Readability Indices Do Not Say It All on a Text Readability
We propose a universal readability index, <inline-formula><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><semantics><mrow><msub><mrow><mi>G</mi></mrow><mrow><mi>U</mi></mrow></msub...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI AG
2023-03-01
|
| Series: | Analytics |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://www.mdpi.com/2813-2203/2/2/16 |
| _version_ | 1827739006683578368 |
|---|---|
| author | Emilio Matricciani |
| author_facet | Emilio Matricciani |
| author_sort | Emilio Matricciani |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | We propose a universal readability index, <inline-formula><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><semantics><mrow><msub><mrow><mi>G</mi></mrow><mrow><mi>U</mi></mrow></msub></mrow></semantics></math></inline-formula>, applicable to any alphabetical language and related to cognitive psychology, the theory of communication, phonics and linguistics. This index also considers readers’ short-term-memory processing capacity, here modeled by the word interval <inline-formula><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><semantics><mrow><msub><mrow><mi>I</mi></mrow><mrow><mi>P</mi></mrow></msub></mrow></semantics></math></inline-formula>, namely, the number of words between two interpunctions. Any current readability formula does not consider <inline-formula><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><semantics><mrow><msub><mrow><mi>I</mi></mrow><mrow><mi>p</mi></mrow></msub></mrow></semantics></math></inline-formula>, but scatterplots of <inline-formula><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><semantics><mrow><msub><mrow><mi>I</mi></mrow><mrow><mi>p</mi></mrow></msub></mrow></semantics></math></inline-formula> versus a readability index show that texts with the same readability index can have very different <inline-formula><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><semantics><mrow><msub><mrow><mi>I</mi></mrow><mrow><mi>p</mi></mrow></msub></mrow></semantics></math></inline-formula>, ranging from 4 to 9, practically Miller’s range, which refers to 95% of readers. It is unlikely that <inline-formula><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><semantics><mrow><msub><mrow><mi>I</mi></mrow><mrow><mi>P</mi></mrow></msub></mrow></semantics></math></inline-formula> has no impact on reading difficulty. The examples shown are taken from Italian and English Literatures, and from the translations of <i>The New Testament</i> in Latin and in contemporary languages. We also propose an extremely compact formula, relating the capacity of human short-term memory to the difficulty of reading a text. It should synthetically model human reading difficulty, a kind of “footprint” of humans. However, further experimental and multidisciplinary work is necessary to confirm our conjecture about the dependence of a readability index on a reader’s short-term-memory capacity. |
| first_indexed | 2024-03-11T02:52:01Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-a659b660845c49f1893b8823131102b1 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2813-2203 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-11T02:52:01Z |
| publishDate | 2023-03-01 |
| publisher | MDPI AG |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Analytics |
| spelling | doaj.art-a659b660845c49f1893b8823131102b12023-11-18T08:57:22ZengMDPI AGAnalytics2813-22032023-03-012229631410.3390/analytics2020016Readability Indices Do Not Say It All on a Text ReadabilityEmilio Matricciani0Dipartimento di Elettronica, Informazione e Bioingegneria (DEIB), Politecnico di Milano, 20133 Milan, ItalyWe propose a universal readability index, <inline-formula><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><semantics><mrow><msub><mrow><mi>G</mi></mrow><mrow><mi>U</mi></mrow></msub></mrow></semantics></math></inline-formula>, applicable to any alphabetical language and related to cognitive psychology, the theory of communication, phonics and linguistics. This index also considers readers’ short-term-memory processing capacity, here modeled by the word interval <inline-formula><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><semantics><mrow><msub><mrow><mi>I</mi></mrow><mrow><mi>P</mi></mrow></msub></mrow></semantics></math></inline-formula>, namely, the number of words between two interpunctions. Any current readability formula does not consider <inline-formula><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><semantics><mrow><msub><mrow><mi>I</mi></mrow><mrow><mi>p</mi></mrow></msub></mrow></semantics></math></inline-formula>, but scatterplots of <inline-formula><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><semantics><mrow><msub><mrow><mi>I</mi></mrow><mrow><mi>p</mi></mrow></msub></mrow></semantics></math></inline-formula> versus a readability index show that texts with the same readability index can have very different <inline-formula><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><semantics><mrow><msub><mrow><mi>I</mi></mrow><mrow><mi>p</mi></mrow></msub></mrow></semantics></math></inline-formula>, ranging from 4 to 9, practically Miller’s range, which refers to 95% of readers. It is unlikely that <inline-formula><math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" display="inline"><semantics><mrow><msub><mrow><mi>I</mi></mrow><mrow><mi>P</mi></mrow></msub></mrow></semantics></math></inline-formula> has no impact on reading difficulty. The examples shown are taken from Italian and English Literatures, and from the translations of <i>The New Testament</i> in Latin and in contemporary languages. We also propose an extremely compact formula, relating the capacity of human short-term memory to the difficulty of reading a text. It should synthetically model human reading difficulty, a kind of “footprint” of humans. However, further experimental and multidisciplinary work is necessary to confirm our conjecture about the dependence of a readability index on a reader’s short-term-memory capacity.https://www.mdpi.com/2813-2203/2/2/16alphabetical languagesARIEnglish literatureFlesch Reading Ease IndexGULPEASEhuman footprint |
| spellingShingle | Emilio Matricciani Readability Indices Do Not Say It All on a Text Readability Analytics alphabetical languages ARI English literature Flesch Reading Ease Index GULPEASE human footprint |
| title | Readability Indices Do Not Say It All on a Text Readability |
| title_full | Readability Indices Do Not Say It All on a Text Readability |
| title_fullStr | Readability Indices Do Not Say It All on a Text Readability |
| title_full_unstemmed | Readability Indices Do Not Say It All on a Text Readability |
| title_short | Readability Indices Do Not Say It All on a Text Readability |
| title_sort | readability indices do not say it all on a text readability |
| topic | alphabetical languages ARI English literature Flesch Reading Ease Index GULPEASE human footprint |
| url | https://www.mdpi.com/2813-2203/2/2/16 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT emiliomatricciani readabilityindicesdonotsayitallonatextreadability |