Readability Formulae: Facts And Limitations

Readability Formulae: Facts and Limitations				figurative language is a non‑stylistic feature
Introduction				that can pose challenges to the reader because
How easy is it to read a text? How clearly does a				understanding figurative language requires more
text express ideas and emotions? How could the				than simply understanding the literal meaning of a
linguistic difficulty of a text be determined and				text. Readability formulae neither consider the
analysed? These questions have been one of the				stylistic nor the non‑stylistic features when
major concerns of text designers, teachers and				measuring the readability of a text and this in
writers. In actual fact, these questions are				turn, affects the accuracy of the overall results.c)
inextricably bound up with the concept of				Background Knowledge
readability. In an attempt to provide answers to				Readability formulae would judge a text to be
these questions, so many studies and research				easy or difficult by measuring the properties of
have been conducted and as a result, a large				that text; they never take into account
number of formulae were proposed to measure				characteristics of readers. These different
the readability of written texts.				formulae have been designed for the use with
In the theoretical part of this paper, I will highlight				native speaker children and not for second
some of the ways that are used to determine				foreign language learners. No can deny that these
the linguistic difficulties of written texts. Then, I will				groups differ in their background knowledge as
explain some of the common examples of				well as in their language competence and ability to
readability formulae and how they work. Finally, I				comprehend written texts. There is evidence
will shed some light on the limitations and validity				suggesting that the characteristics of readers
of these formulae. In the practical part, I will try				(which have been ignored by readability formulae)
to examine the readability of some texts by using				have a great deal to do with their ability to
the readability formulae mentioned in the first				comprehend a text. For instance, Barry and
part.				Lazarte (1998) report a result of a study on
1/ Determining linguistic difficulty of a written text				effects of background knowledge and syntactic
How difficult a text is to read would appear to be				complexity on recall and inference generation
related to whether or not we understand the				among high school second language learners of
words in a text, and whether or not these words				Spanish. Their findings suggest a complex
are put together in an easy‑to‑follow				interaction between the level of syntactic
manner. In fact, readability formulae do use these				complexity of the text itself and the prior
basic criteria and discuss them in terms of				knowledge of students on the generation of
vocabulary difficulty and syntactic complexity				inferences about text. Finally, it could be said that
(Olson, 1984). Vocabulary difficulty refers to the				material that is easily read by a group will not be
degree to which a text contains words that are				as easy for another and that is partly because
unfamiliar and/or difficult to understand. Syntactic				learners have different background knowledge
complexity refers to the degree to which the				about different topics. Therefore, readability
sentences in a text have complicated grammatical				formulae should consider this important factor
structures. I shall now discuss these basic				when measuring the readability of any text.d)
criteria.a) Vocabulary difficulty				Textual coherence
Word difficulty is a criterion used by almost all the				Most of the readability formulae limit the scope of
standard readability formulae. Difficulty is				their research to the sentence boundary.
measured either by the presence or the absence				Moreover, they evaluate texts in terms of the
of a word on a list of frequently used words,				properties each of their sentences contain.
such as Kucera and Francis's word list (1967), or				However, the readability of a text is not limited to
by word length which is determined by counting				a function of the average length of its words or
the number of syllables in the word. However,				the average number or words in its sentences; its
both methods appear to have serious limitations,				readability is rather a function of the connections
as I show below.b) Word lists				and interrelationships between the sentences in a
A number of readability formulae such as				text. Bailing and Grafstein (1991), suggest that in
Dale‑Chall (Dale and Chall, 1948) use word lists.				order for a text to beunderstandable, it must
The assumption underlying the use of word lists				make clear to the reader the basic logical
to measure the difficulty of vocabulary in a text				relationships between sentences so that he/she is
is that frequently used words will be more familiar				able to figure out from the text, who is doing
and therefore easier to understand. However, in				what to whom. In other words, the sentences in
order to have a word list that includes either				a text must have logical and sequential
familiar or difficult words, one must assume that				relationships in order to make the text easy to
the words in a language remain relatively stable				comprehend. Finally, Harrison (1986) states that
and this is impossible due to the fact that				the presence of explicitly‑stated logical
vocabulary tends to change quite rapidly. If we				connections often makes a contribution to the
consider the following words from Dale's 3000				coherence of a text.
word list (Harrison, 1980, pp. 153‑163): hairpin,				4/ Limitations and validity of readability formulae
maypole, cobbler and washtub, it would appear to				Despite the fact that readability formulae are
us that these words are likely to be unfamiliar to				widely used and relied upon in designing
young readers (elementary school children)				textbooks, they have so many limitations which
because they are rarely used (they are out of				can affect their validity to a certain extent.
fashion). On the other hand, some other new				Readability formulae were originally developed to
words such as download, hyperlink have entered				try to ensure that a school textbook for a
the language and have become extremely familiar				particular grade was appropriate for native
to many if not most people. Now, we might say				speaker children at that grade level. However,
simply that the former words should be taken off				even within the same grade level, children differ
the list of familiar words and the latter words				from each other and sometimes these
should be added instead. Since a number of				differences are very great to the extent that the
readability formulae use certain word lists most of				same readability formula cannot possibly be
which are old, it could be inferred that the results				adequate for all of them. In other words,
of using these formulae do not really represent or				readability formulae do not distinguish audiences;
provide the accurate level of readability for the				they rather assume that all readers are alike. If
current written texts.				this is the case with native speaker children, then
In addition, word lists never take into account that				these formulae are more likely to have more
different socio‑cultural groups of the same				problems when used with second/foreign language
generation have very different core vocabularies.				learners. Klare (1963,pp. 24‑25) states:
Nor can they accommodate the fact that				Formulae measure only style. They do not touch
different professional groupings can have radically				on content, organization, word order, format, or
different vocabularies (Kittredge and Lehrberger,				imagery. Nor do they take into account the
1982). Another problem with word lists is that				differing purpose, maturity, or intelligence of
words frequently have more than one meaning. In				readers.
such case, what meaning is to be considered a				Based on this, it becomes clear to us that
familiar one? It is only through viewing and				readability formulae are never meant to say
examining the word in the context of a particular				anything about forms or other primarily visual
text that one can know about the intended				materials although these forms and other visual
meaning. In conclusion, word list provide neither an				materials play a big role in enabling the reader to
indication of which meaning is common (familiar),				understand the text. In another related study,
nor a means to identify the particular meaning				Klare (1976), reviewed 36 studies that attempted
that is pertinent in a specific context.c) Word				to improve comprehension by improving
complexity				readability scores. She concluded that improving
In many readability formulae (for example, the				comprehension does not correlate well with
Fry graph, the Flesch formula, Gunning Fog				improving readability scores because readability
formula, see Harrison, 1980), the longer a word is,				formulae measure only what can be counted in
the more difficult it is assumed it is to				the text. The reason why this experiment didn't
comprehend. The idea is applied in different ways.				work is that readability formulae only measure
In the case of Flesch and the Fry formula for				the symptoms of readability. Difficult ideas are
example, the criterion is the number of syllables				usually expressed in difficult language (which is
per 100 word of text whereas for the Gunning				appropriate), the ideas won't become less difficult
Fog formula, the criterion is the number of				just because the language is simplified. It is thus
polysyllabic words. Regardless of how word				clear that judgment about level of text difficulty
complexity is measured by different formulae,				go beyond the statistical nature of readability
however, the assumption is that word length				formulae that tend to rely on measures of
directly relates to the ease or difficulty with which				semantic (usually word length or word frequency)
a text can be read.				and syntactic (usually sentence length) features.
The problem with this assumption however, is				In addition, readability formulae do not consider
that long words are not always the most difficult				the fact that there is an interaction between the
to understand. On the contrary, there appear to				text and the reader. They do not consider some
be a significant number of instances where mono				important factors on the reader's side such as his
or bisyllabic words are more difficult and unfamiliar				knowledge about the text and his motivation to
than longer polysyllabic words. If we consider the				read. All these factors have a great effect on
words curr and unemployment, the number of				making the text much easier or much difficult to
readers who know the latter term is quite likely				read. The only thing these formulae consider is
greater than those who know the former. From				the text and they ignore all other factors. Thus,
the previous example, we could say that word				they are inadequate because they consider only
length is often the direct result of affixation				one source of information which is contained on
(attaching prefixes e.g. un‑ or suffixes				the printed page.
‑ment with shorter words and word stems,				Since readability formulae are designed to analyse
as in unemployment). In actual fact, people are				prose text, problems arise when these formulae
likely to be aware of the functions of these				are applied to technical, scientific, and
affixes and prefixes and therefore, a more				mathematical materials that contain a great deal
complex word ( a word with one or more				of numerical and symbolic language and specialist
affixes) may be just as easy to understand as a				vocabulary in addition to prose. Of course, being
simple word. However still, reading formulae that				applied to these kinds of texts, readability would
count the number of syllables per hundred words				continue to use the traditional measures of word
would favor a text that has only uninflected				length and sentence length and this in turn, would
forms of verbs.				never reflect the actual readability level of these
Furthermore, Randall (1988) performed				texts. Finally and based on all that mentioned
experiments on the relationship between				above, we should not rely on readability formulae
comprehension and morphological complexity. She				alone in selecting materials; we should rather seek
tested children between ages of 3 and 7 on their				the opinion of experts or get reliable consensus
comprehension of morphologically complex terms				opinions to examine characteristics that formulae
(nouns derived from verbs by the affixation of				cannot predict. It is only if we incorporate all these
‑er). Her results suggest that the				factors that readability formulae could be of
comprehension of complex terms has nothing to				benefit to us; otherwise we would not really get
do with word length or frequency of occurrence,				much out of using them.
as would be predicted by readability formulae.d)				5/ Examining the readability of some texts.
Syntactic Complexity				In this part, I will apply the previously explained
Almost all readability formulae equate sentence				readability formulae in order to measure the
length with syntactic complexity. They consider				readability of two different texts. I will start first
that there is a correlation between the average				by examining Text A (See Appendix 3) using the
length of sentences in a text and the difficulty of				four formulae and then I will move to examine
that text. In fact, closer examination shows that				Text B (See Appendix 4) using the same
sentence length may actually facilitate				formulae.
comprehension, rather than impede it. For
example, the presence of coordinating
conjunctions and logical connectives increases the
length of a sentence, but these connectives often				4/ McLaughlin 'SMOG' Formula.
make explicit its communicative intent. Compare				Because Text (B) does not have 30 sentences, I
for example, the sentences of (1) with the				have considered the total number of sentences in
sentence in (2):				the text and the total number of words with 3 or
(1). a. I could not answer your				more syllables as recommended by McLaughlin
e‑mail.b. All the computers were occupied.				(1969), see Appendix (2).
(2) a. I could not answer your				The total number of sentence in Text B = 18
e‑mail because all the computers were				The total number of words with 3 or more
occupied.				syllables = 58
In (1), there could be various reasons that the				The corresponding conversion number = 1.67
author was unable to respond to an e‑mail				The Grade Level = The total number of words
aside from the fact that all computers were				with 3 or more syllables * The conversion number
occupied; he could have not had enough time to				= 58 * 1.67 = 96.86
wait until one of the computers is free, he could				The value 96.86 falls between (91 ‑ 110) on
have a lecture or a meeting so he could not				The SMOG Conversion Table 1. Therefore, the
wait..etc. The because in (2), on the other hind,				grade level is 13.
explicitly links the author's inability to answer the
e‑mail to the occupying of all computers. In				As can be seen in the above table, no two
conclusion and based on the above examples, it				formulae come up with exactly the same grade
could be said that equating syntactic complexity				level or reading age. However, some formulae
with sentence length is neither a useful nor an				come up with very close values for both level and
accurate criterion for measuring readability.				age, as in the Gunning FOG and the SMOG
2/ Examples of readability formulae				formulae. Similarly, Larrick (1954) compared the
There is a huge number of readability formulae				grade placement indicated by five formulae for
which have been designed for very different				two children's books. He found out that there
purposes, and for a variety of age groups. These				were considerable variations between the
formulae have been designed by psychologists,				formulae in terms of the grade level. This
researchers and classroom teachers and they				emphasises the fact that readability can not be
have been derived using different statistical				accurately measured by merely using readability
techniques and measurements. In this part, I will				formulae. The learner's ability to comprehend, the
focus only on four of them for two reasons.				style, and the rest of the factors that have been
Firstly, these four are some of the most				mentioned in part one should be taken into
commonly used readability formulae. Secondly,				account and should never be ignored when
they are very easy to use and they don't require				measuring readability.
complex mathematical or statistical methods.				Conclusion
These formulae are as follows:				In conclusion, researchers and textbook designers
A) The Flesch Formula				should be aware of the fact that using readability
The Flesch formula is one of the very widely				formulae only does not reflect the actual
used and well‑known readability measures				readability level of a text. In addition to these
which was designed by Flesch (1948). The formula				formulae, they should try to incorporate all the
uses the average number of words per				other factors that could affect the readability of
sentences and the average number of syllables				texts whether these factors are available within
per 100 words as variables. Flesch was interested				the texts (word complexity and sentence length)
in assessing adult reading material, so he chose a				or outside the texts (factors that are to do with
difficulty index that did not relate to grades, but				the reader's knowledge, motivation and the
to a notional comprehension score out of 100				individual differences between readers within the
(Hlarrison, 1980). When applied to a document, the				same grade level). They should try to take these
Flesch formula results in a number ranging from 0				factors into account when measuring the
to 100. The lower the score, the more difficult				readability of written material. Moreover, they
the material is to read and comprehend.				should consult reading experts and teachers in an
Moreover, Flesch provided a transformation table				attempt to reach a consensus with regard to the
which makes it possible for us to relate the				readability of texts and their suitability to the
reading ease score to age level. This				students' grade level.
transformation table is a nomograrn (a figure)				Bibliography
which can be easily used by using a ruler between				Bailing, A and Grafstein, A. (199 1). The
the left‑hand and right‑hand columns of				assignment of thematic roles in Ojibwa. Linguistics
the figure. The Flesch formula is not only used				29, 397‑422.
manually, it is also used in most of the word				Barry, S and Lazarte, A.A. (1998). Evidence for
processing programs such as Microsoft word. The				mental models: how do prior knowledge, syntactic
only difference is that in the computer adaptation				complexity and reading topic affect inference
of the Flesch formula, the syllable count is				generation in a recall task for non‑native
replaced by a vowel count which gives almost the				readers of Spanish? The Modern Language Journal
same results as if the count was that of a				82 (2), 176‑193.
syllable. Research by Coke & Rothkopf (1970) has				Coke, E and Rothkopf, E (1970). Note on a simple
showed that counting vowels provided very				algorithm for a computer-produced reading
similar estimates to counting syllables.				ease score. Journal of Applied Psychology 54,
B) The Fry Graph				208‑210.
Like most readability formulae, the Fry Graph has				Fry, E. (1969). The Readability graph validated at
a syntactic factor which is the sentence length				primary levels. The Reading Teacher, 22,
and a semantic factor which is the number of				534‑538.
syllables. The Fry Graph is one of the most				Olson, A.V. 1984. Readability Formulae‑ Facts
straightforward ways of obtaining a readability				or Fiction. University of Victoria, British Columbia
index. The use of the graph is very useful in this				(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 258
formula for different reasons as stated by				143).
Harrison (1980):				Kuceral, H and Francis, W.N. (1967). Computational
1) it saves time on making calculations				Analysis of Present‑Day American English.
2) it offers visual information when numerical				Province, RI: Brown University Press.
results might give a spurious impression of				Harrison, C. (1980). Readability in the Classroom.
accuracy				Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3) the user of the graph can tell at a glance if a				Harrison, C. (1986). New directions in text
passage is in comparative term more difficult than				research in readability. In Cashdan, Asher (Ed.),
average in vocabulary or in sentence length.				Literacy: Teaching and Learning Language Skills.
(Harrison, 1980.p 73)				Basil Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 61‑81.
In the graph, the curve represents normal texts.				Kitteredge, R and Lehrberger, J . (Eds.), (1982).
So clearly, points above the line, or towards the				Sublanguage: Studies of Language in Restricted
top right quadrant, will represent passages with				Domains. Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter.
higher than average vocabulary difficulty. On the				McLaughlin, G. (1969), SMOG grading: A new
other hand, points below the curve, towards the				readability formula. Journal of Reading, 12 (8)
bottom left quadrant, will suggest greater than				639‑646.
average sentence length (ibid). To implement the				Randall, J.H.(1988). Candlestick‑makers: the
Fry Graph, one should first randomly select three				problem of morphology in understanding words. In:
sample passages of exactly 100 words (from the				Davidson, A and Green, G (Eds.), Linguistic
beginning, the middle, and the end of a text).				Complexity and Text Comprehension: Readability
After the total number of sentences and syllables				Issues Reconsidered. L. ErIbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp.
for each of the 100‑words passages has				223‑245.
been recorded, the average number of sentences				Klare, G. R. (1963). The measurement of
and syllables is computed. The resulting figures are				Readability. Ames, IA: Iowa University Press.
then plotted on the Fry Graph and the resulting				Larrick, N. (1954). Try it on for fit. Library journal,
coordinate point is associated with an established				79, (April), 729‑733.
grade level designation (further explanation of the				Van Dijk, T.A and Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies
use will be shown in the practical part). The fry				of Discourse Comprehension. New York:
Graph is appropriate for assessing materials from				Academic Press.
the first grade through the college level (Fry,				Gilliland, John. (1972). Readability. London: University
1969).				of London Press.
C) The FOG Index Formula				Appendix (1)
The Fog Index, which uses as few as 100				EDWARD FRY'S READABILITY GRAPH
successive words to determine both sentence				Appendix (2):
length and the number of words with three or				Taken from: McLaughlin, G. (1969), SMOG grading:
more syllables, was developed by Gunning (1968).				A new readability formula. Journal of Reading, 12
The counts are then substituted into a formula				(8) 639‑646.
and the reading difficulty is calculated according to				Use this formula and SMOG Conversion Table If
formal grade level in school. For longer written				for material containing less than 30 sentences, but
works, the author recommends selecting several				not less than 10 sentences.
100 word samples from various parts of the				1. Count the total number of
material and then counting both the sentence				sentences in the material.
length and the number of words with three or				2. Find the total number of sentences and the
more syllables for all the samples. Finally, the				corresponding conversion number in SMOG
average of the previous counting should be				Conversion Table II.
calculated and the Fog Readability Index is found:				3. Multiply the total number of words with 3 or
Fog Readability Formula: Grade Level = 0.4 *				more syllables by the conversion number. Use this
(average sentence length + percentage of words				number as the word count to find the correct
with three or more syllables).				grade level from Table 1.
The formula is clearly similar to that of Flesch.				SMOG Conversion Table 1 SMOG Conversion
The factors (sentence length and number of				Table 2
words) remain the same but the counting of				(for longer
three syllable words will be easier and requires				� (use on material with < 30
less time than the syllabus count required by the				sentences)
Flesch. A further advantage lies in the simplicity of
calculation required to resolve the equation. This				Appendix (3)
formula is appropriate for assessing materials				The three sample passages in Text (A)
from the fourth grade through the college level.				Sample One:
D) The SMOG Formula				Pets boost children's health
This formula gives the SMOG grade which is the				Children who have pet animals at home have
reading grade that a person must have reached if				stronger immune systems and are less likely to
he is to understand fully the text assessed				take days off school sick, a study suggests.
(Gilliland, 1972.p 94). To implement the SMOG				Researchers at Warwick University in Coventry
formula, one should count 10 consecutive				found that having a cat or dog exposed children
sentences near the beginning, 10 near the middle				to more infections early in life.
and 10 near the end of the text. Then, in the 30				However, this exposure boosted their immune
selected sentences, the number of words with				systems in the medium term and meant these
three or more syllables is counted. Finally, the				children attended school more often, on average,
square root of the number of the polysyllabic				than pupils who did not have pets.
words is counted and added to 3. It is clear here				The authors said the benefits were most
that the sentences are used only to prepare the				pronounced in children aged between five and
samples; they are not used in the calculation. The				eight years.
SMOG formula gives a readability score of 2				Dr June McNicholas and colleagues tested the
grades higher because McLaughlin used complete				saliva of 138 (eight is excluded).
success as his criterion for comprehension (ibid).				Sample Two:
The SMOG is quicker to work out by hand as it				High levels of IgA suggest that the immune
does not require counting every word in every				system is under strain while low levels show that
sentence but the words with three or more				it is vulnerable to infection.
syllables found in 30 sentences.				Health benefits
In the case where a text has less than thirty				The study showed that antibody levels among
sentences, McLaughlin (1969) recommended that				pet owning children were significantly more stable,
the number of polysyllabic words and the number				indicating that they had robust immune systems.
of sentences should be counted in the whole text.				Pet owning children were found to have an extra
The process of finding the readability in a text of				nine days at school over the course of the year
less than 30 sentences is demonstrated in the				compared to those without animals.
practical part (examining the given texts). It is also				According to the researchers, the findings appear
available in the Appendix.				to support the so‑called "dirty hypothesis".
3/ Factors affecting readability				It suggests that too much cleanliness early in life
As we have seen previously, almost all the				can leave the immune system weakened later on.
readability use word complexity, sentence length				Sample Three:
and syntactic complexity represented by word				Dr McNicholas, a health psychologist who led the
length or the number of syllables in a word. Many				study, said: "Pet ownership was significantly
other factors that could affect readability to				associated with better school attendance rates.
some great extent have not been considered by				"This was apparent across all classes, but was
these formulae. Here, I will discuss how these				most pronounced in the lower school (classes one
factors affect readability and why they should be				to three, aged groups five to eight)".
taken into account when measuring readability.				"Here, the pet owners benefited from up to 18
The factors are as follows:a) Grammar				extra half days schooling per annum than their
I have mentioned before that most of the				non‑pet owning counterparts."
readability formulae tend to equate syntactic				However, Dr McNicholas warned that pets can
complexity with sentence length which is really a				also pose health risks to children.
very narrow way of looking at complex syntax.				One of the biggest risks is the roundworm
By doing this, readability formulae ignore some				Toxicara canis which infects dogs and can cause
basic issues such as the conventional use of				anything from stomach ache to eye damage.
prescriptive grammar for standard written English.				Appendix (4):
In other words, they ignore the fact that errors				The Three Sample Passages in Text (B):
or deviations from the standard grammar may				Sample One:
make a text more difficult to comprehend and				Pets And Children: A Lifelong Friendship
they do not take into account that the presence				Is your voice beginning to sound like a broken
of a substantial number of grammatical errors can				record? Are you always nagging your kids to do
seriously impede the reader's ability to				their homework? Are you having trouble
comprehend the text. If we consider the potential				motivating your child to stop watching TV or
confusion caused by a faulty parallelism such as in:				playing video games and to play outside instead?
‑ Not only do we dislike him but also his wife.				Then consider making a pet part of your family.
It is not really clear whether the intended meaning				Many people are aware of the health benefits
of this sentence was that we dislike both him and				that come from having a pet, includinglowering
his wife, or that we are not the only ones who				high blood pressure, preventing heart disease and
dislike him; his wife dislikes him too. There are				combating depression. However, what parents
some other grammatical errors that could be a				may not realize is that adding Spot, Polly or Mr.
source of confusion in a written text and some				Whiskers to the family can be advantageous to
of these are run‑on sentences, sentence				the other bundles of joy
fragment, faulty parallelism and pronoun				Sample Two:
references. In conclusion, we could say that				While little children are too young to worry about
grammatical errors must be considered in the				preventing stress or lowering health care costs,
process of measuring the readability of any text				there are numerous benefits they can experience
in order to make that measurement precise and				from having a family pet.
accurate.b) Style				Pets, whether a dog, cat, bird, hamster, reptile or
Sometimes, a text may be perfectly grammatical,				fish, help children gain a sense of independence
but certain stylistic properties of some text may				that can set them on the path to becoming
make them relatively more difficult for people to				mature, responsible adults.
process than others. One of these stylistic				Pets Teach Kids To Be Responsible
properties is the number of clauses in a sentence				Children can learn the importance of responsibility
and the type of these clauses. In actual fact,				at an early age by acting as a caretaker for a
there is empirical evidence that certain syntactic				pet. Fish are a terrific first pet because children
properties make some texts easier to process				can play a large role in caring for them. However,
than others. For instance, Van Dijk and Kintsch				other pets that require more attention
(1983) note that sentences with relative clauses				Sample Three:
are easier to parse when a relative pronoun is				Showing children what it means to be responsible
overtly present than when it is not. Van Dift and				for another creature's survival can result in
Kintsch compare the following sentences and note				teaching important life lessons such as discipline,
that people perform better on comprehension				patience, kindness and attentiveness.
tasks in (1) with overt relative pronouns, than in				Pets Can Help Kids Develop Discipline
(2), where they are absent:				Walking the dog, feeding the guinea pig and talking
1) The pen which the author whom the editor				to the parrot can serve as fun study breaks for
liked used was new				kids, and a replacement for television programs
2) The pen the author the editor liked used was				and video games. These petrelated activities
new (Van Dijk and Kintsch, 1983, p.29)				help children remain focused on the task at hand,
It is thus clear that the syntactic structure of				and are less likely to become distractions that will
sentences is not the only stylistic property of a				prevent homework and chores from being
text that can affect readability. The use of				completed.

Peis Mandarin

Readability Formulae: Facts And Limitations