2020
DOI: 10.17323/jle.2020.7176
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

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 … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
11
0
2

Year Published

2020
2020
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
2

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 15 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
0
11
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…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.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…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.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…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.…”
Section: Readabilitymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…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.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…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].…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%