The Structure of Cross-Linguistic Differences: Meaning and Context of ‘Readability’ and its Russian Equivalent ‘Chitabelnost’

封面

如何引用文章

全文:

详细

The article presents the results of an original study aimed at finding (1) frequency fluctuations of the term ‘readability’ in American discourse and its Russian equivalent ‘chitabelnost’ in Russian discourse over the period from 1920s to the present; and (2) semantic similarities and differences between the English term ‘readability’ and its Russian equivalent ‘chitabelnost’ over the same period of time. A contrastive analysis of the words testified to inconsiderable differences in the semantic structures of the terms in the period under study: the term ‘readability’ has been used with the following meanings: (1) ‘the quality of being legible or decipherable’ and (2) ‘the quality of being easy or enjoyable to read’. The Russian equivalent ‘chitabelnost’ has two contemporary meanings similar to the aforementioned English meanings as well as the obsolete ‘library book checkouts’. With the help of the Google NgramViewer, we identified the 1980s frequency peak of both terms when the modern notion of the concepts was formed. The research into the topical context of readability as ‘the quality of being easy or enjoyable to read’ demonstrated empiricist tendencies in American studies focused on two types of parameters, i.e. the ‘objective’ parameters of texts, i.e. sentence length, word counts, number of high/low frequency words, ratio of high/low frequency words to total words, sentence complexity, etc. and ‘individual’ variables affecting a potential reader, such as ‘word familiarity’, cognitive and linguistic abilities, cultural and topic knowledge, etc. The Russian school’s view, until the 1970s, had traditionally been more holistic and ‘biased’ towards an individuals’ factors. The results of the study have the potential to contribute to cross-linguistic research in the area of text readability assessment, semantics, and scientific literature searches.

作者简介

Marina Solnyshkina

Kazan Federal University

Email: mesoln@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1885-3039
Professor of the Department of Theory and Practice of Teaching Foreign Languages, Institute of Philology and Intercultural Communication, Kazan Federal University

Elena Harkova

Kazan Federal University

Email: halenka@rambler.ru
ORCID iD: http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7582-6622
Associate professor of the Department of Theory and Practice of Teaching Foreign Languages, Institute of Philology and Intercultural Communication, Kazan Federal University

Maria Kazachkova

MGIMO University

Email: mbkazachkova@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0357-3010
Associate Professor of the Department of English Language, MGIMO University

参考

  1. Aron, E. I. (1972). Metody issledovaniya i proyektirovaniya organizatsii truda na predpriyatii [The methods of research and planning the work organization in the enterprise].https://books.google.ru/books?id=K7cwAQAAIAAJ-.
  2. Baldwin, T. S., & Bailey, L. J. (1971). Readability of technical training materials presented on microfiche versus offset copy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55(1), 37-41.http://psycnet.apa.org/record/1971-21933-001.
  3. Blom, M., & Blom, T. (1983). Canada Home: Juliana Horatia Ewing's Fredericton Letters, 1867-1869. University of British Columbia Press.
  4. Bonsall, S. B., & Miller, B. P. (2017). The impact of narrative disclosure readability on bond ratings and the cost of debt. Review of Accounting Studies, 22(2), 608-643. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11142-017-9388-0
  5. Boztas, N., Omur, D., Ozbılgın, S., Altuntas, G., Piskin, E., Ozkardesler, S., & Hanci, V. (2017). Readability of internet-sourced patient education material related to labour analgesia. Medicine, 96(45), 1-5.https://clck.ru/JBxuL.
  6. Chia, E.N. (1998). Guide to readability in african languages. Linguistic Society of America, 74(3), 665.https://muse.jhu.edu/article/451344/pdf.
  7. Choldin, M. T. (1979). Rubakin, Nikolai Aleksandrovic. In A. Kent, H. Lancour & J. E. Daily (Ed.), Encyclopedia of library and information science (pp. 178-179). CRC Press.
  8. Coleman, M., & Liau, T. L. (1975). A Computer Readability Formula Designed for Machine Scoring. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60(2), 283-284. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1037/h0076540
  9. Crossley, S. A., Skalicky, S., Dascalu, M., McNamara, D. S., & Kyle, K. (2017). Predicting text comprehension, processing, and familiarity in adult readers: New approaches to readability formulas. Discourse Processes, 54(5-6), 340-359. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2017.1296264
  10. Dale, E. (1967). Can you give the public what it wants? World Book Encyclopedia.
  11. Dash, N. S. (2008). Context and contextual word meaning. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistic, 5, 21-31.http://www.skase.sk/Volumes/JTL12/pdf_doc/2.pdf.
  12. Dawkins, J. (1975). Syntax and Readability. International Reading Association.https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED103814.pdf.
  13. DuBay, D. H. (2004). The principles of readability.https://ru.scribd.com/document/346200577/Dubay-principles-of-readability-pdf.
  14. Dubois, P. & Floyd, F. (1998). Lawmaking by initiative: issues, options, and comparisons. Agathon.
  15. Fellbaum, C. (Ed.) (1998). WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. MIT Press.
  16. Fernbach, N. (1990). La lisibilité dans la reaction juridique au Québec [Legibility in the legal reaction in Quebec]. Le Centre de promotion de la lisibilité, Centre Canadiend'informationjuridique.
  17. Filologicheskie nauki [Philological Sciences]. (1977). Trudy Tiflisskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta [Proceedings of the Tbilisi State University]. Tbilisi University Press.
  18. Filologicheskie nauki [Philological Sciences]. (1988). Nauchnye doklady vysshej shkoly [Scientific Reports of the Higher School]. Vysshaya shkola.
  19. Firth, J. R. (1957). A synopsis of linguistic theory. In Philological society: Studies in Linguistic Analysis (special vol., pp. 1-32). Basil Blackwell.
  20. Flesch, R. (1949 and 1974). The art of readable writing. Harper.
  21. Flesch, R. (1964). The ABC of style: A guide to plain English. Harper.
  22. Fries, P. (1986). Language features, textual coherence and reading. Word, 37, 13-29. https//. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1986.11435764
  23. Fry, E. B. (1968). A readability formula that saves time. Journal of Reading, 11,513-516.http://www.jstor.org/stable/40013635.
  24. Gray, S. (2019). Readability of Patient-reported Outcome Measures for Persons with Aphasia.https://clck.ru/JAtzz.
  25. Gricenko, V.I. (Ed.) (1991). Upravlyayushchie sistemy I mashiny [Control systems and machines]. Nauk. Dumka.
  26. Gunning, R. (1952). The technique of clear writing. McGraw-Hill.
  27. Hai-Jew, S. (2014). Querying google books ngram viewer's big data text corpuses to complement research.https://www.researchgate.net.
  28. Halbert, M. G. (1944). The teaching value of illustrated books. American school board journal, 108(5), 43-44.
  29. Hiebert, E. H. (2012). The common core state standards and text complexity. Text Project & University of California.
  30. Ivanov, V. V. (2013). K voprosu ob ispolzovanii lingvisticheskikh kharakteristik slozhnosti teksta pri issledovanii okulomotornoy aktivnosti pri chtenii u podrostkov [Back to the linguistic characteristics of the complexity of the text in the study of oculomotor activity in reading in adolescents]. New research, 2, 42-50.https://cyberleninka.ru/article.
  31. Johnson, K. G. (1947). Factors influencing the readability of science. University of Wisconsin.
  32. Karpov, N. V. (2014). Identifikatsiya urovnya slozhnosti teksta i ego adaptatsiya [Identification of the complexity level and its adaptation].http://www.slideshare.net/karpnv/ss-31225145#14356960593761&fbinitialized.
  33. Kayam, O. (2018). The readability and simplicity of Donald Trump's language. Political Studies Review, 16(1), 73-88. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/1478929917706844
  34. Kerlinger, F. N. (1973). Foundations of behavioral research (2nd ed.). Holt Rinehart and Winston.
  35. Killam, G. D. (Ed.) (1984). The writing of East and Central Africa. Heinemann Educational Books Ltd.
  36. Kim, C., Wang, K., & Zhang, L. (2019). Readability of 10-K reports and stock price crash risk. Contemporary accounting research, 36(2), 1184-1216. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12452
  37. Kitson, H. D. (1921). The mind of the buyer. Macmillan.
  38. Klare, G. R. (1952). Measures of the readability of written communication: an evaluation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 43(7), 385-399. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1037/h0058972
  39. Klare, G. R. (2000). Readable computer documentation. ACM journal of computer documentation, 24(3), 148-168. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1145/344599.344645
  40. Klare, G.R., & Buck, B. (1954). Know your reader, the scientific approach to readability. Hermitage House.
  41. Lenin, V. I. (1917). Polnoye sobraniye sochineniy [Complete Works].http://uaio.ru/vil/49.htm.
  42. Leonov, V. P., & Elepov, B.S. (1986). Referirovanie I annotirovanie nauchno-tekhnicheskoj literatury [Precis-writing and annotating of the scientific and the technical literature]. Nauka.
  43. Leontyev, A. A. (1976). Smyslovoe vospriyatie rechevogoso obshcheniya (v usloviyah massovoj kommunikacii) [Semantic perception of speech communication (in the conditions of mass communication)]. Nauka.
  44. Lively, B. A., &Pressey, S. L. (1923). A method for measuring the ‘vocabulary burden' of textbooks. Educational administration and supervision, 9, 389-398. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1931.10880190
  45. Lomperski, T. J. (1995). Enhancing interior building sign readability for older adults: Lighting color and sign color contrast. University of Wisconsin.
  46. Macias-Chapula, C. A. (Ed.) (1999). Seventh conference of the international society for scientometrics and informetrics. Universidad de Colima.
  47. Mackovskij, M. S. (1976). Problemy chitabel'nosti pechatnogo materiala. Smyslovoe vospriyatie rechevogo soobshcheniya v usloviyah massovoj kommunikacii [Problems of readability of printed material. Semantic perception of speech messages in conditions of mass communication]. Nauka.
  48. Markel, V., Vaccaro, M., & Hewett T. (1992). Effects of paragraph length on attitudes toward technical writing. Technical Communication, 39(3), 454-456.http://www.jstor.org/stable/43090117.
  49. McLaughlin, H. (1969). SMOG grading a new readability formula. Journal of reading, 22, 639-646.http://webpages.charter.net/ghal/SMOG_Readability_Formula_G._Harry_McLaughlin_(1969).pdf.
  50. Mikk, J. A. (1974). Metodika razrabotkif ormul ˇchitabel'nosti [Methods for developing readability formulas]. Sovetskaja Pedagogikai Skola, 9, 78-163.
  51. Mikk, Y. A. (1981). Optimizaciya slozhnosti uchebnogo teksta: V pomoshch' avtoram i redaktoram [Optimizing the complexity of the text: To help authors and editors]. Prosveshchenie.
  52. Miller, W. A. (1937). Reading with and without pictures. Elementary School Journal, 38, 676-682. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1086/462248
  53. Mutt, O. (1984). Aktual'nye voprosy otbora uchebnogo materiala dlya vuzovskogo kursa inostrannogo yazyka [Actual questions of selection of the educational material for the university course of a foreign language]. The Tartu State University.
  54. Paterson, D. G., & Tinker, M. A. (1946). The relative readability of newsprint and book print. Journal of Applied Psychology, 30(5), 454-459. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054012
  55. Pearson, P. D. (Ed.) (1984). Handbook of reading research. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  56. Pechenick, E. A., Danforth, C. M., & Dodds, P. S. (2015). Characterizing the Google Books Corpus: Strong limits to inferences of socio-cultural and linguistic evolution. PLOS ONE, 10(10), e0137041. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0137041
  57. Peng, C. (2015). Textbook readability and student performance in online introductory corporate finance classes. The Journal of Educators Online-JEO, 13(2), 35-49. DOI:https://doi.org/10.9743/JEO.2015.2.6
  58. Peterson, E. M. (1955). Aspects of readability in the social studies. Journal of Applied Psychology 39(2), 141-142. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1037/h0039753
  59. Randal, R. (Ed.) (2013). Novel and short story writer's market. Writer's digest books.
  60. Ravin, Y., & Leacock C. (2000). Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches. Oxford University Press.
  61. Rezak, D. (2008). Svyazi reshayut vse. Biznes-skazka o Carevne-lyagushke [Communications solve everything. Business tale about the Frog Princess]. MIF.
  62. Risi, S. (2016). Google Ngrams: From relative frequencies to absolute counts.http://stanford.edu/~risi/tutorials/absolute_ngram_counts.html.
  63. Rubenstein, H., & Aborn, M. (1958). Learning, prediction, and readability. Journal of Applied Psychology, 42(1), 28-32. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1037/h0039808
  64. Schumacher, E., & Eskenazi, M. (2016). A readability analysis of campaign speeches from the 2016 US Presidential campaign. Carnegie Mellon University.
  65. Sherman, L.A. (1893). Analytics of literature: A manual for the objective study of English prose and poetry. Ginn and Co.
  66. Shorley, Ch. (1985). Queneau's fiction: An introductory study. Cambridge University Press.
  67. Sides, C.H. (1999). How to write and present technical information. Cambridge University Press.
  68. Sologub, O. P. (2002). Usvoenie inoyazychnyh strukturnyh ehlementov v russkom yazyke [The assimilation of foreign language structures in the Russian language]. In Proceedings of the 2002 the 3rd Scientific Conference (pp. 130-134). Nauka.
  69. Solovyev, V. D. (2013). A frequency-based approach to language dynamics.https://events.spbu.ru/eventsContent/files/corpling/corpora2013/Solovjov.pdf.
  70. Storino, A., Castillo-Angeles, M., Watkins, A. A., Vargas, C., Mancias, J. D., Bullock, A., Moser, A. J., Demirjian, Demirjian, A., & Kent, T. S. (2016). Assessing the accuracy and readability of online health information for patients with pancreatic cancer. JAMA surgery, 151(9), 831-837. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2016.0730
  71. Strang, A. (1941). A study of gains and losses in concepts as indicated by pupils' reading scores after the addition of illustrations to reading material [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Temple University.
  72. Taylor, M. C.,& Wahlstrom, M. W. (1986). Readability as applied to the assessment instrument. International Journal for Basic Education, 10(3), 155-170.http://en.copian.ca/library/research/report4/rep31-35/rep34.pdf.
  73. Taylor, Z.W. (2017). A failure to communicate: are university websites readable? International Journal of Education and Multidisciplinary Studies 8(2), 149-163. DOI:https://doi.org/10.21013/jems.v8.n2.p1
  74. Thorndike, E. L. (1916). An improved scale for measuring ability in reading. Teachers college record, 17, 40-67.
  75. Thorndike, E. L. (1921). The teacher's word book. Columbia University.
  76. Thorndike, E. L. (1932). A teacher's word book of 20,000 words. Columbia University.
  77. Thorndike, E. L., & Lorge, I. (1944). The teacher's word book of 30,000 words. Columbia University.
  78. Thorndike, R. L. (1973-1974). Reading as reasoning. Reading research quarterly, 9, 135-137. Columbia University.
  79. Tuldava, Yu. A. (1975). Ob izmerenii trudnosti tekstov [About the measurement of the difficulty of texts]. Uchenye zapiski Tartuskogo universiteta, 345(IV), 102-120.http://dspace.ut.ee/bitstream/handle/10062/25443/acta_827_1988.pdf.
  80. Ulijn, J. M., & Strother, J. B. (1990). The effect of syntactic simplification on reading EST texts as L1 and L2. Journal of research in reading, 13(1), 38-54.https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ405025.
  81. Vari-Cartier, P. (1916). Development and validation of a new instrument to assess the readability of Spanish prose. The Modern Language Journal, 65, 141-148.https://clck.ru/HSPNr.
  82. Vieth, N. A. (1988). Mathematics in composition: A defense of Flesch's readability formula [Unpublished MA thesi, Iowa State University].https://clck.ru/HSPQD.
  83. Vogel, M., & Washburne, C. (1928). An objective method of determining grade placement of children's reading material. Elementary school journal, 28, 373-381. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1086/456072
  84. Wang, Z., Hsieh, T. S., & Sarkis, J. (2018). CSR performance and the readability of CSR reports: Too good to be true? Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 25(1), 66-79. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.1440
  85. Wierzbicka, A. (1996). Semantics: Primes and universal. Oxford University Press.
  86. Willems, K. (2012). Intuition, introspection and observation in linguistic inquiry. Language Sciences, 34, 665-681. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2012.04.008
  87. Zakharov,V., & Маsevich, А. (2014). Diachronic investigations on the base of Russian corpus of Google Books Ngram Viewer.https://www.academia.edu/8592136.
  88. Zhang, S. (2015). The Pitfalls of using Google NGram to study language.https://www.wired.com.
  89. Zimnyaya, I. A., Dridzhe, T. M., & Leontyev, A. A. (1976). Smyslovoye vospriyatiye rechevogo soobshcheniya: V usloviyakh massovoy kommunikatsii [Semantic perception of the voice message: In the context of mass communication].https://books.google.ru/books?id=SI8ZAAAAMAAJ.

补充文件

附件文件
动作
1. JATS XML
下载


Creative Commons License
此作品已接受知识共享署名 4.0国际许可协议的许可