• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

A Linguistic Analysis of Comprehensibility of the Literary Text Soichiro Oku Kanto-Gakuin University July 21, 2001 0. Introduction One question we should consider is how do we, the readers, appraise the difficulty in reading.

1. Readability 【 readability 】 Readableness. Also in extended sense, the quality of, or capacity for being read with pleasure or interest, considered as measurable by certain assessable factors as ease of comprehension, attractiveness of subject and style. (OED)

1.1 Readability formulae Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 0.39 x (average number of words per sentence)+11.8 x (average number of syllables per word) Total x 15.59=Grade Reading Level. A readability score between grade 6-10 is considered most effective for general audience.

Flesch Reading Ease: 1.015x(average number of words per sentence)+0.864 x (number of syllables per 100 words) 206.835 x Total=Flesch Reading Ease Score The Flesch Reading Ease score is based on a scale of 0-100. The lower the score, the more difficult to read, as shown in the following table: Score Reading Difficulty Grade Level 90-100 Very Easy 4th grade 80-90 Easy 5th grade 70-80 Fairly Easy 6th grade 60-70 Standard 7th-8th grade 50-60 Fairly Difficult Some High School 30-50 Difficult High school-College 0-30 Very Difficult College Level Up

The readability formula by Dale and Chall (1948) uses the word list called the Dale List of 3,000 Familiar Words. The instructions are as follows: (Gilliland 1972:92) 1. Select 100 word samples throughout the text (for books every tenth page is recommended).

2. Compute the average sentence length in words (x2)

3. Compute the percentage of words outside the Dale List of 3,000 (x1 or Dale score)

4. Calculate the equation: Xc50 = 0.159 x1 + 0.0496 x2 + 3.6365

Xc50 is the reading grade score of a pupil who answers one half of a series of test questions 1 correctly. However, the criteria for selecting words in the list is not clear. One of the problems regarding word difficulty is how we decide the degree of word difficulty. The most valid criteria seems to be frequency.

1.2 Word difficulty and sentence length (1) helplessness, distasteful (2a) Many Americans and their slaves moved to Mexico during that time because Mexico allowed slavery. (2b) Because Mexico allowed slavery, many Americans and their slaves moved to Mexico during that time. (cf. Irwin and Pulver 1984)

1.3 Problems with readability (3a) Mary bought a car. (3b) Mary bought a car. I took a bath.

1.4 Reading and comprehension

Figure 1 : A classification of language functions by the oral-speech and the reading-writing channels (Crowder and Wagner 1992:111)

Hearing Auding Speech Comprehension Seeing Reading Writing

2. Comprehensibility Comprehensibility LINGUISTIC PSYCHOLOGICAL Text Reader Interpretability(Connexity) Coherence (pragmatic relation) (semantic relation) Cohesion Acceptability (grammatical relation)

2.1 Comprehensibility and communication system

2 Figure 2 : The summary of perspectives for comprehensibility from the viewpoint of communication system

the writer code (language) the reader

Rhetoric –Composition Linguistics Psychology m R e e

Text (discourse) Knowledge a a d n i n i n Schema g g

Macro structure Effectiveness Disposition Sentences Local coherence Words Ambiguity Proposition Sound Awkwardness

Redundancy t i m e

3. Cohesion and coherence (4a) “The bell is ringing.” “ I’m taking a bath.” (4b) “The bell is ringing. Would you like to take the phone?” I’m taking a bath, so I can’t catch that.

3.1 Cohesion and stylistics “ Whatever the ultimate goals, one will almost certainly wish not only to codify the text in terms of cohesive categories but also to inspect the individual instances of cohesion, to look closely at the actual words and phrases that enter into cohesive ties and see what patterns of texture then emerge. A particular text, or a genre, may exhibit a general tendency towards the use of certain features or modes rather than others” (Halliday and Hasan 1976:332).

(5a) Tom punished Alice. Because she was a thief. (5b) Donna punished Alice. Because she confessed to shoplifting. (Singer 1990:128) (5c) Donna phoned Alice. Because she needed money. (Singer 1990:128)

3.2 Psycholinguistic approaches to textual anaphora 1. The distance model---a correspondence between the syntactic realization of the anaphor and 3 distance (cf. Halliday and Hasan 1976, Givon’s “topic continuity) 2. The structural model---the tendency in the distribution of a certain type of anaphora in reference to the textual structure 3. The attention model---an important connection between a particular linguistic unit (cf. episode, paragraph) and a cognitive factor (cf. the limited capacity of working memory) 4. Accessibility---the degree of ease in accessing the right antecedent and postulation of accessibility markers based on distance, competition, saliency and unity (cf. Ariel 1990) 3.3 Constructing a parameter model

Table 1: Parameters influencing identification of the antecedents

Anaphor Lexico- 1. Gender grammatical ex) she > it Parameter 2. Number P

o ex) she > they s i t i

v 3. Animate e

e

f ex) she > it f e c

t 4. Head

+

1 ex) one > so Antecedent 5. Identity ex) she → Mary > (the mother of one son and two daughters) Perceptual 6. Competition Parameter ex) they → Tom and Mary > one son and two daughters or Tom and Mary I n

f 7. Length e r e

n ex) they →Tom and Mary > one son and two c e

daughters /

N

e 8. Distance g a t

i ex) she → Mary > …Mary… v e

Reader e Extra textual 9. Causal f f e

c (Contextual) ex) based on connectives t

-

1 Parameter 10. Temporal ex) based on connectives 11. Complicated ex) based on schema or world knowledge

The above list of parameters is classified according to the components for processing effectiveness. When the anaphor is encountered, we first pick up possible antecedent according to lexico-grammatical parameters. Next, a search for the candidates for the right antecedent begins.

4 Four types of perceptual parameters are involved in anaphoric resolution:

1. The less the number of possible antecedents there are, the easier it is to identify the right one. This processing depends on the existence of competition parameter. 2. The shorter the possible antecedent words are, the easier it is to identify the right one. The length of the antecedent, i.e. length parameter will affect the ease of identifying. This stage is reflected by our mechanism of short-term memory. 3. The nearer the possible antecedents are, the easier it is to identify the right one. At this stage, distance parameter is involved. 4. If we cannot identify the antecedent in the texts, we have to infer some extratextual referents. The identity parameter determines the necessity of the reader’s inference. At the last stage of anaphoric resolution, the reader’s inference plays an important role in identifying the right antecedents.

4.0 Data

Table 2: Corpus

Group A (presupposedly difficult texts) Group B (presupposedly easy texts) Original versions, etc. Simplified texts, etc. Two. A Tale of Two Cities Garden The Secret Garden txt By Charles Dickens .txt by Francis Hodgson Burnett Little. Little Women txt by Louisa May Alcott Text A The Picture of Dorian Gray Text B The Happy Prince by Oscar Wilde by Oscar Wilde Text C “ The Landlady” in Kiss Text D “ The Reader of Books” in Kiss Matilda by Roald Dahl by Roald Dahl Text E Alice's Adventures In Text F The Nursery Alice by Lewis Wonderland by Lewis Carroll Carroll

4.1 Analysis of children’s literature

5 Table 3: Readability Formulae Calculations and Readability Characteristics

Texts Flesch Flesc Gunning’s Number Sentenc Number Oxford Reading h- Fog Level1 of e of Book-worm Ease Kincai (grade) Sentence Average Words Stages Score d s Length Grade Level Charles Dickens 86 4 7 141 12.4 1663 4 A Tale of Two words Cities Frances Burnett 86 4 6 153 10.0 1633 4 The Secret Garden words Louisa May Allcott 86 5 7 132 14.1 1667 4 Little Women words

These texts are cited from the Oxford Bookworms series2 . Texts in this series are all retold or simplified versions limiting the vocabulary level and grammatical structures to a specific level. To calculate readability scores, I systematically extracted six samples from each text. These samples consist of two pages from the introductory chapters, two pages in the fifth chapters, and the last two pages. Readability scores are derived through the use of Grammatik5, which computes the ratings by applying different readability formulae.

Table 4: Profiles of averages of parameters in text samples

Text File TWO.TXT GARDEN.TXT LITTLE.TXT Sentences 141 153 132 Frequency of he/his/him/himself 44 76 29 Frequency of textual anaphora 22 45 12 Textual anaphora / all sentences 0.16 0.29 0.09 =percentage [=p] Average of parameters [=a] 3.45 3.60 3.25 Frequency of she/her/herself 45 45 60 Frequency of textual anaphora 20 25 22

1 Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level and Gunning’s Fog Level represent the grade level which would have to be reached in order to read the text. Their numbers correspond to the grade in American schools. The Flesch Reading Ease score is based on a scale 0-100. Lower scores indicate more difficulty in reading. 2 In this series, original texts are modified, thus making each text easier to ascertain the adequate level for the reader ’s linguistic ability. 6 Textual anaphora / all sentences 0.14 0.16 0.17 = percentage [=p] Average of parameters [=a] 3.60 3.52 3.55 Frequency of it/its/itself 25 17 17 Frequency of textual anaphora 8 12 13 Textual anaphora / all sentences 0.06 0.08 0.10 = percentage [=p] Average of parameters [=a] 0.5 0.25 0.40 Frequency of 15 9 13 they/their/them/themselves Frequency of textual anaphora 8 4 9 Textual anaphora / all sentences 0.06 0.03 0.07 = percentage [=p] Average of parameters [=a] 1.75 1.50 1.38

Concordance 1 : he, his, him, himself in Text A, (No.1-10 only)

WordSmith Tools -- he/his/him/himself (Text A = The picture of Dorian Gray) all 53 entries (Sentential anaphora [=S] 33/Textual anaphora [=T] 20) No. Word No. Type 1 e divan of Persian saddle-bags on which he was lying, smoking, as was his custom 58 S 2 looked at the gracious and comely form he had so skilfully mirrored in his art, 291 S 3 , and seemed about to linger there. But he suddenly started up, and, closing his 314 T 4 ed his fingers upon the lids, as though he sought to imprison within his brain s 330 S 5his brain some curious dream from which he feared he might awake. "It is you 342 S 6some curious dream from which he feared he might awake. "It is your best wor 344 S 7 don't think I shall send it anywhere," he answered, tossing his head back in th 439 T 8 on." "I know you will laugh at me," he replied, "but I really can't exhibit 603 T 9 and this young Adonis, who looks as if he was made out of ivory and rose-leaves 688 S 10 ry and rose-leaves. Why, my dear Basil, he is a Narcissus, and you-well, of cour 701 T 11 eps on saying at the age of eighty what he was told to say when he was a boy of 802 S

As the painter looked at the gracious and comely form he had so skillfully mirrored in his art, a smile of pleasure passed across his face, and seemed about to linger there.<-- S6--> But he suddenly started up, and, closing his eyes, placed his fingers upon the lids, as though he sought to imprison within his brain some curious dream from which he feared he might awake.<--S7-->

Table 5: Analysis of textual anaphora “he” in Text A

7 C C a o o n m S m T C t D p A e e a e p N a I G i e n d c L n s n l m u u i t e t e e t c a e i s H e m m e p a n d p n a n a s t o n n e t e h t d b N a g l i Word u i i r c c o e a o n e e t t t t m o a e e n e h d d y y r t r r l No. . No. 1 S7 314 he the painter 1 1 1 0 1 0 -1 0 0 0 0 3

Table 6: Averages of parameters for textual anaphora in Text A C C o o T C D m m A a e N a I G i p d L n s n m p u u e e e t e a i l

s H m i m p a t T n n p c n a s e o n e t h d b a a g e l u t r i i c a t o e e t t t t x i m a e o e h e d y y r r t r l n d Text A he/his/him/himself 1 1 1 0 0.58 0 -0.6 -0.4 0 0 0 2.53 Text A she/her/herself 1 1 0 0.65 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3.65 Text A it/its/itself 0 0.53 0 0 0.47 -0.6 -0.4 -0.5 0 0 0 -0.5 Text A they/their/them/themselves 0 0.62 0.06 0.56 -0.4 -0.1 -0.3 0 0 0 1 0.8

Table 7: Comparison of Text A and Text B

Text A Text B he/his/him/himself 2.52 3.29 she/her/herself 3.64 3.62 it/its/itself 0.47 0.25 they/their/them/themselves 0.79 1.94

Table 8: Comparison of Text C and Text D

Text C Text D he/his/him/himself 3.39 3.67 she/her/herself 3.26 3.54 it/its/itself - 0.10 -0.20 they/their/them/themselves 0.56 1.17

Table 9: Comparison of Text E and Text F

Text E Text F averages of parameters 2.62 2.43

5. Conclusion 8 The parameter model is best applied to all textual anaphora in an individual text, whereas we have calculated the degree of comprehensibility with regard to a pair of sample texts. The results, therefore, must be considered relative unlike readability ratings in absolute scores. It will be our future task to develop an absolute scoring system, and incorporate it into a usable, calculating software.

9 Selected References Ariel, Mira. 1990. Accessing Noun-Phrase Antecedents. London and New York: Routledge. Beaugrande, Robert de and Wolfgang Dressler. 1981. Introduction to Text Linguistics. London: Longman. Crowder, Robert G. and Richard K. Wagner. 1992. The Psychology of Reading. An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford UP. Davison, Alice and Georgia M. Green. 1988. Linguistic Complexity and Text Comprehension: Readability Issues Reconsidered. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Dale, E. and J. S. Chall. 1948. “A formula for predicting readability.” Educational Research Bulletin 27 Jan: 11-20. and Feb:37-54. Dijk, Tuen van. 1972. Some Aspects of Text Grammars. Hague: Mouton. Dijk, Tuen van. 1982. “Episodes as units of discourse analysis.” Ed. D. Tannen. Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press. Dijk, Teun van and Walter Kintsch. 1983. Strategies of Discourse comprehension. New York: Academic Press. Enkvist, Nils Erik. 1978. “Coherence, Pseudo-Coherence, and Non-Coherence.” Cohesion and Semantics. Ed. Jan-Ola Östman. Publications of the Research Institute of the Åbo Akademi Foundation, 41:109-128. Enkvist, Nils Erik. 1989. “From Text to Interpretability: A Contribution to the Discussion of Basic Terms in Text Linguistics.” Connexity and Coherence. Analysis of Text and Discourse. Eds. Heydrich, Walfgang, Friz Neubauer, János S. Petöfi, and Emel Sözer. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 369-383. Gilliland, John. 1972. Readability. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Givón, Tamly ed. 1983. Topic Continuity in Discourse: Quantified Cross-Language Studies. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Graesser, Arthur C. and Gordon H. Bower eds. 1990. Inferences and text comprehension. San Diego; Tokyo: Academic Press. Gutwinski, Waldemar. 1976. Cohesion in Literary Texts. Hague: Mouton. Halliday, M.A.K. and Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman. Harper, Candace Ann. 1990. A Comparative Study of the Readability and Comprehensibility of a Simplified and the Original version of an American Short Story with Students of English as a Foreign Language. Diss. Florida State U. Ann Arbor: UMI, 1997. 9024095. Hasan, Ruqaiya. 1985. “Coherence and Cohesive Harmony.” F.J. Delaware. Ed. Understanding Reading Comprehension. Delaware: International Reading Association. Kintsch, Walter. 1977. “Reading comprehension as a function of text structure.” Reber, A. S. and D. L. Scarborough. Eds. Toward a psychology of reading. New York: Wiley. Kintsch, Walter and D. Vipond. 1977. “Reading comprehension and readability in educational practice and psychological theory.” Lars-Goran Nilsson. Ed. Proceedings of the Conference on Memory. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kintsch, Walter and J. Keenan. 1973. “Reading rate and retention as a function of the number of 10 propositions in the text base of sentence.” Cognitive Psychology 5: 257-274. Malt, Barbara C. 1985. “The Role of Discourse Structure in Understanding Anaphora.” Journal of Memory and Language, 24: 271-289. Miller, J. R. and Walter Kintsch. 1980. “Readability and recall of short prose passages: A theoretical analysis.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6:335-354. Murphy, Gregory L. 1985. “Processes of Understanding Anaphora.” Journal of Memory and Language, 24: 290-303. Peer, W. van. 1986. Stylistics and Psychology: Investigation of Forgrounding. London: Croom Helm. Prasee, Michael John. 1987. The Model of Anaphoric Reference. Diss. Ohio State University, 1987. Ann Arbor: UMI. 8710038. Pu, Ming-Ming. 1995. “Anaphoric Patterning in English and Mandarin Narrative Production.” Discourse Processes, 19: 279-300. Readability. The Oxford English Dictionary. Ricento, Thomas Kenneth. 1987. Aspects of Coherence in English and Japanese Expository Prose. Diss. University of California Los Angeles, 1987. Ann Arbor: UMI. 8723190. Rickheit, Gert and Christopher Habel eds. 1995. Focus and Coherence in Discourse Processing. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. Sanders, Ted J. M, Wilbert P. M. Spooren and Leo G. M. Noordman. 1993. “Coherence relations in a cognitive theory of discourse representation.” Cognitive Linguistics, 4-2:93-133. Singer, Murray. 1990. Psychology of Language. An Introduction to Sentence and Discourse Processes. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Stoddard, Sally. 1991. Text and Texture: Patterns of Cohesion. Advances in Discourse Processes Vol. XL. Norwood, New Jersey: Albex. Stubbs, Michael. 1996. Text and Corpus Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.

11

Load more

  11

Copy Link