-
Akanda, A., & Haque, M. A. (2013). Newspaper reading habits of university graduate students in Bangladesh: A case study. International Journal of Research in Applied, Natural and Social Sciences (IMPACT: IJRANSS), 1(3), 1-8.
-
Alghamdi, E. A., Gruba, P., Masrai, A., & Velloso, E. (2023). The use of lexical complexity for assessing difficulty in instructional videos. Language Learning & Technology, 27(1), 1- &n
-
Brown, H. M., Oram-Cardy, J., & Johnson, A. (2012). A Meta-Analysis of the reading comprehension skills of individuals on the autism spe
-
Costantini, H., & Fuse, R. (2022). Health informa
-
Courtis, J. K., & Hassan, S. (2002). Reading ease of bilingual annual reports.
-
Mills, G. E., & Gay, L. R. (2018). Educational research: Competencies for Analysis and Applications. Pearson.
-
Fadhil, A., Gunawan, W., & Wirza, Y. (2023). Lexical Density in EFL Indonesian Textbooks: A Comparative Analysis. JALL (Journal of Applied Linguistics and Literacy), 7(1), 121.
-
Halliday, M., Matthiessen, C. M., Halliday, M., & Matthiessen, C. (2014). An introduction to functional grammar. In Routledge eBooks.
-
Heese, J., Pérez-Cavazos, G., & Peter, C. D. (2022). When the local newspaper leaves town: The effects of local newspaper closures on corporate misconduct. Journal of Financial Economics, 145(2), 445–463.
-
Khamahani, G. (2015). A corpus-based analysis of Tehran Times and Azeri news headlines: focus on lexical density and readability. International Journal of Humanities Social Sciences and Education. 2(1), 12-16.
-
Khorina, M., & Handani, W. Z. (2022). Comparing the lexical density of spoken and written news. Linguistics and ELT Journal/Linguistics and Elt Journal, 10(2), 18.
-
Le, T., Yue, Y., & Le, Q. (2011). Linguistic Complexity and its Relation to Language and Literacy Education.
-
Liu, J. (2022). Lexical features of economic legal policy and news in China since the COVID-19 outbreak. Frontiers in Public Health, 10.
-
Lukmana, I., & Gunawan, W. (2021). Lexical density in UU Cipta Kerja: A case study of controversial articles. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conf
-
Lumepa, R. A., Tuna, J. R., & Andries, F. A. (2022). Readability Assessment of reading texts in Pathway to English for SMA/MA Grade X. Kompetensi
-
Malik, M., Emzir, E., & Akhadiah, S. (2017). The influence of Learning Techniques and Schemata Levels in Ability to Read English Academic Text. JETL (Journal of Education, Teaching, and Learning), 2(2),
-
Nesia, B. H., & Ginting, S. A. (2014). LEXICAL DENSITY OF ENGLISH READING TEXTS FOR SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL. Register, 3
-
Ninio, A. (2018). Learning to structure sentences through the acquisition of grammatical words: Introduction to the special issue on the role of grammatical words in
-
Pikulski, J. J. (2002). Readability. Mifflin Company. University of Delaware.
-
Pratiwi, Y., Farikah, F., & Indriani, L. (2018). AN ANALYSIS OF LEXICAL DENSITY AND READABILITY IN READING TEXT ON ENGLISH TEXTBOOK USED BY FORM 4 LEVEL OF SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS IN SMKB
-
Prawinanto, A., & Bram, B. (2020). ADJECTIVE AND NOUN CLAUSE LEXICAL DENSITY IN AN ENGLISH TEXTBOOK F
-
Pujiati, R., & Pramudyawardhani, S. (2021). Grammatical Intricacy and Lexical Density on Genres in Na
-
Purnomo, M. D. (2016). Grammatical intricacy and lexical density in the texts of English handbook at private Islamic Junior High School Level in Medan. Ihya al-ArabiyahJournal Pendidikan Bahasa dan Sastra Arab, 2(2), 11-16&
-
Rahmansyah, H. (2012). Grammatical intricacy and lexical density of the SMA student’s textbooks. London: Rutledge.
-
Rayner, K., & Reichle, E. D. (2010). Mo
-
Rizkiani, D., Mahdi, S., & Sujatna, E. T. S. (2022). Lexical density and readability of the FACIL’s ‘Advanced Learning Textbook’ for Indonesian high school students. Al-Ishlah
-
Sari, A. N., & Ekawati, R. (2021). LEXICAL DENSITY IN READER’S DIGEST MAGAZINE. Prosodi, 15(1), 17–22.
-
Satriwan, J. (2018). Lexical density of reading texts in English on Sky (VIII) Textbook published by Erlangga. New York: Sage.
-
Sholichatun, S. (2011). Content analysis of reading materials in English on Sky textbook for junior high school. Lain Walisongo.
-
Smeuninx, N., De Clerck, B., & Aerts, W. (2016). Measuring the readability of Sustainability Reports: A Corpus-Based Analysis through Standard Formulae and NLP. International Journal of Business Communication, 57(1), 52–85.
-
Tiedemann, J. P. (2011). New literacies, new contexts? A theoretical definition of reading context.
-
Ure, J. (1971). Lexical density and register differentiation applications of linguistics. Selected papers of the Second International Congress of Applied Linguistics, (33), 443-452.
-
Woods, B., Moscardo, G., & Greenwood, T. (1998). A critical review of readability and comprehensibility tests. Journal of Tourism Studies, 9(2), 49-61.
-
Woolley, G. (2011). Reading comprehension: Assisting Children with Learning Difficulties. Springer Science & Business Media.
Abstract:
This research study aimed to analyze the lexical density and readability of Pakistani English Newspaper and so, to suggest their suitability for the level of students. Eight newspapers from four genres were selected as sample. The theory of Systemic Functional Linguistics based on the theory of lexical density by Ure (1971) was applied for finding lexical density and readability indices by using content analysis design through an online text analyzer software. Readability values were compared with the Flesch Reading Ease Scale. The results of this study showed that lexical density values of all genres were greater than 40% according to the Flesch Reading Ease Scale. All the texts were lexically dense having a greater number of contents carrying lexical items as compared to grammatical items. The findings of study could also be applied to academic textbooks in order to check complexity and suitability according to the level of the students
Key Words:
Lexical Density, Readability, Newspaper, Lexical Items, Grammatical Items, Flesch Reading Ease Scale
Introduction
Purpose of the Study
English language being a second language is taught as a subject in almost all institutions in Pakistan. English is learned through many media and newspapers are one of these sources. Newspapers are mostly incomprehensible for many undergraduate students because of the complexity of the language used here. This causes a lack of comprehension abilities. One of the root causes of this situation is the lexical density of the text affecting the readability of the text. Lexical density deals with the proportion of words in text (Nesia, 2014). It is the ratio of lexical and grammatical items. Lexical items consist of verbs, adjectives, nouns, and adverbs. Lexical density is used to describe content carrying lexical items as proportional to the total number of items in the text. The high proportionality of lexical items as compared to grammatical functional items contains more information causing problems in readability. The lexical density of the English newspaper Dawn in the present study is analyzed by using Ure's (1971) theory and the Flesch Reading Ease Scale adapted from Curtis and Hassan (2002) which contains readability values based on grade level. Based on the identification of the problem, the researchers investigate the level of complexity and understanding of Dawn Newspaper. Lexical density and readability indices help in finding the complexity and simplicity of the text and the level of understanding according to the grade level. This research would be significant to enhance the knowledge of the researchers about lexical density and readability in reading newspapers. Furthermore, the study focuses on finding out the type of genre having high lexical density and readability in reading the text of the Pakistani English newspaper Dawn.
Literature Review
The concept of lexicality is significant while describing lexical density. Lexical density deals with the total number of contents carrying vocabulary in text (Vera et al., 2016). It can be used for discourse or text analysis by measuring the ratio of function or content words (Sholichatun, 2011). Measuring the lexical complexity of printed texts is well-established (Alghamdi, Gruba, Masrai, & Velloso, 2023), having more lexical density than spoken texts (Khorina, & Handani, 2022). If the text has a greater number of lexical items (Le, Yue & Le, 2011) as compared to grammatical items, it means the text has greater lexical density (Rahmansyah, 2012). Grammatical items do not give much information in a text but create a connection between ideas in a sentence (Ninio, 2018). Readability is the level of understanding or degree of easiness and difficulty by which text can be understood by the reader. It deals with the probability that text content is apprehended by the reader, which should be distinguished from certainty, a degree of how comfortably individual characters or letters can be differentiated from each other and how they are interpreted in the form of a text (Lumepa, Tuna & Andries, 2022). A text is considered to be more readable when features of the text make it understandable for the reader to bring out required or desired knowledge (Smeuninx et al., 2016). Readability is the degree of easiness or difficulty of the text that can be understood by the readers and comprehended for a particular purpose (Pikulski, 2002). Woods, Moscardo, and Greenwood (1998) proposed that text readability is used to highlight the complexity of the written language and to indicate the reading or educational level that is required to comprehend the text. The formulas of readability are accessible to people through different online sites. Instead of typing, users can copy the text and paste it into online text analyzer software and simply get the estimate of readability (Dubay, 2007).
Flesch Reading Ease Formula is as follows:
Score=206.835-(1.015×ASL)-(84.6×ASW)
Score=Position on a scale of 0-100
ASL (Average Sentence Length) =(( Number of words)/(÷number of sentences))
ASW(Average Number of Syllables per Word)=(( Number of syllables)/(÷ number of words))
Flesch Reading Ease Formula calculates readability ease value on a scale ranging from 0-100. It shows how to find readability ease value and grade level on a scale. The value between 0-30 signifying ‘very difficult,’ for postgraduate level, 30-50 signifying ‘difficult’ for undergraduates, 50-60 signifying ‘fairly difficult’ for grade 10-12 level, 60-70 signifying ‘standard’ for 8-9 grade, 70-80 signifying ‘fairly easy’ for grade 7, 80-90 signifying ‘easy’ for grade 6, 90-100 signifying ‘very easy for grade 5.
Table 1 Flesch Reading Ease Scale
| Flesch Reading Ease width="32%">Description of Style width="35%">Education Attainment Level | > 0-30 width="32%">Very difficult width="35%">Postgraduate | > 30-50 width="32%">Difficult width="35%">Undergraduate | > 50-60 width="32%">Fairly difficult width="35%">Grade 10-12 | > 60-70 width="32%">Standard width="35%">Grade 8-9 | > 70-80 width="32%">Fairly easy width="35%">Grade 7 | > 80-90 width="32%">Easy width="35%">Grade 6 | > 90-100 width="32%">Very easy width="35%">Grade 5 |
| Aspect (Texts) width="22%">Lexical Density width="44%">Level of Density | > Text 1 width="22%">57.25 width="44%">High | > Text 2 width="22%">52.42 width="44%">High | > Text 3 width="22%">54.05 width="44%">High | > Text 4 width="22%">57.95 width="44%">High | > Text 5 width="22%">60.62 width="44%">High | > Text 6 width="22%">61.15 width="44%">High | > Text 7 width="22%">61.28 width="44%">High | > Text 8 width="22%">55.20 width="44%">High |
| Aspect (Text) width="23%">Readability width="43%">Suitability for Grade | > Text 1 width="23%">58% width="43%">10-12 | > Text 2 width="23%">55.9% width="43%">10-12 | > Text 3 width="23%">60.9% width="43%">8-9 | > Text 4 width="23%">36.3% width="43%">Undergraduate | > Text 5 width="23%">31% width="43%">Undergraduate | > Text 6 width="23%">37.2% width="43%">Undergraduate | > Text 7 width="23%">45.1% width="43%">Undergraduate | > Text 8 width="23%">38.9% width="43%">Undergraduate |
| Text width="20%">Content Carrying Lexical Items width="23%">Non-Content Carrying Lexical Items width="19%">Total Number of Lexical Items width="16%">Level of Dense Vocabulary width="10%">Lexical Density | > Text 1 width="20%">351 width="23%">262 width="19%">613 width="16%">Large width="10%">57.25 | > Text 2 width="20%">378 width="23%">343 width="19%">721 width="16%">Large width="10%">52.42 | > Text 3 width="20%">280 width="23%">238 width="19%">518 width="16%">Large width="10%">54.05 | > Text 4 width="20%">255 width="23%">185 width="19%">440 width="16%">Large width="10%">57.95 | > Text 5 width="20%">348 width="23%">226 width="19%">574 width="16%">Large width="10%">60.62 | > Text 6 width="20%">170 width="23%">108 width="19%">278 width="16%">Large width="10%">61.15 | > Text 7 width="20%">201 width="23%">127 width="19%">328 width="16%">Large width="10%">61.28 | > Text 8 width="20%">159 width="23%">129 width="19%">288 width="16%">Large width="10%">55.20 |
| Aspects (Text) width="33%">Text Title width="33%">Lexical Density | > Text 7 width="33%">Sanctions could cause space station to crash: Roscosmos width="33%">61.28 | > Text 6 width="33%">Banks directed to employ 20pc women width="33%">61.15 | > Text 5 width="33%">Penalization of paying power consumers opposed width="33%">60.62 | > Text 4 width="33%">Malakand division to be the hub of educational activities: CM width="33%">57.95 | > Text 1 width="33%">Ton-up Imamul Haq punishes faltering Australia in 1st Test width="33%">57.25 | > Text 8 width="33%">Giant ice volcanoes identified on Pluto width="33%">55.20 | > Text 3 width="33%">Taliban fear educated women, quip schoolgirls width="33%">54.05 | > Text 2 width="33%">Football: Girls just want to play width="33%">52.42 |
| Genre width="33%">Text Aspect width="33%">
| > Sport Correspondent width="33%">Text 1 width="33%">54.83 | > width="33%"> Text 2 width="33%">
| > Education Correspondent width="33%">Text 3 width="33%">56 | > width="33%"> Text 4 width="33%">
| > Business Correspondent width="33%">Text 5 width="33%">60.88 | > width="33%"> Text 6 width="33%">
| > Science Correspondent width="33%">Text 7 width="33%">58.24 | > width="33%"> Text 8 width="33%">
|
| Text Aspect width="19%">Content Carrying Lexical Items width="23%">Non-Content Carrying Lexical Items width="26%">Average Values of Lexical Items width="20%">Average Values of Grammatical Items | > Text 1 width="19%">351 width="23%">262 width="26%">364 width="20%">302.5 | > Text 2 width="19%">378 width="23%">343 width="26%">width="20%">
| > Text 3 width="19%">280 width="23%">238 width="26%">287.5 width="20%">211.5 | > Text 4 width="19%">255 width="23%">185 width="26%">width="20%">
| > Text 5 width="19%">348 width="23%">226 width="26%">259 width="20%">167 | > Text 6 width="19%">170 width="23%">108 width="26%">width="20%">
| > Text 7 width="19%">201 width="23%">127 width="26%">180 width="20%">128 | > Text8 width="19%">159 width="23%">129 width="26%">width="20%">
|
| Text width="18%">Content Carrying Lexical Items width="23%">Non-Content Carrying Lexical Items width="23%">Total Number of Lexical Items width="17%">Level of Dense Vocabulary width="9%">Lexical Density | > Text 1 width="18%">351 width="23%">262 width="23%">613 width="17%">Large width="9%">57.25 | > Text 2 width="18%">378 width="23%">343 width="23%">721 width="17%">Large width="9%">52.42 | > Text 3 width="18%">280 width="23%">238 width="23%">518 width="17%">Large width="9%">54.05 | > Text 4 width="18%">255 width="23%">185 width="23%">440 width="17%">Large width="9%">57.95 | > Text 5 width="18%">348 width="23%">226 width="23%">574 width="17%">Large width="9%">60.62 | > Text 6 width="18%">170 width="23%">108 width="23%">278 width="17%">Large width="9%">61.15 | > Text 7 width="18%">201 width="23%">127 width="23%">328 width="17%">Large width="9%">61.28 | > Text 8 width="18%">159 width="23%">129 width="23%">288 width="17%">Large width="9%">55.20 |
| Genre width="33%">Text Aspect width="35%">Average Value of Readability | > Sport Correspondent width="33%">Text 1 width="35%">56.95 | > width="33%"> Text 2 width="35%">
| > Education Correspondent width="33%">Text 3 width="35%">48.6 | > width="33%"> Text 4 width="35%">
| > Business Correspondent width="33%">Text 5 width="35%">34.15 | > width="33%"> Text 6 width="35%">
| > Science Correspondent width="33%">Text 7 width="35%">42 | > width="33%"> Text 8 width="35%">
|
