请问如何解读Readability Analyzer中的数据呢？比如Reading ease,他是以什么为参照呢？以及后面的TEXT DIFFICULTY以及GRADE LEVEL等等
软件下载地址：
http://ishare.iask.sina.com.cn/f/13893948.html
软件下载地址：
http://ishare.iask.sina.com.cn/f/13893948.html
如何解读Readability Analyzer中的数据（有Readability_Analyzer_Readme下载）
- 主题发起人 lweiweizhu
- 时间
- 状态
回复: 如何解读Readability Analyzer中的数据
我正在写Readability Analyzer的帮助文件，过一段时间发上来。
先解答你的问题：
Flesch Reading Ease score
This test rates text on a 100-point scale. The higher the score, the easier it is to understand the document. For most standard files, you want the score to be between 60 and 70.
The formula for the Flesch Reading Ease score is:
Flesch Reading Ease = 206.835 – (1.015*ASL) – (84.6*ASW)
where:
ASL = average sentence length (the number of words divided by the number of sentences)
ASW = average number of syllables per word (the number of syllables divided by the number of words)
Text Difficulty score
To facilitate the reading of readability score based on the Flesch Reading Ease test, we reverted the easiest score 100 to the most difficult value, i.e. 0 is the easiest text difficulty level, and the 100 the most difficult. We applied the following equation to get the text difficulty score.
(Flesch Reading Ease based) Text Difficulty = 100 – Flesch Reading Ease score
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level score
This test rates text on a U.S. school grade level. For example, a score of 8.0 means that an eighth grader can understand the document. For most documents, aim for a score of approximately 7.0 to 8.0.
The formula for the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level score is:
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level = (.39*ASL) + (11.8*ASW) – 15.59
where:
ASL = average sentence length (the number of words divided by the number of sentences)
ASW = average number of syllables per word (the number of syllables divided by the number of words)
我正在写Readability Analyzer的帮助文件，过一段时间发上来。
先解答你的问题：
Flesch Reading Ease score
This test rates text on a 100-point scale. The higher the score, the easier it is to understand the document. For most standard files, you want the score to be between 60 and 70.
The formula for the Flesch Reading Ease score is:
Flesch Reading Ease = 206.835 – (1.015*ASL) – (84.6*ASW)
where:
ASL = average sentence length (the number of words divided by the number of sentences)
ASW = average number of syllables per word (the number of syllables divided by the number of words)
Text Difficulty score
To facilitate the reading of readability score based on the Flesch Reading Ease test, we reverted the easiest score 100 to the most difficult value, i.e. 0 is the easiest text difficulty level, and the 100 the most difficult. We applied the following equation to get the text difficulty score.
(Flesch Reading Ease based) Text Difficulty = 100 – Flesch Reading Ease score
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level score
This test rates text on a U.S. school grade level. For example, a score of 8.0 means that an eighth grader can understand the document. For most documents, aim for a score of approximately 7.0 to 8.0.
The formula for the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level score is:
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level = (.39*ASL) + (11.8*ASW) – 15.59
where:
ASL = average sentence length (the number of words divided by the number of sentences)
ASW = average number of syllables per word (the number of syllables divided by the number of words)
回复: 如何解读Readability Analyzer中的数据
Plain English Campaign’s weekly update: 10 October 2003
http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/oct03.htm
Speaking of the party conferences, we've found an interesting similarity between the leaders' speeches. As you may know, we don't recommend using readability formulas as a definitive assessment of clarity. However, the Flesch test (which takes into account average sentence length and syllables per word) is useful for a very 'rough and ready' assessment of simplicity, if not clarity.
Applying the test shows Labour leader Tony Blair's speech (with a 'readability score' of 70.5) edging a narrow lead over Conservative Iain Duncan Smith (69.5), and Charles Kennedy of the Liberal Democrats (65.5) in third place. Mr Kennedy used slightly shorter sentences than his two opponents, but longer words. Interestingly all three men used shorter average sentence lengths than the 15 to 25 words we recommend for public information.
[Think: What is misguided about the PEC’s final point?]
Plain English Campaign’s weekly update: 10 October 2003
http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/oct03.htm
Speaking of the party conferences, we've found an interesting similarity between the leaders' speeches. As you may know, we don't recommend using readability formulas as a definitive assessment of clarity. However, the Flesch test (which takes into account average sentence length and syllables per word) is useful for a very 'rough and ready' assessment of simplicity, if not clarity.
Applying the test shows Labour leader Tony Blair's speech (with a 'readability score' of 70.5) edging a narrow lead over Conservative Iain Duncan Smith (69.5), and Charles Kennedy of the Liberal Democrats (65.5) in third place. Mr Kennedy used slightly shorter sentences than his two opponents, but longer words. Interestingly all three men used shorter average sentence lengths than the 15 to 25 words we recommend for public information.
[Think: What is misguided about the PEC’s final point?]
回复: 如何解读Readability Analyzer中的数据
A popular measure of text readability is the Flesch Reading Ease score, which is automatically given when you run the grammar check on a text in Microsoft Word. In some organisations in the USA, documents are returned for correction unless they fall within prescribed limits for readability. [Look up “statistics” in Help of Word if you are curious to find out how such tests work.]
The Flesch score rates a text on a 100-point scale; the higher the score, the easier it is to understand the document. Most standard documents have a score of approximately 60 to 70.
Here are the scores for two sentences:
a) The cat the rat the dog bit chased died.
Flesch reading ease: 113.1 [off the easy end of the scale; "very easy" = 90-100]
Flesch grade level: 0.0 [a pre-school child could presumably understand this]
The sentence also gets a low score on the Gunning Fog Index [really, it exists, though it seems to have been removed from the current version of Word] of 3.6
b) That postwoman, who was bitten by an elephant last Thursday, knows my Auntie Margaret.
Flesch reading ease: 53.6
Flesch grade level: 11.9 [for about 17-year-olds]
Gunning Fog Index: 9.3 [Far higher than the first example, i.e. more difficult to follow]
Think: These results do not seem in accord with common sense. What has statistics failed here?
Another “off the easy end of the scale” sentence according to the above statistical indicators is
c) Fays flay whelps.
Think: Can you undersand this sentence? What has statistics missed?
A popular measure of text readability is the Flesch Reading Ease score, which is automatically given when you run the grammar check on a text in Microsoft Word. In some organisations in the USA, documents are returned for correction unless they fall within prescribed limits for readability. [Look up “statistics” in Help of Word if you are curious to find out how such tests work.]
The Flesch score rates a text on a 100-point scale; the higher the score, the easier it is to understand the document. Most standard documents have a score of approximately 60 to 70.
Here are the scores for two sentences:
a) The cat the rat the dog bit chased died.
Flesch reading ease: 113.1 [off the easy end of the scale; "very easy" = 90-100]
Flesch grade level: 0.0 [a pre-school child could presumably understand this]
The sentence also gets a low score on the Gunning Fog Index [really, it exists, though it seems to have been removed from the current version of Word] of 3.6
b) That postwoman, who was bitten by an elephant last Thursday, knows my Auntie Margaret.
Flesch reading ease: 53.6
Flesch grade level: 11.9 [for about 17-year-olds]
Gunning Fog Index: 9.3 [Far higher than the first example, i.e. more difficult to follow]
Think: These results do not seem in accord with common sense. What has statistics failed here?
Another “off the easy end of the scale” sentence according to the above statistical indicators is
c) Fays flay whelps.
Think: Can you undersand this sentence? What has statistics missed?
回复: 如何解读Readability Analyzer中的数据
Most readability statistics are rough estimation of text difficulty. They should not be recommended as sole criteria for the readability of texts. It is always good to know the weaknesses of the readability formulae.
A garden path sentence (e.g.The horse raced past the barn fell) or a literary text can easily confuse a computer AND human readers too. Readability tests are normally whole text based; exceptional and irregular sentences will be averaged or neutralized in the overall score.
Interestingly, however rough the statistics are, we've found, in an earlier empirical study, that readability statistics are quite robust in relation to text difficulty as compared with human judgment. Out of over a hundred linguistic variables, readability stats are always highly correlated with the difficulty scores given by experienced human raters.
Considering the weaknesses of readability scores, we incorporated multiple scores and values (e.g. TTR, STTR, lemma TTR etc) in Readability Analyzer to triangulate the text or lexical complexity of texts. Nonetheless, we still believe that those values are but approximation of text difficulty, which should be corroborated otherwise.
Most readability statistics are rough estimation of text difficulty. They should not be recommended as sole criteria for the readability of texts. It is always good to know the weaknesses of the readability formulae.
A garden path sentence (e.g.The horse raced past the barn fell) or a literary text can easily confuse a computer AND human readers too. Readability tests are normally whole text based; exceptional and irregular sentences will be averaged or neutralized in the overall score.
Interestingly, however rough the statistics are, we've found, in an earlier empirical study, that readability statistics are quite robust in relation to text difficulty as compared with human judgment. Out of over a hundred linguistic variables, readability stats are always highly correlated with the difficulty scores given by experienced human raters.
Considering the weaknesses of readability scores, we incorporated multiple scores and values (e.g. TTR, STTR, lemma TTR etc) in Readability Analyzer to triangulate the text or lexical complexity of texts. Nonetheless, we still believe that those values are but approximation of text difficulty, which should be corroborated otherwise.
回复: 如何解读Readability Analyzer中的数据
写了个帮助文件的草稿，大家先看着。
Readability Analyzer
Readability Analyzer is a tool designed to extract basic readability statistics of English texts. It was programmed by Yunlong Jia and designed by Jiajin Xu and Yunlong Jia. This tool can compute a couple of classic readability scores, such as Flesch Reading Ease [Reading Ease] and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level [Grade Level], and a few other indices of lexical complexity of texts, e.g. type-token ratio [TTR], standardized type-token ratio [STTR]. Descriptive statistics of words/tokens, types, lemmata, sentences, average word length [AWL], average sentence length [ASL], etc. can also be read from the [Results].
写了个帮助文件的草稿，大家先看着。
Readability Analyzer
Readability Analyzer is a tool designed to extract basic readability statistics of English texts. It was programmed by Yunlong Jia and designed by Jiajin Xu and Yunlong Jia. This tool can compute a couple of classic readability scores, such as Flesch Reading Ease [Reading Ease] and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level [Grade Level], and a few other indices of lexical complexity of texts, e.g. type-token ratio [TTR], standardized type-token ratio [STTR]. Descriptive statistics of words/tokens, types, lemmata, sentences, average word length [AWL], average sentence length [ASL], etc. can also be read from the [Results].
附件
回复: 如何解读Readability Analyzer中的数据（有Readability_Analyzer_Readme下载）
Readability Analyzer 1.0(090830修正版)
新版修正了2个bugs
1.vista下无法保存
2.平均句长会受小数点影响
修正时间：2009-8-30
鸣谢：wasx和其他使用Vista系统的网友。
软件下载
http://www.corpus4u.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=769&d=1251645403
Readability Analyzer 1.0(090830修正版)
新版修正了2个bugs
1.vista下无法保存
2.平均句长会受小数点影响
修正时间：2009-8-30
鸣谢：wasx和其他使用Vista系统的网友。
软件下载
http://www.corpus4u.org/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=769&d=1251645403
回复: 如何解读Readability Analyzer中的数据（有Readability_Analyzer_Readme下载）
许博士，我可以在论文中引用对数据的解答方法吗？请问出处怎么表明呢？呵呵
许博士，我可以在论文中引用对数据的解答方法吗？请问出处怎么表明呢？呵呵
williamJia
开放语料库项目
回复: 如何解读Readability Analyzer中的数据（有Readability_Analyzer_Readme下载）
在about里面有：
Xu, Jiajin & Yunlong Jia. (2009). Readability Analyzer 1.0: A text difficulty analyzing
tool. Beijing: The National Research Centre for Foreign Language Education,
Beijing Foreign Studies University.
在about里面有：
Xu, Jiajin & Yunlong Jia. (2009). Readability Analyzer 1.0: A text difficulty analyzing
tool. Beijing: The National Research Centre for Foreign Language Education,
Beijing Foreign Studies University.
回复: 如何解读Readability Analyzer中的数据（有Readability_Analyzer_Readme下载）
还有个小问题，Flesch Reading Ease 汉语怎么表达？谢谢
还有个小问题，Flesch Reading Ease 汉语怎么表达？谢谢
williamJia
开放语料库项目
回复: 如何解读Readability Analyzer中的数据（有Readability_Analyzer_Readme下载）
这个问题很有意思，文本易读性的测量已经不是通过词长、句长这些表面因素就可以完成的了，一些讨论者已经提到。
如何准确测量词、短语的难易程度（the与ski的长度一样，但难度肯定不同）、词语顺序对语句理解的影响（A cat sat on a mat与Mat a cat on sat a长度相同，但难度不同，甚至后一句就不可理解）、不同语言能力的读者对于同一文本难度的不同认知水平（英语本族语者与二语者对于同一文本的难度理解会有差异；英国英语者与澳洲英语者对同一篇文本的难度认识也会有差异）。
这些因素的测量需要依靠更本质的因素，而非词长、句长就能解决，尽管公式众多，让人目不暇接。
这个问题很有意思，文本易读性的测量已经不是通过词长、句长这些表面因素就可以完成的了，一些讨论者已经提到。
如何准确测量词、短语的难易程度（the与ski的长度一样，但难度肯定不同）、词语顺序对语句理解的影响（A cat sat on a mat与Mat a cat on sat a长度相同，但难度不同，甚至后一句就不可理解）、不同语言能力的读者对于同一文本难度的不同认知水平（英语本族语者与二语者对于同一文本的难度理解会有差异；英国英语者与澳洲英语者对同一篇文本的难度认识也会有差异）。
这些因素的测量需要依靠更本质的因素，而非词长、句长就能解决，尽管公式众多，让人目不暇接。
- 状态