Focusing on the issue of readability, this article examines problems that readability formulas present to the technical communicator, especially in terms of interaction with government agencies, and focuses on readability formula requirements mandated by The Office of Health and Industry programs [OHIP] for medical technology product support literature. Because the Flesch Reading Ease and the Flesch-Kincaid formulas are widely available, they are probably the ones most frequently used. Contemporary readability scholars have overlooked the Golub Syntactic Density Formula, which evaluates prose according to a sentence's syntax at a deeper level than the number of words per sentence and the number of syllables per word. The authors recommend it as a tool for evaluating readability. How it might be applied with current computer applications is discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ConnasterB. R., Last Rites for Readability Formulas in Technical Communication. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 29: 3, pp. 271–287, 1999.
FleschR., How To Test Readability, Harper, New York, 1951.
12.
KidderC. L. and GolubL. S., Computer Application of a Syntactic Density Measure, Computers and the Humanities, 10, pp. 325–331, 1976.
13.
Medtronic, Inc., About Your Medtronic Cardiac Resynchronization Pacemaker: Patient Manual, Minneapolis, 2002.
14.
JurafskyD. and MartinJ. H., Speech and Language Processing. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, 2000.
15.
ZakalukB. L. and SamuelsS. J., Toward a New Approach to Predicting Text Comprehension, in Readability: Its Past, Present, and Future, ZakalukB. L. and SamuelsS. J. (eds.) International Reading Association, Newark, Delaware, pp. 121–144, 1988.
16.
GolubL. S., Linguistic Structures in Students' Oral and Written Discourse, Research in the Teaching of English, 3, pp. 70–85, 1969.
17.
GolubL. S. and FrederickW. E., Linguistic Structures in the Discourse of Fourth and Sixth Graders, Technical report from the Wisconsin Research and Development Center for Cognitive Learning, The University of Wisconsin, 166, July 1971.
18.
HuntK., Grammatical Structures Written at Three Grade Levels, NCTE Research Report no. 3, National Council of Teachers of English, 1965.
19.
HuntK., Syntactic Maturity in Schoolchildren and Adults, Monographs for the Society for Research in Child Development, 35, Feb. 1970.
20.
LobanW., The Language of Elementary School Children, National Council of Teachers of English, 1963.
21.
LobanW., Stages, Velocity, and Prediction of Language Development Kindergarten Through Grade Twelve, Final Report, Project no. 7-0061, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1970.
22.
O'DonnellR. C.GriffinW. J., and NorrisR., Syntax of Kindergarten and Elementary School Children: A Transformational Analysis, National Council of Teachers of English Research Report, 8, 1967.
23.
GolubL. S. and KidderC. L., Syntactic Density and the Computer, Elementary English, 51: 8, pp. 1128–1131, 1974.
24.
ChallJ. S. and DaleE., Readability Revisited: The New Dale-Chall Readability Formula, Brookline Books, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1995.
25.
GilesT. D., The Readability Controversy: A Technical Writing Review, Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 20: 2, pp. 131–138, 1990.
