Comparative Analysis of Text Complexity in English Textbooks

The article presents the results of a comparative analysis of the complexity of texts on the material of the linguistic subcorpus of English textbooks “English”, “Starlight” and “Rainbow English” for the 11th grade. The total volume of the sub-corpus of texts acting as empirical material for the research amounted to 36 texts (3955 word uses). One of the characteristics of the complexity of the text is its readability. It depends on the degree of complexity of words and the structures used in the sentences, as well as on such quantitative parameters of the text as the average length of the sentence (in word usage) and the average length of the syllable in the word. The readability of the text is calculated with the help of the formulas of Flesh Reading Ease, Flesh-Kincaid Grade, and the Gunning Fog index known in linguistics. The results of the complexity assessment were obtained using the TextInspector automated text complexity analyzer program. It was revealed that the complexity of the texts in the textbooks under discussion corresponds to the age characteristics and intellectual level of high school students. At the same time, the complexity indicators of the texts in the textbook “Starlight” are higher than the indicators of the textbooks “Rainbow English” and “English”, which is explainable, since the textbook “Starlight” is intended for schools with in-depth study of the English language. The automatic analysis of the complexity of educational texts using information technologies based on methods of their 

1. Al-Khalifa, H.S., & Al-Ajlan, A.A. (2010). Automatic Readability Measurements of the Arabic Text: An Exploratory Study. The Arabian journal for science and engineering, 35 (2), 103-124. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289282249_Automatic_readability_measurements_of_the_arabic_text_An_exploratory_study (accessed: 14 October, 2022).

2. Ardatova, E.V. (2015). Obraz Rossii v sovremennyh uchebnikah po russkomu yazyku kak inostrannomu [The image of Russia in modern textbooks on Russian as a foreign language]. APRIORI. Seriya: Gumanitarnye nauki [Electronic scientific journal “APRIORI”. Series: Humanities], 3, 1-9 (in Russian).

3. Baeva, N.V., & Bol’shakova, E.I. (2012). Problemy avtomatizacii kontrolya uchebno-nauchnyh tekstov [Problems of automation of control of educational and scientific texts]. Sb. nauch. tr. SWorld: materialy Mezhdunar. nauch.-prakt. konf “Perspektivnye innovacii v nauke, obrazovanii, proizvodstve i transporte ‘2012” [Proceedings of the international conference “Promising innovations in science, education, production and transport 2012”] (pp.59-63). Odessa (in Russian).

4. Gardner, D. (2004). Vocabulary Input Through Extensive Reading: A Comparison of Words Found in Children Narrative and Expository Reading Materials. Applied linguistics, 25(1), 1 – 37.

5. Kazachkova, M.B., & Galimova, H.N. (2021). Leksichsekskoe raznoobrazie kak parametr slozhnosti teksta [Lexical diversity as a parameter of text complexity]. Vestnik Marijskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta [Bulletin of Mari State University], 3(43), 384-390 (in Russian).

6. Kincaid, J.P., Fishburne, R.P.Jr, 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 (Research Branch Report 8-75). Memphis, TN: Naval Air Station.

7. Kisel’nikov, A.S. (2013). Formuly chitabel’nosti kak instrument analiza teksta [Readability formulas as a text analysis tool]. In Yazyk. Obshchestvo. Soznanie: sb. st. [Language. Society. Consciousness: a collection of articles] (pp. 247-253), Kazan: Otechestvo (in Russian).

8. Mackovskij, M.S. (1976). Problemy chitabel’nosti pechatnogo materiala [Problems of readability of printed material]. In Smyslovoe vospriyatie rechevogo soobshcheniya v usloviyah massovoj kommunikacii [Sense perception of speech in the context of mass communication] (126-142), Moscow (in Russian).

9. McLaughlin, G.H. (1969). SMOG Grading – a New Readability Formula. Journal of Reading 12 (8), 639–646.

10. Mikk, Ya.A. (1970). O faktorah ponyatnosti uchebnogo teksta [About the clarity factors of the educational text] (Doctoral thesis). Novosibirsk (in Russian).

11. Oborneva, I.V. (2006). Avtomatizirovannaya ocenka slozhnosti uchebnyh tekstov na osnove statisticheskih parametrov [Automated assessment of the complexity of educational texts based on statistical parameters] (PhD thesis). Moscow (in Russian).

12. Rybanov, A.A., & Kuz’min, A.A. (2011). Issledovanie metodov kolichestvennoj ocenki skhem relyacionnyh baz dannyh [Research on methods for quantifying relational database schemes]. In Uspekhi sovremennogo estestvoznaniya [Advances in modern natural science] (pp. 137138), Moscow (in Russian).

13. Solnyshkina, M.I., & Kisel’nikov, A.S. (2015). Slozhnost’ teksta: etapy izucheniya v otechestvennom prikladnom yazykoznanii [Complexity of the text: stages of study in domestic applied linguistics]. Vestnik Tom. gos. un-ta. Filologiya [Bulletin of Tomsk State University. Philology], 6 (38), 86-99 (in Russian).

14. Solnyshkina, M.I., Harkova, E.V., & Kiselnikov, A.S. (2014). Comparative Coh-Metrix Analysis of Reading Comprehension Texts: Unified (Russian) State Exam in English vs Cambridge First Certificate in English. English Language Teaching. Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol.7, № 12, 65-76.

15. Svalova, E.V. (2014). Tipologiya trudnostej obucheniya inostrannomu yazyku uchashchihsya srednej obshcheobrazovatel’noj shkoly [Typology of difficulties in teaching a foreign language to secondary school students]. In Pedagogicheskoe obrazovanie v Rossii. [Pedagogical education in Russia] (pp. 120-124), Ekaterinburg (in Russian).

16. Vorob’eva, E. V. (2020). Tekst uchebnogo izdaniya po russkomu yazyku kak inostrannomu: tekstovedcheskij, lingvokul’turnyj i pragmaticheskij aspect [Text of the educational edition on the Russian language as a foreign language: textual, linguocultural and pragmatic aspects] (PhD thesis). Moscow (in Russian).