w
’

J

H

l

i

“W

I

i

“I

H

I
l

'l

H

H

l".

l
!

"I!

l!

H J

l
l

i
|

{M

I
l

ill

I

J“

I

“NH

:1

 

CRITICAL FACTORS IN
NEWSPAPER READABILI'3‘Y

Thesis for the Degree of H. A.
\NDIANA UNPVERSI‘I'Y
Melvin Lostuiter

1947

 

9.333195%: 5.691119% .12"? I‘EEE‘V§P§?EB
MPQLLIIX

From e study of
:32 State Jougnel
Lansing. MlchIgan

 

By Melvin Loetutter

A ‘IHESIS

eubmltted to the Graduate
School of Indiana Univers-
ity in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for
the degree of

EASTER OF ARTS

Department of
Journalism

1947

1.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Thanks are due to ur. Paul Hartin, publisher; Hr. Ken~
neth Park, managing editor, and to nowhere of the editorial
Itatt of ghg_§tgtg,iggrggl, Lansing Michigan. for their ae-
eietance in collecting a considerable amount of the data.
both personal and othereiee, need in thie etudy; to Dr. Edgar
Dale, of Ohio State University, for making available for ex-
perinental use a new formula in advance of its publication;
and to Proteeeor John E. stempel and Proteeeor A.A. Applegate,
heads of the Departments of Journaliem at Indiana Univereity
and flichigan state College, reapectively. for their help and

encouragement in many and varied ways.

ii.

PREFACE.

the newspaper is a medium of communication intended. it
not always designed, for the masses. It is intended, it not
always designed, for hurried reading. Those editing and pub-
lishing newspapers and those supplying material for public-
ation have long recognized that the daily Journals are often.
it not usually, scanned or read without overmuch reflection:
that the readership consists of all ages and claesee. from
the well educated to those with no more schooling than ie re-
quired for the simplest reading matter; yet the editors, pubo
liehere, and press associations have not done enough to make
their matter readable within such limite---eaeily readable
for the echooled, readable at all} in many inetancee, for
the unechooled.

It is true that editore have traditionally advieed their
writers and cepyreadere to uee 'ehort worde and eenteneee'---
thue recognizing the two most critical factors in readability.
They have advised it,but they have not always required it.
That this ie true needs no more documentation than the files
of your newspaper. It is no mere whimsy that “your Newspaper.
is included in the bibliography appended to this study.

Foreign news, for example, is being written for peeple
with five years more education than the average adult American
has, according to a recent Ohio State Uniuereity study cited

by The Quilltl

1. Vol. 25. No. 1. p. a. January, 1947.

iii.

IThe research, directed by Lester Getsloe, showed the
average story on foreign events was phrased at a level ado
spted to a reader with fourteen years. schooling.' said In;
5331;. «The American grownup collectively went to school
for less than nine years."

But it is not only foreign reports; washington news,
for another example, presents such hurdles of hard words and
abstractions as these to the ill-prepared average reader:

President Truman today called for undeclared war
against totalitarian aggression to revent further
collapse of free institutions and urhher loss of
independence in threatened countries...

And it is not only hard words and abstractions but long,
complicated, and overloaded sentences such as this;

Three Chicago men were captured and a fourth es-
caped yesterday after the: were trapped by police
in a rooming house in Grand Ra ids, Mich., where
the; were torturing a victim n an effort to find
a heard of $35,000 and some Jewelry reported hidden
there last week by one of the ringleaders of a re-
cently disclosed million dollar black market sugar
rQOKB‘e e e

Or it may be a combination of hard words and long, ecs-
plicated sentences. such as this:

Kiernan said the Judiciary committee may amend the
sewer district measure to give municipalities, firms.
corporations or persons the right of appeal from an
order of the commission directing them to connect
with the sewer project. As the bill is now written,
it does not specifically give communities, corpor-
ations or persons the right to appeal from orders the
commission might give. directing them to connect with
the proposed system.

 

‘2". Chicago Tribune. iiarch 12, 1947. p. T.
as I ” . Mare!) 10. 19‘7. pe is
e. Providence Journal. March 11, 1947, p. l.

iv.

These are not atypical examples but the sort of thing
that can be found in any editien of most newspapers. lost
but not all. For instance. 13mg? contrasts the readability
of the New York gimes and the tabloid New york pg111_nggg
in reporting the same news item. The 1393: started it off
like this;

President Truman recommended to congress today a
sweeping revision of legislation under which the £19
ecutive Branch of the Government has been exercising
extraordinary powers pursuant to declarations of a
state of emergency by President Roosevelt in 1939
and 1941. This step was foreshadowed in his message
to Congress Feb. 3...

The Emily 3232 put it this may;

President Truman today asked Congress to repeal
24 wartime control laws outright and listed 78
others he wanted to be extended or allowed to lapse.

Iigg_noted with sly casualness that the pally ngwg has
nearly four times as many readers as the Times.

There are other newspapers that have seen the light. Fol-
lowing leaderdhip from other fields. they are attempting to
set up standards and to measure results. The Egg: article
mentions as one evidence of this Readable News Reports. a serv-
ice offered by Robert P. Gunning, as having “helped 30 U.S.
dailies stop talking over their readers' heads." The magasine

lists among cunning's clients the Louisville Qggglggegguzngl.

The press associations also have become gradually more

conscious of readability and the factors entering into it.

 

5e V01. ‘9. “Ce 9. pe71. marCh 3. 19‘7.

V.

The Quill article called it "significant that nearly two
years ago the UP submitted its report to a similar study
and as a result managed to reduce its grade from 16.5 to
11.7." But 11.? is still nearly high school graduate
level:

It is the writer's belief that the newspaper world
must recognize the need for readability on the same level
as readership; that it must not stop with recognition but
must go ahead to set up standards that will attain such a
level of readability; and that it must then go the step
farther and apply the best available measurements to de-
termine whether this readability has been attained-~—and
is being maintained.

This investigation is an effort. however humble and

fumbling, to contribute a little something toward that end.

Chapter

VI.

VII.

VIII.

Ix.

X.

CONTENTS

The Editor's Problem.

The Choice of a Heasuring stick.

The Readable Reader.

Education for Readability and Unreadabllity.
Raw material.

The First Fifty words Are the Hardest.
"Names Are News.-

What the Editor Can Do About It.

A Promising New Formula.

we Get What We Pay For.

Bibliograph‘, e

Appendix A, charts.

Appendix B. Clippings, Readability Factors and Indices.

vi.

Page
1.
5.

13.
14.
18.
25.
31.

‘3.

45.

49.

77.

1.

CHAPTER I.
Ihe Editortg Ezoblem.

when the newspaper editor awakens to the realization that
his publication is not tailored to the measurements of its read-
ership, there are four things he can do; (1) nothing at all;
(2) issue rules of thumb to his writers and copyreaders; (3)
call in help from outside; (4) himself try to make a more or
less scientific approach to his problem.

The rules of thumb are often quite good so far as they go.
If the editor does what is usually the most obvious thing and
tells his staff to use shorter words and sentences, his common
sense is ordering the same general plan of attack that science
would. But howahm11.should the words and sentences be to reach
the level desired without irritating condescension? and are
there other critical factors than length of word and sentence?
Are there, for instance, habits and traditions that block the
way to newspaper readability? In short. how can the editor tell
whether his own devices will do sufficiently, without overdoing,
what he feels should be done?

As for calling in outside help, which ordinarily has to be
professional to be of much Value, most of the editors who need
it the most either cannot afford it or think they cannot. Any-
way, it is a recurrent necessity. Exocrienoe has shown that

the improvement which follows professional measurement and in-

struotion wears off. after a few months, the writers and copy-
readers are doing much as they did before and the professional
must be called back. Keeping a newspaper readable is about as
much of a Job as making it readable in the first place.1

Several things stand in the way of the fourth choice
---action by the editor on his own behalf. First is lack of
information. From talking with Indiana and Hichigan editors,
the writer has found that many do not knew that farlulae have
been devised for measuring readability with at least some de-
gree of approximation. Of those who do, not all know where to
obtain the formulae, which of the measurements are lost ap-
plicable to the specialised newspaper field, or how to apply
them. other obstacles include lack of time, lack of patience,
and the newspaperman's characteristic skepticism of what he
considers the theoretical and Ifine haired.I

In this investigation a former newspapernan takes the
newspaperman's approach to the field of readability in an ef-
fort to determine the critical factors involved in applying
objective measurement to the material of the daily and weekly
journal. selected for study was 339 state gggrgal,published
daily in Lansing, capital of Michigan and a city of approxim-
ately 3o,£00 population.

For our purpose, §h5.§tgtg'ggurnal, with its circulatidn
of 50,496f3may be considered representative of papers of its

ownasize and_manx,muchfllargegmggd mughmgmaller. becguse it is

1. 'You are right when you say that reporters and capyreaders
do tend to slip to old habits. About every three months it
is necessary to emphasize the importance of readability.'--
Dale Stafford, managing editor, Letroit Ere; figs 3.

2. Editor and Publisher 1947 International Year Book.

3.

big enough to harEan editorial staff with some variety of back-
ground and specialization, yet small enough to its. the folksy
attitude toward news of the community that is characteristic of
the non-metropolitan press of the United states. In addition,
investigation disclosed that it was no more conscious of its
readability than the average newspaper gives evidence of being.
Its operation was geared to habit and precedent, good and bad,
in about the same preportions, perhaps, as most papers'. Its
writers appeared to have learned their trade in pretty much
their own way and to practice it in pretty much their own way.
Copyreading was perfunctory insofar as readahility was concerned.
One hundred fifty articles written by eighteen regular
members of the Journal staff were analysed. host of than were
taken from the editions of a ten-day period, November 10 to 19,
l9e6, which means that the locally written editorial content
of that period was scrutinised rather closely. A,few other
stories in the next couple of weeks were added to round out
certain categories under investigation. In addition, ten pub-
lished letters from readers, ten Associated Press stories from
ghg_g9urnal's front pages of November 16 and 19, and ten staff-
written articles from the Detroit free Eresg_of February 18,
1947, were measured for purposes of comparison. The publisher,
managing editor, reporters, and copyreaders of 223,1935gg; were

interviewed, and copy as well as printed matter was examined.

Two formulae were selected for taking the measurements.
They are those of Dr. Irving Lorge, of Teachers College,
Columbia University, and Dr. Rudolf Flesch, author of :32,
5519]; Plain Talk.

 

Hatters investigated may be summarized by these questions
which are considered in the chapters following;

1. Which of the formulae so far developed appears to
offer the most advantages in measuring newspaper readability?

2. What effect does the reporter's education and eXperi-
ence have on the readability of the stories he writessm

3. Is there a measurable relationship between subJect
matter and readability?

e.ehat effect does the newspaper vleadn have on the story's
readability score?

5. What effect does the maxim, Names are news, have on
newspaper readability?

6. What are some of the easily applied devices of writing
and editing for improving readability, their opportunities and
limitations?

CHAPTER II.

a.-.

The prediction of readability requires "calculation by
means of an empirical formula relating specific variables of
readability to the criterion of readability.'1

The variables that have been used, in various combin-
ations, are aspects of vocabulary, sentence structure and
style, she reader interest? including such measures as:

Vocabulary load---Number of running words; percentage
of different words; percentage of different infrequent, un-
common, cr hard words; percentage of polysyllabic words; some
weighted measure of vocabulary difficulty; vocabulary divers-
ity; number of abstract words; number of affixed morphemes
(prefixes, inflectional endings, etc.).

sentence structure or style--~Percentage of preposition-
al phrases; percentage of indeterminate clauses; number of
simple sentences; average sentence length.

Human interesto--Number of personal pronouns; number of
words expressing human interest; percentage of colorful words;
number of words representing fundamental life experiences;
number of words usually learned early in life.

The criterion -muat be a measure of success that a large
number of readers would have" with a given text, and may be

obtained “by‘gudgmgnt or by morgwobjegtive methods of appraigal.-3

l. Lorge, Irving. “Predicting Readability." Iggchegg gollggg
Record, V01. 45, pp. 404-419, March, 1944.

2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.

 

 

 

Criteria that have been developed and tested include Passages
of graded difficulty from books and magazines, such as the 376
passages in HcCall and crabbs' standard 1g§1_Lgssgng lg Egg;-
ing and Flesch's 375 test passages from magazines Iof five
clearly distinguishable levels of difficulty," ranging from
Inge gonfessiong through 8999.911! 121.3333 to 111.... 15;; 391333.

In attempting to evaluate existing formulae in their ap-
plication---particular1y their 'practical' application-o-tc
newspaper material, the writer took into consideration the
'19 significant attempts" to measure readability objectively
listed by Flesch in 1943.5 They are those of Lively and Pres-
sey, 1983; Keboch, 1927; Dolch, 1928; Vogel and washburne,
1988; Lewerenz, 1929; Johnson, 1930; Patty and Painter, 1931;
Brown, 1931; Holland, 1933; HeClusky, 1933; Dale and Tyler,
1934; ojemann, 1934; Leeerens, 1936; Gray and Leary, 1933;
DeLong, 1938; washburne and nephett (vogel), 1938; Horriss and
Holversen, 1938; Yoakum, 1939, and Large, 1939.

Host of the investigations were based on the reading
ability of children and were intended for use chiefly in the
grade placement of reading matter for children. Even Lorce's
comes in this category, although he says his formula quay be
used to advantage in estimating the difficulty of silent nah

oral passages for adults."6 The Gray-Leary formula, however,

 

m-

 

was especially designed for adult reading; so it was used as

4. Flesoh, Rudolf. Marks of a Readable Style. Bureau of Public-
ations, Teachers coIIe§3,'C61umbia University, N.Y.. 1943.

5. Ibid.

6. op. 01‘s

 

the basis of a majority of the exPeriments conducted by the
Readability Laboratory of the American association of adult
Education, which was established in 1936 and 'ohargeiwith
the task of assembling all that was known about readability,
and of putting this knowledge as work by producing a series
of experinental non-fiction books for mass consumption.'7
But the tests of the Gray-Leary formula, as well as those of
Lively and Pressey, Patty and Painter, Yoakum, and‘washburna
and vogel, proved "disappointing,“ according to Flesch, who
worked in the Laboratory.

The writer came to the conclusion that the formulas of
Lorge and Flesoh are best adapted to newspaper measurement
for these reasons: (1) They are simpler than some of the
others; (2) they are more recent and embody the experience
of the earlier investigations; and (3) they take adult read-
ing into consideration.

Lorge and Flesch use three predictors; Gray and Leary,
on the other hand, used five, with fine appreciable advantage
over the simpler three-elements formula" of Large.8

The predictors used by Lorge are: average sentence length,
ratio of prepositional phrases, and ratio of different "hard

cords," which means all words not on a list of 169 easy words

compiled by Dale.9

Those used by Flesch are: average sentence length, number

of affixed morphemes a hundred words, and number of personal

7. rleseh, cp. cit.
8. Ibid.
9. Dale, Idgar. “A comparison of Two word Lists.¢ ducational

Research gglletin, Vol. 10, pp. 484-489, December, 1931.

 

references a hundred words. The personal references include
personal names, personal pronouns, and an exclusive list of
words such as 'wife,~ wpal,I eaunt,- et al., denoting close
personal relationships.

In applying these two formulae to 303 samples aggregating
32,611 words from 180 newspaper articles, the writer found him-
self better equipped to evaluate them from the point of view of
the newspaper editor than of the scholarly research worker. aft-
er years of editing, he could not shake off all the newspaper-
man's characteristic skepticism, nor could he ignore the elements
of time and patience required for an investigation of this sort.
But for the purposes of this study that is perhaps Just as well.
To have more than academic value, newspaper readability measure-
ments must be accepted by new e men, and newspapermen will
not be uninterested in the time it takes to master the instructions
and make the tests or in any implied academic background such as
a knowledge of Latin, Greek, and Anglo-Saxon derivatives.

Some practical obstacles are encountered at once in app1y~
in. the Large and Flesch tests to newspaper stories. The first
is that the type is so small and the lines so close together that
the samples must be copied before the beginner, at least, can
work with them at all accurately.

In using the Flcsch formula, some system of marking the
affixed morphemss must be employed; a running count is likely
to be impracticable for the newspaperman, who would have to
check some of the affixes and 'follow the etymological explan-

ation of a good dictionary," as Plesch suggests-o-and a I'gcod

dictionary” is a big, more or less stationary dictionary.
the lay investigator, rusty on derivatives, either has to
go often to such a dictionary or sacrificeniaccuracy.

Another difficulty is that the layman cannot feel sure
he is marking all the affixes [leech would. This is because
the instructions give more leeway than the conscientious in-
vestigator cares to have. rleseh provides a list of affixes
but appends a note that the list is not exclusive and an-'
other note that affixes in proper names are not to be count-
ed “unless the original meaning is preserved,'I thus injecting
Judgmentgfactors. However, such latitude need be of less
concern to the newspaperman, for whom a reasonable approxim-
ation should be sufficient, than to the more scientific re-
searcher, for the number of affixes a.hundred words runs high
enough that a fee errors of emission and commission may be
made without materially affecting the score for all “practical"
purposes.

after the words, sentences, affixes, and personal refer-
ences have been counted, the computations for the Pleseh score
are made quickly and easily because the samples in most cases
run exactly 100 words, which makes the ratios immediately ape
parent, and because a table of Values for virtually all possible
sentence lengths and ratios of affixes and personal references
is furnished with the instructions.

The newspapcrman will find the Large formula tedious in

three respects: marking the hard words, determining how many

10.

of them are differnnt, and making the computations. Marking
the words requires constant reference to the accompanying list
of 769 'easy words" until the list, or at least its general
import, is learned. Determining how many are different in-
volves checking through all those marked and listing them
alphabetically. The computations consist of, first, figuring
the ratios, since the samples rarely run an even 100 words;
multiplying the ratios by the weight given each factor, and,
finally, adding these products and a constant. The newspaper-
man might simplify the task a little if he felt no need for
accuracy to four decimal places.

As with Flesch's, Lorge's instructions are not too
clear and exclusive.

The writer found that the Lorge measurements took him
two to three times as long as Flesoh's. After he became
familiar with the two, it required about five minutes to
get the Flesch score for a loo-word sample, and ten to fifteen
minutes for the Large.

The Flesch formula yielded a somewhat wider range of
grade placement of the material. scores of the 160 gtgtg.
ggugngl stories ran from a low of 6.89 to a high of 15.02,
with a spread of 8.13, by that formula. By Lorge's, the range
was 5.23 to 11.41, and the spread, 6. 18.

For another thing, the Lorge scores tended to bunch up

within a narrow segment of the extrme range. Half the stories

ll.

graded between 8.00 and 8.99 by his formula. The Flesch scores

were more widely distributed.

 

*“~~~I-o- -- *v u- ...r W -—-—=—

DLJMation 2.11 3923.9. bx Beading dram.
Range HBEESLQI... stain

~_"Mas m-~w_uha-a--i.s?£999h__é°r£0
Under‘é.00 0

6.00 to 5.99 1 3
7.00 to 7.99 12 36
8.00 to 8.99 25 75
9.00 tQ 9e99 36 30
10.00 ‘0 10e99 3‘ 5
11.00 to 11.99 20 1
12.00 ‘0 12s99 1‘ O
13.00 to 13.99 5 0
14.00 to 14.99 0 0
93951l§aggxwm.- _. 1 a 9-_. m_.
Totals 150 150

.——--_~*..s..-r-... *I<.--IM-O—'Om—n“ ~**-*”—M

 

as may be inferred from the foregoing table, the writer
did not find a high correlation between the two systems. The
difference in grade placement ran as much as 4.91 on one story,

and from 3.00 to 4.91 on twenty-five.

 

 

w o- u.-.*-- ‘-‘ .—— ~— = _____

Differencgg Egggggg lesc , Large agg§_g.

 

 

 

 

_ Difference “ I humpegggf atgries
L533 than e50 80
e50 to e99 83
1.00 to 1.49 20
1.50 to 1.99 23
8.00 to 8.49 16
2e50 ‘0 2.99 16
3.00 to 3.99 20
4.00 to 5,9; 3
Total 150

composite scores of the eighteen gtate Josrnal writers,

 

shown in a table on page14 , gave a grade placement correlation

or'B .469.

12.

CHAPTER III.

Ihe Readable Reader.

The state Journal's most readable writers are its readers.
They are by the Lorge measurements, that is, and come near to
it by rlesch's formula.

Ten letters to the editor, measumd according to Large,
yielded a composite score of 7.41. while only one staff member
was as low as 7.48.0n ten stories and the staff as a whole
averaged 8.34.

By rlesoh measurement, two staff writers had ten-story
scores of 8.03 and 8.47, while the readers! letters scored 8.62.
This was 1.28 under the composite figure for the staff.

the amateurs, as the professionals, have both hard and
easy writers. The individual letters showed these ranges:
Flesch, 7.71 to 11.48; Lorge, 6.26 to 9.14.

The letters were written by an active and a retired minis~
ter, a 'teenoage girl, a landlord, a recently returned war veter-
an, housewives, householders, and one confirmed writer to the

editor. The Journal, so far as could be ascertained, uses no

 

staff-written material in this column.
The individual scores of the letter writers are shown in

the folloeing tabulation;

 

glitz; * ggore Write: Bcoggz
FIEsch Lorge Flesch Lorge
“.mg Brown 7e71 7e‘5 Elk. 311.y 9.35 8.18
3.8.8. 8.2? 6.26 m.L. Ryder 10.03 9.14
A. Waterer 8.49 7.50 Mrs. croisant 10.63 7.37
J.F. Stoll 8.60 6.73 Mrs. Johnson 10.76 8.30

O. JOhUBOH 8.92 6e02 E.H. Barr.‘t 11.48 801.

13.

Ten Associated Press stories from The Journal's front page
also had an aggregate readability index higher than that of the
readers, although lower than that of the newspaper staff. The
AP scored: Fleeoh, 9.38 (.38 below In; Journal); Large, 8.01
(.31 below The Journal).

 

The wire storiesg,

 

 

guide Line Score Guidemgigg N__§core
flesoh Large Flesch Lorge
Ex-convict 7.42 7.08 Coal Einers 10.31 7.31
Detroit minister 8.21 7.39 movie strike 10.49 8.40
F170 K‘llad 8.28 Begs A‘tornay for 10081 9086
Walkout 8.30 7.03 New Probe 11.48 8.83
Heavy Snow 8.73 8.30 Soviet Use of 12.28 9.88

The most readable material measures was ten stories from
the Detroit Free Press, which scored: Fleech, 8.87: Large, 7.99.
The range was from 6.97 to 10.71, by Flesch; from 6.73 to 9.33,
by Lorge. The material measured included general news stories,
sports, society, an editorial, and two columns, general and sports.

The Free Press was chosen for comparison with ghg,gtatg
Journal because it is the metropolitan paper published nearest
Lansing and because it is obviously edited with an eye to readabil-
ity.

The Free Press articles and scores:

Guide Line score aid as score

 

FlesoE Lorge Flesch Large
Woods and Waters 6.97 6.73 mother's Murder 8.91 8.71
Town crier 7.15 7.27 Wolverines 8.97 9.33
Newlyweds 7.33 9.13 As We See It 9.28 7.73
Fave Ingured 7.64 7.78 New County 10.03 7.84

Brince Sand 8.86 7.86 state sells 10.71 9.08

14.

CHAPTER IV.
2d. :40. 611.011. 1 o. .: B28992 11 111 and. W.

The discovery that 1hg_atate gournal's amateurs were, on
he whole, more ”readable- than its professionals raised some

questions that this investigation did not answer. One is the
relation of education and eXperience to the writing of read-
able newspaper copy. Interviews with the editors, the writers
themselves, and their co-workers, and a study of their indi-
vidual scores failed to shed much light on this relationship.

A more subjective appraisal of the readers' letters to
the editor showed that they were less exact in expression and
less coherent. The staff meabere' work was generally better
organized and better written. Yet, measured objectively, the
letters were more comprehensible.

It is obvious that certain factors Operate in favor of

 

-—_- — ‘ ——

Readability Ranking 9; fitate Journal nriters.
Writer stories samples Elesch Lorge combined
Rank score Bank score Rank.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a 10 12 .1; 8.03, 11 8.48 235 ,__
J 10 #17 2 8.37 1. 7.48 1
K 410 15 3 8.47 7 8.23 4
MU 5 9 4f 8.72 ::3 7.86 2
SL 10 22 5 9.12 ‘4, 7.88 3 __
SE 10 16 6 9.24 12 8.61 7 _gfl
PL 10 14 7 9.26 15 8.78 9
PA. 3 6 8 9.88 2 7.61_. 4_
H 7 8 9 9.95 18 9.08 11 ___
mo 6 #15, 1o +10.13 __10 8.38 8
mo 12 20 1; _:1Qé17 6 8.48 6
f0 10 20 12 10.28 8 8.24 8 !
L 4 6 . 13 10445_ 5 8.04 7
Q. 10 17 __14 11.00 14 8.69 12
__0 9 15 15 11.28 16 8.85T, 14
_§A 10 4_;9 16 11.55 9 8.33 10
a 4 10 17 11.79 13 8.66 13
s 10 22 18 11.89 17 9.00 15
Totals 150 263 9.90 8.33. ___

 

15.

the person who writes letters to the editor, as opposed to
the one who writes copy under the editor's direction. as
need be in no hurry. He can rewrite if he wishes. He is
under fewer restrictions on diction, structure, and subject
matter. The topic he chooses may be assumed to be one in
which he has more than passing interest or he would not go
to the trouble of writing at all.

an the other hand, he may not have had as much formal
education as the average newspaperman and he seldom has had
as much writing experience. But---if the newspapernan, with
more training, is less readable, is it possible that he has
been trained away from readability?

The answer to that question would require an inquiry of
greater scope than this. Not only more letters to the editor
but more analysis of the letter writers would be needed. In-
deed, there would have to be more analysis of professional
work and workers than is possible with a newspaper and staff

of IE2 state Journal:g_sise---with any one newspaper and

 

staff, perhaps.

 

Education and Experience of Journal staff.
Education. Egperience.

Public schools--Writers H,L, no. Less Than Tan Years--B.G.PL.

111811 30:1001“‘A, B. C. D, BU, TWO to Ten YOBJ'I"C. H. K.
PA. R. SA. 61.. no. no. 0. 8L.
college--G, K. 20. 0, PL, SE. More Than Ten Years-"A. D.

Journalism--PL, SE. L. EU. PA. R. 8A. BE.

16.

Reference to the two preceding tables shows that SE and
PL, the two writers with formal education in Journalism, have
relatively low readability scores by Flesch, but relatively
high by Large, and that PL is higher by both formulae than
the two other society writers, 0 and K. we, who took no
college Journalism but was reared in a newspaper family, ranks
about midway by both formulae.

of the six with college training, G, K, and FL, of the
society department, and SE. who writes principally of books
and music. are among the low seven by Flesch but range from
seventh to fifteenth by Large, reflecting the influence of the
personal name factor to be analyzed in Chapter VII. HG, mention-
ed above, is tenth by both formulae, and o‘is fifteenth by
rlesch, sixteenth by Lorge. These two reporters cover a wide
range of subject matter.

The three with only grammar school preparation rank ninth,
eleventh, and thirteenth by Flesch; fifth, sixth, and sixteenth
by Lorge. Writer H, who was a I'dime store. salsswoman when
recruited to fill a war-time vacancy, writes principally church,
lodge, and other organizational news often containing numerous
personal names. Writer ho was an orphan with little schooling

when he came to The Journ§1_as a cepy boy. He handles police,

 

city hall, fires, crime news, city and county politics. writer
L, who is telegraph editor and does the Sunday editorials,
has augmented a public school education by wide reading.

The other members of the staff are high school graduates

17.

and one spent, in addition, a couple of years in study for
the priesthood. These rank from second to eighteenth by
rlesch, and from first to seventeenth by Large. one,
writer a, has the lowest combined rank by the two fornulae;
another, B, the highest.

When analyzed on the basis of eXperience, the readabil-
ity of The Journal's staff falls into no clearer pattern.
The writers with two years or less include high and low
scorers. so do those with more than ten years in the field.
For example, A, with the lowest combined rank, and a. with
one of the highest, have both been with the paper twenty
years or more.

‘In only one case does a hobby show possible connection
with comprehensibility. writer D is an aviation enthusiast
and flies his own plans. Samples of his work dealing with
aviation score lower than his writing as a whole, but these
were from an opinionated column, and Egg.g9urnal's writers
do better in such columns, as will be seen in the next chapter.

In short, little traceable relationship between read-
ability and formal education, experience, and special inter-
ests was found. Those elements are so interwoven with such
considerations aasubject matter, departmental policy, and
individual and traditional outlook that it does not seen
possible to isolate the critical factors.

18.

CHAPTER'Ve
m H3‘.tl5le

When the material of this study was classified by types,
measurement indicated that its readability was affected by
(1) subject matter, and (2) an habitual or conventional ap-
proach to certain types. However, there did not seem to be
enough possibility cf%isolating those factors from such others
as departmental polic§$and individual background and writing
habits for the results to be too conclusive.c

One hundred twenty-two of the 150 stories included in
the over-all survey were classified, then measured and tanked
by type of material or approach to material, as shown in the
tabulation at the bottom of this page. Included are only
those categories of writing that seemed to have significance

so far as this investigation is concerned. some do not be-

 

 

t a 1 8 . h e
type stories Samples Eleggh Longs

_h Score Rank Score
columns 18 86 8.45 1 7.78 8
Society 29 59 8.48 2 8.51 7
Sports 20 39 8.75 3 7.69 1
Spot News 10 18 9.53 t 8.44 6
Traffic Campaign 5 14 9.97 5 7.85 3
Business 6 9 10.78 6 8.54 8
Editorials 14 25 11.00 7 8.22 4
Speeches, Re-

ports on 4 10 11.14 8 8.56 9
Local Government 9 19 11.53 9 8.36 5
Rent Control 7 18 11.93 10 9.13 10
All we 1 .__..59. 3.51 .299- M3

__ . V~ME.* “'me‘b .— ~~¢-v -—

19.

cause they are represented by too few articles in the period
studied or because all of one type of writing was done by one
man.1

Noticeably low in the scoring are sports and society.
Both deal with rather obvious facts,but departmental policy
unquestionably is a factor in their readability. The two

men who write sports for The State Journal tend to Itell the

 

story- and let it go at that, while the three women who do
society eschew much of the flowery and complicated treatment
often noted in other papers. The society editor says she
preaches direct and simple writing, but there is not Inch
evidence of such supervision outside her page and sports.

The managing editor, when shown the figures for the tn-
dividual writers, said he detected the influence of subject
matter in the relatively high scores of the reporters cover-
ing such fields as business, real estate, politics, city and
county governmental activities. However, some of those same
reporters had high scores on stories of fires, the lease of
a building, the announcement of a speaker, and the announce-
ment that down-town stores would be open at night for Christ-
mas shepping.

In the following table, the scores of four reporters whose
work includes writing on various phases of local government
lay be seen to run higher in that field than generally-ohigher
by the Flesch rating, that is; lower by Lorge's.

 

1. Actually, one category consists of the work of only one can.
It was included for reasons to be eXplained later.

20.

Q2329£l§22=2£.322£2§ugfl LQEQL Q2!§£Efl2&£.fifléh91£££ $221999,-

 

 

 

uriter Stories Samples _____{;gggh______ Lorg;__
Govern- All Types Govern- All types

“a..- _ ment .__ gggnt

C l 3 12.04 11.00 8.29 8. 89

ho 3 4 11.35 10.17 7.88 8.10

0 3 7 11.98 11.28 8.36 8. 84
._.s _..._._9....- ..._..§ _-._-...i.1..9-.1...11...19 9.56 ems...
T2§a~5 -9 .--_m;9-- -_hlle5§- 10494 . 1“_"__§a§§.h 8 ‘7

 

No such clear trend is fognd in the scoring of four re-
porters of business activities, two of whom are also repreo
seated in the preceding table.

d-‘ho‘-’ —-.—v-'.—*—o -- n..--

§9m2sriaeo 9;,senree.en.hn§iasss and other nnbiecta-

 

 

 

 

 

Writer Stories Samples Flesch” ”1.. Large
-_m-.m_-__.-a-_.-..-. .5usingss all Iypes Eusingss all xype g
E 3 4 10.75 11.89 8.64 9.00
C l l 10.19 11.00 7.83 8.69
so 1 3 10.59 10.13 8.69 8.38

.-.--;-----_.1_-..--;:.2z.----11.29..--i9.94 e.§g..
Totals ".5-“ ..§.1-. .19.Z§----Wll.§5 8.§4 8.71

 

Perhaps the best evidence of the effect of subject matter
is to be found in an analysis of the "spot news" classification.
here material hat is re her elemental is involved---deaths,
fires, accidents, police news---and the way four reporters wrote
it Can be compared directly to the may they handled matter some-
what more subtle. The following table shows that in every case
by the Flesch measurement, and in half the cases by the Large
measurement, the scores for "spot'' were lower than the report-

ers' averages for all types of story.

21.

 

comparison of scores on Spot News and Other SubJeets.

writer Stories Samples Eleefh
Spot News 551_Iypes spotHNews All Iypes

 

 

 

 

c 2 4 10.11 11.00 8.82 8.69
so 2 5 9.71 10.18 8.85 8.88
so 6 8 9.03 10.17 8.14 8.10
”_pum l _1ma___.,191§2 11.38 8.18 8.84
ggtais ig._.__.-18 9.5g _510.65 8.44 8.4?

 

In the period covered by this investigation, zhg_gourna1
was conducting two campaigns bordering on "crusadee.' one was
for traffic safety, the other against OPA rent control. The
work of four writers on the traffic situation is measured and

cempared below.

Wm

comparison of Scores on Traffic safety and other subjects.

Writer Stories samples [lgsgh.
.. .i:a££ia.111.rxes9.1291110 111112;;

 

 

 

 

c 1 e 12.91 11.00 8.60 8.69
D 1 8 8.47 10.28 6.68 8.84
no 2 6 10.88 10.18 8.67 8.38
5551 1 _-§ ..19.09 9.88 6.9§_5 7.61
rogue L._-_,,____ .14 1 g, 97 19.4.0 1.83 845

 

 

 

One man handled the rent control stories, Reporter 3.
Although his score for than (11.93. Fleech) ran higher than
that for his writing on business and real estate (10.75 Fleech),
it could easily have been reduced, as will be shown in Chapter
VIII. This raises the question of Just how much subject matter
can be blamed when a story lacks readability.

It is noteworthy that both classes of writing in which

opinion is expressed freely are near the extremes of the reed-

22.

ability scale by the Flesch formula and one by Lorge's.

The personally conducted columns are by six writers consent-
ing on such diverse fields as sports, music, aviation, social
affairs, and general news. In each case, by both forwulae, the
writer has a lower score for his column than for'his writing as

a whole, as shown by the following table.

Comparison of scores of columns and other material.

writer stories samplesJ

 

 

 

 

”_ Columne nypgg column 551 112;;

A 4 8 8.06 8.37 6.97 7.49

D 3 6 9.60 10.28 7.82 8.24

K 2 5 7.91 8.47 7.75 8.23
#80 5 9 8.72 .... 7.78 ....

PL 1 2 8.09 9.26 8.65 8.78

SE a 6 -._ 8,89”_ 9.24 7.86 8.61
Iotals 8 56 8515 9.07 7.78 8.19

 

 

 

 

ewriter MU represented only by columns.

The editorials, written by two men not otherwise represent-
ed by material in this investigation, have a relatively high in-
dex by rlesch, althJugh a run-of~the-paper awerage by Large.
Here the influence is obviously not subject matter; the editorials,
as the columns, cover a wide range of subjects. It seeas rather
'to be the writer's approach to the matter. Columns are tradition-
ally tree and easy, chatty, personal in their relationship be-
tween the writer and the reader. The editorial, on the other hand,
often follows a tradition of forsality and profundity. and the
“editorial we' can hardly be considered a Ipersonal reference.“
gut really profound writing is not unlikely to go over the heads

of readers with an eighth grade education; specious profundity is

23.

almost sure to.

Evidence that editorials need not be hard reading is con-
tainsd in the Getzloe report mentioned earlier. It says:
IAIter the foreign correspondents had brought in the news at
a 14 level, the editorial writers shed their light on it at
a 12 level. That was the average grade of editorials on for-
eign affairs appearing in 16 different newspapers between
July 8 and July 18, 194.6."2 The ratings ran fros 8 for the
New York pally H£E£ and Philadelphia Record to 16 for the
New York §EE and E25219.IZ$§B§29 This is a rather clear case
of the writer's approach rather than his subject matter govern-
ing his readability.

Further evidence of the effect of the approach to aster-
ial is found in the scores for the reports on speeches pub-

lished in The state Journal. Subject matter is involved, of

 

course, but there seems to be more to it than that. As will
be pointed out in Chapter Viii, the reporter can do nothing
about the readability of a direct quotation; the trouble is
that he is likely to do less than he can about the indirect
quotations. Instead of translating the speaker's words and
phrasing into something simpler, he seems rather to adopt
unconsciously the speaker's style for passages where he sight
better use his own. The following table shows the scores of

four reports of speeches by as many reporters who handle other

*dn no _.-* “UH-0* up nut-‘o‘l‘b .ID-_ -. .. m g

2. Ih§_ghig.ugggpap§£, ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio,
V01. 28. ”Ge 2. November. 19‘6e

24.

kinds of assignment. In every case the reporter's score for

the speech was higher than that for his work asia whole.

 

comparison of scores on Speeches and other subjects.

Writer Stories Samples Elsgch _ngge
Th_i =r_ _52§£9Q__ALL xzpes speech all :zpes

 

 

 

 

D 1 2 11.61 10.28 8.90 Be"

0 1 3 10.90 11.23 8.95 8.5‘

PL 1 8 12.02 9.35 3.95 3.7.
a gé: l __--_§ “.10175 V 3hfléwm._.§a§§_.fl.§a§lh__.
Iotal£__-_M§MH_~__NIQ_i_~_HJlsl§ -__lQnQE...~_§a§5 3055

 

25.

CHAPTER VI.
11.1.9. that was sexes are the Haggai.

It is a newspaper maxim that the I'lead," or Opening para~
graph or two, is the “show window" of the story, intended to
intrigue the reader into perusing the rest of it. here ex-
amination of the typical lead reveals it a badly cluttered
show window; measurement shows it to be in many cases the lost
'undeadable' part of the story.

It is true that the lead has other than strictly show
window functions. In most cases it is OXpOOtOd to summarise
the story, to give its essential information. Traditionally
the summary lead and its variations answer the questions;
who? where? When? What? and sometimes why? and How?

The journalist makes a plausible argument for this Journalistic
form. He says those are the questions the reader wants answer-
ed and right away. His fault, if it be one, is to try too
often to answer them all in one breath. He points out that
there is ‘no assurance that all athe... story as written will get
into type in the first place, or that all the type will get
into the page forms in the second place; therefore, the es-
sential information must be preserved by putting it in.the
place least likely to be affected by time and space limitations,
which is at the tap of the article. But he frequently ignores
the fact that his essential information will require no sore

space in two paragraphs than one. And it can be argued, perhaps

26.

measured, that he will often gain in readership by 'cpsning up-
his lead even at the cost of a few details which could have ap-
peared later in the story.

The following may be considered an "overloaded“ lead-~-
overloaded with both words and ideas:

A strengthened and revised national farm program

to meet changing conditions and the problem of agri-
cultural surpluses is advocated in a list of resolu-
tions to be acted upon by the Michigan Farm Bureau
as it cpened its 27th annual two-day meeting at lich-
igan State college Thursday...1

It could have been simplified something like this;

A stronger national farm program is urged in a

resolution before the Michigan Farm Bureau as it
opened its 27th annual meeting at Hichigan state
college Thursday...

The details not included in the revised first paragraph
could then have gone into a second paragraph or later in the
story. The revision still answers the same IWOsI as the
original, and the measurement process is not needed to show
that its readability index is considerably lower, since its
eaverage sentence lengths is twenty-seven to the original's
fortyeseven.

In the example below, the lead may be called overloaded
or merely too compact. at any rate, a little more 'air'
circulating among the ideas would have increased their ready
comprehensibility;

A request that the city council refuse liquor-by-ths

glass licenses to those bars and taverns which have been

cited for violations and that no licenses be issued to
places located within 500 feet of the entrance to any

 

l. The §tate Journal, Lansing, Mich,;lflc.ld, 19‘6, p.l.

 

27.

factory or “other organisations employing a large
number of peeplen has been sent the city cougcil
by the hichigan Temperance Foundation, Inc...

Whatever its shortcomings, the revision following has some
of the diagnostically indicated "air“ and its readability "read-
ing' is lower:

A request that the city council refuse licenses to
taverns near factories has been made by the Michigan
Temperance Foundation, Inc.

No place within 500 feet of the entrance to any
factory or “other organizations employing a large nun-
ber of people" would be licensed.

The Foundation also asked the council to refuse
liquor-by-the-glass licenses to bars and taverns
which have been cited for violations..._

Although the principle of "identification" is well estab-
lished, its careless application can cause overloading of a
lead and loss of readability instead of the intended gain.
Consider this example;

Ralph lngersoll, former editor of PM author, and

World War II liaison officer with Allied commands,
stoutly pooh-poohed talk of a probable war with Russia
in his lecéure in Michigan state college auditorius
Tuesday...

With part of the identification and a couple of other words
of doubtful utility removed, the passage reads:

Ralph Ingersoll, former editor of PM, ooh-poohed

talk of war with Russia in his lecture n Michigan
state college auditorium Tuesday...

While all editors might not agree that the revision, with
some of of the identification held out for later use, is an us-

provement, they would have to concede that the lead is less

w--

.1h_ gtate iggrna , Dec. 4. 1946, p. l.
:a w . NO'e 13. 19‘6. pe ‘

28.

cluttered and that the readability index, at least, is improved.
Supplementing such subjective appraisals with something
more objective, the writer analyzed twenty-four stories from

The State Journal and found that all but a few had higher read-

 

ability indices gith_their leads than without them.

The decision to study the leadIs effect on the story as a
whole was made because most leads are much shorter than the
loo words recommended as a sample length in applying the meas-
urement formulae and sorting out leads of measurable length
would have tended to overemphasise the long, often shad: ones.

The twenty-four stories, by fifteen writers, were chosen
at random from the longer articles included in the gtgtgpqouggpl
material under study. Included were "spot“ stories, sports,
and other general and departmental items that would asks the
samples as representative as possible of the newspaper's edit-
orial content. The only types of material not included were
editorials, Opinionated columns, and certain personal and
society items that do not have well developed leads as the
term is generally used.

The procedure was to count the words, sentences, affixed
morphemes, etc., in each lead, then subtract those numbers
from the corresponding numbers for the story as a whole. This
the story had two hundred words, six sentences, twenty prepos-

itional phrases, and fifty hard words, and the land had fifty

29.

words, one sentence, five prepositional phrases, and ten hard
words, the story without the lead would bars 150 words, five
centences, fifteen prepositional phrases, and forty hard words.
The figures representing the original less the lead were com-
puted to give the readability index for comparison with that

of the entire shory. The results are shown in tre table below.

 

.-

 

—.-..._.as. - "Pwman 1 new.“ ‘14Iu5~\. ear-u-O-u-e. a“ . .q.»,.«—. _ ._' .v -._,-,

Stories measured With and Without Leads.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

yritgg gtory No_ El eschm Large
With WithOUt,lefL“ filth Tithgut DZ 2.
A 4 9. 04 8. 66 .58 7.01 6.80 .21
6 8.101155 L§7 m QLQZW 8.49 *347
B 11 10. 02 9. 96 .06 7.97 7, 58 .29
.. ._.__.._. 141-.....13:l§.--.l.8:4§_...-JO-.-_.92.92M9:4L.afi§.
C 26 11e39 12e53 ilalg asl‘ 7e90 .8‘
D 34 lleél 12e77 t1.16 8.90 7e63 leg?
.. 36 49.59.. 1.9.1.2 .37 7.91 we age
0 43 7.65 7.02 .51 8. 00 7.71 .89
- 4-5 .-5_.29_-..-:L.§8 - .52 8.10 1.92 .411
H 57 11.00 10.48 .52 10.82 10.94 *.12
K _64 3.295.-.....§-.§L..a§3 7-55 BILL 1.35. 1
EC 72 9.38 9.36 .08 7.80 7.19 .01
..--. wv11 9.72 9.50 .132 _____§,,_§§ 8.2;: .ss
E0 78 8.53 8.07 .46 8.16 7.72 .44
_.-_...__-_--..__es _- 11.9.0 _.11 .51 .09 -1115 17.01 1.1.5.1
O on 11s 55 11.32 e23 8.50 8.22 e88
.. mm...” 1., 01 ”11.191m11a85 .48 32.711-118.95.._..4_55_.
PA 105 9. 38 9.50 *.12 7.97 7.76 .21
PL 109 _ 59 §5w 7196 357 3-21. 7e3§mn_a§§
R 117 11. 40 11. 58 *.18 7.86 7.94 c.08
.153 149 19.. 2.7 Lilo-195...... fflwfiaéL- ”51:51 a 15
“SL 1‘5 9005 7e97 1.08 8.38 8.12 e26
......m...1-.§.§. 9.“ 9.1.20 - 11$ 7.13! 7. .17 “00:4.
‘11 2‘ Stories 9. 95 9a80 e16 8.21 7e89 e32

e stories that ecorpdgh ighgr;githgutmlgads.mgll others_lower.

30.

It will be noted that in only one ease did a story score
lower by both formulae without its lead than with it. rour
scored higher by Flesoh but lower by Large; four. Vice versa,
and fifteen,lower by both. In other words, the leads de-
tracted from the readability of their stories in nearly 00
per eent of the eaeee by each formula. and in 62.! per eesdf‘
by both. The difference in the unquestionable eases ran as
high as 1.08 by rlesoh and .66 by Large.

31.

CHAPTER VII.
:Hnnes Are Nags.-

one of the scat revered of newspaper maxies is that ens-es
are news," but the authors of the formulae used in this study
do not agree on the effect of personal names. Flesch counts
then, along with personal pronouns and certain other words de-
noting clcse personal relationships. as "personal references,-
and provides for each to reduce the score of a story. Lorne
lakes no provision for then, but since only a few ean be eon»
strued to be on his list of easy words. each adds to its
story's ratio of hard words and increases the score. Thus the
two formulae work contrariwise in the seasurelsnt of a news
story containing more names than ncrsal for thee. Newspaper
practice means that there lust be lany such stories in may
edition.

Since every name in a story tends to reduce the readabil-
ity index by the Flesch system and increase it by Lorge's. the
sore names in a story and the sore such stories in an edition.
the more the correlation between the formulae will be reduced.
since neither was based on newspaper material, it may be as-
sumed that neither is predicated on material containing as
sany personal names as found in many newspaper articles. par-
ticularly ”society" items and certain other types of story in

which names are numerous---to say nothing of the 'perscnele.'

32.

Obviously, then, we may question the accuracy of one or both
in measuring such specialized material or the newspaper as a
whole if it uses a higher proportion of names than the mater-
ial on which the formulae were based.

To investigate the effects of this contrariety between
the Flesch personal reference factor and the Large hard word
factor as applied to the names in newspaper stories, 1 made
hypothetical alterations in ten stories from 1hg_gtgtg_ggggp
9&£.'° as to measure them with and without the names contain-
ed in the originals. I assumed the substitution of 'eesy
words” without affixed morphemes, and no addition of prepos-
itional phrases, so that all factors would be the same ex-
cept the personal references and the "hard wordsI represent-
ed by the names. I then measured the altered stories and
compared their readability indices with those of the origin-
al stories.

While the articles hypothetically altered in this way
may be considered artificial. the hypothesis may be Justified
on the grounds that stories with no personal names do appear
in newspapers and that stories are, or could be. written with
no higher ratios of affixes, prepositional phrases. or “hard
words."

Representing the ten stories, by seven writers. were
sixteen samples aggregating 1,600 words for the Flesch test
and 1,704 for Large's. The stories averaged from two and

one-half to seventeen and one-half names a simple, and the

33.

names represented four and one-half to twenty-seven and

one-half «hard words' a seaple. In the story with the

lowest preportion of hypothetically substituted words. the
ilesch score was increased by .17 and the Large score re-
duced by .45; in the one with the highest preportion, the
Fleech score was increased by 1.16 and the Large score re-
duced by 2.84---an over-ail variation of four reading alsdes
from the original versions. Composite scores of the ten
altered stories show rleech .61 higher and Large 1.85 lower.

a spread of 1.96. (See table below).

comparison of Stories With and without Their flames.

 

 

writgg, [lesgh. Laggg

storyAHo. gigher lgggr_
no 74 .

original (2 samples) 9.72 8.56

Without 7 names - 9e89 e1? Bel-1 .45
go 78

Original (2 samples) 8.53 8.16

thhOUt 8 ”815.. 8.80 e2? 7076 e40
PA.104 ,

original (1 sample) 9.25 9.07

Without 7 names 9.71 .46 8.55 .72
G 42

original (1 sample) 7.62 8.96

Wi‘hOUtv 7 "“03 8.08 e46 7s°5 lell
PL 107

original (1 sample) 7.28 8.89

Without 7 names 7.74 .46 7.68 1.21
G 45

Original (2 samples) 8.20 8.40

Without 16 names 8.75 .55 7.57 1.03
K 63

Original (2 samples) 7.89 8.08

Without 17 names 8.51 .62 6.58 1.50
PL 115

Original (1 sample) 8.70 9.02

Without 10 names 9.36 .66 7.56 1.46
G 43 .

Original (2 temples) 7.63 8.00

“15110111. 3‘ name. 8075 1.12 5e“ 8.35
H 57

original (2 samples) 11.00 10.82

Without 85 man 12e16 1e16 7e98 8.84

CHAkTER VIII.
fihat the Editor gag pg gbgut It.

 

If the editor determines by estimate or measurement
that the readability index of his newspaper is too high,
obviously he can lower it by shortening sentences, reduc-
ing their complexity, and using shorter. more common words
that do not stray so far from the "easy word' lists.
Whether it will reduce the index further if he uses more
personal names will depend, as we have seen, on what form-
ula.he uses to measure his results.

That most long sentences in newspapers can be broken
up into shorter ones without changing the meaning of a
passage or damaging whatever literary style it may have is
generally acknowledged by newspapermen, even by those who
do not follow the practice faithfully. But Just Egg £233
does this affect the passage's readability? The following

excerpt from a gtate gournal story will be used for a de-

 

monetration;

Lansing property owners are participating in an
extensive, although unorganized, "strike” against
rent control activities here. it was indicated clear-
ly at the second meeting of the Citizens. protest
committee. held Thursday night in the auditorium of
the Veterans. memorial building.

This passive resistance, which began early this
year with an unwillingness to convert houses into
multiple dwellings. apparently has grown until a
substantial number of existing accommodations-—--
possibly numbering in the hundreds----now remain vac~
ant. That this number is on the increase is shown by
a 1etter,read at the meeting. from c.Laverne Roberts.
circuit court commissioner, who says he knows of a
dozen cases within the past two weeks of units which

34.

35.

have been vacated and will now remain off the rental
mrKO‘ee e

By Flesch's scoring it has a reading grade level of 15.27;
by Lorge's, 10.09

Now take the same passage with no changes except for such
alterations in sentence length as could easily have been made
by the writer or copyreader:

Lansing {reperty owners are participating in an ex-
tensive, a though unorganized, “strike" against rent
control activities here. This was indicated clearly
at the second meeting of the Citizens' protest com-
mittee, held Thursday night in the auditorium of the
Veterans. memorial building.

This passive resistance, which began early this
year with an unwillingness to convert houees into
multiple dwellings, apparently has grown until a sub-
stantial number of existing accommodations now remain
vacant. These possibly number in the hundreds. That
this number is on the increase is shown by a letter
read at the meeting. 0. LaVerne Roberta, circuit
court commissioner, wrote that he knows of a dozen
cases within the past two weeks of units which have
been vacated and will now remain off the rental
muKOtee e ‘

The Flesch score for the revision is ll.48--65.79 lower;
Large's is 8.63--~1.56 lower

The substitution of easier words is not quite so fruit-
ful, although it yields measurable results even when the text
is followed quite religiously. Here is another passage by
the same reporter writing on the same general subject;

The campaign by a number of Lansing citizens to force
removal of sig Pollack, area rent director, and Glenn L.
Parmalee, rent examiner, appeared to be gaining moment-
um steadily, according to leaders of the group, who re.
ported Wednesday their telephones have been kept busy
by landlords and tenants adding comments to a previous-
ly repressed storm of indignation seemingly mounting
for months.

_u hiss fi.LgflPrltchard, temporary secretary of the groupI

1. The gtggg Journal, Lansing, flich., December 6,1946, p.1.

said Wednesday that a hr. Williams, whom she identified
as a deputy to Lawrence Farrell, rent control head in
Detroit, had assured her by telephone that a represent-
ative of the Detroit OFA office would be present at the
protest meeting to be held at 7:30 o'clock Thursday
evening in the city council chambers...

This scores: Flesch, 15.45; Lorge, 12.07

With a few of the more obvious word substitutions that the
hurried cepyreader might easily have made, and only a couple
of minor changes in structure necessitated by the substitutions,
I. have;

The campaign by a number of Lansing persons to remove
sig Pollack, area rent director, and Glenn L. Parmalee.
rent examiner, seemed to be gaining ground steadily,
according to leaders of the group, who said Wednesda
their telephones have been kept busy by landlords an
tenants adding comments to a repressed storm of indigna~
tion which seems to have been mounting for months.

Miss u. L. pritchard, acting secretary of the group,
said Wednesday that a hr. Williams, who told her he was
a deputy to Lawrence Farrell, rent control head at
Detroit, had assured her by telephone that somebod
from the Detroit OPA office would be at the protee
meeting to be held at 7:50 o'clock Thursday evening in
the city council chambers...

The Flesch score is now 14.14~——1.19 lower than the origin-
al; Lorge, 11.26---.81 lower

In another version that follows, the changes in diction
are retained and the two long sentences are broken into four:

The campaign by a number of Lansing persons to remove
31g Pollack, area rent director, and Glenn L. Parmalee,
rent examiner, seemed to be gaining ground steadily
according to leaders of the group. They said Wednesday
their telephones have been kept busy by landlords and
tenants adding comments to a repressed storm of indig-
nation which seems to have been mounting for months.

Miss u, L, Pritchard1_acting_secretary of thg_group,

2. The state Journal, November 20, 1946, p. 1.

37.

said Wednesday that a Mr. Williams who told her’he was
a deputy to Lawrence Farrell, rent control head at De-
troit, had assured her by telephone that somebody froa
the Detroit GPA office would be at the protest aeeting
Thursday night. It will be held at 7:30 o'clock in the
city council chambers...

This brings the Plesch score down to lO.86---4.6? reading
grades below the original. The Large score is reduced to 9.21—-
a difference of 2.86

The writer wishes it understood that the final version does
not necessarily show how he thinks the passage should have been
written. It is intended only to show how easily it night.have
been changed to lower its readability indices by the measure-
ments employed. In order conscientiously to preserve the report-
er's meaning, several obvious chances to lower the scores still
more were ignored. For example, "rent control head at Detroit-
might have been changed to Instroit rent control heed,- elisin-
sting a preposition, if the wording used does not imply a dis-
tinction; and ”assured her by telephone“ might have been changed
to "telephoned her,“ eliminating two affixes (while adding one),
a preposition, and a hard word. If a more drastic simplifica-
tion of the story were to be made, it might start off something
like this:

The campaign to remove sig Pollack and Glenn L. Perms-

lee, rent officials, is gaining steadily, leaders said
Wednesday...

The passages analyzed above are in the I'very diffisult' eate-
gory but the readability indioes of relatively easy stories seas-
times can be as readily reduced, as will be seen from the one to

follow:

state police Saturday were attempting to locate Oscar
Diehl, who is deer hunting in the north, to notify his
that his wife, Helen, 38, of 2005 North Best street,
died unexpectedly of a heart attack at her boss early
Friday evening.

ura.Dieh1, who died about 8:25 o'clock had been under
a physician's care for some time. Mr. Diehl is traffic
manager of the nail steel Products company.

hrs. Diehl was born February 16, 1908, at Morrice,and
had been a Lansing resident for 20 years.

In addition to the husband sh! is survived by two
daughters, Virginia and Margarie...

The passage as it appeared in the paper scares: Fleseh,
8.07; Large, 8.46
Cautious alterations give this version;
state police Saturday were trying to find Oscar Diehl,
who is deer hunting in the north, to tell him that his
wife, Helen, 38, of 2005 North East street, died of a
heart attack at her home early Friday night. '
hrs. Diehl, who died at 8:25 o'clock, had been under
a doctor's care for some time. hr. Diehl is traffic
manager of the pull steel Products company.
hrs. Diehl was born February 16, 1908, at Harries.
She lived in Lansing 20 years.
Surviving are the husband, two daughters, Virginia
“d Harjoris...
The reading grade levels are now: Flesch, 6.67 (1.40 lower);
Large, 7.40 (1.06 lower)
the newspaperman often finds his hands tied; hi is not al-
ways able to do the obvious thing to lower his readability
score because he must abide by the terminologies of current and
specialised usage, or feels that he must. The story which fol-
lows is an example. In it the reporter has accepted the tens-
inology of the organization whose activities he is reporting.
He no doubt could have thought of easier words than some she

played by the American Legion to designate its officers and de-

gggibe its activities but, prgsumgbly. he did no; subgtitug
e. ghg atate Journal, NOVember 16, 1946, p. c.

 

39.

"meeting" for "conference," for instance, because "confer-
ence“ is the Legion's word for it. Nor, presumably for the
same reason, did he try to do anything about such words with
affixed morphemes as "delegates," "commanders," and "adjut-
ants." However, that does not mean that nothing at all could
have been done to simplify the passage, which appeared thus;

Lansing Council of Legion Posts announced Saturday
that it will be host December 6, 7 and 8 to approxim-
ately 2,0C0 Legionaires and auxiliary memtere, at the
annual winter conference of the Michigan department
of American Legion, to be held at the Potel Olds.

A council committee is completing arrangements for
a program of entertainnent. Commander Ruel perry of
the cJuncil announced John R. Judd and Bessie Javor-
ski as general chairmen of the conference program.

Delegates will be comaanders, adjutants and serv-
ice ofiicere of the state's 500 Legion posts, and
presidents. secretaries and welfare chairmen of 370
auxiliary units, representing 100,000 Legion and
40,000 auxiliary members of the state department...

The story as written and published scores 11.24 by the
Flesch formula, 9.2? by Lorae's
A sympathetic revision gives us;

Lansing council of Legion posts announced Saturday
that it will be host December 6, 7 and 8 to about
2,000 Legion men and women at the Hotel Olds.

council commander Ruel Perry announced John R. Judd
and Bessie Javorski as program chairmen. A committee
is arranging entertainment.

Delegates will be comnanders, adjutants and service
officers of the state's 500 posts, and presidents,sed-
retaries and welfare chairmen of 370 auxilaries.These
represent 100,000 Legion and 40,000 auxiliary members.

The new scores are 8.50 by Flesoh (2.76 lower); 8.6? by
Large, .60 lower.

--..—... 4e

6. The gtatg gourngl, Nov. 10, 1946, p. 30.

_. - o - ---- m-‘a -—-—~ .,-—..—-.— ~~-u’—..- .—

40.

Another type of story over which the reporter has limited
control is that covering a public address or any other occasion
calling for direct quotation. If the speaker is quoted faith-
fully, he establishes some or the readability factors himself.
But he is seldom quoted directly in full, and it is in the in-
direct quotations that the reporter has a chance to help the
readability index of the story as a whole. The following pass-
age from xhg_atgtg_igugngl_illustrates this type ofmaterial:

If democracy is to be ingrained among the German
people of the American occupation zone, one of the
major changes which must be made is establishment
of civilian control, declared Proi. marshal u. Knap-
pen, of the Michigan State college department of
history, former lieutenant colonel in American lil-
itary government in Germany, speaking Tuesday after-
noon before the Lansing Lions club at the Hotel Olds.

"west Point graduates are not trained for the dip-
lomatic tasks which our occupation army faces on a
larger scale than any previous American force,‘ Pro-
fessor Knappen commented.’ "we should have civilian
control now in our zone..."

Readability: Flesch, 11.56; Large, 9.50
A rewritten version, in which the direct quotation was
not changed but a few simplifications in the other parts were

made, follows:

If the Germans in the American occupation zone are
to learn democracy, one of the main changes which must
be made is to give them civilian control, Prof. harsh-
a1 u. Knappen said Tuesday. The Michigan state col-
lege history teacher and former lieutenant colonel in
the American military government in Germany spoke be-
fore the Lansing Lions club at the Hotel Olds.

"west Point graduates are not trained for the dip-
lomatic tasks which our occupation army faces on a
larger scale than any previous American force," Pre-
fessor Knappen said. "we should have civilian con-
trol now in ourfiztone...n .L

5. The §tate ournal, November 13, 1946, p. 2.

41.

This reouces the rlesoh score by 2.04 to 9.52; the Lorge
score by l.t2 to 8.08

It would be possible to find dozens of such easily alter-
able passages among those examined in the course of this in-
vestigation, or to find thousands in other newspapers, but
those quoted may suffice to illustrate the point the writer is
trying to make.

other obstacles to attaining better newspaper readability,
such as habit, tradition, time and space limitations, were len-
tionea earlier. still another is lack of sanpower on sany pub-
lications. It takes time and thought to write simply; writers
and copyreaders hurrying to get many things done before a dead-
line cannot give enough time or thought to individual stories.
Something else is the lack of organisation often encountered.
The capy desk cannot assume all the responsibility, nor can
the writers. There must be a readability policy with super-
vision to see that it is effectuated.

A Journalism instructor fresh from newspaper work tells
an eXperience that illustrates this point. The managing editor
of the paper with which he was connected was impressed with
the readability of the Chicago Qgily_gg!2_and held it up to
his reporters as a model. Our friend started writing short
sentences, but the copyreaders would string them together with
connectives to make the long ones they were accustomed to run-
ning, and the results were sometimes so awkward that he decided

it souls to better for him Just to write his own long sentences.

42.

Either the copyreaders had not been told of the suggested im-
provement or had not been required to go along with it---and

so ended one experiment in newspaper readability.

43.

can? me xx.
analgesics. Formula.

The writer has been privileged to examine a new formula
that is being develOped by Dr. Edgar Dale, of the Bureau of
EduCatiJnal Research of Ohio state University, and to use it
in tentative form in measuring some of the material covered
in this survey. The Lorgo, Flesch, and Dale measurements
will be sent to D1. Dale for his use in connection with a
check of the material of current periodicals.

The results of Dr. Dale's research have not been publish-
ed, and announcement of the factors and weights assigned the-
must await completion of eXperi ants now under way. However,
it may be said that his formula will have only two factors;
that one will be an element of sentence structure, and the
other a measure of vocabulary load by means of a new test he
has devised.

The formula is reported to have shown a high prediction
Value in the exhoriments so far conducted, and when adjusted
to current periodicals may prove to be the one best suited to
the needs of the newspaperman because of its simplicity, if
for no other reason. Its sentence structure factor is as
easily figured as that of any of the other systems; its vocab-
ulary factor, as quickly (and more indubitahly) as Flesch's,
much more quiCkly than Lorgs's. There is no third factor.

Tables to be used as short cuts in making the computations
will be supplied with the instructions, and the instructions
themselves are somewhat simpler than those of Flesch or Lorge.

The, are being develOped and revised on the basis of questions

44.
and criticism from persons using the. for the first time, such

as this writer was invited to contribute.

Even though the fornuls is still in the eXperimental stage,
some of the Dale measurements made in connection with this study
should be of interest in comparison with the corresponding tlesdh
and Large measurements. In the following tabulation, the eriter
has resorted to some interpolation so that the grade placesunts
by Dale might be expressed tractionelly, as those by rlesch end
Large. The figures are gigen with s final reminder that they
are tentative, that they have been tested principally on
reading matter ior children, and that, they have not yet been
sdJusted to periodicals. '

c. ...

 

.us- -Iflmc~—<-- . v-o—c-av O”~h~”“~~~ubn“ -c-e m
\

 

A £9.99me 91 399129.! 91 2111:99- [9.23.21.99- -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

writer stories .--£10.I.np.08.1_te 8.99999-.. 989k.-
_--_------- . -_.-.-.1:l.eech_.-.-Dele--1.91789-..- 19999381919119.

.Jt-.----10----_M.§.Q§ .8-98 ._8.48---.-.1.-- 1 .
.__.8------..---..1-.Q----..._ 8.87 , 9.08 . 7 4.8..- 2 E
-119.- -- -_1o, . 8.947 9. .98...- 8.98 -. M91 1
L---§.--.. .8919. 11.14 -1 -_89 ..--__9-.-.-.-
---.8.1...-..----.-.1.9.-...- -..9...18..-. 9. .88 ._ 7.8.8.... .. 9....-.9.----I9_.

.89-.-10-._.9..-29..10.95... 8...5..1..--.-- 6 6 __9-__
mp1. 1o_.__19.28 10.32 “8.78” 7-5 15
311--.--.- 3 - .9288 1.1 59.- . ‘7.81-.----. 8 mi:
-. -. - 7..---.- 9.95 19.98 .-.- 8 08. -._._--_.-9.--...1.9.-_..§g.._.
.41...- -- 6 .-18.13 -19_. 28 ,. 8 38-- .--_1-O--._--13-..--.
-,-1to--_-.--..19-- lv.17 11.-7.5 8.48...._---.1-1--..-19.-_..9:

.12...- -..--..-19.--_.-- 10.38 19.82 - 8.89 -- -12..--18..-....8...

._1.’ J _111 . 1o. 45 _11.99 8.09.---:.18_ 7

__ “__1_,-,_m_119__-_f 11. 99 11.85“ 8.. 6.9.- -----19_ IL L
--.9-._.-..--...9-..-.-.... 11.99_12.98 “9.84 “-1.5...- 6 ‘
__98 ---.__.19.---_ 11.39 12.02 8. 33 ....-....1-11....

-_JL ._--._--_.9,_-..---. 11.19,“ 14.9711 .8.-- 88 _____1;[

- 8 ._-----.19-.-- ..- -11....89. .1293; .- 3129.----11... 1

11.1: 1.8---.159..- -._.-- 9.99 11.98.-- ...8-9...88- --

 

 

 

Beaders' etters 8.62” 9. SO 7. 47

92.99818" 21:59... J.&...9.89..3.§I
9.19013. Easing; 8......32 8.8.8- -.....9.9 _. -....

45.

CHAPTER 1.
fl!.fl2&.flflé§.fl2 231122!-

The first conclusion to be drawn from this investigation
is that if IE2.&£2&2 Journal is as representative of American
Journalism as assumed to be, more measurement of the readabil-
ity of newspapers is needed. both as a preliminary to camp-
aigns for improvement and as a check on the results of the

.campaigns. The Journal's Flesch rating of 9.90 reading

 

grades puts the paper in his “fairly difficult- category by
extrapolation. And it must not be forgotten that this com-
posite score is well below the firery difficult! ratings of

some of the writers. Fire of the eighteen averaged higher

than 11.00. ‘

The second conclusion is that the Fleseh formula is the
one in current use best adapted to the measurement of newspaper
material. It is more definitely based on adult reading matter.
is more quickly applied, and gives a wider range of grades. How-
ever. Dale's new one gives promise of the same advantages, plus
the possibility of others noted in Chapter IX.

The third, closely allied to the second. is that there
needs to be more study of the effects of personal names cn,news-
paper readability. Do they constitute a crittcal factor? If so.
have the authors of existing measurement fornulae taken this
factor into account sufficiently and interpreted it correctly?

The fourth conclusion is that attainment of readability
for the newspaper as a whole is a conscious process somewhat

independent of the education and experience of the paper's

46.

staff writers. We have seen that the reporter with a college
education may write easier copy than one with a grammar schbol
or high school background—--but also that he may writer harder
cOpy; that the veteran of twenty years' experience may write
easier than the newcomer---or harder. The effects of hobbies
and writing specialties fall into no clearer pattern.

The fifth conclusion is that the newspaper lead, partic-
ularly the summary lead. needs attention and even some modifie-

ation if more readability is desired. If The state gournal

 

were the exception when it comes to frequent use of long and
involved leads, the newspaper world would need be no more eon-
cerned with this report than it probably will be. But it is

322 ire; Press that is the emception---it and a relatively few

 

other papers that consistently offer shorter. simpler leads.
The practice of trying to answer all the "W's" in one breath
has been sheen to be unnecessary and may be assumed to rest
partly on habits and traditions that have not undergone tuf-
ficiently the ordeal of analysis.

of other factors studies, one that gave some evidence of
Operating for and against readability eas subject matter, as
some classifications of material graded lower than others. But
even here departmental policy and other considerations were
involved. The subject matter factor could not be isolated
sufficiently to offer anything conclusive. It might be, per-
haps, in a study of broader scope. '

Practically every comparison of measurements embodied in

this report supports directly or inferentially the maxim that

47.

shorter words and sentences make for increased comprehensibil—
ity. The condition imposed by the scientific method~--that
other factors must be equal---has been met in the examples
given in the preceding chapters. It would be met in most
cases of practical application of the principle by the ccpy
writer and copyreader, who would simply use the material they
had while breaking up their long sentences into shorter ones
and substituting shorter words or words in more common usage
for others that they felt detracted from the article's read-
ability.

This does not mean, of course, that a choice of words on
other bases than length will not contribute to comprehensibil-
ity. All short words are not "easy.“ The word. "norm.“ is
short enough and has no affixes, yet it is highly abstract and
could not be confidently expected to appear in the Vocabulary
. of the average American who swent to school for less than
nine years.“ on the other hand, sautomobile' has ten letters
and two affixes and is essentially quite abstract. yet it sug-
gests something concrete enough to almost any fourbyear-cld
American.

Neither does it mean that the comprehensibility of sent-
ences depends altogether on their length. The effects of other
structural elements have been measured, as was pointed out in
Chapter II. and had been recognized as existing long before
they were measured. It simply means that a short sentence is

more likely to be readily comprehended than a long one. and

that the shortening process will often remove quite incidentw
ally some other structural obstacle to readability. There was
an example in Chapter VIII.

In other words. we may conclude that long words and long
sentences are not necessarily disease but are symptoms in-
dicating further diagnosis. When the editor finds forty-word
sentences appearing in his newspaper, or such a word as Oef-
fervescenta when ibubblinge would do Just as well, it is
time for him to become suspicious of his product. Suspicion

should lead to measurement; measurement. in all probabilities.
to action.

he may borrow our final conclusion from the ggill,srticls
quoted earlier:

"Good writing is more than knowing the facts before one
writes. It means work at the typewriter. too. for writing
simply is anything but simple itself. It is usually easier and
quicker to grind out a long involved sentence than to recast a
situation in shorter, more lucid sentences. so it would appear
that the search for news readability involves manpower as well
as selection and indoctrination of individual men...uost foot-
ball bonl competitors spring quite naturally from well-paid
coaches allowed to collect large squads with care and generose
ity. so with the ideally written newspaper. We may get it

when we can afford it.”

49.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ineaynocs. What is s Readable loot" gbliehers Weekly.
Vel. 129. pp. 990-991. February 29. 1936.

m. Robert. 'Yecabclsriee of History and Reading Test-
books.' Bulletin of the Department of Ila-eats School Prin-
3!.

single. Wm. “El-W

)ryson. Lyssa. 'i'be textbook of the future.' Elementary
Elie}: Revise. 101.1%. pp. 55-57. February. 1937.

small. Lyssa. llReadability Label-storm. Library Journal.
m. 61. p. 2.55, June 1. 1936. """"""'"’

lryeoa. Lyssa. What Are Readable looks" ldaostioasl
ram. m. l. pp. 397-302. Her. 193?.

. 317.-. Lyssa. 'leadsble looks for the Pewle.‘ Publishers
'OOkll. '01. 135s» ”a 17"”9e ’Ome’ 1’s 1939s

Buckingham. n. 1.. and Belch. s. v. A Ocabined Vera tin.
Gina s 0:... Boston. 1936.

Chicago tribune. “arch 10 and 12. 191W.

Clarke. Jesse. 'Beedsbility: APraetiesl Preblss.‘ L02!
Journal. Vol. 66. pp. 383-385. lay 1. 19M.

Clarke. lanes. 'Let the People Iaov.' fluoaticnsl Record.
«1. 22. pp. 552560. October. 19kt. """'"""" ""

Outright. Prudence. lslvereca. George P.. and Incoher.
L. J. 'i Study of One raster ia the Grade Place-eat of M13
Heterial.‘ neaents School Journal. '01. 29. VP. 2813-295.
Deoeaber. l9 .

Dale. mar. Ii Gospel-ices of he word Liets.‘ Educational
leeearoh hiletia. Vol. 10. pp. hot-hes. Deoeaber. 19 .

Dale. Edgar: and Iyler. Ralph I. 0. Study of the factors
Influencing the Difficulty of leading itsterisle for Adults of

Liaited Heading Ability.’ mung Qu__a_rter_l_.z. Vol. h. pp. 3n.
Ina. July. 193%.

DeLou. Vsuhs n. 'l'riasry Proaction by Reading Levels." ’
momentary School Journal. Vol. 38. pp. 663-671. lay. 1933.

Detroit tree Press. February 12. 191W. '

Belch, Heard it. 'Voosbulsry Dames." Jessa“ “W
m Vol. 17. pp. 170-183. March 1928.

50.

belch. Edvard V. 'Ssspling of Reading latter.“ Journal 2!
Eucational Research. Vol. 22. pp. 213-215. October. “’5.

tutorial on Bryeon'e plan to bring books dove to |'oichth
grade' level of 'svorage American.“ Baturd levies 2! Liter-
ature. Vol. 13. p. 8. rebrusry 22. 19 . ’

Elliott. Catherine J. 'critioal Analysis of the Objective
Iothcd of loaeuring Reading Difficulty.‘ Pittsburgh Schools.
Vol. 15. pp. 201-209. Key. 19131.

llosch. Rudolf r. What Can You Do About emolum-
Wilson Librsg Bulletin. Vol. 15. pp. 152-1515 Hay. 1941.

nesoh. R. r. 'Readability: a For a reach.“ Libra
Journal. Vol. 67. pp. 213-215. “arch 1. 19 2. (A correction
appears in the April 1 issue.)

’losch. n. 1'. “attesting the Oospreheneion Difficulty of
Isgssino irticlee.‘ Journal 3! General Pgoholm. Vol. 28.
pp. 63-80. January. 3553.

Ilesch. B. 1'. 'Eeadabilityt a low Yardstict.‘ Libra!
Journal. Vol. 68. pp. 777-773. October. 19h).

Hooch. R. 1'. Marks of a Readable Style.‘ Bureau of Publi-
cations. Teachers college. Oolnnbia University. loo York. 19“}.
teachers Celine Record. Vol. #5. pp. M22412). larch. 19W.

Flo-sch. I. Y. “Hos Does Your Vritisg load" Isperistendnt
of Docusnts. VJ. Oovernsent Printing Office. Washington. D. O.
(5 CCn.')o

Ileseh. I. r. “the art of Plain i'alh.‘ Harper e bros"
low York. 19156.

Oetsloe. Lester. "VJ. Press Does Well in foreign love
Voluso. But Lose loadable Than 19'6J the Ohio I or.
his State University. Oolubus. Ohio. W. a. lo. 5.
ember. 1916.

Our. flute- l. of We some is hat-
13. Bibliography of 3 references to published reports on
nest of the reading investigations made in inorioa and unless
prior to July. 192%. University of Chicago Press. 1929.

Grey. V. 8. Sunrise of reading investigations. July 1.
19215. to June 30. 1931. Ilenenta School Journal. Vole. 26-
32. hbrusry. 1926. to rebruary. {632. inclusive.

51.

Gray. V. 8. Bumsrios of reading investigations. July 1.
1931. to June 30. 19%. Journal 31 Educational Research. Vols.
26-39. robruary. 1933, to februnry. $953. inclus ve.

Gray. Killian 8.. and Leary. Bernice I. "that Makes a
Deck Readable.' University of Chicago Press. 1935.

Holland. 3. I. Who Hfoct of the Length and Structure of

Sentence on the Silent Reading Process.“ 1’ chcl icsl
Bulletin. Vol. 30. pp. 668-669. lovenbor. T553.

Jackson. llabol I. “the Relation between Maturity of Content
and Sisplioity of Style in Selected Books of liotieu.‘ bibrag

Quarterlz. Vol. 11. pp. 302-307. July. 19,41.

Johnson. George I. ”in Objective hotbed of Determining Dead-
ing DifficultyJ‘ Journal _c_f Educational Research. Vol. 21. pp.
28%287. April. 1930.

toboch. I. D. "Variability of 'dord Difficulty in five is-
orican History Textbooks.“ Journal 31 Educational Research.
Vol. 15. pp. 22-26. January. 192?.

Kerr. V. 1.. and Romero. B. 3. “Cultural Value of 100 lepro-
sentativo sage-moo.- school and Society. voi. 5b. pp. 1176-1450.
596. bomber and December. 1951'.-

Leary. Dernico I. 'Dotornining the Difficulty of Reading
latorial.‘ School Life. n1. 23. pp. 275-276. April. 1938.

Lerorens. Alfred S. "Heuurosent of the Difficulty of Read--
ing materiel.“ Lee A else Educational Research Bulletin.
«1. a. pp. 11-1‘6'."uo . 9. . ""'"'""'""‘ ___...

Lererens. A. 0. “Objective losesresent of Diverse Types of
Reading Materialsfl Loo eles lduoationsl Research Bulletin.
Vol. 9. pp. 8-11. Oct-6531‘. .

Loverens. a. B. “Vocabulary Grade Placosoat of Qypioal loos-
paper Oontent.’ £93 else Educational Research Bulletin.
Vol. 10. p. h. Septoa or. 36. '

Leverono. i. 8. u Vocabulary Grade Placement Iorsula.‘
Journal 35 Experisental Education. Vol. 3. p. 2‘56. March. 1935.

Lively. Bertha 1.. and Proeeey. 8. L. 'A Method of Iloaeuring
the Vocabulary Burden of hrtboohe.‘ Educational Administration.

22d; Supervision. Vol. 9. pp. 389-398. October. 1923?

Lorgo. Irving. 'Prodicting Reading Difficulty of Selections
for Ohildron.‘ nosontary English Review. Vol. 16. pp. 229-233.
October. 1939.

52.

Lorge. Irving. “Predicting Roadsbility.‘I teachers college
Record. Vol. 1&5. pp. non-rug. March. 19th.

Lorgo. lrving. and Dlsu. Raphael. 'Reading comprehension
of idults.‘ Teachers Oollggo Record. Vol. It}. Do. 3. pp. 189-198.
Docesbor. 19h .

Recall. Villiss L. and Orsbbs. Lelsh ii. Standard i'oot
Lessons in Readig‘. Rooks II-V. Bureau of Publications. hachoro
Colleges-ice York. 1926.

iicclushy. Howard V. '1 Quantitative Analysis of the Diffi-
culty of Reading Rateriale.‘ Journal 3! lducational Research.
Vol. 28. pp. 276-282. Deconbor. 1935.

iiorrise. Elizabeth 0.. and Rolverson. Dorothy. idea Anal sis
Iechniguo. Unpublished namocript. loachors College. '. !.. i556.

lolte. Karl P. 'Bisplification of Vocabulary and Comprehen-
sion in Reading.‘ Ila-outcry English Review. Vol. 11$. pp. 119-12h.
1‘46. April. 1937.

OJenann. Ralph. “The Reading Ability of Parents and factors
Associated with Reading Difficulty of Parent-Education Hateriale.’
Researches in Parent Education. 11. Univoroit of love Studios
_1_:_._ Child Velfaro. Vol. 3. pp. 11-32. r . 9W.""" """""'

Patty. V. I" and Painter. V. I. 'lsprcving Our Method of
Belecting High School Tostbooko.’ Journal 33 Dducationsl Research.
Vol. 211. pp. 23-32. June. 191a. " T

Providence Journal. March 11. 19W.

Quill. 332° Vol. 25. 3c. 1. p. 3. January. 1937.

Robinson. Janos Harvey. _‘i_'l_1_o_ Running ,1 Knovlgdge. George
R. Duran Oe.. Res York. 1923.

Itoto Journal. 3'59. Lansing. Michigan. lovesber and Docesber.
1 .

norndiho. Edward L. _i_ ‘i'oacher'o Word Deck 31 20 000 Verde.
Bureau of Publications. ‘i‘eaoErs College. Ros Tort. fist.

i'horudiko. I. I... and Lcrgo. Irving. A teacher's Vord Deck
of o 000 Vorde. Bureau of Publications. Leonor. oiiog" o'."'"""'
Ev 705. EFT?

3.3.2.“.- '°1- ”9- 3°. 9. p. 71. Heron 3. 19117,

53.

Yogsl. label. and washburne. Oarlston. “An Objective Hethod
of Deteraining Grads Placement of Children's Reading Hutu-ial."
Elementary School Journal. Vol. 28. pp. 373-381. January. 1928.

Walther. Cyrilla. 'Ihs Bead ing Difficulty of Magazines."
School Review. Vol. 51. pp. 100-105. l'sbruary. 1933.

Vashburns. Carleton. and flophett. Mabel 7. 'Grade Placement
of Children's Books.‘' lleuenta School Journal. Vol. '58.
no 355-36“. Jenn-rt. 15?!-

Vashburae. Oarleton. and Togsl. Mabel. What Books Pit Vhat
Ghildrsn.’ School and Society. Vol. 23. pp. 2-2‘4. Jan. 2. 1926.

Vashburne. Garleton. IA Scientifically Graded Book last for
Ohildren.‘ Teachers Journal and; Abstract. Vol. 1. pp. !#1446.
January. 19 .

Vert. Janos 3. 'A i'echnique for Detersining Levels of Group
Reading.“ Educational Research Bulletin. Vol. 16. pp. ll3-121.

Na! 19. 1937.

Witty. Paul A.. and Labrant. Lou In. 'Vocabulary and Realiing.‘I
Iohool in}; Society. Vol. 31. pp. 268-272. Pebruary 22. 1930.

woody. Clifford. 'lntrinsio Difficulties of Certain leading
Ratsrials.‘ Peabod Journal 25 Education. Vol. 17. pp. “92-160.
lovsnber. 193 .

foam. Gerard Alan. 'A fechnique for Detereining the Diffi-
culty of heading Iiatsriels.‘I Unpublished study. University of

Pittsburgh. 1939.
Your nmpapsr. any edition.

54.

gig}?! " A“

m

Tabulated in this section are the measurements made in
this investigation. Included are the figures obtained by
computing the several factors of the Flesch and Large forl-
ulas as applied to each of 180 newspaper articles. to the
combined work of each of eighteen state Journal sritcre. and
to the combined work of all the writers.

The first eighteen pages following carr. the tables for
the individual writers; the next three. the tables for the
readers' letters. the Associated Press stories. and the
Detroit {[22 gross articles. The totals and composite scores
are collected in another table on the twenty-second page.

Each story is keyed with the serial number assigned to
its mounted clipping in Agpsndix B. To facilitate reference
to the clipping. the guide line (first.word or two of its
headline) is also in the tabulation._

abbreviations used in the tables are: 415. or 5355.. for
affixed morphemes; £25. gg£.. personal references; Pre ..
prepositional; 323.. words.

The eXprsssion. Sentence;_an§,ggrgg. found in the Flssch-
columns. refers to the number of sentences and number of words
in the passages used to determine average sentence length.
These may be longer or shorter than the lCO-fiord passages used

to determine the ratios of affixes and personal references.

55.

WRITER 'A'
sports
Stories. 10; Samples. 1?.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. 171.129011 __1”. __
Story Date Page Guide Line words sentences Afx. Per. score
_No. 1 ._ 1 and Words 1 -_fig§;_* ‘_
1 -11-11-46 7 state sinks 100 7 931 2311111. 9.01
s 11-1.-_4t s O'Nei1_ , -199. -17. .-19'.7._.. -39----8.--.7-79
3 11-14949 25 QageLQoach.1_ 199111 191mm 11 8.9g
_4 111- -1b-4 1 U. of g -- nos 14 “_286m 100 _ 4 9.94
5 .11-12-4; 9_§r9wd May___- 100 5 . 1QQ_- 41 _ “_ 9.41
_c _11-15-4‘6’ 14 Dtathargg 3.3.; $0 9 211139” Is ”8119
- 7 11-13-46 Bapprts Ggiatw _290 10 214 :1 15 8,91
___9_ 114.951.9119 "---_.__-...-_ 290 19 199 51 291 7.0
___9, 11_1,4:45__25___f§_,_ __ 200 10 919 66 10 a.
.1g 11-15-46_14 a", __?-'“ 12001113921 .5. s 0
19191.! ---..-.....-. -.._I_QQ..8.2._1..52 42'? M
_.- -- LORQE
story words sent- Prep. Hard score
. n2. - -W
..__.1 -,.... -- a1-----.--._.-_--..-_- "101...-5 . ..15 A}; 5.29
-. ,2 , _ -_ - -...-....... 196‘; 2.:__1,§__________9 O 30
“3-- 1.95 i 14 £51.18
_-_.4__..___,_..-_., -m-.._-,.- 32.2.1.6..- 31 Bi 7.2..
_g ~ 1_ 100 § 10 §1_ 71 6
L9- -..-._.--._.-..-___.-_ _297 9 20,.----.---..-§.9-...8
”__1 _ ...... ..._....:21.5 10 23: 56 7.951
1 s 1 199 14 ,_..-1..3_..-..-._.-.5.§...6.67
--9-- - --- 215.19-;-_-§5_..---“56...-,...8:I§
1o -- __ __ 221 11 26 55 7.9);

 

 

‘i'jo tal s -....- 11.1.8.9}... . .181 M

56.

WRIIER 'B'
Buo1nooo. 3041 E91310. Rant control

Starlet, 10; aolploo. 82.

 

 

 

FLE§9H
storfiolnto Page Guido Llno lords figgtonooo A184 For. score
- o o
JQWQLIW 14:4- ..-299-..9.. 6 10
11911 -10- a 1 ‘

 

 

 

 

.2. .91. 9 .

11‘ O-461§ I!!! 32118,: 1% i % ‘9 9_ ~ .
11- 8- 6 1 t rt love QQQ _ . :1

_ 11-19-46 1 Rent fi_gt 290 7 :1 ; o 5

 
 
  
  

 

 

 

 

 

 

6_ T1 -gQ:56 1 Land1oro 331.1199 19 .
11- 21-46 1 [11:14 gent , .. .1- “DH
11- 2-161 1 Hundreds Pro.,, v10 - 21:,» Ill-.1
.0 12-29131: 1:1 11519131 311111411; 1901911 - _ 1‘-ng
. - -'5“..2£--! n “E . __ o
State}; 45-: - DUI! {I}!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.- ...‘L.......... ._m‘ -19 411...... ~ g
I! ‘95:. ._ $75 11 '1' ;.. ‘19!

W RI.
Clubs. DOt%hl, Flroa. Cour1. County. 310.
atorlol. 10; snnplon 17.

57.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  
     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. M 1 _
Siory Date P330 Guido L1no Words Sentences Aft. Par. scori—
_no. w _
3; 11-10-56 §O Kggppgne %g_1 a! ' ,0 . - , 1'
1- 5-46 1 1; .91! ‘ 7' x m
3 11-16-46 5 ackjiun:tor #199 4 4g 1. m!
f; 11-i0-46 ' A1011 -- : 0 l1 ' 9 . ‘ - 0-10]?
__3} 11- :- 6 , : ud 0 ~09 0 . > HIT-1.17.191
11-14-46 1 to _o- n o .IH
- 6 1_figgg_t; * ' IIIIIIIIIIIIIEIV
11-12-46 1 o 130 u M?- _Im't
__3? 11-16-46 1 Aggu 1H : '0 I-HIH’
11- - 6 1 o n 131 6 “II-Ii“)
1232;! __. 6'0 1: ~° IIEIIFE
_ 10393: _ A
at ry words Bont- Prep. ‘Hnrd 800'.
_HI; —~ - 1‘ ” ’
9‘ - ‘51
* ._. “SQ . I-le
- - -H HI
IIIIJII
:-__I-H '
fig; 8 9m!
.1? " ' -' E
39 o' .- 9:.H-
.39 5132...? 2L6 ‘ 1
§0 599 L §0 fl 8 -

 

 

“9‘91! __1.§_§6 16L 2:: M8 5

 

fifiITER '2'
gviatlon. n111tary. general no...

storlos. 10; samples. 30.

 

 

- PLEDGE ..
story 0610 Fag. Guido Lino word: sent-noon 13:. Per. soar.
-......... -wmd W211! _ __ __Rot
_§1_11-10-46 1_jngrosstvo 1QQ .§ 71. 42. 10.

 

-iB...11:.1.1.:§:.—5.. 1.8!Q.A!£9'--.&n-...§QQ_.HL.M1$
_§§. 11 §4"§-1.Efitsn£§.9_.- -..£@..-.l....§1§_.199 g; 3- _
_§4_*11:13-46_Q~Q1L1116n QQp.M_§QQ_, ___4_aQQ__1Q§_ 1
_ggw 11-17-46 8_Quard_ Negdgfl _ _19944441 .-

16 11::24-4643012. 09mm £392-- 11.. £1§

31 12- 6-46 1 gait 21000 -
44 h1_10-46 _2 pg: tn agnwaxs _ i.___1£..:£.£_.l£9__£9_..

   
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-49 11-24-46 W -- m_wa g9; 7; - .;
:40 12:11 -46 21 w n 100 4 1Q; 54 i 93"
Iota1s ,. 4_4-__~_H_~fl“,ww_44_~§QQO ,28 29§4. 867 98 19. 26
.. 198.65. _ __
story Words sont- PrOp. 84rd scorn
..N°- ......... ... QQEHL.-".:BO ‘x' d!

_£1 ._..-...-.._. -- ..... .141...4-- -. ~1 1v -
-gg _w _. __ j”.-.§.-~.- 1:: o '
3 .. -.... ...- - .. £25.41. .22 76 6
:4 -..- .. .. ---..- J91...£.--__§§ a: a .
-35 _... ___- - --.__-.. - _.194___-3 1,6,.“ 44 10 I
-1326 ___.--------- .. - - _ - .. £89 14 49 90 '
JIM- - __-.___.. .__,. - .120_._,_- -_ 7 2 g -
-38.-.- ___... .. -- -- .. - §;§..-.1.L. .. i9 9’ o ‘
-39 ___..-.... _..... .....-._. ....--...__..._....... 9... '1‘ ’; ' o I.
_‘0 1 ”1-- - . ‘ ~ - o ‘t'

- 2163 83 ,.g§§ 6§Q__,8.g4

59.
WE TEE "G"

“616w.
storlcl. 10; aalploa. 18.

 

 

 

 

 

 

M
86617 mt. Page Guido L121. lords Santana” aft. 20?. “or.
_m! .. 231' . '. 1' .

- 1-1-6 5 'H 1 “ um
1 -14- 6 14 r-no- 1- .r " ' ‘7 -n ‘IIIEIII'
-0- 6 .3. lo a ._J ; Ah.

1- ‘ IGIIYTB1II3II1T1IIEWHIIIIIIIF"lIII IIII -}

IIIIIIEIIIIJIEEITIIIIIII1IITIIIFWIIFIIIIFT3IIII'III‘ III

,- 0 6 1 1: : - . o 't . {JIII1IIEIIZ
¥ 1- MW .1120 "(y-HZ

. 11.-1&6 0 at: .. 1'1! - ._ _m

__4; 1-I£-4... 611 atudx_1uh _ 00 9 -: 3-1111

:9 11-14-46_14 figigogat I183; 100 _ ,0, _J51

1219.1: W
L080;

 

 

 

‘story Date Page Guide Line Words Sent- Prep. Hard soar.

-_’C>-,...,-,,,__,._,_-,_,_,4,__,,_____,_,1_1w ences h 3508 Words

JAM“.-- -m--.---------_..-__-.,__-_ 9'7 3 5 E 5.55
- -.4.8.-.-..-..--- ._----_-.-_-_.-_-__,-.. 97 e :13 £6 W,
- ££ -.--.--__..---- _.--_.,-.- _ .. _ ..--..----..-...8-14.-._§...._.1§=

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4-1. - -------..--...._.---.-...._--.._--.___1Q§_ £ 3

4.5- .. --.....- - -. -...-.... ---..___a§7.._19.._.22
_46 , ._.-.--.-----.-.--.-..-.--.-__ _ 110 5 _12

-47 --, e- .- . .. --..---.-.-.-.._,__100 4 a
.46.-.. - - -...-.. - 109 .4 .12

__49 4 .. ._..-..._.-. 109 ,_4____11§________g__ 7.
59 - - ....- “19.1 4 .17 ....

 

 

 

 

 

WRITER -§-
Gluba, Lodz... Church...

Station, 7; 8.lp100,8.

_ 1' LEQCH
story unto pug. Guido Lino Verdi Bontanccl xix. Par. 866??

u ‘..

.12:
._ - 1- 0-6 Jaw :6: » ' 2‘
‘1 o5"?  . _lii‘

V

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.- 1 'I' O ' 3‘! CI ‘ ‘f k‘ f

" .‘1" ‘ ’_B121~fl&;£____“4 '9 o‘IIII )

mm .- . 1% o ._ on“ ‘

. . 1. 7-4. ‘x; . , u: 30‘. > '4’. . 7.7.5:] .

am. 0 9:; . «I x m.»

m f. 0‘0 .17 u.“ s - You
LOEQE

fiery words 3013- Prop. and soon

- ' $69 "a .:- ’ *I .Y

I V=l99___$_ .5 ’ Q; :

5.8.- A .W 9 "”

LOQ 5 fl, 5 I»

‘ ifi 1__ fl ‘ a i

A __RQL _L '1“?

m_ i ,. ~ I 1.11:}

 

WMIER 'K'

61.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Booloty.
Btortas. 10; aanploa, 15.
ragga _ +
story but. P‘s. outdo Lino Wordl snntcnco- 513. P.;. score
md 10:53 Re .

11-17-46 9 Bgnhollonig L99 § 9§ 8
,5; 11-12-46 7 . d i; -I 7 O ‘
_99 11-16-56 g urn, gsggod '0 1 0: a; I IIIEIII;
6 11- -6 7 ontoronco 1” -. ‘j I‘m
-; 11- 1 - 6 11 L; ; 1 u 1.3 "i-r-Ifis
1-10- 6 19 W 3.90 i - " ' ' ‘

' :IJA. .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

wig,—
story IordI sont- Prep. Hard Soon
on '.L . _
‘%' ___..- _ 1m. --7' — J
19 1 _ .o. - l%
60 ._. A97 A 11 & 50 -
«z—g ~ lg;- I I; . '
fl _..... m J 6 ‘Héé
5‘! _. "iii 15 ii ‘- 113.1-
35 _ 19; ..... 31
66 9L 4 42 1. I
Q? 1 7fl___fi 99 6; J;
m 41505 mu- 1&5 ___le a; g

 

WRITER 'L'

nd1torlull.

62.

starlet, 6; samplos, 6.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

EILESCH
Story Data P650 Guido Lino Words Sontoncoo Afx. For. soar.
=30. ggd "6:45 :0!
68 “I ~17-46 6 ThAy Ato_figg 100 g m ,
___6_9 1- 24-46 18 that; 1 W 7
701-10-46 1o 5 26:196 or 4190 4
71 11-1ooge low a, 359 511 200 7 I¢g59

19361;, 690 22 -:

.__“Mm_mm_ ”-1“- LORGEm

Story Words Sont- Prop.. Hard soar.

_HQ- fl.

“99* ‘“ ii '
<69 __ _AL__JZJEE
70 #109 1;: 1! J§§ 8.

__1? A _1 _m 7 E 2::

121212.. _._1 7§i__37 Q26 _$93 :9,

 

 

63.
ERITER “RC“

31:63.3; schools. Buunou.
a;
Station. 6; salplqa. 16.

_ FLESGH
Story Date Pas. cu1do L1no Words Sentences 511. For. score

.1121 631W
7: 11-10-46 11 §ch001| 300 17 898 139 9 ._

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ta _______1;-1o-»46fi gar mugs w- (2 ‘-U._-K'l--.--‘:-i .g
__1‘ 11-17-56139y Kgllgmcl m 7 - _B -
75 11 17- -1§“§8 8k1£°°k9&198_~_§99 -13 .mi11.._§§ I III:“
L76 L;-17-4§_M 1 010 anon 1 , 7 IIIIIIE
77 11-17-46_ga Hotgd nguca . DO : s . - _r 2;
101916 1690 25. . ,5‘ _-. » é-I'Hl
~LQBQ§
story wordl sent- Prop. Hard 30¢r0
J1. -- . _ . _
72 11.6 : 1.1! 2
:IS‘ a  !!!|||19§
_Z$_ 1817 121 2_IQ_ ' ;
_zg. ~22 .* - II}:
76 . ‘7]IIlIIT
I? -- 11 ._a... .- I!!!
Igfiglg: 19;; 6‘...z11___ 36 III.

64.
IRITER "IO"

P01100. rlro. olty 8811. 96111166.
3101106. 18; Baplu. N.
rm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Story 0.1. P880 on1do L1no words SonthOOI £73. Per. 606??
10; .4. - . s. I
__16 11-15-56 1 .1311 no; :1!) *2 - “-55
_19 n- . 6 _ n 4-, av _' “1.1-!!!
0 :1 - 6 on u L :
6 _ f , ; - - 2:" I; In. 8 ' H I
8 I! 8.801 ‘ Hurt. _LQ L ‘ - Hf}
”2 6 '07- 21' . VA! 7 yf? 7 - I’H
:2. 1-1- W199 26: .. m:
__Q;.- -6 - count in J at; '1 _QH!
3 M1 132-1113 La $319600. 6 ggg
1 -4 up , '1.
_.._ 1- - 6 a :90 § .2" 'Iilz-EIL
_gg nag-55 1 ount' n u : a 6 HI!
Mg;- PA" , ”'11m17f-I‘ .-
.. I ERQE_ fl
story words sont- 9:11p. Hu’d ”or.
is-
19
-§_0-_
_§_3.-. I _
.191
- -232- v”-
,9! ___... - ,
___QE” i __
1251
-.§7
;8
89 _

 

 

 

 

 

72361;:

65.
KEITEB “MU“

Coluln1lt.

Starlet. 6; aanploo.9.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FLESQE
Story Data P630 Guido L1nn Words Sentence. 11x. Par. score
30. and W059; 31!,
90 11-21-46 17 Jug; aofgro 199__11,m1gg 7611 7.
91 11- 22-46 6 =1 - £99 15 396 6.4
93: 11-15-46 17 u « _ggp 11 196 g? 8. 6
96 11- 14- 46 16 n n 399 g 199 9.92
94 11-13-46 6 w . *1Q9 Q 96 6 10.3;
itpsggw 8.20. .161... __a.a_9__ 666.. a; - 6.7g
_LJRGE

 

 

gtory Word! sunt- PrOp. fflgrd floor.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WRITER '0'

66.

Bpo‘. Buelneee, Local Government.

atoriee.9; Seaples, 15.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_ __ mason
Story Dete Page Guide Line Worae sentence. Atx. Per. Score
_g%. 11 16 6‘53— Q£L. d *_ 100 and Words Bet. ‘w__
-- --- - .:é.._..§B_ 01.....“-m§__ 6 O B
.29 M-W WWW
37%me goo ,1__q__ 46 .
_gg 11-17-46 1 flgw Lendel m A; ;- my
99 ;1- ~13-46_ Z:[ytmere to 190 Q 1" ~J ' A .
IOQ 11-1§-46~ 1 Qity ngicgelg goo L9 . ' - f " -~
101 12-4 -46 1 giant: 391‘. 800 Pt. _, e I 6?
1 3 -_LALI... - 45.....10 EQBipnent LeQBW
_Qfih 11- -1§-46 4 agoree to B! 199 8 191 11 g 1; 7
1on1. _ _ 1m 19 1mg 7n 3 11
n- _ LORGQ ‘__
Story words sent- Prep. Herd 806??
_flp, ence e
.95 93 a u $.11:
.25 199 _4 17 39 §.§§
2!, __il9 Ll, 5; 95 §9§§
:98. ,, _ 808 7 g; 68 8.5;
99 104 g 14 45“., 8,19
:00 i12__10 §4 97 8. 50
A01” egg; 9 25 77 8.71
102 ___ ___,on3 § 1§ §5 29.5.5.
103__ L0.l____-g-....16 L7 10:94.
$03.91;: mg g: 209 M

 

 

BEQI§B_1EA'

Sunday Neva and Featuree.

status. 3; 8mp1ea, 6.

67.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FLESCH ‘

story Date Page ouide Line words sentencee 41:. Per. seore
H0 e and WOIQ. B.‘ e
194 _11-17-46 17.9mm 1.9934199 4,_ 96 59 19 9999
105_J1311:59 1 911d _Qredam._ gpg 9 “199 70 m.
106 11-19-99M 1 traffic Death; 90 OO 13 931 4136 8 10. WQE
Igtalg _.mn-maw 600 26 618 £36 21_9.88
4-: LORGEW- ___
story Worde Sent- prep. Hard score
.flo. ence; phrases Horde

.104 -4. 104 § 4; 1. =40 9.97
199 ___ ___, _. ,_ -_. ___w 321 19““934 38 7. 97
1.96 m..- .. . _.._ _--. 391-34 g9 6'! .6723
xgtale - 632. 29 999 16 §_ 7.61

wxursa mm 58-

society.
Storiee. 10; 8enp1ee,14.

ILQSCH
Story Dete Page Guide Line worde sentenoee 533. Per. seore
no. -QQQ_EQ£d9 391,
191 11-19-46 11 gundgx Qereg, 1091__§ 911 19 13 7,36
199 11-14-46 15 Loraine 91m 199 4 19.: .11 191 7199

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 11- 1 - 6 7 aegion 390.99019 2Q; 61 _9_ 8:63
19 11-12-56 7 gatholig L'gue 1QQ Q 4162; 199 19 9

1 1 -1 ~46 15 oro 1t 3 10 6

I Q 11- -15-46 10 5do19_99_99 109_ 9199 43 j 10

1 11-19-46 8 Junior BQQ,X.__§90 19_ 16

1 4 11-11- -46 5 ;:.§.Q. 399d 19 9 119, 1307 7? 3 1 O

113 11-15-46 11 Mc1t1gonah1p § 109 7 > . O
116 11-10-46 82_Iho_ 1611 HQ- __gOQ 11 6

19111. 1399 56 IEEE 53% 102 9:35

__LORGE w

story Iorde Sent- Prep. Herd score

_39, enggg ghgggee 19:94

193 11__ 1 ' :9 B“

.129

.129 _-

1 0

3.1.1

113

1 3 _

”41.1.6 m..-

119-

11.6 .—

 

 

69.

flBlIER 'R'

 

Local Government, Politics.

Stories. 4; aaIpIOI, 10.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

________’ fi_~*__ FLESQE v
85ory Data Pug. auto. Lino lords sontonoon A13. For. soot.
.HM J§Q§.fl2£§!f E
117 1;-g§:§§_ Ln2_u.ld._.._.3m}.f_1_.._...§99 A; 7
1;; 1L-14-46 1 ggu Ld altar v3: ~f~ .- 7 ”1 z
1;? W 1.113110“ __ 399.; f -' 4 °
W- lfiflémg... «'4' ' If!!!
19%;)... 199.0...le
._ LL LOFOE
Story Word. sont- Prop. Hari' loot.
_ug. once: egtgggg Wogdg -
117 §§L_ 11‘ 4; as 73'?
118_ 360 :;2 47 L}; g 78
119* __ 292: 5, g; 60 8L§§_
L89 - ..L_ 5 §2 61 9.5g

 

 

 

$03.81 5 ._r MW

70.

WRITER “SA“
ldltor1all.
stor1os, 10; samples. 19.

 

 

 

FLESCH
story" Data pug. 6u1do L1no Words Sentences 511. Per. score
.39. .. -_- 4.116-391“! 411......-
1g_ L1;g§:46__14_Pooppga VgrdL 200 “"6, _1gg_4425“ 11 10.16
1;: 11- 27-46 4 nggchgnt .. 199_ 5__, 82 55 5__10.54
125 11-16-46 _5_Erom1scs ~4~:44§QQ_4_§_443954 7 10 1
L24 11- 15-46: 6 [11Ltaryw gQQL_46444126 195 5 e 7

125‘4LL- -12-46 4 use the gay 2QQ_, 5 -125..191.- g .10. _
1g§_ 11-2L-46 8 What'sv Joke} 200 7 129 100 2 11 27

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12" l1:1.2?.4.é--1..9.9!emm9n.1.--..5.QQ..1.Q-..521. 1,; 9
18.1.1.1:22146.-. :6-.J211.B;s1m.19&1..§.-191m_1
1 .. -.1.1:21..-...46 6.-Q\11-.9.£.ngnd_.2. .199- ..5..11§...1§...Q._12206
150-- 11313-46. 5999413411011 “590 9 551 9 12.1
1919;..9:;T,‘---..f:;- .. -..- .1399- QLW
_ 1.03914.

Story Words sont- Prep. Ward gear.
430.. ,,,,, .gggoo_25raaoa words

121. ...192 ..6 -.. ..19 ---6. 5 13m
122.- ..-..- --...1§9...4-- 22 7 9 4
1.8.3-- .. - -- .-------_--.-..-.-298. - .-.14 6 7
184 ._. - .......-- 212 9 ..35 6 .
13.9 - - HMS...
156 -- ---129...--7..--fi..._...§§ ..Q:
1.27 .520..1Q..-.§.7 9.6 8.
128 . -.- ...- , 195.-. .5 .15 50 9.0
1.89 .- 115... ---W
l§9 ._...,--.- -..-- 35.1.» 9 i}. ..L._7:_..§

 

 

191-312. 8029. Q! MUfi

 

71.

E3333 '3!”

 

BOOKI. “‘1'.

11.3593
§1ory Data Pug. ou1do L1no words sontonou £67. Per. soon

_l21 -LB .11- z
1;} 41-19-46 mw_16 -3) j. «I “T

11" -‘6 I 3”! 7
1, _ 11-10- 6 16 o . -.4. ..
In ll'Ll'56 1 1933;; D213! ‘- '1'

1;! 11-10346 16 513225994 ,4. .
6 11-1 - 16 o x 199 .
gi'Tfi- 901.361.221.11” . “.131 6 . o . . . ..
_g;'______:4__4"1"1'1“‘“o 6 Snack ggg 1o
111-—15-46 1; 96.461 1; 199
119.iL1:1.§:4§...1m11_- 5Q 19 m 1 6
16141: 16g; 6g 1m _.~

 

119

 

.
n4.

6:66rng,
.. . 1.

b NWI‘QRIL+4I‘

O

 

O

 

-. .

mm.-- -_-_. _..
story words Sent- °rep. Hard Scorn

-4.....-- .-_ ---H...._..--.M H930§§_PQEQBOI W0
-él--..---_-.----.. - . ___--_-_ -_ 225 ll 74 7?}:
1.33.... - .- - -881- _-§___.,_-§g Q7 .
133._-_-----._..- - -. .--..__.1..1§.--§.._---1'l_. 9

1.31-.-.----,.---_----_--..--- ----1 1---.6.----..1.§...... 61 9.69
-222. -19 26 74 a

léé..‘.---.:.m.----- -..me 0.6M 12? 4 .19 9
167,", _____ .125...4-._--.82._--.-.§:.—._§41
Q 1 7
5

 

 

 

 

 

119-----.-.--.-------_--__-.__..-- -__. -- 1.96 - --....

- _ -- -. - a
1.99. ........ - - -- ----- _ -..jg‘é:.11.- 4.6 190
_ V- . -- - --1.21.J.§...84L 6.9.6 8.6

72.
KEITER 'SL“

Sparta.
start... 10; Salplon.zz.

-._.---._--..., .- - 1- .-
story 0:50 Pug. au1do LG0 word. sontonoos Aft. For. 800??

 

 

 

112 11-15336 7 3111zzar17a 300 13 391.

11: 11-11-16 35131111111151121-1111591011 -_._-1.5 552—1
111 11-1611116 51 13.11191: gogp..- 5QQ 1121 11152611 11511

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

11511111-15o461511f11r 1111115113111 1010 11151111011 1 7

54.5-- 1..-1-- 115.255.- 551-595-219 590m 8 196 -55. 0 9.1
1111111;;§-46 141Bod-guakor 200 7 199 66__13 9 76
114511111-115-15 113311.51- Bus: 200 719111159 9.76
1119 11-1§-469_§gxton11nd 2QQ_1 121111 2111:55111111211131311
.1.- - 15- 52-45-55-5-991193-85L- -599” ..-.5-. 511 75 1.5..- 515.9
191.31. . __ .5599. 5.9.. -55.5-7 559...-M
.- .- .--,- -.-,- , “.__.-.9591!“-

story Word: Sont- Prep. Hera score
.591--. -.-. -._-.-.- .__---- -- aneg Bhrsgsg-12292-

$5.1. ---_-.__- ._ - "1.1.5 - 5 -15- -- ._._-.12___§ i
.155- . - ---._-----.-...----..-. 532-31151 99. 7.15.-
.153- --.._ __ .,.- .. , - . 527-, 12 . --.-5.. ..96 5‘“
.144 .__ _. .. . . _ _. .. 5%--.15- -..55 ...... - .
115 1.01 5 -- 15------ - ‘
116 _1_ 535_ 19 -37 ...... 55...??15
147 1 1 206 81 111Q1111 11115 1 8 8‘
118 111 1 21201 81111311 72 5.17
1.49 .- _ - -- ------ .__-551--- 9..--55. 6.3- 130.1..-
159. -_._ --.. -- - ..-.--..-51.1. 15... -55__-_..--1ZZ111 1:15
Totalg_, .1,,-_------._---_.-540;--99--55$--.--§§Z- Z555

73.

_EEADERSL LEI-123.8%

 

Lottorn. 10; salplon. 18.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_w‘_w [LESCH __

story But. Page wrucr words 80115011000 Atx. For. soar.
No. - 1 1 _”__~1_ and Wordg_______ot C

151 14:11-96. 6 a. E. BIQWD ---109 105 26- -9 _ .1

12;...- 1-1--- “1.72.4.6.- 6 E1315...-_--- 100 6 111 AL 7 8621
155 11-17-46 6 A. Wan ogor ggg 11 191_1 62._19-1_a;1g
154 11: 17:46: 6 1,E, 59211 190 5 86 41 9 8169,
155 11-17-46 6 Qt~gohngon 109_ 7 101 30 6 8,9;
156 11-10-16 19 M1KO_B11§1WZQQ_:ME 23§_"1111_15 9155
1§7 11-10-46 1o_£1a. aar;611_199 6 104 46 9 11152

 

158 11- -10-46_1g_ 2511,m Bydg; 109 _6_- 115 36 5 10. Q§
1§9 11-10-46_1Q,Egg,*g§o1gant 199 Q .1161_-g§ 6 10,63
169 _11-10-§6_1Q.g§s, Jognagn 109 11: 97 57 § 10.76

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Iota» .--_- .__--..--.-__-_--.-_.-_-_.--.-1g-o-9-_6g---1142_.11_2;_ 69. __a,6g

”__ _____”1m_w -1_ _. ___QRGE ”¥__
Story Words Sent- Frap. Hard scar.
«No. b

15.1 ._- _-_..--.- .__._-

132" -.. -§§

153- -- _, . - _ _ _- 6; ’g'%

154 ”mu-M- _ 116: 6 L” L6

155 1 __---_- _._ 1 1 101_ Z.___1§:, 1§1_ 6. 0!
156 - _- - -- --_ _-_--.__-z-g§; 9 50 _§_L_ 8,118
157 __1,” .1...“- __ _194“ _§,_1__17 13; 86%;
55 _.-.._ - - _ All”! 16 _géi 9, 4
1 9 _---- .u--- 11§M_JL. 2: tiflL- 7;
169 __._ 1 - 1 _- 91 A :§§__.8

 

74.
ASSOCIATED PRESS

stor1os. 10; samplca. 16.

 

 

--1 _, ”FLEégflfl.
story 0219 Page Gu1uo L1no word: sentences 51:. For. score
“N00---” M1 ._._ ---11-'.~_...\§_°_l‘9: R'tL

 

161 111119-46;11Attorn61 :6} -1190

5
162 _11-16-46 1 Do1roi1 u1n_1QQ11§ -.M
163 11-19-46e 1_H941116n9I111111QQ1:1§ _ 93 3 8.16
4
8
7

 

 

 

 

164 11-16-46 1 60919 s1r1k9 100 1 100 49 25 19.49
165111-16346 1 8011411099 at 1190111111 192 Mg.
166 :11-19746 1 Now Probe 11 1 2QQ1111_1 2991 1167 1Q 11.48
1§7 _l}:lér£5 a! 51!! £11196 -1 200 11* 29261-52 15__m§;28
166 111-16-46 111ExeCony1g1 111 2QQ 10w1691 61140“ 7. 43
169 11- 20-46 _1 Walkout Ranks 2QQ1110 207 1166 18“ “8. _50
170 11- -16-461,1-9991.919§:§__, 309:11_ 6191196122 10. 31
Tgtu1q1 1_ 11111111 .1 1600 69 :1697 64611699163
111111_1111111111111_LQEQ21111_1111 111111

story Words sont- Prop. yard Séorc
30.1 H. .1 1.. u.“ . _ _ ““22995 Ph£9§§8 lorag--1__.
161- 1. w - 123 -4 1 19. .11-“£04 -9229

-§2 -1, w n u u. _.H _ 99 5 h 12 1 5,1 7.19
163 _ 111 _ . 1 _ 108 1 6 17 1341 8

164 11 - _ . . 1,190 - 4 14 .150_ 8.40

195“ . 3 U

lfifi- - __1.

197,. -

168__“-n_. ,

169 ... w -, - w k -

1101- ,_1 ......

 

 

 

-11 _. a 116,111.11uh-nm -1- - 3
191913 .1 ‘ _H , .1-“ 166§fl,72.1129§ 421 7.99

75.

211519017 FREE PRES§
SuflII, 10; Suploc. 18.
FLQSCH

 

igtdlé"-v--

story
110-.
171
172
175 1
1741
17:5

HI»
4'4
«am

3

P
Q
Q;

58;‘34
g Q}. “

H wan-J!
’o

 

  
  

 

 

story DItI PIgI oulaI L1nI Words SIntInoII Atx. PIr. soorI
...NQO-.. , Km“- -EQM“.
171 2-12-47 1_ :5_tgt9 3211;11:1QQ111511

178 1_11_1_1 1 N9! county . 190 11§_

173 111 :11 1 1 t1}; IgjatId _1399, 11

174 1131 1. J upthgr'g nurdIr1OQ 13__, 28 --§§_.l§_.
175 -1. - 1 Prim?! 8994-199 --5 -. 99

126 .-, 9 1'- 6 AI WI 899 n 1.99 -5---191--.§3.._§.
177 1 131 1 151lgodI11WItIrI 1901, 8_, _451

178 9---: - 2.: 191m. cuer “999-15-

179 11 31 8 N0I1130951 1 100

180 111 1I 501VIr1ng11 190 5 111971

.__."..- ”139.9. -95“.

M'- ~_.—.v.- ¢

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.. -__.»--- 91-98999 _. .. m 11
wordI SInt- PrIp. Hard scorI
--__-11111_ _1ggggg1fihrasos WordI
.. -- 99.”. 114.99!) 9.913.. .__---- 46 9 08
- - .... .. __1_1..§._-..§_.... .19---..-.. 6 7
I _ 9. 9 _. £95. .11..-- 28 66 7178
- 9- - --.. .. 9,- - 9--.. -129...-._9- -19 19 8 7T
.9 _. “9.99.. .5.... .94.»... -1411}.ng
H..- - “.__ 199_.-...5.- ”.10_ 1531 7;;
.. - _ - 1.99 --9- . -113 8.5 6 7
. ..-- 9.192.... 14. 9-29 57 7.
_. I- .. .- .99 __ 1.5.. .15.- .. 5.9.. 9» 5
._ _ - - 91069.9. “.12 LL 9
_ .... - .. 1329-59 ..... .155 $1? .9

 

 

76.

COMPOSITE FACTORS AND SCORES.

The State Journal.

 

FLES CE '”‘ LORG

c H .. '
g g Sentence. Par. ‘ 38 E é um .
v.1. v '"'-1‘} LL‘W“! ' v . 1811‘.

 

.r :4: WWW - 0.0
mm... m . -.-
4 20);. ~ . a. ' m

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. ,
c . .. .
0 42M — m '31 «‘-
-,. 7'31}??? ‘IT‘WI'L mm... .. u. . '
Detroit Free Press, Readers' Letters, Eociated Pregg.
r' a . 40 'v .4) 5:;4 u. - '1 J .... ,1 ' a:
: . 4,- “WW- ‘.: u. i
o, IFS-TH"- .W" m; . u

77.

PPgNLIx ”B"

~—-- un_-’-V‘..-« ---

 

mounted on the 180 pages following are clippings of the
gtgtg ggggng; and Detroit {:31 Egggg articles that were
studied. Each is keyed with a serial number and the initial.
assigned its writer, or R.L. for reader's letter, A? for
Associated Freon. F.P. for gran Press. Each also shown tho
date and page on which it wee published.

In an effort to keep the clippings from piling up any
more than could be helped, a standard position for thin was
avoided rather than attempted. This accounts for the
alternating positions or the tabulations accompanying than.

The samples chosen were the same for the Flesoh and
Large formulae. so for as the requirements of the two would
permit. The Fleech samples are bracketed in rod. the Lora. in
blue. The samplee run from one to three to the story, depend-
ing on its length.

It sheila be noted that even where a passage of a given
length physically wiil serve an a sample for both Fleeoh end
Lorge, differences in the rules governing their word and

sentence coants may cause slight varietions in thooe factors.