The Fog Factor

By Nirmaldasan

The fog factor is the average number of polysyllabic words (excluding personal names) per sentence in a sample of 200 words. I came across this simple formula in Jyoti Sanyal’s Indlish. Here is the scoring system in Sanyal’s own words:

Clear writing has a fog factor of between 2 & 3.

Below 2 may be childishly simple.

Above 3 may be rather FOGGY!

Though the formula is not pegged to a grade level, it helps in arriving at a quick estimate of the readability of a text. However, a quicker estimate is possible. All we need to do is choose, instead of 200 words, an equivalent sample of 10 sentences. Now, fog factor = P/10, where P is the number of polysyllabic words (excluding personal names) in 10 sentences.

First let us calculate the fog factor of some passages in Indlish and then compare the scores with those of Harry McLaughlin’s SMOG (simple measure of gobbledygook). Martin Cutts’ foreword to Indlish has a fog factor of 1.7; Ravindra Kumar’s introduction, 3.2; and Sanyal’s first chapter titled ‘See-sawing To Plain English’, 1.6.

The SMOG grades for these texts are 10.14 and 12.79 and 9.92 respectively. (The SMOG Grade = 3 + square root of P30, the number of polysyllabic words in 30 sentences.) Since we have taken a sample of only 10 sentences, the number of polysyllabic words may be multiplied by 3 to get P30.

Interestingly, the SMOG grades and the fog factor scores agree on the order of difficulty of the texts. But there is a strong discord on the interpretation of the grade/score. For example, the SMOG grade suggests that a person with 10 years of schooling can understand Cutts’ passage but the fog factor’s scoring system tells us that it ‘may be childishly simple’.  

I re-read the sample passages and found that the SMOG grades are a better measure of the texts than the fog factor. But the fog factor is so very simple that I wouldn’t want to jettison it. A better scoring system will make the fog factor a very useful readability tool.

Any suggestions?

The New Primary Grade Level

By Nirmaldasan

In May 2008, I proposed two conjectures: one for primary-grade texts; and the other for non-primary materials:

* Primary Grade Level (PGL) = W3/10 to W4/10

* Higher Grade Level (HGL) = W4/10 to W5/10

(W3, W4 and W5 are the number of words in 3, 4 and 5 sentences respectively.)

In the present article, I just wish to re-examine the PGL. I tested this word-count formula on several texts and found its performance satisfactory. But it had one drawback. Instead of showing a specific grade level, this word-count formula would show a range from one level (W3/10) to another (W4/10).

To get a specific result, I now propose the New Primary Grade Level (NPGL) = D4/10, based on the number of different words in four sentences (D4). Edward L. Thorndike, Bertha A. Lively, Sidney L. Pressey, Mabel Vogel, Carleton Washburne and other readability experts understood the importance of the number of different words or vocabulary range in determining the grade level of a text.  

Let us test the NPGL on some graded texts (picked up from the appendix in William Dubay’s ‘Working With Plain Language’, being samples drawn from Qualitative Assessment of Text Difficulty, A Practical Guide for Teachers and Writers by Jeanne S. Chall, Glenda L. Bissex, Sue S. Conard, and Susan Harris-Sharples) and compare it with the PGL, Strain Index (S3/10; S3 being the number of syllables in three sentences) and the Spache Readability Index, calculated using the OKAPI! readability tool available online at http://www.interventioncentral.org/htmdocs/tools/okapi/okapi.php

Grade 1

A train! A train! A train! A train!

Different words = 2

NPGL = 0.2

PGL = 0.6 to 0.8

Strain Index = 0.6

Spache = 1.12

Grade 2

Farley lived next door to Grover’s garden. He looked out his window and watched Grover planting seeds. Farley called out:

“Hi, Grover! Can I help you plant those seeds?”

“Why certainly, little Farley! Do not forget to wear a sweater,” said Grover.

Different words = 35

NPGL = 3.5

PGL = 2.9 to 4.2

Strain Index = 3.6

Spache = 3.11

Grade 3

Most amphibians lay their eggs in the spring. Most of them lay their eggs in the water.

The female frog lays lots of eggs. Each one has a ball of jelly around it.

Different words = 23

NPGL = 2.3

PGL = 2.4 to 3.3

Strain Index = 2.8

Spache: 2.78

The NPGL grades texts on a scale comprising 1, 2, 3 and 3+ grade levels. The ease of use may recommend this formula as a suitable alternative to the Spache Readability Index.

Broadcast Listening Factor

By Nirmaldasan

Tim Wulfemeyer, author of Beginning Radio-TV Newswriting, suggests that radio-TV news sentences should have on the average about 20 ‘nickel and dime’ words. He writes: “The big, impressive-sounding, multisyllabic, ‘10-dollar’ words don’t belong in radio-TV newswriting.” He discusses several principles that help listeners and half-listeners get the news.

A good broadcast copy will obey these principles such as ‘write the way you talk’, ‘place attribution before what was said’, ‘place titles before names’, ‘place ages before names’, ‘place time elements in sentences so they sound natural’, ‘round off numbers to make them more memorable’ and ‘match words with pictures, graphics and video’.

But how listenable is a good broadcast copy? In an earlier article ‘Measuring Listenability’, I suggested the use of two formulae: Modified Smog Listening Grade (MSLG) = 4 * (square root of P3), where P3 is the number of polysyllabic words in three sentences; and, Approximate Easy Listening Grade (AELG) = N + P, where N and P are the number of non-monosyllabic words and polysyllabic words in a sentence respectively.

My latest article proposes a simpler measure — the broadcast listening factor (BLF). It is the roughest of rough measures, simpler than the MSLG, and yet very useful for broadcast writers in a hurry. Here it is: BLF = P3.  This factor is not pegged to a grade and has a scale of 1 to 10+; the lower the score, the higher the listenability.

Let us apply the BLF on the following radio news item: “The Union Minister of State for Home Sriprakash Jaiswal has said that India may consider the status of Indo-Nepal extradition treaty in view of fast changing trans-border scenario. Talking to newsmen in Gorakhpur, he said that the treaty is very old and Nepal is very vulnerable for the elements intending to sabotage Indian security and integrity. He said if the need arises we might consider a new extradition treaty with Nepal.” There are three sentences and 17 polysyllabic words. Hence BLF = 10+.  

Here is my revision: “The Union Minister of State for Home Sriprakash Jaiswal has said that India may review the status of the extradition treaty between India and Nepal in view of fast changing scenario across the border. Talking to newsmen in Gorakhpur, he said that the treaty is very old and Nepal is vulnerable to saboteurs. He said that in case of need India might sign a new treaty with Nepal.” There are three sentences and seven polysyllabic words. Hence BLF = 7. 

For a better estimate, BLF = P30/10; P30 being the number of polysyllabic words in 30 sentences.

A Rhetoric Of Transitions

By Nirmaldasan
(nirmaldasan@hotmail.com)

Rhetoric is the art of effective speech and writing, meant to persuade others to a point of view. Figures of speech are rhetorical devices. A figure of speech, according to Wren & Martin, is a departure from the ordinary form of expression, or the ordinary course of ideas in order to produce a greater effect. Here is Wren & Martin’s classification of the figures of speech:

1. Those based on Resemblance, such as Simile, Metaphor, Personification and Apostrophe.
2. Those based on Contrast, such as Antithesis and Epigram.
3. Those based on Association, such as Metonymy and Synecdoche.
4. Those depending on Construction, such as Climax and Anticlimax.

Now what are transitions? According to Anne Heisenberg in `Guide To Technical Editing’: “Transitions are words, phrases or sentences that provide continuity between main ideas and the development of these ideas, between sentences in paragraphs, or between paragraphs in a longer document.” According to Melvin Mencher in `News Reporting And Writing’: “Transitions are used after the reporter has planned his piece by blocking out the major sections. Transitions link these blocks as well as the smaller units, the sentences. Transitions are the mortar that holds the story together so that the story is a single unit.”

Mencher identifies four major types of transitions. They are 1. Pronouns (refer to nouns in previous sentences) 2. Key words and ideas (repeat words and ideas in preceding sentences and paragraphs) 3. Transitional expressions (connecting words) and 4. Parallel structure (repetition of the sentence pattern).

Linguistic skills imply three things: 1. A rich vocabulary 2. A complete
understanding of sentence structures; and 2. The use of transitions to produce a seamless narrative. In `Rhetoric Of Everyday English Texts’, Michael P. Jordan writes: “Texts are written not just for specific purposes, but also for specific readers, and this again is reflected in the information presented and the way it is presented.”

Figures of speech are dependent on transitions, mostly within the sentence. A transition works like conjunctions showing similarity or contrast between two parts of a sentence. It also works like prepositions showing how a sentence is related to the preceding sentence. It works like a pronoun for economy and for elegant variation. A transition also repeats certain words or ideas in different sentences to make the paragraph appear as a single unit.

The most common transitions are those called transitional expressions. These may be classified under several heads: 1. Place (here, there) 2. Time (now, then) 3. Catalogue (first, last) 4. Contrast (but, instead) 5. Similarity (like, similarly) 6. Emphasis (surely, certainly) 7. Example (for instance, that is) 8. Consequence (hence, therefore); and so on.

Parallel structure is a subtle way of connecting sentences. This is done by respecting the sentence pattern. Here is Melvin Mencher’s example:

“No one dared speak in his classes. No one ventured to address him in any but the most formal manner. No one, for that matter, had the courage to ask questions in class. His lectures were non-stop monologues.”

Even within the sentence, parallel structure must be observed. Especially when correlative conjunctions (either/or, neither/nor, both/and) are used. Anne Heisenberg says: “In parallel construction, all the items joined in a series or comparison have the same grammatical form: adjectives are linked with adjectives, prepositional phrases with prepositional phrases, infinitives with infinitives …”

Here are some text structures, which throw more light on the nature and use of transitions: 1. Question-answer 2. Inverted pyramid 3. Topic-development-conclusion 4. Situation-problem-solution-evaluation 5. Theorem-proof-corollary; and 6. Experiment-observation-inference.

A useful exercise will be to first identify the format of a given text and then list out the different transitions found therein.

(presented at the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan on April 25, 2005)

Asterix In English

By Nirmaldasan

The series of Asterix adventures, written in French by Rene Goscinny and illustrated by Albert Uderzo, has been a reader’s delight for decades. Translated into English by Anthea Bell and Derek Hockridge, the series has captured every charm in the original titles and seems to have lost nothing in translation.

What is it that makes Asterix a classic? First, the theme itself: the Roman conquest of Gaul is complete but for ‘one small village of indomitable Gauls’. Second, the exaggerated illustrations of a host of peculiar personae: a druid who brews a magic potion that gives superhuman strength; a puny Asterix who can beat the hell out of the Romans; a fatso Obelix, whose dog Dogmatix is so very small; a bard Cacofonix, whose performance is as good as his name; the chief of the tribe, Vitalstatistix, whose only fear is that the sky may fall upon his head. And third, the readability of the text.

In this article, I will examine just one text Asterix And The Big Fight; and that too only the utterances of the two key personae, Asterix and Obelix. First, a look at the average sentence length; and then, the percentage of different polysyllabic words.

Asterix uses 1025 words in 170 sentences. The average sentence length is just 6.03. He also uses 27 different polysyllabic words, proper nouns excluded. The percentage of different polysyllabic words is just 2.63.

Obelix uses 574 words in 91 sentences. The average sentence length is just 6.30. He also uses 13 different polysyllabic words, proper nouns excluded. The percentage of different polysyllabic words is just 2.26.

Though the mean of their utterances is about equal at six, Asterix and Obelix limit most of their sentences to not more than four words. Thus, the mode of their utterances is just 4. The longest of Asterix’s sentences has 20 words; and Obelix comes a close second with 19 words. Even the longest sentences follow the guideline of Martin Cutts: “Over the whole document, make the average sentence length 15-20 words.”

Robert Gunning’s Fog Index = (ASL + P%) * 0.4; ASL is the average sentence length and P the number of polysyllabic words, proper nouns excluded. Applying this formula, we find that Asterix’s utterances are pegged to a grade level of 3.464; and Obelix’s utterances, to a grade level of 3.424. Asterix And The Big Fight thus makes wonderful reading material from grade 3 onwards. The same may be true of the other adventures of Asterix.

Here is how Asterix And The Big Fight ends:

Obelix: If I’m not careful I shall be putting on weight … I must go on a diet … I shall eat just biscuits, with perhaps a little something on them …

Asterix: A little something? What sort of little something?

Obelix: A BOAR, BY TOUTATIS!

Poor Cacofonix, dangling from a tree and his mouth gagged, cannot join in the laughter of the Gauls. But we can: “HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!”

Literature In Plain English

By Nirmaldasan

Literary classics are abridged, adapted and retold in plain English to appeal to a graded audience. But it is very difficult to capture the brilliant hues and harmonies of the original texts in a retelling. Right from William Shakespeare’s works of the 16^th century to Rabindranath Tagore’s of the 20^th are available in simplified form. While some of these retellings are fine, others are hopelessly bad.

The literary function relates more with the aesthetic function and less with the communicative. The literary writer may be dealing with complex themes and mixed feelings that require figurative language and complex turn of phrases. This is not to say that the litterateur can afford to ignore the reader and compose his classics in an ivory tower. But it would be nice if the reader took some extra effort in understanding literary works. Reading a classic in the original may not be easy, but the effort is sure to be a rewarding experience.

But when the themes are plain and the feelings clear and deep, the great writers resort to a style that shapes literature in plain English, a composition that is its own retelling. One such writer is Kahlil Gibran, author of classics including ‘The Prophet’, ‘Spirits Rebellious’ and ‘Broken Wings’. Here is a short example titled ‘The Fox’:

A fox looked at his shadow at sunrise and said, “I will have a camel for lunch today.” And all morning he went about looking for camels. But at noon he saw his shadow again — and said, “A mouse will do.”    

Here follows a slightly longer example titled ‘Said A Sheet Of Snow-white Paper…’:

Said a sheet of snow-white paper, “Pure was I created, and pure will I remain for ever. I would rather be burnt and turn to white ashes than suffer darkness to touch me or the unclean to come near me.”

The ink-bottle heard what the paper was saying, and it laughed in its dark heart; but it never dared to approach her. And the multicoloured pencils heard her also, and they too never came near her.

And the snow-white sheet of paper did remain pure and chaste for ever — pure and chaste — and empty.

In the first example, Kahlil Gibran did not write ‘Said a fox…’, but in the second he uses poetic inversion. Readers must come to terms with at least some of the literary conventions, if they wish to fully appreciate a literary text. And when they are reading poems, they should understand the rhythmic flow of the lines. I end this article with the popular mnemonic nursery rhyme:

Thirty days hath September,

April, June and November.

February has twenty-eight alone,

All the rest of thirty-one,

Excepting Leap Year — that’s the time

When February’s days are twenty-nine.

McAlpine EFLAW Readability Score

By Nirmaldasan

(nirmaldasan@hotmail.com)

 

Foreign learners of English, like all others, are troubled by long  sentences. One would expect that they would be equally confounded by long words. Interestingly, that need not be the case. They are harassed by miniword clusters. And the credit for this finding goes to Rachel McAlpine, author of ‘Global English For Global Business’.

 

In an article titled ‘From Plain English To Global English’ — available online at http://www.webpagecontent.com/arc_archive/139/5/ — she defines miniwords as common words of one, two or three letters and says that miniword clusters in wordy cliches, colloquial expressions and phrasal verbs confuse international readers. She presents two difficult sentences consisting of many miniwords and offers better versions. She also discusses several other points regarding English as a Foreign Language (EFL) from a readability perspective. 

 

Towards the end of the article she introduces her readability formula — McAlpine EFLAW Readability Score. The term EFLAW, she clarifies, is a portmanteau combination of EFL and flaw.

 

Let W, M and S be the number of words, miniwords and sentences in a text. Then EFLAW Score = (W+M)/S. The lower the score, the fewer the flaws, she says and recommends a score of 25 or lower. And here is the scale: 1-20 (very easy to understand); 21-25 (quite easy to understand); 26-29 (a little difficult); and 30+ (very confusing).    

 

The EFLAW Score for a single sentence is just the sum of W and M. Let us apply the formula on the following sentence: “In relation to the selection of a firm of consultants, we are at liberty to make a choice.” W and M are 18 and 11 respectively; and the EFLAW Score is 18+11 = 29 (a little difficult).

 

McAlpine offers a better version: “The Marketing Team is authorised to select a consultancy firm.” W and M are 10 and 4 respectively; and the EFLAW Score is 10+4 = 14 (very easy to understand).

 

She suggests two steps for lowering the EFLAW Score of a document: “1. Shorten all sentences to 20 words maximum; and 2. Reduce the number of miniwords.” And she adds: “Take these steps early, because they often automatically eliminate many other problems.”

 

Burkey Belser’s Communication Index

By Nirmaldasan

(nirmaldasan@hotmail.com)

 

— Appeared in the proceedings of the 4^th national conference on the theme ‘Redefining the Role of Language in Higher Education’, conducted by the Department of English & Foreign Languages, SRM University, in association with Regional Institute of English in South India on 12^th and 13^th March 2009. —

 

In the communication process, linguistic skills play a key role in shaping the message.  But effective communication depends not just on grammar and style. Robert Gunning, creator of the popular readability formula Fog Index, had extensively researched business writing and found that only in a few samples did grammatical mistakes interfere with communication (How To Take The Fog Out Of Writing 48). Rudolph Flesch derived two formulae in 1948: one for predicting reading ease; and the other for predicting human interest. While Flesch’s first formula Reading Ease looks at sentence-length and word-length, the second goes beyond language itself. Here is his Human Interest (HI) Formula: HI = 3.635pw + 0.314ps. Substituting the values of pw (percentage of personal words) and ps (percentage of personal sentences) in the formula, we get a score on a 100-point scale; the higher the score, the greater the human interest (‘A New Readability Yardstick’ 231). 

 

Flesch gave clear rules for counting personal words and personal sentences. But the presence of the decimal points in the formula may explain why it is seldom used today. However, his formula paved the way for the identification of more factors of effective communication.

 

Four factors

In 2006, Burkey Belser identified four factors that affect communication and derived the Communication Index Formula to arm communicators with a quantitative tool that would indicate whether communication has been effective. In an online article, he explained the use of his formula and showed why millions read Peanuts and why technical journals are not on the newsstand (‘The Communication Index’, June 2006).

 

These are the four factors: 1. Difficulty of the subject; 2. Difficulty of the presentation; 3. Motivation of the audience; and 4. Expertise of the audience. Each factor is assigned a relative value on a scale of 1 to 10. 

 

Communicators have least control over the expertise of the audience. However, if they know the audience’s knowledge levels, it becomes easier to choose an appropriate subject and presentation. Even the least motivated audience may be easily persuaded to look at an exciting presentation. The presentation holds the key to effective communication and is shaped by an understanding of the other factors. Burkey’s law states that even the most motivated reader can be defeated thanks to the difficulty of the subject as well as the difficulty of the presentation. Here are his corollaries: 1. As the difficulty of the subject matter increases, the probability that material will be read, no matter how motivated the reader, decreases; and 2. As the difficulty of the presentation increases, the probability that material will be read, no matter how motivated the reader, decreases.   

 

Communication Index Formula

The Communication Index (CI) = (S x P) / (M x E)

 

Step I: Assign values to subject difficulty (S), presentation difficulty (P), motivation of the audience (M) and the expertise of the audience (E). Belser says that even rough measures provide an accurate CI.

 

Step II: Calculate the numerator by multiplying S and P.

 

Step III: Calculate the denominator by multiplying M and E.

 

Step IV: Divide the numerator by the denominator.

 

Belser writes: “The best communication occurs between .01 and 1. Communication increases in difficulty from 1 to 10. And it starts to fail utterly at higher numbers.”

 

When the variables take extreme values of 1 and 10, the CI takes the following values:

 

(10 x 10) / (10 x 10) = 100 / 100 = 1

(1 x 1) / (1 x 1) = 1 / 1 = 1

(10 x 1) / (10 x 10) = 10 / 100 = 0.1

(1 x 10) / (10 x 10) = 10 / 100 = 0.1

(1 x 1) / (10 x 10) = 1 / 100 = 0.01

(10 x 10) / (10 x 1) = 100 / 10 = 10

(10 x 10) / (1 x 10) = 100 / 10 = 10

(10 x 10) / (1 x 1) = 100 / 1 = 100

 

Belser’s example of the Nutrition Facts label, which contains facts that most people don’t understand, tells us how to apply the formula and interpret the results. “Unless you are in the medical profession, you probably don’t know how fat is metabolized or how carbohydrates exactly work,” he says and goes on to assign values for the variables. He gives a 6 (fairly high) for subject difficulty, a perfect 10 for motivation; and the lowest score of 1 to expertise and presentation. Substituting these values, we get CI = 0.6. 

 

He points out that if the audience has more knowledge of nutrition science and if we wish to assign a fairly high score (say 7) to expertise, then CI = 0.08. This indicates that ‘Nutrition Facts has greater communication value for a more expert audience’.

 

Plain Language

William Dubay defines readability as the ‘ease of reading created by a literary style that fits the reading level of the audience’ (Smart Language 6). Belser says that readability is just one aspect of presentation. Layout and design are other aspects. Martin Cutts has a few guidelines for effective presentation. Here is one: “Organize your material in a way that helps readers to grasp the important information early and to navigate through the document easily.” (Oxford Guide To Plain English 132). Here is another: “Consider different ways of setting out your information.” (143). He suggests 10 reader-centred structures and recommends the use of lists, tables and algorithms.

 

The quantitative measures of plain English have to be used along with the qualitative principles in gauging the simplicity of a text and the grade level of the audience. But readability formulae restrict themselves to the measure of text difficulty (the exception being Flesch’s Human Interest score). Belser’s Communication Index has a broader perspective, as we have seen; and, in his own words, “The Communication Index gives you the equivalent of a Ph.D. — the ammunition you need to defend your efforts to improve communication.”   

 

REFERENCE

 

Belser, Burkey. ‘The Communication Index’ June 2006. Internet:

http://www.gbltd.com/bigideas.php?news=129

Cutts, Martin.  Oxford Guide To Plain English, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2008 (second ed.)

Dubay, William. Smart Language, Costa Mesa, California: Impact Information, 2007.

Flesch, Rudolph.  ‘A New Readability Yardstick’, Costa Mesa, California: Unlocking Language, Ed. William Dubay, Impact Information, 2007.

Gunning, Robert. How To Take The Fog Out Of Writing. Bombay: Taraporevala Publishing Industries,  1979 (rpt).

 

 

The Technical Text

By Nirmaldasan

Technical writing is the art of communicating technical knowledge to a specified audience. The topic may be as simple as a recipe or as complex as an integral equation. Some of the common technical documents are business letters and user manuals. The nature of the subject and audience determines the style and structure in which technical content is packaged. The text may contain definitions of technical terms, descriptions of products, instructions and examples. In most cases, text is accompanied by graphics/tables/illustrations. Some of the text structures are a) inverted pyramid b) topic-development-conclusion and c) situation-problem-solution-evaluation.

Technical writing requires an understanding of three principles: a) brevity b) clarity and c) scannability. Brevity is the avoidance of superfluous words, phrases and sentences. Clarity is the unambiguous and logical presentation of data or ideas. Scannability is the use of lists, visuals and tables based on the principles of brevity and clarity.

Technical writers have to choose words with care. The P-F-S rule describes a hierarchy of Precise, Familiar and Short words. The order of choice is P-F-S, P-F, P-S, P. There may be more than one precise form of expression. Technical writers have to first seek a word that is precise, familiar and short. If not available, then precise and familiar word is the next choice. This is because a familiar word is better than a short but difficult word. If even a P-F word is not available, then go for the P-S word. The final choice is the P word. We have ignored the F-S words because in technical writing precision is more important than familiarity and brevity.

Technical writers should also take care in constructing sentences and paragraphs. They need to know basic grammar and the different kinds of sentence styles. Some of the common grammatical mistakes are dangling modifiers, misplaced phrases, subject-verb disagreements and wrong tenses. Some of the stylistic errors are redundancies, weak be-verbs, unnecessary expletives and overnominalisation. These problems are dealt with by David A. McMurrey in his book on technical writing. The book deals with all aspects of technical writing and is available online at http://www.io.com/~hcexres/textbook/

A well-written technical text, based on the principles stated here, may now be checked for readability using the FORCAST formula. Patrick FORd, John CAYlor and Tom STicht developed this formula for measuring readability of technical materials. Sticht, who headed the team, published an article about the formula in 1973. Here is the formula: 20 – N/10. N is the number of monosyllabic words in a sample passage of 150 words. The greater the score, the greater the reading difficulty.

If the FORCAST score is high, the text has to be rewritten. The formula seems to suggest that monosyllabic words enhance reading ease. It may not be wise to write to a formula. Moreover, the formula is only indicative of reading difficulty. Nevertheless, it may be stated as a principle that monosyllabic words are better than polysyllabic words. But brevity may be sacrificed if precision is at stake.

The rewritten text must now be reviewed by peers and then the final version lands on the desk of technical editors.

(presented at the SDNB Vaishnav College, 19 February 2005)

Compact Readability Chart

By Nirmaldasan

(nirmaldasan@ hotmail.com)

 

For those who fear a formula but still wish to know the grade-level of a text, Edward Fry’s Readability Graph has the answer. Though Dr. Fry recommends three samples of 100 words, we shall take just one sample to avoid the calculation of averages. All we have to do is count the number of sentences and syllables in a 100-word sample and look at the relevant zone in the graph.

 

The Compact Readability Chart (CRC) is a small attempt to tabulate the reading levels. A shortcoming of this simplification is that it does not show grade-levels; it shows on a seven-point scale whether the text is very easy or very hard or the other levels in between.

 

Take a sample of 100 words. Count the number of sentences (S) and excess syllables (X). Excess syllables can be easily counted by leaving out the first syllable of each word. The point of intersection of X and S shows the level of reading ease: VE (very easy); E (easy); FE (fairly easy); S (standard); FH (fairly hard); H (hard); and VH (very hard).

 

Sentences (S)       →	1	2	3-4	5-6	7-9	10+
Excess Syllables (X)↓
0-9	VH	FE	E	VE	VE	VE
10-19	VH	S	E	VE	VE	VE
20-29	VH	FH	FE	E	VE	VE
30-39	VH	H	S	FE	E	VE
40-49	VH	H	FH	S	FE	E
50-59	VH	VH	H	FH	S	FE
60-69	VH	VH	H	H	FH	S
70-79	VH	VH	VH	H	H	FH
80-89	VH	VH	VH	VH	H	H
90+	VH	VH	VH	VH	VH	VH

 

The CRC is the outcome of a close study of the reliable Flesch Reading Ease. I had problems in filling some of the squares. For example, I had a doubt whether it should be VE or E in the square of intersection between 0-9 (X) and 3-4 (S) and I subjectively settled for E. If you are not happy with the entries, you are welcome to change them.

 

A word about X. Flesch’s simple syllable-counting procedure adds X to the number of words to get the number of syllables. Irving Fang’s easy listening formula is based on X. And Dr. Fry has been for long counting X instead of syllables.