Texts are routinely simplified to make them more comprehensible for second language learners. However, the effects of simplification upon the linguistic features of texts remain largely unexplored. Here we examine the effects of one type of text simplification: intuitive text simplification. We use the computational tool, Coh-Metrix, to examine linguistic differences between proficiency levels of a corpus of 300 news texts that had been simplified to three levels of simplification (beginner, intermediate, advanced). The main analysis reveals significant differences between levels for a wide range of linguistic features, particularly between beginner and advanced levels. The results show that lower level texts are generally less lexically and syntactically sophisticated than higher-level texts. The analysis also reveals that lower level texts contain more cohesive features than higher-level texts. The analysis also provides strong evidence that these linguistic features can be used to classify levels of simplified reading texts. Overall, the findings support the notion that intuitively simplified texts at the beginning level contain more linguistic features related to comprehensible input than intuitively simplified texts at the advanced level.
AllenD. (2009). A study of the role of relative clauses in the simplification of news texts for learners of English. System, 37, 585–99.
2.
AllenJ.WiddowsonH.G. (1979). Teaching the communicative use of English. In: BrumfitC.JohnsonK. (Eds.), The communicative approach to language teaching (pp. 124–42). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
3.
BaayenR.H.PiepenbrockR.van RijnH. (Eds.) (1995). The CELEX Lexical Database (Release 2) [CD-ROM]. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.
4.
BiberD. (1993). Representativeness in corpus design. Journal of Literary and Linguistic Computing, 8, 243–57.
5.
BraceN.KempR.SnelgarR. (2006). SPSS for psychologists: A guide to data analysis using SPSS for Windows. 3rd edition. London: Palgrave.
6.
CarrellP.L. (1987) Readability in ESL. Reading in a Foreign Language, 4, 21–40.
7.
ChafeW.L. (1975). Givenness, contrastiveness, definiteness, subjects, topics, and point of view. In: LiC.N. (Ed.), Subject and topic (pp 26–55). New York: Academic.
8.
ColtheartM. (1981). The MRC Psycholinguistic Database. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33A, 497–505.
9.
CohenJ. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–59.
10.
CrossleyS.A.McNamaraD.S. (2008). Assessing L2 reading texts at the intermediate level: An approximate replication of Crossley, Louwerse, McCarthy & McNamara (2007). Language Teaching, 41, 409–29.
11.
CrossleyS.A.McNamaraD.S. (2009). Computationally assessing lexical differences in second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 17, 119–35.
12.
CrossleyS.A.GreenfieldJ.McNamaraD.S. (2008). Assessing text readability using cognitively based indices. TESOL Quarterly, 42, 475–93.
13.
CrossleyS.A.LouwerseM.M.McCarthyP.M.McNamaraD.S. (2007). A linguistic analysis of simplified and authentic texts. The Modern Language Journal, 91, 15–30.
14.
DaviesA.WiddowsonH. (1974). Reading and writing. In: AllenJ.P.CorderS.P. (Eds.), Techniques in applied linguistics (pp. 155–201). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
15.
DavisonA.KantorR. (1982). On the failure of readability formulas to define readable texts: A case study from adaptations. Reading Research Quarterly, 17, 187–209.
16.
DuftyD.F.GraesserA.C.LightmanE.CrossleyS.A.McNamaraD.S. (2006). An algorithm for detecting spatial cohesion in text. Presentation at the 16th Annual Meeting of the Society for Text and Discourse, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
17.
FellbaumC. (1998). WordNet: An electronic lexical database. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
18.
FieldA. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS. London: Sage.
19.
GaiesS.J. (1983). The investigation of language classroom processes. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 205–17.
20.
GoodmanK.FreemanD. (1993). What’s simple in simplified language. In: TickooM.L. (Ed.), Simplification: Theory and application (pp. 69–76). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Center.
21.
GraesserA.McNamaraD.LouwerseM.CaiZ. (2004). Coh-Metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 36, 193–202.
22.
GreenfieldJ. (2004). Readability formulas for EFL. JALT Journal, 26, 5–24.
23.
HaberlandtK.F.GraesserA.C. (1985). Component processes in text comprehension and some of their interactions. Journal of Experiment Psychology: General, 114, 357–74.
24.
HatchE. (1978). Second language acquisition. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
HillD. (2008). Graded readers in English. ELT Journal, 62, 184–204.
27.
KintschW.KeenanJ. (1973). Reading rate and retention as a function of the number of propositions in the base structure of sentences. Cognitive Psychology, 5, 257–74.
28.
KleinW. (1994). Time in language. London: Routledge.
LittleD.DevittS.SingletonD. (1989). Learning foreign languages from authentic texts: Theory and practice. Dublin: Authentik.
31.
LongM.RossS. (1993). Modifications that preserve language and content. In: TickooM.L. (Ed.), Simplification: Theory and application (pp. 29–52). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Center.
32.
Lotherington-WoloszynH. (1993). Do simplified texts simplify language comprehension for ESL learners? In: TickooM.L. (Ed.). Simplification: Theory and application (pp.140–54). Singapore: SEAMEO Regional Language Center.
MalvernD.D.RichardsB.J.ChipereN.DuránP. (2004). Lexical diversity and language development: Quantification and assessment. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
35.
McCarthyP.M. (2005). An assessment of the range and usefulness of lexical diversity measures and the potential of the measure of textual, lexical diversity (MTLD). Dissertation Abstracts International, 66, UMI No. 3199485.
36.
McCarthyP.M.JarvisS. (2007). vocd: A theoretical and empirical evaluation. Language Testing, 24, 459–88.
37.
NunanD. (1999). Second language teaching and learning. London: Heinle & Heinle.
PearsonP.D. (1974–75). The effects of grammatical complexity on children’s comprehension, recall, and conception of certain semantic relationships. Reading Research Quarterly, 10, 155–92.
40.
PerfettiC.A.LandiN.OakhillJ. (2005). The acquisition of reading comprehension skill. In: SnowlingM.J.HulmeC. (Eds.). The Science of Reading: A Handbook (pp. 227–47). Oxford: Blackwell.
41.
RashotteC.A.TorgesenJ.K. (1985). Repeated reading and reading fluency in learning disabled children. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 180–88.
42.
RaynerK.PollatsekA. (1994). The psychology of reading. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
SalsburyT.CrossleyS.AMcNamaraD.S. (2011). Psycholinguistic word information in second language oral discourse. Second Language Research, 27, 343–60.
45.
SimensenA.M. (1987). Adapted readers: How are they adapted?Reading in a Foreign Language, 4, 41–57.
46.
TweissiA.I. (1998). The effects of the amount and the type of simplification on foreign language reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 11, 191–206.
47.
YanoY.LongM.RossS. (1994). Effects of simplified and elaborated texts on foreign language reading comprehension. Language Learning, 44, 189–219.
48.
YoungD.J. (1999). Linguistic simplification of second language reading material: Effective instructional practice?The Modern Language Journal, 83, 350–66.
49.
ZwaanR.A.MaglianoJ.P.GraesserA.C. (1995). Dimensions of situation-model construction in narrative comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 386–97.
