Abstract

There has been widespread application of readability formulas as a tool for defining plain English in the production of texts as well as in judging existing documents. There are numerous reasons why readability formulas have been selected to fulfil this defining role. However, the findings of Duffy and Kabance along with Kniffen et al present a strong case against the readable writing approach to revision and hence against the use of a readability formula as a feedback device for the writer. Kniffen et al used a readable writing style manual. In both cases, conditions were optimal for the readability improvements to facilitate comprehension. Yet in both cases the manipulations, with one exception, resulted in no effect or, at best, marginal effect on comprehension. If the revision approach does not produce large comprehension effects under ideal testing conditions, then there must be little expectation for the approach to be effective in practical application. The findings of Duffy and Kabance, in fact, suggest that some readable writing techniques will not be effective in improving comprehension under any circumstances. The effectiveness of other simplification strategies will depend on the reading requirements and reading conditions.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.