Affection of the part of speech elements in Vietnamese text readability
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.4312/ala.9.1.105-118Keywords:
text readability, parts of speech, Vietnamese textbooks, elementary levelAbstract
While English text readability has been studied for a long time, investigating text readability in Vietnamese, a low-resourced language with poorresearch technologies and data sets questionable of international importance, is at its beginnings. In readability research, it is generally the “word” that has been carefully investigated. Based on the comparison of elements affecting readability of the “word” unit in English, we determine the parts of speech (POS) in Vietnamese that were found to influence Vietnamese text readability. In this study, prose texts in Vietnamese textbooks at different difficulty level were taken as the data to find out the POS frequencies and their correlations. In terms of frequency, our findings can initially assist users when editing documents, reforming textbooks, and question banks for native Vietnamese in general and foreigners in particular. Even more important, with these findings we can identify those linguistic elements that are considered the “potential” POS affecting Vietnamese text readability, and make grounds for further studies.
Downloads
References
Bùi, M. H. (2008). Ngôn ngữ học Đối chiếu. Hồ Chí Minh City, HCMC: Education Publishing House.
Cao, X. H., & Hoàng, D. (2005). Từ Điển Thuật ngữ Ngôn ngữ học Đối chiếu Anh - Việt; Việt – Anh. Hồ Chí Minh City, HCMC: Social Sciences Publishing House.
Cieri, C., Maxwell, M., Strassel, S., & Tracey, J. (n.d.). Selection Criteria for Low Resource Language. University of Maryland College Park, MD 20742, USA. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/315a/3a4a6db25e705f50159807917ec6f439f83b.pdf
Council of Euroupe (2010). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge: Cambridge Press. Retrievd from http://www.coe.int/en/t/dg4/linguistic/source/framework_en.pdf
Dale, E., & Chall, J. S. (1949). The concept of readability. Elementary English, 26, 23.
Dubay, H. W. (2004). The Principles of Readability. Impact Information, Costa Mesa, California.
Đinh, Đ. (2006). Xử lý Ngôn ngữ tự nhiên. Hồ Chí Minh City, HCMC: HCMC National University Publishing House.
Flesch, R. (1943). Marks of a readable style, Columbia University contributions to education, no. 897. New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University.
Flesch, R. F. (1948). A New Readability Yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32(3).
Flesch, R. F. (1949). The Art of Readable Writing. New York: Harper.
Flesch, R. F. (1974). The Art of Readable Writing, 25th anniversary edition, revised and enlarged. NY: Harper & Row.
Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & Kulikowich, J. M. (2011). Coh- Metrix: Providing Multilevel Analyses of Text Characteristics, Educational Researcher, 40 (5), 223-234.
Graesser, A.C., McNamara, D. S., & Louwerse, M. M. (2004). Coh- Metrix: Analysis of Text on Cohesion and Language, Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36 (2). 193-202.
Gray, W. S., & Leary, B. E. (1935). What Makes a Book Readable. Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press.
Jamie, D. (2014). Investigating the relationship between empirical task difficulty, textual features and CEFR levels. EALTA 2014, 29 May – 1 June. University of Warwick
Kincaid, J. P., Fishburne, R. P., Rogers, R. L., & Chissom, B. S. (1975). Derivation of new readability formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count, and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy enlisted personnel. CNTECHTRA Research Branch Report 8-75.
Klare, G. R. (1973). The Measurement of Readability. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press.
Lijun, F., Martin, J., Matt, H., & Noémie, E. (2010). A comparision of Features for Automatic Readabiity Assesment, Beijing August 2010, Poster Volume, 276-284.
Lorge, I. (1939). Predicting Reading Difficulty of Selections for Children. The Elementary English Review, 16(6), 229-233.
Mai, N. C., Nguyễn Thị, N. H., Đỗ, V. N., & Bùi, M. T. (2007). Nhập môn Ngôn ngữ học. Hồ Chí Minh City, HCMC: Education Publishing House.
McLaughlin, H. (1969). SMOG Grading - a New Readability Formula. Journal of Reading, 12(8), 639-646. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/40011226
McNamara, D. S., Graesser, A. C., McCarthy, P. M., & Cai, Z. (2014). Automated Evaluation of Text and Discourse with Coh-Metrix, CUP.
Mostafa, Z., & Pooneh, H. (2012). Readability of Texts: State of the Art. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(1), 43-53. http://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.2.1.43-53.
Nguyễn, T. G., Đoàn, T. T., & Nguyễn, M. T. (2008). Dẫn luận Ngôn ngữ học. Hồ Chí Minh City, HCMC: Education Publishing House.
Viet Nam Committee of Social Sciences. (1993). Ngữ pháp tiếng Việt. Hanoi: Social Science Publishing House.
Vietnam Committee of Social Science (1993). Vietnamese Grammar. Hanoi: Social Science Publishing House.
Vu Thi, P. A. (n.d.). Text Readability and testing languages. Retrieved from http://ncgdvn.blogspot.com/2011/10/o-kho-cua-van-ban-va-viec-kiem-tra-ngon.html
Vu Thi, P. A. (2006). Khung trình độ chung Châu Âu và việc nâng cao hiệu quả đào tạo tiếng Anh tại ĐHQG – HCM. Journal of Science and Technology Development, 9(10), 31-47.
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2019 diep thi nhu nguyen
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
