Computer-based readability measures were used to examine the clarity of texts written in the sciences, the social sciences, and the arts and humanities. Five studies examined texts that were written in these different disciplines for different audiences, moving from fellow researchers to students and the general public. Readability increased across these genres until it reached an asymptote. In several cases, the scientific texts used shorter sentences and were easier to read than were their parallel texts in the other disciplines.
Avery, S., C. Bryan, and G. Wisker, eds. 1999. Innovations in teaching English and textual studies. Birmingham, UK: Staff and Educational Development Association.
2.
Bazerman, C.1981. What written knowledge does: Three examples of academic discourse. Philosophy of the Social Sciences11:361–387.
3.
Bazerman, C.1988. Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
4.
Becher, T.1989. Academic tribes and territories. 1st ed.Milton Keynes, UK: Open Univ. Press.
5.
Berliner, D. C.2002. Educational research: The hardest science of all. Educational Researcher31:18–20.
6.
Biglan, A.1973a. The characteristics of subject matter in different scientific areas. Journal of Applied Psychology57:195–203.
7.
Biglan, A.1973b. Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structure and output of university departments. Journal of Applied Psychology57:204–213.
8.
Broadhead, G. J., J. A. Berlin, and M. M. Broadhead. 1982. Sentence structure in academic prose and its implications for college writing teachers. Research in the Teaching of English16:225–240.
9.
Butler, L. 2003. How do we value and measure academic research publications? Paper available from the author, Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University, Canberra.
10.
Clark, M.2003. Computer science: A hard-applied discipline?Teaching in Higher Education8:71–87.
11.
Cornelis, C. H.1997. Passive and perspective. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Rodopi.
12.
de Solla Price, D. J.1970. Citation measures of hard science, soft science, technology, and nonscience. In Communication among scientists and engineers, edited by C. E. Nelson and D. K. Pollock, 3–22. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
13.
Ding, D. D.2002. The passive voice and social values in science. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication32:137–154.
14.
Donald, J. G.1990. University professors’views of knowledge and validation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology82:242–249.
15.
Fleck, L.1935. Genesis and development of a scientific fact. 1979 translation: Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
16.
Flesch, R.1948. A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology32:221–223.
17.
Flesch, R.1949. The art of readable writing. New York: Harper.
18.
Fowler, H. W., and F. G. Fowler. 1906. The king’s English. Oxford, UK: Clarendon.
19.
Harmon, J. E.1992. An analysis of fifty citation superstars from the scientific literature. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication22:17–27
20.
Harris, R.1996. Variation among style checkers in sentence measurement. TEXT Technology6:80–90.
21.
Hartley, J., J. W. Pennebaker, and C. L. Fox. 2003. Abstracts, introductions and discussions: How far do they differ in style?Scientometrics57:389–398.
22.
Hartley, J., E. Sotto, and J. W. Pennebaker. 2002. Style and substance in psychology: Are influential articles more readable than less influential ones?Social Studies of Science32:321–334.
23.
Hartman, G. H.1978. Blessing the torrent: On Wordsworth’s later style. Publications of the Modern Language Association93:196–204.
Hyland, K.1999. Disciplinary discourses: Writer stance in research articles. In Writing: Texts, processes and practices, edited by C. N. Candlin and K. Hyland, 99–129. London: Longman
26.
Jackson, P., and I. Moulinier. 2002. Natural language processing for online applications: Text retrieval, extraction and categorization. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: John Benjamins.
27.
Mailloux, S. L., M. E. Johnson, D. G. Fisher, and T. J. Pettibone. 1995. Howreliable is computerized assessment of readability?Computers in Nursing13:221–225.
28.
Marckworth, M. L., and L. M. Bell. 1967. Sentence-length distribution in the corpus. In Computational analysis of present-day American English, edited by H. Kucera andW. N. Francis, 368–405. Providence, RI: Brown Univ. Press.
29.
McFarland, D. A.2001. Student resistance: How the formal and informal organization of classrooms facilitate everyday forms of student defiance. American Journal of Sociology107 (3): 612–678.
30.
Merton, R. K.1963. Resistance to the systematic study of multiple discoveries in science. European Journal of Sociology4:250–282.
31.
Moore, I., and K. Exley, eds. 1999. Innovations in science teaching 2. Birmingham, UK: Staff and Educational Development Association.
32.
Open University. 1997a. Discovering science. (Vols. 1–3). Milton Keynes, UK: Open University.
33.
Open University. 1997b. An introduction to the humanities (Vols. 1–3). Milton Keynes, UK: Open University.
34.
Open University. 2000. An introduction to the social sciences: Understanding social change (Vols. 1–5). London: Routledge.
35.
Peck MacDonald, S.1990. The literary argument and its discursive conventions. In The writing scholar: Studies in academic discourse, edited byW. Nash, 31–62. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
36.
Radford, J., D. Van Laar, and D. Rose, eds. 1998. Innovations in psychology teaching. Birmingham, UK: Staff and Educational Development Association.
37.
Riley, K.1991. Passive voice and rhetorical role in scientific writing. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication21:239–257.
38.
Rodman, L.1981. The passive in technical and scientific writing. http://tc.eserver.org/13975.html (accessed November 10, 2003).
39.
Schacter, S., N. Christenfeld, and B. Ravina. 1991. Speech disfluency and the structure of knowledge. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology60:362–367.
40.
Seltzer, J.1983. What constitutes a ‘readable’technical style? In Newessays in technical and scientific communication: Research, theory and practice, edited by P. V. Anderson, R. J. Brockmann, and C. R. Miller, 71–89. Farmingdale, NY: Baywood.
41.
Smith, L. D., L. A. Best, D. A. Stubbs, J. Johnston, and A. B. Archibald. 2000. Scientific graphs and the hierarchy of the sciences: A Latourian survey of inscription practices. Social Studies of Science30:73–94.
42.
Sokal, A. D.1996. Transgressing the boundaries: Towards a transformative hermeneutics of quantum gravity. Social Text46/47 (Spring/Summer): 217–252.
43.
Strunk, W., and E. B. White. 1959. The elements of style. New York: Macmillan.
44.
Swales, J. M., and H. Najjar. 1987. The writing of research article introductions. Written Communication4:175–192.
45.
Sydes, M., and J. Hartley. 1997. A thorn in the Flesch: Observations on the unreliability of computer-based readability formulae. British Journal of Educational Technology28:143–145.
46.
Tarone, E., S. Dwyer, S. Gillette, and V. Icke. 1981. On the use of passives in two astrophysics journal papers. English for Specific Purposes1:123–140.
47.
Tibbo, H. R.1992. Abstracting across the disciplines: A content analysis of abstracts from the natural sciences, the social sciences, and the humanities with implications for abstracting standards and online information retrieval. Library and Information Science Research14:31–56.
48.
Upton, T. A., and U. Connor. 2001. Using computerized corpus analysis to investigate the textlinguistic discourse moves of a genre. English for Specific Purposes20:313–329.
49.
Vidal-Abarca, E., H. Reyes, R. Gilabet, J. Calpe, E. Soria, and A. C. Graesser. 2002. ETAT: Expository text analysis tool. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers34:93–107.
50.
Watson, J. D., and F. H. C. Crick. 1953. A structure for deoxyribose nucleic acid. Nature171 (April): 737–738.
51.
Williams, J. M.2002. Style: Ten lessons in clarity and grace. 7th ed.New York: Longman.
