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

Abstract

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.

A Cross-Linguistic Approach to Analysing Cohesive Devices in Expository Writing by Asian EFL Teachers

“…One of the main contributions of the current study is that it introduced a cross-linguistic approach to analysing L2 speakers' use of cohesive devices. The variation in the use of and problems with cohesive devices in writing reflected the writers' cognitive-social background (Castro, 2004, Solnyshkina et al, 2020. As this study used a cross-linguistic model developed by Jarvis (2000), most major variables between the two groups of participants (Vietnamese and Filipino) were controlled.…”

Fluctuations of text complexity: the case of Basic State Examination in English

“…TI computes Flash-Kincaid grade level (FKGL) with the help of the following formula, developed by Flash-Kincaid [14]. FKGL = (0,39 * ASL) + (11,8 * ASW) -15,59, (1) where ASL is an average sentence length; ASW is an average number of syllables per word [14]. The index in this formula corresponds to the USA educational index: the values from 1 to 10 are considered to be appropriate for secondary school students, from 11 to 15 -for higher education; and the values from 16 to 20 correspond to complex scientific texts.…”

“…The problem of reading comprehension has been a focus of numerous studies in foreign language learning as it is viewed to be of high importance for teachers, textbook writers, exam materials developers and students [1]. It dates back to the middle of the 20 th century when globalization of education followed by academic mobility triggered demand for objective language assessment of students and learning materials.…”

Lexical Features of Text Complexity: the case of Russian academic texts

“…After the 1890s when the research on text complexity assessment for native and foreign language speakers began, discussions on shortening the list of parameters defining text complexity have been ongoing quite intensively [3].…”