effect in English polysyllable word recognition

Chen

Vaid

2007

Language and Cognitive Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In fact, there have been several studies that have totally failed to find any evidence for the BOSS (e.g., Jordon, 1986;Katz & Baldasare, 1983;Knuijt & Assink, 1997;Lima & Pollatsek, 1983;Seidenberg, 1987). Some of these studies (e.g., Katz & Baldasare, 1983;Lima & Pollatsek, 1983) even employed a paradigm similar to that used by Taft (1979Taft ( , 1987, namely, splitting the words physically on the screen, but still found no sign at all of a preference for a BOSS analysis over a PS one.…”

Section: Evidence For and Against The Bossmentioning

confidence: 99%

Processing of Orthographic Structure by Adults of Different Reading Ability

Taft

2001

Lang Speech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The research presented here examines the proposal that orthographic processing in reading polysyllabic words takes place via an analysis of the word into an orthographic/morphological structure called the Basic Orthographic Syllabic Structure or BOSS. This structure includes the largest possible coda in the first component (e.g., the THUND of THUNDER) and, as such, it cuts across the phonological syllable boundary (e.g., THUN + DER). The existence of the BOSS has been previously supported by showing that words physically divided at their BOSS (e.g., THUND ER) are faster to recognize than those divided at their syllable (e.g., THUN DER). However, there has been little, if any, report of confirmatory evidence for this conclusion. Three experiments are reported here demonstrating that whether the BOSS division is faster than the syllable division depends crucially on the reading ability of the participants. Better adult reading, independently measured in terms of comprehension, is associated with a preference for the BOSS division while poorer adult reading is more associated with a syllable preference. Such a result potentially explains the conflicting findings that have been previously reported. A number of different explanations are offered for the pattern of results, with the suggestion that poorer adult reading is more oriented toward the pronunciation of the word than is better reading.

show abstract

“…There have been several other studies that have obtained results that are at least consistent with the BOSS idea (Inhoff, 1987;Luszcz, Bungey, & Geffen, 1984;Prinzmetal, Treiman, & Rho, 1987), but others that have totally failed to find any support (Jordan, 1986;Knuijt & Assink, 1997;Lima & Pollatsek, 1983;Seidenberg, 1987). The study by Lima and Pollatsek particularly raises problems, because it employed a paradigm similar to the one used by Taft (1979Taft ( , 1987 and found no sign at all of a preference for the BOSS analysis over the syllable one.…”

Section: Visual Processing Of Syllabic Structure In Englishmentioning

confidence: 95%

The role of syllabic structure in French visual word recognition

Rouibah

Taft

2001

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments are reported in which the processing units involved in the reading of French polysyllabic words are examined. A comparison was made between units following the maximal onset principle (i.e., the spoken syllable) and units following the maximal coda principle (i.e., the basic orthographic syllabic structure [BOSS]). In the first experiment, it took longer to recognize that a syllable was the beginning of a word (e.g., the FOE of FOETUS) than to make the same judgment of a BOSS (e.g., FOET). The fact that a BOSS plus one letter (e.g., FOETU) also took longer to judge than the BOSS indicated that the maximal coda principle applies to the units of processing in French. The second experiment confirmed this, using a lexical decision task with the different units being demarcated on the basis of color. It was concluded that the syllabic structure that is so clearly manifested in the spoken form of French is not involved in visual word recognition.

show abstract

Morphographic Units in Dutch Polysyllabic Words: In Search of the Body of the BOSS

Cited by 3 publications

References 9 publications

Word frequency modulates the Basic Orthographic Syllabic Structure (BOSS) effect in English polysyllable word recognition

Word frequency modulates the Basic Orthographic Syllabic Structure (BOSS) effect in English polysyllable word recognition

Processing of Orthographic Structure by Adults of Different Reading Ability

The role of syllabic structure in French visual word recognition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About