TO RATE SPANISH WR|TING FROM TWO READING EASE INDTCES Thesis for the Degree of M. A. MlCHlGAN STATE UNNERSITY Jose A. Gonza‘ez 1964 HITIIWITIWWH“WW ems/m 31293 01075 6561 , Mldugan §taw Umvcmty 1.\| it“ . I91 311* x. . Hail-Viv. . AN ATTEMPT 1'0 DERIVE A umnm rm 1‘0 RATE SPANISH WRITING FRO“ TWO READING BASE INDICIS BY JOSE A. W2 A THESIS, Submitted to the College of Comnicatione Arte, Michigan Sate University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Heater of Arte Department of Commication Arte 4: Michigan State University, 1965 Approved Ll/th‘fb" (/1 LL/Q %,fl_ydl ' 514.04 [f TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS xi INTRODUCTION xii CHAPTER I. REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND THEORETICAL BACKGROUND Review of Literature and Theoretical Background 2 Description of‘Heasuring Instrument 7 General Hypothesis 8 II. DESIGN.AND PROCEDURE Design and Procedure 10 III. RESULTS Results 16 IV. DISCUSSION Discussion 23 Conclusion 30 Suggestions for Further Research 32 APPENDIX A Samples of Passages-English and Spanish 36 Versions Samples of Passages for Determining Close 51 Scores, Close Blanks and Close Scores for Some Spanish Passages APPENDIX B List of Tables of Tests 58 APPENDIX C Bibliography 31 iii Table l. 3. 4. Test No. 1. Administration of Parr-Jenkins-Paterson and Plesch Reading Ease Indices to 150 Passages. 5. 7. 9. LIST OF TABLES Differences in Mean "nosw" and "Average Sentence Length" Between English and Spanish in the Reading Ease Categories Differences in Nban PJP Ratings Between Categories and Between Spanish and English Ratings in Each Category. Differences Between Kean Plesch Ratings and Variables in English and Spanish. Comparison of Mean PJP Variables and Ratings for Spanish and English and.Among Reading Ease Categories. English Passages with Easy Ratings, Using Parr-Jenkins-Paterson's New Reading Ease Index. English Passages with Fairly Easy Ratings, Using Parr-Jenkins-Paterson's New Reading Ease Index. Ratings for Corresponding Spanish Passages and Pleseh Ratings for the Same Passages. English Passages with Standard Ratings, Using the PJP New Reading Ease Index. Ratings for Corresponding Spanish Passages and Plesch Ratings for the Same Passages. English Passages with Fairly Difficult Ratings, Using the PJP New Reading Ease Index. Ratings for Corresponding Spanish Passages, and Plesch Ratings for the Same Passages. English Passages with Difficult Ratings, Using the PJP New Reading Ease Index. Ratings for Corresponding Spanish Passages, and Plesch Ratings for the Same Passages. iv Page 17 18 19 20 59 60 61 62 63 Table Correlations for Test with the Original Parr- Jenkins-Paterson and Plesch Indices. Test No. 2. Using Plesch Index with Rearranged Passages. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. English Passages with Easy Ratings, and their Spanish Equivalents. English Passages with Fairly Easy Ratings, and their Spanish Equivalents. English Passages with Standard Ratings, and their Spanish Equivalents. English Passages with Pairly Difficult Ratings, and their Spanish Equivalents. English Passages with Difficult Ratings, and their Spanish Equivalents. Correlations for Test-Plesch Reading Ease Index with Rearranged Passages. Test No. 3. Modified Parr-Jenkins-Paterson Index. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Passages with Easy Ratings, and their Spanish Equivalents. Passages with Pairly Easy Ratings, and their Spanish Equivalents. Passages with Standard Ratings, and their Spanish Equivalents. Passages with Fairly Difficult Ratings, and their Spanish Equivalents. Passages with Difficult Ratings, and their Spanish Equivalents. Hodified Parr-Jenkins-Paterson Index-Correlations. Modified Parr-Jenkins-Paterson Reading Ease Index Table (for fast computation of ratings). 17 Page 65 66 67 68 69 7O 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 ABSTRACT The lack of a reliable yardstick to measure the reading level of Extension publications in Puerto Rico and Latin America urged the writer to attempt to derive a readability formula to rate Spanish writing using as a basis the Parr-Jenkins-Paterson or the Pleach reading ease index. Study of 200 English passages and their Spanish equivalents using the Parr-Jenkins-Paterson index showed that this femla as such does not apply to Spanish. The administration yielded correlations of -.891 for the variable 'number of one-syllable‘words per hundred words' (nosw); .992 for 'average sentence length' (s1); and .772 for the English and Spanish scores. There were differences of as high as 80 points between English and Spanish scores in some of the categories. There are about twice as many monosyllables in the easy and fairly easy categories for English as for Spanish. This difference decreases with difficulty. Therefore, 'nosw' does not seem to be a good criterion to rate Spanish writing. The administration of the Plesch index yielded high correlations of all the variables and the ratings, but very high discrepancies between the actual English and Spanish ratings. Easy Spanish words generally have more syllables than their English counterparts, particularly care tain verb forms that assimilate pronouns, prepositions and other roots and parts of speech. In some instances English passages rating very easy (104) had a score for the Spanish version of difficult (31). Be- cause of this inconsistency in syllabic count and the consequent dispa- rity in ratings, the Plesch index had to be discarded. vi The variable nostwes changed to include two-syllable words and with this modification the Earr-Jenkins-Paterson index was administered to 100 Spanish passages and the original P J P to their English counter- parts. This test yielded the following correlations: Spanish and English ratings: .996 nosw and l & 2sw: .941 s1: .923 Furthermore, scores for corresponding English and Spanish passages were acceptably close. The lower correlation for the average sentence length is apparently due to the fact that in Spanish easy passages have shorter sentences be- cause of the particles which are assimilated by the verb, as mentioned previously. This makes unnecessary the compulsory use of articles and pronouns to show person, number and gender. Further testing of the modified P J P index yielded similar results with two other groups of passages. The test with passages in the very easy and very difficult catego- ries yielded high discrepancies between English and Spanish. Apparently the increase with difficulty in compound and complex sentences and pre- positional phrases, which also accounts for an increase in monosyllables in Spanish, and the shorter sentences in the easy passages accounted for these differences. For these reasons the very easy and very diffi- cult passages were discarded in the final computations. The modified Parr-Jenkins-Paterson Reading Index for rating Spanish writing has the following formula: NPJP - 1.599 (1 8.2sw) - 1.015 s1 - 31.517 vii The variables and constants are the same as for the original index except for the variable of one-and-two syllable words per hundred words. The reading ease categories are the same as for the Flesch and P J P indices, namely: Easy 80 - 89 Fairly Easy: 70 - 79 Standard: 60 - 69 Fairly Difficult: 51 - 59 Difficult: 3O - 50 Very Difficult: 0 - 29 To rate any publication the reader should pick lOO-word samples, preferably at regular page intervals, say every fifth or tenth page, de- pending on the length of the publication. The longer the writing the larger the number of samples and the better the probability of more re- presentative ones. Samples should come from different sections of the pages. Next, one-and-two syllable counts and average sentence length must be determined for each passage and these substituted in the formula to determine the score for each passage. The average or mean score of all the passages will be the rating for the publication. Table 20 at the end of this abstract wil save the reader a great deal of time in determining approximate values for each passage. It should be kept in mind that, due to linguistic variations the ratings for Spanish passages may be one category off the rating obtain- able through other methods like the Cloze Procedure. This is so when 'ratings fall close to the border of any category. Passages with viii unusually high two-syllable count will yield unrepresentative ratings and should be avoided when obtaining sample passages to rate a publi- cation. The proportion of monosyllables to two-syllable words should range from 2:1 to 3:2. Furthermore, the modified Farr-Jenkins-Paterson Index has shown in the original and further tests that it is not reli- able for rating extremely easy or extremely difficult writing. ix Heoue no.1- looununo unnuwuufllHlosnaflflwoOI unnoulolnnou Hlofifl Minoan noon oseuowuuncue tonne we». gonna.— tonoe as news avenue: . 09:5 28er «ton-nuueoue tonne. one are a! «noun? col-no on weueeeee as use a one ouuecee. Au 9 n new Awene ueouoe oceans eouo use oeueonee as one euuewe. one ue nun-e necueo. Average Sentence Length (in words) Longitud Promedio de Oraciones (en palabras) DONG uo uu un uw un uu uo un uo uo no nu nn nw nn nu no nn no no wo wu wn ww wu wo wn uo wo on on oo no no nn nn no oo oo on on oo uo uo un un uo no no nn om no wo wo wn on ow oo on on ou nn nu nu oo on ou uo uu un no nu nw wo wo wn wo no no no uo oo on oo oo ow oo no nn no on ow oo uo un uu nn nn nn wo wu wu no nu nn uo uu ou ou oo ou on no nu nw oo oo on uo un uw uo no no nu wn wn wo no nn nu uo un on oo on on ou no nn nn oo ou ou uo uo un no nu nn no wo ww no nn no no un uw ow oo oo ow oo nn nw nu on on oo un uu uu no nn nu wo wu wn no no nn uo uo un on oo ou on no no nn no oo ow uo uo un uo nn nw no wo wn wu nn nu nu uo uu uu ou on on ou no nu nu oo ou on uo uu uw no no nn wo wn ww wo no nn no un un uo oo oo ow oo nn nn no oo on ou un un un no nu nu wo wu on no nu nw uo uo uw o oo ou on no no nn oo on ow oo uo uw uo nn nn no wn wn wu no nn nn uo uu un o oo on ou no nu nu oo oo on uo uu un no no no wo wo ww wo nn nw nu un un uu n on ow oo nn nn no on ou ou uo un uu no nu nn wo wu on no no nn no uo uw uo o oo on no no no oo oo on oo un uw uo nn nn nu wn wn wu no nu nu uo uu un o u ou ou no nu nn oo ou ow uo uo un no no nw no wo wu wo nn nn no uo un uu o n ow oo nn nn nu on on ou uo uu uu no nu nn wo wu on no no nw uo un uw uo n w on no no nw no oo ow oo un un uo nn nn nu wo wn wu no nu nn uo uo un o o n ou no nu nn oo ou on uo uo uw no no no no on ww wo nn nn nu un uu uu o u u oo nn nn nu oo on ou uo uu un no nu nn wo wo on no no nw no uo un uo n n no no no no on ow oo un un uu nn nn nu wo wu wu no nu nn uo uu uw o o n no nu nn oo oo on uo uo uw uo no nw no on on wo nn nn nu uo un un o u u nn nn nu oo ou ou uo uu un no nu nn wo wo ww no no no no un uw uu n .n no nw no on on oo un un uu no nn nu wo wu on no nu nn uo uo un uo o w nu nn oo oo ow uo uo uw uo nn no no wn wn wu nn nn nu uo uu uu o u n nn nu oo ou on uo uu un no no nn wo wo ww wo no no no un uw uo o n u no no on on ou un un uu no nu nu wo wu wn no nu nn uo uo un o n w nn oo oo ow oo uo uw uo nn nn no wn wn wu nn nn nu uo uu uu o o n nu oo ou on uo uu un no no no wo wo ww wo no nw no un un uo n u u no on on ou uo un uu no nu nn wo wu on no nu nn uo uo uw o o n oo oo ow oo un uw uo nn nn nu wn wn wu no nn nu uo uu un o u n oo ou ou uo uo un no no no no wo ww wo nn nw no un un uu n n u on on oo uo uu uu no nu nn wo wu on no no nn uo uo uw uo o w oo ow uo un un uo nn nn nu on on wu no nu nu uo uu un o u n ou on uo uo uw no no no no wo ww wo nn nn no un un uu o n u on ou un uu un no nu nn wo wu wn no no nw uo uo uw uo n w ow oo uo un uu nn nn nu wo wn wu no nu nn uo uu un o o n on uo uu .mm uo no wm1 no on ww wo nn nn nu un un uu o u u enewnenseen on wen-neeuon on on. gene. a. oesRuse. essences on use announeu uennnuenRunenweneneon mesons. uses unneu. Inouuueo no unsunne o. n. o. wo eon nogaono eennennee Aeeeeeoev. 11mm The author wishes to express his appreciation and gratitude to the following persons who assisted in the conduct of this study. The Director of the University High School in 1963, Mr. Eloy Cintan-Nedina, the teachers and students of that school in 1963-64 for assisting in the application of the Close Procedure to some of the selected passages. The Director of Muflos Rivera Shool, Hrs. Herminia Garcia-Stash“, the teachers and students of elementary and intermediate grades, 1963-64, for assisting in Close grading some of the passages in this study. Fellow workers who assisted in conducting readability tests be- fore and after the final formula was established. Hrs. Camen R. Gonsdles, Secretary of the Educational Aids and Information Division, who assisted with the tables and made the final typing of this thesis. Director Roberto Ruyke and Assistant Director Luis A. Suites, who granted the necessary leave and extra time for the pursuance of the study. Doctors Erwin P. _ Bettinghaus and David R. Berlo, under whose inspiring leadership and guidance this work was succeafully completed. lay any other persons who in some way helped in the realisation of this study and whose names are not mentioned here forgive the in- voluntary omission. xi Introduction In 1944 the Agricultural Extension Service of the University of Puerto Rico established the policy of editing farm and home publications to make them simple enough to be understood by the great majority of farm dwellers. in the Island. Other extension services in Latin America have followed a similar path. As a result, the old volminous, quasi- technical bulletin gave way to simple leaflets, folders and circulars, clear in style, easy to read and cheaper to produce. However, this policy has had its drawbacks. The editors have done a conscientious job of simplification of written materials, but they have not had a reliable yardstick to measure the reading level of publications in order to match them as well as possible to their different audiences. They cannot accurately tell whether a publication is somewhat difficult for. functional illiterates or whether another one may seem insulting to a better educated audience because of its oversimplicity. For that reason the writer decided to search for a readability for- mula or index that could, with reasonable accuracy and within accepted limits, assist in rating popular extension publications in Spanish. A review of the literature, presented in Chapter II, shows that no fouaula has been reported in the scientific literature which is suitable to the needs of extension workers in Latin America. So an attempt was made to adapt a simple, easy to use English formula into a fan: for the Spanish language. Such a formula would provide the needed tool for extension workers, and upon further adaptation could be used for rating more dif- ficult materials. xii CHAPTER! MOPLITBRATUREANDTEEORETICALBAWND CHAPTER I This chapter includes a review of the literature and theoretical background, a description of the measuring instrument and a statement of the general hypothesis. ‘gggigg‘ggflgiterature and Theoretical Background In the United States of America, readability studies date as far back as 1923, when Lively and Presseyldeveloped a method of measuring quantitatively the reading difficulty of written.materials. Earlier in- terest in this matter goes back to the turn of the century (l898)2, al- though the actual application to education did not begin until the nine- teen twenties.3 From that time to the present thirty six formulas and revisions of formulas have been put to use, each depending on different criteria to measure reading difficulty. Vocabulary frequency is one of the most widely used criteria. In 1957 Powers, Sumner and Xearl4 recalculated four readability for- mulas, namely Dale-Chall, Flesch, Farr-Jenkins-Paterson and Cunning. 1 Jeanne S. Chall, Readability, an appraisal g; research‘ggg appli- cation (Ohio State University, 1958) pp. 36, 42, 48, 156. 2F.‘H. Raeding, Eaufigheitsworterbuch‘ggg deutschen Sprache (Vocabulary List of the German Language , 1898). 3cn.11, op. cit. p. 153. R. D. Powers, w; A. Sumner and B. E. Xearl, A Recalculation of Four Adult Readability Formulas, Journal g§,Educational Psychology, II, No. 2 (February 1958). Their objectives were to l) modernize the formulas to take advantage of the more recently administered tests which should reflect some of the changes in pupil reading abilities between 1926 and 1950, and 2) to esta- blish formulas which are derived from identical materials measured by identical mathematical operations and reported without adjustment. In 1963 Danielson and Bryan5 developed a new readability formula for computer analysis. It uses two statistics that computers can find rapid- ly and easily, namely, average (mean) number of characters per space (equivalent to words), and average (mean) number of characters per sen- tence. This formula is less powerful than the two most widely used-~Dale- Chall and Flesche-but it is about on a par with Farr-Jenkins-Paterson's adaptation of the Flesch formula.6 Regarding the Spanish language, most of the work done has dealt with word frequency lists. In 1920 Keniston7 published "Common.Words in Spanish", a list of words by frequency-rank. His sources were mainly dramas. Cartwright8 made a study in 1925 of the vocabularies of eleven Spanish grammars and fifteen Spanish reading texts. Jameisen9 published 5W. A. Danielson and S. D. Bryan, Computer Automation of Two Read- ability Formulas, Journalism Quarterly, XL, No. 2 (February 1958) p. 99. 6 Danielson and Bryan, op. cit. p. 101. 7 8 . C. W. Cartwright, A Study of the Vocabularies of Eleven Spanish Grammars and Fifteen Spanish Reading Texts, Modern Langgage Journal (October 1925) p. 321. . 9Elsie J. Jameisen, List of Words Compiled from Ten Spanish Grammars, Modern Language Journal (March 1924). H. Keniston, Common Words in Spanish, Hispania (1920) pp. 85-96. a list of words compiled by comparing the vocabularies of ten Spanish grammars in 1924. An interesting study was conducted and a list of words published by the New York Society for the Experimental Study of Education. They studied a considerable number of elementary Spanish textbooks and selec- ted the most common words.10 In 1940, Eaton11 introduced a semantic count in word listing, a new and important factor, in her book A Semantic Freguency‘Ligg'fgg English, Eggggh,'§ggmgg'g§g Spanish. Horas and Roth12 published a useful list of Spanish words selected by experienced teachers, and called "Pequefio Vocabulario, a list of two thousand Spanish words arranged in logical groups of sentence building in the first two years." Buchanan13 published his _A_ 9533114 Spanish £313}. B29}; in _12_2_9_. It was based on 1,200,000 ordinary words from 40 different literary and technical sources, out of which a 6,072-word list of most commonly used words was prepared. Spaulding14 developed two formulas to rate Spanish writing. His first formula is based on vocabulary frequency using Buchanan's word list, together with average sentence length. His second ' 10N’ew‘York Society for the Experimental Study of Education, List of Words Most Frequently Used in Spanish Texts, §!3§22,(New‘York, November 1, 1926). 11Helen S. Eaton, A;Semantic Frequency List £25 English, French, German and Spanish (University of Chicago Press, 1940) pp. 1 - 214; 371 " 427s 12M. S. Buchanan, A Graded Spanish Word Book, (Toronto, university of Toronto Press, 1929, 3d ed. 1941), p. 7. 3Buchanan, op. cit. 14Seth Spaulding, Two Formulas for Estimating Reading Difficulty in Spanish, Educational Research Bulletin, XXX (May 16, 1951), pp. 117 - 24. -4- formula takes into account average sentence length and vocabulary densi- ty. Other word lists were prepared in Cuba by Aguayols, in Chile by Finals, in Mexico by Boder and by Céspedes16 in Panama. Most of these works and the one to follow are considered incomplete or have obvious limitations. Word lists, for instance, have to be re- vised periodically to try to keep them up to date. This revision is money-and-time consuming and it never works perfectly since language is as dynamic as any aspect of life. Moreover, such lists do not apply to all countries speaking a language because of the many regionalisms, neo- logisms, and idioms peculiar to each country. These lists would be more useful if frequently supplemented with lists of idioms, neologisms, technical terms and analogical creations. The Superior Educational Council of the University of Puerto Rico17 published a Spanish vocabulary count in 1952. It incorporated many more samples from contemporary publications including press, radio, school texts, religious literature, written compositions, and oral conversation of children and adults. They counted 7,066,637 words, with 20,542 lexi- cal units, 62,288 inflection forms and a total of 83,430 different words in order of rank, alphabetical order and listed them in three volumes according to frequency. The sources were grouped under three titles: 15T. Casanova, Educational Psychology and Some Aspects pf Education ip Latin.America, (San Juan, P. R., Imprenta Venezuela, 1934). 16T. R. Céspedes, Investigacion Acerca g3 las Palabras Usadas pp Castellano,(Panama, Star and Herald Press, 1929). 1 7Superior Educational Council of the University of Puerto Rico, Recuento‘gg Vocabulario Espanol (Spanish Vocabulary Count), (Rio Piedras, University of Puerto Rico, 1952). vocabulary of expression, vocabulary of recognition and vocabulary based on judgment of different authors. The second one includes Buchanan's word list. As stated by Dr. Rodriguez-Sou18 , even though this word count is the most complete and has been very useful in teaching Spanish as a vernacular language, it has the limitations previously mentioned of ob- solescence with time and lack of local terms peculiar to other countries. The only work reported about readability formulas for Spanish is Spaulding's. The two formulas reported are meant for use by persons who know Spanish as a second language. "As they now stand, the formulas rate Spanish passages according to relative difficulty for persons who know Spanish as a second language. The equations are somewhat less ac- curate for native Spanish speaking persons because of the nature of the criterion and because of the cognate20 "19 rating factor. Spaulding's formulas have been applied in informal studies to rate several types of publications. However the writer does not consider them a reliable measure of reading difficulty for Latin American publi- cations because of the aforementioned limitations. Because of these limitations, and in order to avoid formulas using word lists, it was decided to attempt to derive a formula for rating Spanish writing from an English formula. 18Superior Educational Council of the university of P. R., op. cit. 19Seth Spaulding, op. cit. p. 24. OCognate refers to any word found in each of the frequency value groups as arranged by Spaulding for his study. IH 11 33 0f Description pf the Measuring Instrument The measuring instrument consists of the application of Farr- Jenkins-Paterson and Flesch Reading Ease indices to 200 English passages and the corresponding 200 Spanish translations, and correlation of both the English and Spanish ratings and the variables used in each index. The Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient will be used for this second operation. The Close Procedure will be used to rate the Spanish passages as an approximate guide and cross-check with the indices. Not less than 25 persons will be given the test for each passage. These subjects will be selected at random from different levels of schooling, including studetts from several schools and adults from varying educational and economic levels. The Farr-Jenkins-Paterson Reading Ease Index utilizes the number of one-syllable words per 100 words (nosw), and average sentence length (sl)--in words--for its variables. The regression equation is as follows: F. J. P. Reading Ease Index - 1.599 nosw - 1.015 s1 - 31.517. The Flesch formula uses average sentence length and number of syllables per 100 words (wl), as follows: Flesch New Reading Ease Index - 206.835 - 1.015 sl - .846 wl. Both indices use the same scale of categories to determine level of reading: O 29--very difficult 30 - 50--difficult 51 - 59--fairly difficult 6O - 69--standard 7O - 79--fairly easy 80 - 89--easy 90 - up--very easy General Expothesis It was hypothesised that one of the two indices mentioned above could be adapted with relative accuracy and a formula derived to rate Spanish writing; and that upon further refinement, this Spanish formula could be used to rate publications in other Latin.American countries. CHAPTER II DESIGN AND PROCEDURE I? I: to th ti CHAPTER II Messm This chapter includes the design of the study and the procedure fol- lowed in order to attain the expected results. Design.--The present study is an attempt to derive a formula for rating Spanish writing by applying two readability'indices to English and equivalent Spanish passages and correlating the corresponding English and Spanish ratings and the variables used in each formula. It was predicted that these correlations would yield either correction fac- .tors for the English indices to develop a Spanish formula, or an idea of the discrepancies between the variables which could lead to a modifica- tion of one or more of such variables to obtain the proposed results. The dependent variable is the "reading ease index" as classified in five categories. The independent variables are "average sentence length” (s1) and number of one-syllable words per hundred words (nosw) for the Farr-Jenkins-Paterson index; and s1 and "number of syllables per hundred words" (wl) for the Flesch index. The formulas for these indices are as follows: F. J. P. ' 1.599nosw - 1.015sl - 31.517 Flesch - 206.835 - 1.015sl - .846wl Reading case categories for both indices are: Easy: 80--89 Fairly Easy: 70--79 Standard: 60--69 -10- Fairly Difficult: 51--59 Difficult: 30--50 Very Difficult: O--29 In order to work with the passages a certain order had to be estab- lished. This was done by grouping the corresponding English and Spanish passages by reading ease categories, in accordance with the ratings for the English passages. Two such ordered groupings were used, one with the F J P ratings and another with the Flesch scores. After obtaining the ratings for the English and Spanish passages, the Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficient was to be used to correlate the ratings of the English and Spanish passages, as well as the corresponding variable counts. The correlations, together with the scores, would give a reasonable estimate of the concordance or discrep- ancy of the reading ease determinations of the Spanish passages and their English versions and thus of the indices for rating Spanish. Procedure.--Two hundred lOO-word English passages and their 200 Spanish equivalents were selected at random from several sources. The writer selected the passages and performed the variable counts, and two other qualified persons cross-checked some of the counts to assure greater accuracy. The passages were arranged in five tables according to the reading ease categories, taking into consideration the ratings for the English versions. One-syllable word counts (nosw), average sentence length (s1) and number of syllables per hundred words (wl) were determined for each English and Spanish passage. Farr-Jenkins-Paterson scores were obtained with s1 and wl. Again, ratings were obtained for both English and Spanish. -11- Appendix A includes samples of English passages and their Spanish equivalents. Tables 5 to 9 in Appendix B show passage number, number of words per passage, variable-counts, ratings for each category, and the Flesch ratings for each passage for purposes of comparison. In order to have a reliable measure to cross-check the Spanish ratings, the Close Procedure1 was used. Every fifth word was deleted and mdmeographed copies prepared of each passage. The writer adminis- tered the Close tests to students ranging from third grade elementary school to college seniors, and to out-of-school adults, trying to metch ‘the passages to the subjects' schooling.‘ Students came from schools of the medium-high economic bracket and of the next to the lowest economic level. The means of at least 25 and not more than 40 tests were report- ed as the Close score for each passage. There are simple Spanish words that have twice or more times as many syllables as their English versions, and hard or difficult words that are shorter than their English counterparts. This produces a high variability in syllabic content which does not correspond with reading ease. It also yields a very high discrepancy between the ratings for English and Spanish passages when this variable is considered, as in the case of the Flesch index. A new attempt was made with this index by rearranging the passages in five tables according to the scores of 1The Close Procedure consists of deleting, say, every fifth word from a passage or passages to be tested. The test is administered to subjects who must fill-in the deleted words. The score of a subject on a passage is equal to the number of his proposed words that match the original ones deleted. The passage with the highest score is considered the most readable, etc., pending the outcome of statistical tests of the significance of the differences observed. -12- the English versions. Similar results were obtained as can be seen in the tables in Appendix E. Extremely difficult passages yielded negative ratings with both P J P and Plesch indices, mucho more so in Spanish. Very easy passages were not as sensitive to the formulas. Therefore these two categories were not taken into account in the final computations because they ten- ded to vary the correlations, yielding misleading results. Moreover, the purpose of the study was to derive a formula for testing easy and standard publications, not extremely easy or unreadables ones. As a result, the final computations and correlations were made with only 150 passages, since it was very difficult to secure representative samples ' of passages in English and Spanish from other sources. Upon recommendation of Dr. Erwin Bettinghausl, the first variable for the P J P index, "nosw", was modified by adding the number of two- syllable words to the monosyllables, thus making it "number of one-and- two-syllable words per hundred words" (1 & 2sw). With this modifica- tion a new tabulation was made, including 20 passages in each category. The means of the ratings, variables nosw, l a 2sw and s1 for the P J P, and s1 and wl for Flesch were obtained for the English in order to correlate these scores with those of the Spanish passages for each level of reading ease. Pearson Product Honent correlations were obtain- ed in all cases before and after the modification of the P J P index. 1 Associate Professor, Department of Comnication, College of Cos-mication Arts, Michigan State University, E. Lansing. -13- Several months later another test was made with the cooperation of other coworkers. Similar results were obtained. Finally, the modified F J P index was expressed as follows: MFJP ‘ 1.599 (1 & 23w) - 1.01581 - 31.517 -14- MR 111 RESULTS CHAPTER III Results This chapter includes the results of the administration of the Flesch and the Parr-Jenkins-Paterson Indices to English passages and their Spanish equivalents, the modification of the F J P index by alte- ring one variable, and the applicability of the modified P J P index to Spanish. was performed with 150 English passages and their Spanish equivalents, grouped in the five reading ease categories according to their F J P ratings. Pearson correlations of the means of the English and Spanish ratings and the variables of the F J P index yielded the following results: nosw: r I -.891 sl: r - +.956 Ratings: r - +.772 The first variable, number of one-syllable words per hundred words (nosw) showed a tendency to increase gradually with difficulty in Spanish. This was particularly true in extremely difficult passages, characterised by long, hard-to-understand sentences. These sentences are full of prepositional phrases and subordinate clauses which begin with monosyllabic prepositions, pronouns, and articles, besides a pro- fusion of articles used otherwise. This increase does not seem so -16- pronounced as the decrease-~with difficulty-~of nosw in English. The average sentence length (sl) seeme to be smaller in the easy categories for Spanish than it is in English. However, as difficulty increases and sentences become more complex, Spanish sentences become equal to or longer than their English counterparts. TABLE I DIFFERENCES IN MEAN NOSE AND "AVERAGE SENTENCE LENGTH" BETWEEN ENGLISH AND SPANISH IN THE READING EASE CAIEGOEIES ‘Qggggory : ggggn nosw : Hggg_sl :8 anish :En lish :Difference: S anish: En lishiDifference Ealy : 39.41 g 78.15 : 38.74 i 7.92 : 8.29 i» 0.37 Pairly ; 40.2 2 75.9 E 35.7 E 14.36 2 15.36 E 1.00 Easy : : : : : : Standard : 40.4 i 72.3 § 31.9 § 17.1 § 18.1 § 1.0 Fairly : 40.2 i 67.4 i 27.2 i 20.6 i 21.8 i 1.2 Difficult : : : : : : Difficult : 43.6 E 59.9 § 16.3 E 24.8 § 24.0 E -0.6 The drop in ratings with increased difficulty for the Spanish pas- sages is not proportionate to that of the English ones. However, the most significant fact is that as passages become more difficult, the differences between the English and Spanish ratings become smaller. That is, as the formula becomes less sensitive, and thus less reliable, the ratings seem to come closer together. The following table shows the differences. -17- TABLE 2 DIFFERENCES IN MEAN F J P RATINGS BETWEEN CATEGORIES AND BETWEEN SPANISH AND ENGLISH RATINGS IN EACH CATEGORY : : : : : Differences Category :Hban PJP:Differences:Nban PJP :Differences: Between Spanish :English :Between :Spanish :Between ° and English :Ratings :Categories :Ratings :Categories Rating Easy : 85.082 Q Q 23.506 Q Q 61.576 : : 10.419 : : 5.337 : Fairly : 74.632 : : 18.169 : : 56.494 Easy : : 9.002 : : 2.395 : Standard : 65.661 : : 15.774 : : 49.887 : : 11.517 : : 3.936 : Fairly : 54.138 : : 11.817 Q Q 42.296 Difficult: : 14.185 : : -0.648 : Difficult: 39.959 : : 12.596 Q : 27.363 Tables 5 to 9 in Appendix 8 show details of the P J P test, rat- ings and variables, both for Spanish and English. Flesch tests are also shown for comparison. This seems to indicate that the formula as such does not apply to Spanish to predict reliable scores. For this reason it was necessary to cross-check the ratings of the Spanish passages with the Close Pro- cedure. The average Close scores were .738 for the easy category, .720 for the fairly easy one, .684 for standard, .650 for the fairly difficult, and .616 for the difficult categories. This indicates that the English and Spanish passages are apparently correlated as far as reading ease is concerned, but this is shown neither by the P J P nor by the Flesch index. The last columns of Tables 5 to 9, Appendix 3, show the Average Close scores for the Spanish passages. -13- gh_e_ M Mn-Due to high discrepancies observed in the origi- nal simultaneous test, 100 English passages were rearranged in five reading ease categories according to their Flesch ratings, followed by their Spanish equivalents (See Tables 10 to 14, Appendix B). Pearson Product Hbment Correlations were obtained between the English and Spa- nish ratings and variables, as follows: Flesch Ratings: r . .991 s1: r - .994 wl: r ' .994 These high correlations indicate that the Spanish ratings and vari- ables varied in accord with the English ones, that is, as difficulty in- creased so did the ratings. However, there was no correspondence be- tween the English and Spanish ratings. For instance the mean rating for the easy category in English.was 86.225 (easy) and for Spanish, 37.052 (difficult). The mean for the difficult category were 42.083 for English and -l.639 for Spanish. The following table shows the dis- crepancies between ratings and variables. TABLE 3 "DIFFERENCES BETWEEN MEAN FLESCH.RATINGS AND VARIABLES IN ENGLISH AND SPANISH ' : : Fairly: __ Easy_ : Fairly Easy: Standard Difficult :Difficult S Ratings 86. 38. 37. 05: 74. 43: 28. 17: 63. 85: 13. 94: 55. 41: 7. 69 :42 08:-1. 64 :1 11.30311.10§17.51f 16.79f 21.84321.77f 26.87327.51§31.90§30.00 wl 129.10:187.80:13580:191.10:142.80:2€D.20:l46.80m.70:156.40212.20 The differences were generally higher in the very easy and extremely difficult passages. This index had to be discarded also. T_h_e_ Modified 1.5.2. Mgr-As indicated previously a modification of the Farr-Jenkins-Paterson Index was attempted by altering the vari- able nosw. Two-syllable words were added to monosyllables making the variable '1 8 st‘. The administration of this index to 100 passages arranged according to their English scores is shown in Tables 15 to 19, Appendix B. Pearson correlations were obtained as follows: nosw and 1 8 2sw: r i .941 sl: r - .923 - Ratingh: r . .996‘ A comparison of the means of the variables and the ratings per catego- ries is shown in the following table. TABLE 4 COMPARISON OF MEAN PJP VARIABLES AND RATINGS FOR SPANISH AND ENGLISH AND AIDNG READING EASE CATEGORIES 73.01Q 65.64Q67.88Q 54.38:56.27:41.50:47.64 : : : : Fairly : : Easy : Fairly Easy: Standard : Difficult :Difficult Means : En :S an.:En : S an.: En :8 :En :8 :En :8 an. nosw 8: : : : ' : : : : : : l 8 2e: 77.8 :75.5 :75.8 : 73.5 : 72.0 :72.3 : 64.8 :65.1 :61.2 :64.8 :1 Q 7.92Q 7.36:14.8 : 13.5 : 17.7 :16.7 : 17.4 :15.8 :24.5 :23.3 Ratings 84.99:81.66:74.67 The differences between ratings were insignificant except in the difficult category. Yet this difference does not take either mean rating out of the difficult category. -20- The new or modified index has the following formula: MFJP - 1.599 (1 8 2sw) -l.OlSsl--31.517 This modified version seems to apply fairly well in rating average Spanish writing. Further tests by fellow workers have proved this. It must be kept in.mind that due to linguistic variations the ratings may be off one category, either above or below the obtained rating. That is, a standard passage may very well be fairly easy or fairly difficult. Generally variations are not so pronounced and scores fall within the reading case categories. Q At the same time, this index is not reliable for rating very easy passages (score over 90) or very difficult ones (score below 30). One of the reasons is the monosyllabic count mentioned before. Mbreover, passages with a higher-than-usual two syllable count should be substi- tuted because they may rate higher than they really are. The propor- tion of monosyllables to two-syllable words should range from 3:1 to 3:2 for reliable results. Summagy.--The tests conducted with the English versions of the Farr-Jenkins-Paterson and Flesch indices show that these formulas as such do not apply to the Spanish language. Linguistic differences ac- count for incompatibility of the variables nosw, s1 and wl, producing unreliable results. Q The modified Farr-Jenkins-Paterson index has shown its applica- bility in rating Spanish writing, with the exception of very easy and 'very difficult passages. In these the index loses its sensitivity and the results are misleading. Moreover, there are insignificant varia- tions as to the ratings. These may cause a score to be one category -21- range. Even though this is true in English, it may be somewhat more so in Spanish. CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION , .{ IIIIIIII ll! CHAPTER IV Discussion This chapter includes discussion, conclusions and suggestions for further research. The results of the tests seem.to indicate that the Flesch and Farr-Jenkins-Paterson Reading Ease Indices as originally designed cannot be applied in rating Spanish writing. The Pearson correlations obtained from the English and Spanish ratings and variables were very high for the Flesch Index, showing that as the English ratings go down--that is, as the passages become more difficult to read--the Spanish passages vary accordingly. However, the variation in Spanish increases with difficulty. Spanish words have on the average one and one-half to twice as many syllables as their English equivalents. While the English ratings averaged 86.382 for the easy category, the Spanish mean.was 37.053; the means for the fairly easy category were 74.41 and 28.17: the means for the standard ratings were 63.85 and 13.94; the fairly difficult ratings averaged 55.41 and 7.69: and the difficult category had means of 42.08 and -1.64. This is apparently due to the fact that the number-of syllables per 100 words (wl) increases with difficulty at a higher rate in Spanish. While this variable goes up from.the easy to the difficult category from 129.05 to 156.40 in English, in Spanish it goes up from 187.75 to 212.20, with instances of 167 in English and 252 in Spanish. Such discrepancies produce ratings of Spanish writing that are far from reliable. .I III II 7' All 7 ll 4' w ill II. I... I'll-ll. The original application of the Farr-Jenkins-Paterson Index as de- signed for the English language failed to produce reliable results when applied to Spanish because apparently there are twice as many monosyl- lables in English in the easy and fairly easy categories, and the pro- portion goes down to a 6:4 ratio in the difficult category. In other ‘words, the one-syllable count is supposed to be a measure of reading ease, and in Spanish it is apparently inversely so. Difficult passages seem to have a larger prOportion of monosyllables than easy ones when compared to English. This is due to a greater prOportion of preposi- tional phrases, compound and complex sentences, relative pronouns, arti- cles and conjunctions in difficult Spanish passages. Most of these pre- positions, pronouns, articles and conjunctions are monosyllables. Of course, difficult words increase in the same or greater proportion. The shorter average sentence length in Spanish in easy to standard writing seems to counterbalance the higher monosyllable count in English. The reverse occurs beyond the standard into the very diffi- cult category. The increase in monosyllables in difficult Spanish writing is accompanied by an increase in sentence length. This seems to be greater than for equivalent English passages. In order to better understand the differences in retings'between the two languages, particularly when the Flesch Index was used, the writer considers worthwhile mentioning some of the linguistic diffe- rences between Spanish and English. Special characteristics 91 m m muse-Bow in spoken and written language Spanish has distinct desinences (endings) for the masculine singular (generally -o) and the feminine singular -25- (generally -a) genders, as well as for the plural (-os or -es for mas- culine and -as for feminine). This reduces the need for continuous use of articles, pronouns and/or prepositional phrases to specify gender and number. The same is true with the verb. In almost all moods and tenses, for each person, singular and plural, the verb has a different ending. This makes unnecessary the use of the noun or pronoun to esta- blish person and number. Both characteristics account for shorter sentences in average Spanish writings as far as number of words is concerned. This can be seen in Tables 5 to 8, where the variable 81 (average sentence length) is always smaller on the average in Spanish than in English. Only in Table 5--the difficult category--does this variable have a higher mean for Spanish than for English. Substantivisation is more frequent in Spanish than in English, that is, using a verb-~most frequently the infinitive-~as a noun, like "hablar es més fécil que escribir" (to speak is easier than to write). This is one of the central characteristics of the Spanish language. The same is done with adjectives, i.e., "el‘ygygg de esta tela es mfis intenso" (the ggggglof this cloth is more intense), and propositional phrases, i.e., "en limpio" (in clean, meaning redoing) or "en serio" (in serious, meaning seriously). The infinitive is used without the equivalent of the preposition "to", which is understood. This also ac- counts for shorter sentences in Spanish. The infinitive is also used extensively with an article, e.g., "e1 vivir" (literally, the ”to live", meaning the life or way of life), "108 quereres" (the "to loves" or the lovings, meaning the love affairs) ~26- and "los andares" (the "walkings", for the roamings). Notice the plura- lization of the infinitive as if it were a noun. The same is done fre- quently with complete clauses, i.e., "e1 no 86 qué" (the I don't know ‘what). All these usages tend to reduce the number of words to express complete thoughts or ideas. In English substantivization is a little different. There is a tendency in English, as in French, to show less modification by gender and number and to have words remain invariable. Hewever, the distribu- tion of substantives in masculine, feminine and neuter in accordance with a logical criterion-~masculine and feminine for animated beings and neuter for inanimated objects or abstract nouns-~constitutes an ex- ceptional case among modern languages that mix and confuse logical with grammatical distribution. Moreover, the scant generic variation in English forces the writer to use auxiliary words to distinguish sex when necessary, e.g. , sportsman and sportswoman, male panther and female panther. Redundangy‘ig Spanish.--Number is indicated in almost every part of speech throughout the sentence, That is, the article, the adjetive, the pronoun and the verb must conform in desinence with the noun as to number, and the article, pronoun and adjetive must conform as to gender. You say "the pretty girl is good" which in Spanish becomes "1.; mchachg bonitgyes buena". In plural you have to add an "s" to the article, noun and adjetives, namely "l££,muchachgg_bonitgg son buengg". In general, it can be said that substantivization is easier, but .less frequent in English than in Spanish, e.g., "to stop", "a stop", -27- "a stopwatch". This, however, will force the reader to read in context to avoid confusion; e.g., "U.S.‘ggyg to block Cuba" can be "0.8. decide to block Cuba" or "An American strategy to block Cuba". Theflyggbgl structure.--Spanish has almost all the cases found ori- ginally in Latin. While English has only the nominative, genitive, ob- jective and vocative cases, Spanish, as o t he r Romance languages, also has the accusative (direct object), dative (indirect object) abla- tive and the predicate nominative for the verb "to be", but no geni- tive. The infinitive, the present and past participles, and the gerund can be either nouns, adjetives or "verbal" adverbs. In periphrastic conjugation the verb constantly assimilates prepositions, pronouns, adverbs, etc., and a host of nominal roots are verbalised in a more or less definite manner. This causes a great deal of confusion to the foreign reader who must read in context to obtain the intended meaning. Yet it is a very effective way of shortening sentences greatly. The predominance of the verbal structure has advantages and dis- advantages. In the first place it assists in reducing the length of the sentence, making the system more complex but more exact or precise, expressing not only action but also simultaneously time, mood, aspect, number, and sometimes even gender. The nominal structure would need many more words to express, as it is achieved by conjugation of the verb, all the aforementioned functions. For instance, "cantibamos" (we were singing), "y se nos advirti6" (and we were admonished), "que nos arrestarian" (that we would be arrested), or "aconsej6semelo" (he gave this advice to her or to him on my behalf). -28- {.7177 From the standpoint of style this would cause an excessive abun- dance of prepositions, conjunctions and relative pronouns, which.may' produce a disagreeable effect on the reader. However it has the advan- tage of avoiding excessive schematisation resulting from the abuse of the noun in.modern Spanish. For these reasons and for the sake of sim- plicity, a compromise between the nominal and verbal structure is recoms mended, particularly when writing for the average reader. Verb conjugation is another complex matter in Spanish. Every mood, tense, person, and simple and compound form of a verb has a different ending. This may be a disadvantage to the Saxon student of Spanish, but it represents a great savings in pronouns, auxiliary verbs, and some- times in articles and prepositions. For instance, "I shall love" be- comes "amaré", and "I should have been loved", "habriaseme amado". Passive voices are rarely used in Spanish, except to give variety to writing and to express subjective and objective action, as 'amar y ser amado' (to love and to be loved). Most of the time the English pas- sive is translated with a "reflexive" pronoun preceding the impersonal active voice. Syllabification.--In Spanish, syllables are determined by the va-. riation of the sound of consonants in the mouth, that is, by a sound or group of sounds that constitute one single phonic nucleus between two successive depressions of the voice. Thus the English monosyllable "spasm” would have three syllables in Spanish. There are many more differences between English and Spanish, such as endings which have one or more extra syllables in Spanish, as in "conference" and "conferencigfl For these reasons there seems to be compensation between the discrepancies of the variables nosw and s1 both languages, excepting in the very easy and extremely difficult categories. The greater number of syllables in Spanish is counter- balanced by the lesser number of words. It must be kept in mind that words of Saxon origin are shorter than Latin ones, and Spanish comes almost wholly from.Latin, with hardly any'words from.Anglo-Saxon or other Teuton roots. So, many Spanish words which are longer are not necessary more difficult. - 30- Conclusion The number of one-syllable words in the easy categories in English can be balanced in Spanish by adding the two-syllable count to the first variable. Any difference in this variable is inversely proportional, and thus is counterbalanced by, the shorter average sentence length for the easy categories in Spanish. Therefore, the modified Farr-Jenkins- Paterson Reading Ease Index can be expected to provide satisfactory scores for average Spanish writing. This index has the following re- gression equation: Q MFJP - 1.599 (1 8 2sw) - 1.015sl - 31.517 The reading ease categories are the same as for the Flesch and original Farr-Jenkins-Paterson indices, namely: Easy: 80 - 89 Fairly Easy: 70 - 79 Standard: 60 - 69 Fairly Difficult: 51 - 59 Difficult: 30 - 50 Very Difficult: 0 - 29 To rate any publication the reader should pick representative lOO-word samples, preferably at regular page intervals, say every fifth or tenth page depending on the length of the publication. The longer the writing, the larger the number of samples that should be taken to assure a more representative set of passages. Next, one-and-two-syllable counts and average sentence length.must be determined for each passage for use in the formula. The average or mean score of all the passages will be the MFJP rating for the publication. -31- Table 20 at the end of Appendix B will save the reader a great deal of time and effort. It will determineapproximate reading ease values for each passage. Whenever the variable counts are not listed in this table, the proper thing to do if one is interested in obtaining a rating is to apply the formula. It should be kept in mind that, due to linguistic variations, the ratings for Spanish passages may be one category off those obtained through other methods, like the Close Procedure. Ratings falling close to the border of a category can very well belong to the next closer one. Passages with unusually high two-syllable counts will yield un- representative ratings and should be avoided while selecting sample passages. They tend to increase the first variable which is a measure of reading ease. The reader should note also that the modified FJP index has shown in this study and in further tests that is not sensitive in extremely easy and extremely difficult cases. It will give fairly reliable re- sults in the easy to the difficult reading ease categories. Readability formulas are rough estimates of the reading level of any material. They only measure one aspect of writing, namely style, and only one aspect of style, that is, difficulty, and then imperfectly so. Moreover, formulas are not measures of good style. A low read- ability score may show that a piece of writing is poor, but a good readability rating does not necessarily make a passage good in style. Moreover, writing against formulas produces dull, choppy text which may reduce or fail to produce reader interest. One should 'write : -32- keeping in mind the best principles of organisation, sequence, simplici- ty and human interest. Formulas should be used to check writing, one should not write to meet their standards. Suggestions for Further Research In order to develop an acceptable readability formula using a voca- bulary count, it is respectfully suggested that a study be designed and performed using the Spanish vocabulary count prepared by Dr. Ismael Rodriguez-Ban mentioned on page 6 of Chapter I. Following a procedure similar to that of Spaulding (see footnote of page 4), or the Close procedure, or the MFJP index, a set of passages of known reading level should be selected for each category. These passages should be tested by, say, 100 judges, having them classify the passages in five piles in order of reading difficulty. The variables for developing this formula could be average senten- ce length and vocabulary frequency value. This frequency value could be determined by assigning a value to every 1000 words in the frequency list. For instance the first 500 words in the list would have a value of 5; the next 500, a value of 10. From there on, every thousand word group would have a number corresponding to its first two digits, i.e., 20 for the second thousand, 30 for the third and so on until the first 10,000 words are covered. Any word listed beyond the first 10,000, together with words not listed, would be given a value of 100. By means of computation of the rankings of the passages by the judges, and a correlation of the medians in rankings and the arithmetic means, a reading ease scale could be determined. Then a regression -33- equation might be developed taking into account this scale and the aforementioned variables, average sentence length and vocabulary fre- quency value. APPENDIX.A SAMPLES 0F RASSAGES ENGLISH & SPANISH VERSIONS GLOZE SCORES FOR SOME SPANISH PASSAGES Source: I Wonder Why "See this glass", said Mary. What's in it? Jack and the other chil- dren looked at the glass in Mary's hand. Jack did not see anything in the glass. The other children did not see anything in the glass. "Some-Q thing is in the glass", Mary said. "Look at my experiment". "This is the way to do my experiment", Mary said. "I put water in this dish. I do it this way". "I put the glass into the water in the dish", Mary said. "I do it this way". "‘See", Mary said. "Something is in the glass. Water cannot come into it". F.J.P. I 89.095 Easy No. of words I 101 nosw I 80 Flesch I 90.413 Very Easy s1 I 7.2 wl I 129 Spanish "Miren este vaso", dijo Maria. zQué hay en 817 Santiago y los otros ninos miraron e1 vaso en la mano de Maria. Santiago no vio nada en el vaso. Los otros ninos no vieron nada en el vaso. "Hay algo en el vaso", dijo Maria. "Miren mi experimento. Esta es la forma de hacer mi experimento", dijo Maria. "Yo pongo agua en este plato. Lo hago de esta manera. Coloco e1 vaso dentro del agua del plato", dijo Maria. "Lo hago asi". "Vean", Maria dijo. "Hay algo en el vaso. El agua no puede entrar en 61". F.J.P. I 27.262-Very Difficult No. of words I 94 nosw I 41 Flesch I 55.060-Fairly Difficult l 8 2sw I 84 sl I 6.7 Modified F.J.P. I 95.998-Very Easy wl I 169 -36- Source: Living Together in Town and Country It takes long, hot summers to make cotton grow. So it grows well in the South. Jimmy and Edward like to see the men plant cotton in the spring. They like to see them.take care for it all sumher. They like to see the flowers come on the cotton plants. When the flowers go away, there are little round balls in their places. These are called "cotton bolls". The boys know that soon the cotton bolls will grow big and pop open. And there will be the soft white cotton, ready for the men to pick. F.J.P. I 85.47l-Easy No. of words I 97 nosw I 80 Flesch I 98.623-Very Easy s1 I 10.77 wl I 115 Spanish Se requieren largos y cilidos veranos para hacer crecer a1 algod6n. Por eso crece bien en el sur. A Jimmy y Eduardo les gusts ver a los hombres sembrar algod6n en la primavera. Les gusts ver cuidarlo todo el verano. Les gusts ver las flores salir en las mates de algod6n. Cuendo las flores se caen, hay unaa bolitas redondas en su lugar. Estes se llaman cipsulas de algod6n. Los ninos saben que pronto las cipsulas de algod6n crecer‘n en tama- no y se abririn. Y habri algod6n blando y blanco para los hombres reco- gerlo. F.J.P. I 23.557-Very Difficult No. of words I 94 nosw I 41 Flesch I 47.454-Difficult l 8 2sw I 73 s1 I 10.44 Modified F.J.P. I 74.623-Easy wl I 176 -37- Source: Readers Digest Television for Tomorrow's Schools by Carl Bakal In 17 classrooms scattered throughout Hagerstown, in Maryland, the student's interest perks up. With eyes glued to television sets, they see a typical breakfast scene. Mrs. Vance continues: If there were no green plants in the world, what could you have to put on the breakfast table? How about cereal? No, you wouldn't have that because cereal is made from grain and grain comes from a green plant. So let's take away the cereal. Would you have milk? No, you wouldn't. Oh, I know cows give milk, but what do cows eat? Plants. Take away the milk too. F.J.P. I 78.519-Fairly Easy No. of words I 98 nosw I 74 Flesch I 84.9-Easy sl I 8.167 wl I 134 Spanish En l7 aulas diseminadas por Hagerstown, en Maryland, se aviva e1 in- terts de los estudiantes. Con vlos ojos clavados en la pantalla de sus televisores, ven en seguida la escena tipica de un desayuno. Ls sailors Vance continfia: Si no hubiera plantas gqut tendrian ustedes para poner en su mesa a1 desayuno‘l jTendrian cereales? No, no los tendrian porque esos alimentos son hechos de grano y el grano 1o den las plantas. Asi pues, retiremos e1 cereal. gTendrian leche? No, no la tendrian tempoco. Si, yo s6 que la leche 1a den las vacas, pero gqu‘ comen las vacas‘l Plantas. Retire-0s tembién 1a leche. F.J.P. I 42.831 ' No. of words I 104 nosw I 52 Flesch I 29.9-Very Difficult 1 8 2sw I 74 4 , sl I 8.67 Modified F.J.P. I 78.009-Psirly Easy wl I 199 '-38- Source: Making Storybook Friends So Father found the man who could open the church doors. Then Father and Mother and Bob and all the other people went to the church. The man opened the doors for them, and they all went in. The man turned on the lights. And there in the back of the church they found Judy. As soon as the lights were on, Judy opened her eyes. She saw Mother and Father and Bob and all the other people. They were standing all around her. Judy had been asleep all the time. She had not been frightened at all. F.J.P. = 84.857-Easy No. of words I 98 nosw I 79 Flesch I 97.060-Very Easy 81 I 9.8 wl I 118 Spanish Entonces Papa encontr6 al hombre que podia abrir la iglesia. Luego Papa y Mama y toda la otra gente entraron a la iglesia. El hombre les abri6 la puerta, y todos entraron. El hombre encendi6 las luces. Y en la parte de atrés de la iglesia encontraron 8 Judy. Tan pronto se encendieron las luces, Judy abrié los ojos. Vio a Pap& y Mamé y Bob y toda la otra gente. Esteban parados alrededor de ella. Judy habia estado durmiendo todo el tiempo. No se habia sentido asustada. F.J.P. = 17.115-Very Difficult No. of words I 88 nosw I 36 Flesch I 59.159-Standard l 8 28w I 68 81 I 8.8 Modified F.J.P. I 68.283-Standard wl I 164 -39- Source: Love's Labour's Lost Act I So. I P. 264 And how can that be true love which is falsely attempted? Love is a familiar; Love is a devil. There is no evil angel but Love. Yet was Sampson so tempted, and he had an excellent strength; yet was Solomon so seduced, and he had a very good wit. Cupid's butt-shaft is too hard for Hercules' club, and therefore too much odds for a Spaniard's rapier. The first and second cause will not serve my turn; the passdo he respects not, the duello he regards not; his disgrace is to be called boy, but his glory is to subdue men. F.J.P. I 64.909-Standard No. of words I 101 nosw I 71 Flesch I 77.214-Fair1y Easy 81 I 16.85 wl I 133 Spanish LY c6mo puede ser leal el amor, cuando se procura falsamente? El Amor es un espiritu familiar; el Amor es un demonio; no hay otro Angel malo sino e1 Amor. No obstante, Sans6n fue tentado, y gosaba de prodi- giosa fuerza. Salomén fue también seducido por 61, y disfrutaba de gran sabiduria. La flecha de Cupido es demasiado dura para la mass de Hércules, y por ello harto desigual para la espada de un espanol. La primers y segunda cause no me servirén en el trance. No respeta el "passdo" ni atiende al duelo. Su desgracia es llamarse nino; mfis su glo- ria subyugar a los hombres. F.J.P. I 33.537-Difficult No. of words I 105 nosw I 49 Flesch I 26.679-Very Difficult l 8 28w I 77 s1 I 13.1 IModified F.J.P. I 78.309-Fairly Easy wl I 197 Source: Readers' Digest Two Gentlemen of Verona The boys grew to hate those harsh masters and when the resistance movement began secretly to form they were among the first to join. It was not a matter of playing war. Their extreme youth and insignificant size, added to an intimate knowledge of the neighboring hills, made them.immen- sely valuable. They were used to carry messages to the forces of libera- tion and, more dangerous still, to ferret out information on the movement of the German troops. The good nurse broke off, her eyes moist, then with even deeper feel- ing she went on. I need not tell you how fine they were, those infants. F.J.P. I 69.620-Standard No. of words I 104 nosw I 74 Flesch I 60.5-Standard 81 I 17.33 wl I 152 Spanish Los muchachos llegaron a odiar a los tiranos y cuando comenz6 a for- marse secretamente e1 movimiento de resistencia fueron de los primeros en alistarse. No se trataba de jugar a la guerra. Sus pocos aflos y su insignificante pequeflez, sumados a1 intimo conocimdento que tenian de los cerros vecinos, les daba inapreciable valor. Los utilizaron para llevar mensajes a las fuerzas de liberaci6n y, lo que todavia era mas peligroso, para obtener informes sobre los movimientos de las tropas alemanas. La buena enfermera se interrumpi6, con los ojos humedos; luego continu6 con creciente emociSn: No hay para que decirle cuén admirables fueron estos chiquillos. F.J.P. I 22.5-Very Difficult No. of words I 104 nosw I 45 Flesch I 1.433-Very Difficult l 8 2sw I 69 81 I 17.33 Modified F.J.P. I 61.22-Standard wl I 222 Source: THE WORKS OF EDGAR.ALLAN POE Black's Readers Services Co. Roslyn, N. Y. Walter S. Black 8 Co. THE PIT AND THE PENDULUM P. 170 After that, the sound of the inquisitorial voices seemed merged in one dreamy indeterminate hum. It conveyed to my soul the idea of revolu- tion-perhaps from its association in fancy with the burr of a mill-wheel. This only br a brief period, for presently I heard no more. Yet for a while, I saw - but with how terrible an exaggeration! I saw the lips of the black-robed judges. They appeared to me white-whiter than the sheet upon which I trace these words--and thin even to grotesqueness; thin with the intensity of their expression of firmness-~of immovable resolution-- of stern contempt of human torture. F.J.P. I 68.539-Standard No. of words I 108 nosw I 74 Flesch I 46.437-Difficu1t 81 I 18 wl I 168 ' Spanish Edgar Allan Poe OBRAS EN PROSA - Ediciones de la Universidad de P.R. El Foso y el Péndulo - P. 23 Después, e1 murmullo de las voces de los inquisidores parecib fundirse en un sonoliento zumbido indeterminado, que trajo a mi mente la idea de revoluci6n, tal ves porque imaginativamente lo confundia con el ronroneo de una rueda de molino. Esto dur6 muy poco, pues de pronto cesé de oir. Pero a1 mismo tiempo pude ver...iaunque con qué terrible exageraci6n£ Vi los labins de los jueces togados de negro. Me parecieron b1ancos--m£s blancos que la hoja sobre la cual traso estas palabras, y finos haste lo grotesco; finos por la intensidad de su expresién de firmesa, de inmutable resoluci6n, de absoluto desprecio hacia la tortura humans. F.J.P. I 25.113-Very Difficult No. of words I 107 nosw I 49 Flesch I 4.070-Very Difficult l 8 28w I 79 81 I 21.4 Modified F.J.P. I 73.093-Fair1y Easy wl I 214 -42- Source: Caribbean Agriculture VOL. I No. 3 - 1963 (Caribbean Organisation) Book Reviews P. 261 The first nine pages give a short survey of the form, structure and development of insects. This is followed by thirty pages on classifica- tion with clear photographs and concise descriptions of the most important orders and families. Mites, centipedes and nematodes are included. Chapter II (16 pages) tells us how to capture and identify insects and other plant pests. The main body of the book consists of Chapter III (415 pages) in which the pests of 35 crops are treated individually. Pests are grouped according to plant parts attacked and plant damage, and insects are in most cases illustrated by excellent photographs. F.J.P. - 45.569-Difficu1t ‘ No. of words - 102 nosw’I 59 Flesch I 41-Difficult sl I 17 wl I 176 Spanish Ibid P. 227 Las primeras 9 paginas nos brindan un corto recuento de la forms, estructura y desarrollo de los insectos. Luego siguen 30 pfiginas con las clasificaciones, fotografias y acertadas descripciones de las 6rdenes y families mas importantes. Entre ellas se incluyen piojillos, ciempiés y gusanos. En el Capitulo II, de l6'pfiginas, indica c6mo capturar e identificar insectos y otras plagas plantivoras. E1 Capitulo III, de 415 pfiginas, forms e1 cuerpo del libro. En 81 se discuten, individualmente, las plagas de 35 clases de semillas y las agrupa de acuerdo a la parte de la plants que atacan y el daflo que causan. Todos los insectos ilustrados estin generalmente ilustrados con exeelen- tes fotografias. F.J.P. I 25.797-Very Difficult No. of words I 112 nosw I 46 Flesch I 17.521-Very Difficult l 8 2sw'I 70 sl I 16 Madified F.J.P. I 65-Standard ‘wl I 246 Source: THE ILIAD BOOK III P. 23 I will stir up fierce hatred between Trojans and Achaeans, and you shall come to a bad end." At this Helen was frightened. She wrapped her mantle about her and went in silence, following the goddess and unnoticed by the Trojan women. When they came to the house of Alexandros the maid-servants set about their work, but Helen.went into her own room, and the laughter- 1oving goddess took a seat and set it for her facing Alexandros. On this Helen, daughter of aegis-bearing Jove, sat down, and with eyes askance once began to upbraid her husband: F.J.P. I 54.123-Fairly Difficult No. of words I 98 nosw I 66 Flesch I 72.731-Fair1y Easy sl I 19.6 wl I 135 Spanish - Homero - La Iliada P. 22 Pondré funestos odios entre treucos y ddnaos y tu pereceras de mala suerte." Ante esto Helena tuvo miedo. Echindose e1 blanco velo sobre si- mimma ssli6 en silencio tras la diosa sin que ninguna de las troyanas lo advirtiera. Tan pronto llegaron a1 palacio de Alejandro, las esclavas volvie- ron a sus labores y Helena se fue derecha a su alcoba. La risueua Afrodita coloc6 uns silla delante de Alejandro; sent6se Helena, ls hija de Zeus, que lleva 1a égida, y apartando la vista de su'esposo 1e incre- p6 con estas palabras: F. J. P. I 12.371-Very Difficult No. of words I 91 nosw I 39 Flesch I 36.928 1 8 28w I 62 81 I 18.2 wl I 179 Source: THE HISTORY OF DON QUIXOTE DE LA MANCHA by Miguel de Cervantes Ed. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. P. 1 In a village of La Mancha, the name of which I have no desire to call to mind, there lived not long ago one of those gentlemen that keep a lance in the lance-rack, and old buckler, a lean hack, and a greyhound for coursing. An olla of rather more beef than mutton, a salad on most nights, scraps on Saturdays, lentils on Fridays, and pigeon or so extra on Sundays, made say with three-quarters of his income. The rest of it went in a doublet of fine cloth and velvet breeches and shoes to match for holy- days, while on week days he made a brave figure in his best homespun. F.J.P. I 77.727-Fair1y Easy No. of words I 113 nosw I 92 Flesch I 40.079-Difficult s1 I 37.6 wl I 152 El Ingeniero Hidalgo Spanish DON QUIJOTE DE LA MANCHA Obras Completes de Miguel Cervantes Saavedra Coleccibn Crisol Ed. Aguilar, Madrid 1960 P. 1037 En un lugar de La Manoha, de cuyo nombre no quiero acordarme, no he mucho vivia un hidalgo de los de lansa en astillero, adarga antigua, rocin flaco y galgo corredor. Una olla de algo mis vaca que carnero, salpic6n las mas noches, duelos y quebrantos 1os sébados, lentejas los viernes, algfin palomino de afiadidura los domingos, consumian las tres cuartas partes de su hacienda. E1 resto de ella concluian sayo de velar- te, calzas de velludo para las fiestas con sus pantuflas de lo mismo, y los dias de entre semana se honraba en su vellori de lo mas fino. F.J.P. I 10.141-Very Difficult No. of words I 99 Modified F.J.P. I 58.111-Fairly Difficult nosw I 47 Flesch I 18.522-Very Difficult l 8 28w I 77 81 I 33 wl I 183 (Typical case of shorter sentences in Spanish, but lower readability score due to lower monosyllabic count). -45- Source: The Black Cat P. 211 In the meantime, the cat slowly recovered. The socket of the lost eye presented, it is true, a frightful appearance, but he no longer appeared to suffer any pain. He went about the house as usual but, as might be expected, fled in extreme terror at my approach. I had so much of my old heart left, as to be at first grieved by this evident dislike on the part of a creature which had once so loved me. But this feeling soon gave place to irritation. And then came, as if to my final and irrevocable overthrow; the spirit of PERVERSENESS. F.J.P. I 71.160-Fairly Easy No. of words I 102 nosw I 75 Flesch I 65.208-Standard s1 I 17 wl I 147 Spanish El Gato Negro P. 53 E1 gato, entretanto, mejoraba poco a poco. Cierto que la orbits donde le faltaba e1 ojo presentaba un horrible aspecto, pero e1 animal no parecia sufrir ya. Se paseaba, como de costumbre, por la casa, aunque, como es de imaginar, huia aterrorizado a1 verme. Me quedaba sun bastante de mi antigua manera de ser para sentirme agraviado por la evidente antipatia de un animal que alguna vez me habia querido tanto. Pero este sentimiento no tardd en ceder paso a la irritacion. Y . entonces, para mi caida final e irrevocable, se presento el espiritu de la PERVERSIDAD. ' F.J.P. I 14.503-Very Difficult No. of words - 97 nosw I 39 Flesch I 18.756-Very Difficult 1 & 23w I 61 s1 I 16.1 Hadified F.J.P. . 49.680’D1ff1cu1t W]. - 203 (Typical case of shorter sentences in Spanish, but lower readability score due to lower monosyllabic count). -46- Source: Living Together in Town and Country Dave and Mary saw the wagons come in with baskets of apples from the orchard. Some of the men put the apples into a big machine. This machine had many little brushes on it. The machine took the apples over the brushes. The apples came out red and shining. Then the machines put all of the big apples together in one place. -They put smaller apples together in another place. They put the smallest apples together in another place, too. WOrkers were packing the apples into big boxes. "Where do the apples go now?" asked Mary Ann. F.J.P. I 57.765-Fair1y Difficult . No. of words I 97 ’ nosw I 62 Flesch I 78.549-Fairly Easy 31 I 9.7 wl I 140 Spanish Dave y Mary vieron los carros llegar con canastas de manzanas de la huerta. Algunos de los hombres pusieron las manzanas en una maquina grande. La maquina tenia muchos cepillitos. La maquina pasG las manzanas sobre los cepillos. Las manzanas salieron rojas y brillantes. luego las maquinas pusieron todas las manzanas grandes juntas en un sitio. Pusie- ron las medianas juntas en otro sitio. Pusieron las mfis pequeflas en otro sitio también. Los trabajadores estaban empacando las manzanas en cajas grandes. "zA.d6nde van las manzanas ahora?" pregunt6 Mhry Ann. F.J.P. I 11.440-Very Difficult No. of words I 89 nosw I 32 Flesch I 46.404-Difficult 1 8: 2sw I 58 sl I 8.09 Modified F.J.P. I 53.014-Fairly Difficult wl I 180 -47- Source: The Facts in The Case of M. Valdemar For the purpose of relieving M; Valdemar from the mesmeric trance, I made use of the customary passes. These for a time were unsuccessful. The first indication of revival was afforded by a partial descent of the iris. It was observed, as specially remarkable, that this lowering of the pupil was accompanied by the profuse out flowing of a yellow ichor (from beneath the lids) of a pungent and highly offensive odor. It was now suggested that I should attempt to influence the patient's arm as here to fore. I made the attempt and failed. Dr. E__. then inti- mated a desire to have me put a question. F.J.P. I 55.594-Fair1y Difficult No. of words I 104 ‘ nosw I 64 Flesch I 60.480-Standard 81 I 15 “wl I 155 Spanish - Los Hechos en el Caso del Senor Valdemar P. 69 A efectos de librar del trance hipn6tico al paciente, acudi a los pases habituales. De entrada resultaron infructuosos. La primers indica- ci6n de un retorno a la vida 1a proporcion6 el descenso parcial del iris. Como detalle notable, se observ6 que este descenso de la pupila iba acomr pafiado de un abundante flujo de icor amarillento, procedente de debajo de los pérpados, que despedia un olor penetrante y fétido. Alguien me sugirié que tratara de influir sobre el brazo del paciente como a1 comienzo. Lo intenté, sin resultado. Entonces e1 doctor F. . expresé su deseo de que interrogara a1 paciente. F.J.P. I 21.431-Very Difficult No. of words I 98 nosw I 42 Flesch I 13.061‘Very Difficult . 1 & 23w I 60 s1 I 14 IMbdified F.J.P. I 50.213-Fair1y Difficult wl I 212 -43- Source: Readers' Digest How Life Begins, by J. D. Ratcliff Stirring drama was under way on the mdcroscope's glass slide. Dr. Landrum Shettles, of Columbia university's College of Physicians and Surgeons, had placed on the slide an egg cell from an ovary of a woman undergoing surgery. To this he added a drop of male sperm. As he peered through the microscope, a tiny spermatozeon wriggled its way into the re- latively enormous egg cell. Wflth the ovum and spermatozoon blended into a completed cell, the globular egg narrowed to an hourglass shape. At the end of 30 hours it pulled apart to make two cells. F.J.P. I 49.953-Difficu1t no. of words I 95 nosw I 61 llesch I 58.9-Fairly Difficult s1 I 15.83 wl I 156 Spanish C6mo Comienzs la Vida In la 16mins portaobjetos del microscOpio se desarrollaba un drama apasionante. 31 Dr. Landrum Shettles, del Colegio de MEdicos y Cirujanos de la Universidad de Columbia, habia colocado sobre la place un 6vulo temado del ovario de una mujer a quien estaban operando. A este 6Vulo le agregé una gets de semen masculine. Mientras observaba a través del mi- croscopio, un.diminuto espermatozoide se abri6 psso culebreando haste e1 Gvulo, relativamsnte enorme. Con el fivulo y el espermatozoide combinados en una célula complete, e1 huevo, de forma globular, se estrech6 en forma de reloj de arena. Al cabo de 30 horas se dividié en dos células. P.J.P. I 18.5-Very Difficult No. of words I 105 nosw I 42 [leach I 2.117-Very Difficult l & 2sw I 68 sl I 17.5 Modified P.J.P. I 59.452-Fairly Difficult wl I 233 5‘9. Source: Laws of Puerto Rico (Sub for H B 126) No. 34 1957 P. 80 Said bond shall be conditioned upon prompt payment for the purchase, and performance of the contracts for the delivery, of milk‘and its by- products. If at a given time the bond be not sufficient to answer for the debts of the obligor to the producer, handler, processor, sterilizer or seller, as the case may be, said bond will be allocated pro rata bet-' ween the said creditors. Claims presented to the Administrator upon his request shall constitute prima facie evidence of the amount of the debt in any action brought by the creditors entitled to claim under the provi- sions of this section. F.J.P. I 31.816-Difficult No. of words I 101 nosw I 61 Flesch I 35.7-Difficu1t 81 I 33.7 wl I 162 Spanish (Sustitutivo a1 P. de la C. 126) Nfim. 34 1957 P. 82 Dicha fianza responder! del pago rapido por la compra de, y cumpli- miento de los contratos respecto a entrega de leche y de sus productos derivados. Si en determinado momenta la fianza no fuere suficiente para responder de las deudas del depositante frente a1 productor, manipulador, elaborador, esterilizador o expendedor, segfin fuere el caso, la misma‘ seri diatribuida a prorrata entre dichos acreedores. Las reclamaciones pre- 8entadas- al Administrador; a solicitud de éste, constituiran evidencia Prima facie del monto de la deuda en cualquier acci6n por los acreedores con derecho a reclamar de acuerdo con lo dispuesto en este articulo. F.J.P. - -l.97l-Very Difficult No. of words - 97 nosw I 39 Flesch - 12.100-Very Difficult 1 a. 28w - 63 31 - 32.33 wl - 220 -50- Samples of Passages for Determining Close Scores Source: Making Storybook Friends 'Average Close Score: .736 P. J. P. 20.155-Very Difficult M. F. J. P. 80.917-Easy; corresponds with English and Close Score rabo nuevo de Dobbin gracioso. Bacia reir a___ gemelos a1 mirarlo. ' "zLo____s su nuevo hogar____?" pregunt6 Maml. Luego busco 4 papel y puso a____en 61. ‘ Los gemelos____a Mam! mientras envolvia papel sobre Dobbin. Billy_____muy quieto y Beth estaba______quieta. Pronto Dobbin estabs___cubierto de papel. Beth_____Billy no podrian ver____estante rojo. No podian___1as ruedss negras. No_____ver la sills roja. podian ver el gracioso___de escoba. No podian nada de Dobbin. -51- Source: Life (Spanish) Vol. 22 No. 12, Dec. 23, 1963 P. 54 Average Close Score: .608 Pa Jo Po . 330770'D1ff1cu1t M; P. J. P. I 74.674-Pairly Easy; Corresponds with English & Close Score En dis tan especial como , ninguna saplica o amenasa, siquiera e1 saber . Tad solo beberia la.medicina se lo pedia su , hubiera podido disusdir a de hacer lo que habia propuesto con todo corason. Partio, pues, diciendose sus adentros que Tad . A la entrada de Casa Blanca 1e aguardaba edec‘n, el general Fry, 10 apremié a subir coche. Se habia atrasado poco. Lincoln comento que sentia como aquel asesino , camino del patibulo, hablo 1a excitada turba arremolinsda su derredor. "Por que prisa en llegar los 7 Bien saben que la fiesta empiesa hasta que yo no Source: Living Together in Town & Country 5th Grade Reader Average Close Score: .738 P. J. P. I 11.632-Very Difficult M; P. J. P. I 56.404-Pairly Difficult; Does not correspond‘with Close Score Pero continua. Queria ser primers en bajar por ‘montsfla. L1eg6 a un donde los arbolitos y mates estaban estrOpeados. Algo estado resbalando montana sbajo y habia abierto un camino abajo. Flora se detuvo ver por qu‘ los y las mates estaban . Se pero en media camino y miro hacia y hacia sbajo ‘de ‘montsfla. Entonces alguien grito: ”i 2" . "Waders!" "iCorre, Flora, corre!" Dave. Pero Flora no . Tenia miendo. No sabia hacer. Source: Readers' Digest - No Gentlmen of Verona 7th grade Average Close Score: .750 F- J.P. 22.848-Very Difficult M- F.J.P. 61.224-Standard; Does not correspond with Close Score muchachos llegaron a odiar los tiranos y cuando a for- mat-3e secretamente el de resistencia fueron de primeros en alis- tarse. ____se trataba de "jugar______la guerra". Sus pocos____ y su insignificante pequenes, a1 intimo conocimiento que____de los cerros vecinos, _____dabs inapreciable valor. utilissron para lle- Var mensajes a 1as_____de liberacién y, lo____todavia era mIs peligroso, \obtener informes sobre los____de las tropas alemanas. buena enfermera se interrumpi6; __los ojos humedos; luego \con creciente emoci6n: "No para qué decirle win—fueron 88 tos chiquillos. Source: A Descent to the Maelstrom Edgar Allan Poe Average Close Score: -.321 F.J.P. -3.196 -Very Difficult H. F.J.P. 380314'D1ff1cu1t "0n Descenso e1 Maelstrom" "pequeno acantilado", is cuyo borde habia tendido s con tents negligencia que parte mis peasds____su cuerpo sobresalia d.l__, mientrss se cuidsbs de___ceids spoysndo el codo____la res- bmloss ariste de1_____; e1 “pequeflo acantilado", digo,_____formando un precipicio de___rocs reluciente, de mi1_____e mil ‘seiecientos pies, ‘ la mltitud de despefladeros_____mis sbsjo. Neda me.'___inducido a tomar une____s menos de seis_____de aquel borde. _____largo rato ‘ntes de pudiere reunir coraje suficiente sentsrms y mirsr a distancis. -55- Source: Macbeth Average Close Score: .316 r- J.P. 11.021-Very Difficult no F.J.P. 20.496-V0ry Difficu1t implacable Mcdonwsld-digno de un rebelde, pues para las. mltiplicadse villsniss de netureless sbundsn en 61 provisto Costa de un refuerso "Kernee" y "gallowglasses", 6. las isles la Portuns, sonriendo s maldits cause, mtstraee some rare del rebelde. Pero es demasiado infitil: porque bravo Dhcbeth bie‘n merece noubre, desprecisndo 1s Portuns, blandido que humesbs ejecuciones ssngrientss, como C. be . peso heats la presencia miserable s1 que jsmie he dignsdo tenderle- 1s ni despedirse de 61. an “CID del valor , antes haberle deaco- Cido deeds ombligo haste las quijsdss clevedo su-csbess nuestrs almanas . -55- APPENDIX B TABLES OP TESTS TEST NO. 1 ADHERISTRAJTON OP FARR-JENKINS-BATERSON'AND PLBSCB READING EASE INDICES TO 150 PASSAGBS Tables 5 to 9 TABLE 5 -ENGLISH PASSAGES WITH EASY RATINGS USING FARR-JENKINS- PATERSON'S NEW READING EASE INDEX. RATINGS FOR THE CORRESPONDING SPANISH PASSAGES. 'AN'D FLESH RATINGS FOR THE SAME PASSAGES. PAIR-JllmS-PATIRSOI Itasca ' ' 3 mums] I I'm Hausa semen gag uses. a m If nosw a m a '1 m. a :1 2.8-.- I _ a 79 7.2 87.896 98 81 6.7 27.281 7.2 129 90.663 6.7 169 57.056 .88 3 78 5.05 81.683 88 32 8.2 15.382 5.05 131 90.883 8.2 188 83.528 .82 h» 76 6.8 83.088 98 82 6.53 31.378 6.86 136 89.816 6.93 191 38.627 ‘.868 ‘ 5 77 5. 85.278 93 88 5.87 39.672 5.88 123 96.809 5.87 188 76.105 .821 8 76 5.67 88.252 100 36 5.5 20.867 5.67 127 96.638 5.5 178 50.668 .765 9 81 8.17 89.709 92 32 7.67 11.866 8.17 101 113.096 7.67 163 61.152 .77 10 76 6.31 83.602 101 25 6.31 2.053 6.31 136 85.378 6.31 193 37.152 .86 18 78 6.83 86.679 88 27 5.55 6.023 6.83 105 111.879 5.55 166 60.766 .687 21 78 8.08 85.008 87 8o 7.25 25.088 8.08 119 97.960 7.25 185 76.806 .75 23 79 9.8 88.857 88 36 8.8 17.115 9.8 118 97.060 8.8 168 59.159 .727 8 78 8.5 88.577 96 37 7.38 20.153 8.5 128 93.303 7.38 176 30.888 .736 15 77 10 81.856 98 37 9.8 17.599 10 123 92.627 9.8 188 81.228 .736 86 75 8.087 82.207 90 82 7.5 28.028 8.08 115 101.388 7.5 166 58.786 .667 27 8o 8 88.263 95 30 7.3 9.083 8 130 88.735 7.3 185 82.915 .736 29 79 10.77 83.872 93 81 10.33 23.557 10.77 115 98.613 710.33 176 87.858 .711 33 77 8.33 83.151 87 29 7.25 7.895 8.33 128 90.092 7.25 169 56.502 .667 3* 79 9.36 85.308 99 38 9 20.110 9.36 126 90.739 9 191 36.118 .70 35 79 8.3 86.379 91 38 7.58 21.551 8.3 118 98.582 7.58 163 61.283 .633 76 7* 82.902 107 81 7.2 26.728 7 128 98.826 7.2 7179 88.086 .88 81 9.1 88.6 103 50, 6 82.383 9.1 118 97.190 6 185 88.235 .765 76 6.7 83.207 111 35 8 16.328 6.7 121 97.668 8 173 52.357 .821 79 8.9 85.77 108 81 7.6 26.326 8.9 137 81.879 7.6 201 29.075 .617 .101 85 15.5 88.665 108 52 17.3 38.071 15.5 183 70.128 17.3 208 16.691 .715 103 73 6.5 81.810 109 86 8.1 33.815 6.5 122 97.016 8.1 183 83.795 .717 99, 81 9.3 88.563 103 88 11 38.070 9.3 131 86.569 11 169 52.696 .857 98' 77 9.8 81.659 105 51 9.7 39.187 9.8 1.17 97.906 9.7 187 38.787 .72 101 82 10.2 89.288 107 89 8.7 38.003 10.2 125 90.732 8.7 178 87.816 .715 [(- 100.5 78.15 8.29 85.0& 97.3 39.81 7.92 23.506 8.29 123.8 93.989 7.92 1768 89.216 .738 -59- TABLE 6 -ENGLISH PASSAGES WITH FAIRLY EASY RATINGS USING FARR- JENKINS- PATERSON'S NEW READING EASE INDEX. RATINGS FOR THE CORRESPONDING SPANISH PASSAGES, AND FLESC‘H RATINGS FOR THE SAME PASSAGES. PARR—JENKINS—PATIRSOI PLESCH z , 1 sum , seam usual semen ’53 and... .7 see. a may a '1 and... a .1 as... I 75. 668 96 37 6 21. 556 6. 25 115 103.201 6. 188 85.081 .765 77.825 102 50 6 82.333 5.7 119 100.375 6 175 52.695 .715~ 75.77 89 26 5.56 8.818 6.5 128 95.639 5.56 179 “9.758 .667 78.028 100 38 5.55 23.612 5.5 133 88.738 5.55 179 89.768 .550 73.988 89 31 5.93 12.033 6.33 133 87.892 5.93 161 68.610 .617 79.095 89 39 5.93 28.725 7.6 118 99.293 5.93 163 62.918 .633 75.237 87 32 7.9 11.632 8.25 128 93.557 7.9 165 50.766 .788 72.568 96 36 10.67 15.217 .88 121 93.826 0.67 185 39.895 .563 70.512 96 83 9.67 27.825 1.33 127 87.893 9.67 179 85.586 .687 75.115 107 53 21.8 31.509 8.3 181 88.678 1.8 187 26.912 .809 71.153 97 39 16.1 18.502 187 65.218 6.1 203 18.755 .763 79.277 96 50 28.073 .75 123 77.656 177 32.733 .736 77.827 99 87 3 10.181 7.6 152 80.079 3 183 18.512 .688 70.872 107 80 .6 3.818 5 133 58.792 8.6 165 38.216 .777 78.729 108 38 6.5 22.688 5.6 109 108.937 6.5 171 55.571 .631 71.836 103 37 7.1 20.880 5.3 122 98.283 7.1 187 81.826 .562 77.119 107 81 5.8 3.160 5.3 136 66.099 25.8 201 10.602 .636 75.161 103 85 8.75 31.557 9.9 113 101.188 8.75 182 83.982 .703 71.761 100 37 1.3 16.176 0.1 181 78.297 11.3 209 18.552 .858 70.722 107 51 .2 26.888 9. 126 80.958 23.2 203 11.589 .801 70.366 103 81 8.75 19.071 6.2 119 89.718 18.75 201 21.818 .736 73.637 101 38 5.6 23.561 5.1 131 90.832 5.6 212 21.799 .777 75.593 107 “0 8.75 23.562 7.9 117 99.838 8.75 188 82.290 .887 71.597 108 50 5.8 22.286 .6 101 93.375 .8 173 38.290 .633 77.888 102 82 7.5 17.879 .1 121 87.112 7.5 185 32.562 .667 78.760 107 81 .5 5.118 .2 108 85.829 .5 163 80.009 .765 73.231 103 38 5.2 23.967 5.5 131 90.826 5.2 208 25.589 .617 78.385 105 38 8.61 18.110 9.09 128 92.696 8.61 172 52.588 .860 71.023 99 29 6.2 8.561 6.1 133 88.125 6.2 197 33.880 .857 73.823 106 87 . 5.066 s . 137 52.363 8 . 201 1.781 .631 79.099 109 37 .6 2.677 .5 128 91.583 .6 183 27.088 .715 79.806 112 39 7.2 23.536 6.9 180 81.391 7.2 209 22.713 .821 101 80.2 18.36 18.169 15.5 125.5 81.920 18% 185.2 35.831 .720 10’ 101.8 75.9 15.36 78632 -60- TABLE 7 -ENGLISH PASSAGES WITH STANDARD RATNGS USING FARR- JENKINS- PATERSON'S NEW READING EASE INDEX. RATINGS FOR THE CORRESPONDING SPANISH PASSAGES. AND FLESCH RATINGS FOR THE SAME PASSAGES. v VARR-JENKINS-PATIRSON ruscn 5 2 ZNCIJSH 11*“ spawns" leanu sruunsu ggéfi My #7 ’60" .1 hung a '1 m..- u '1 m. ‘ 66.881 102 85 7.28 33.089 123 95.601 171 58.780 .850 62.978 87 37 9.7" 17.760 123 91.738 157 68.127 .658 67.587 102 81 11.5 22.369 132 83.896 175 87.112 .600 67.065 97 82 9.7 25.795 128 88.397 186 39.633 .687 68.765 93 30 9.3 7.013 117 97.808 189 37.501 .750 65.669 98 82 9.8 25.698 122 93.676 165 57.298 .689 62.956 102 88 17 27.980 131 72.156 210 11.920 .705 61.711 105 89 13.1 33.537 133 77.218 197 26.876 .800 68.890 86 33 21.5 0.573 151 51.170 169 82.038 .711 68.829 97 83 28.2 12.677 131 71.831 182 28.300 .688 66.509 98 81 19.6 18.188 129 77.801 177 37.199 .636 67.880 103 85 20.6 19.529 150 57.808 209 9.112 .665 61.031 106 86 26.5 15.139 155 37.135 210 2.278 .578 67.620 108 85 17.33 22.888 152 60.5 222 1.833 .750 65.828 113 89 28.25 18.161 188 58.8 217 .5.815 .727 62.755 107 80 36 .8.000 183 21.700 212 -8.955 .667 63.618 118 29 5.7 9.068 130 88.116 175 52.999 .703 66.862 106 38 8.81 20.709 129 87.388 167 57.017 .562 66.988 107 35 6.1 18.257 122 97.831 178 50.055 .765 65.873 108 80 8.67 23.683 181 78.789 193 38.731 .633 67.806 102 38 28.0 - 5.571 132 68.967 187 20.213 .617 65.821 103 39 31.5 - 1.128 119 70.382 178 28.278 .636 66.638 113 31 25.5 - 7.831 126 72.073 201 10.906 .715 67.162 105 81 8.67 25.282 187 78.018 192 35.603 .703 61.559 108 38 18.5 10.868 118 88.229 171 83.391 .857 69.889 102 37 16.25 11.152 180 71.875 191 28.037 .688 65.772 109 83 16.3 20.695 116 92.859 165 50.700 .765 68.160 101 36 20.75 8.986 186‘ 59.872 192 23.382 .562 65.715 118 81 12.5 21.355 168 56.591 228 1.259 .631 60.568 112 39 11.33 19.388 136 81.575 238 - 2.628 .777 62.525 102 87 26.25 16.992 131 70.126 200 10.991 .617 65.661 112 80.8 17.1 15.778 18.1 136.7 73.008 17.1 191.1 27.818 .688 -51- TABLE 8 -ENGLISH PASSAGES WITH FAIRLY DIFFICULT RATINGS ‘USING FARR-JENKINS- PATERSON'S NEW READING EASE INDEX. RATINGS FOR THE CORRESPONDING SPANISH PASSAGES AND FLESCH RATINGS FOR THE SAME PASSAGES. - PARRoJENKINS-PATIISON rusca I? ' , g-= mama 1 swam 277ch 32101791 25% lung: 2? an. .8 Ruby. '1 Run.» '1 Bang; ” 58.577 89 32 11.880 180 78.589 180 86.388 .688 52.800 102 36 17.819 186 78.898 198 38.083 .738 57.268 98 39 20.897 138 83.118 189 36.998 .557 58.893 90 80 21.028 119 98.235 158 65.132 .633 58.639 91 38 17.678 127 87.213 173 88.906 .633 52.878 98 30 2.852 125 88.783 185 36.828 .673 58.730 103 39 17.633 123 89.886 207 20.101 .700 50.281 107 38 7.219 182 61.328 183 29.991 .658 50.526 115 86 12.856 182 - 38.830 280 45.386 .591 50.797 98 82 21.831 155 60.880 212 13.273 .615 58.123 98 39 12.371 135 72.731 179 36.928 .661 53.105 103 80 6.307 185 59.000 3’7 6.230 .715 53.839 93 37 8.098 186 58.00 196 17.800 .858 57.729 108 52 83.000 138 85.178 199 29.680 .703 55.77 101 87 “.533 135 79.3 181 37.08 .727 51.863 92 33 6.721 165 50.00 197 28.688 .775 57.296 119 56 33.870 168 87.3 229 -11.099 .608 52.887 102 81 15.800 172 83.00 190 27.3 .661 55.850 102 37 3 19.223 185 75.795 193 35.325 .688 50.821 108 33 18.318 189 73.575 176 51.007 .655 53.983 106 33 12.623 181 78.668 183 83.389 .685 50.827 109 83 11.357 7130 78.220 203 9.630 .667 58.675 101 86 9.557 137 58.798 189 18.861 .581 51.312 99 87 - 3.358 138 86.781 208 46.127 .860 52.322 112 38 3.770 180 62.005 193 18.182 .715 59.319 108 31 5.619 156 63.359 188 35.353 .687 52.653 107 80 1.886 129 66.783 199 7.253 .720 51.972 109 51 - 0.161 138 82.551 200 -12.607 .550 56.589 102 81 0.587 163 33.920 189 13.181 .505 53.867 103 83 - 1.330 171 25.629 196 2.889 .880 55.385 106 87 .3 6.791 139 51.381 208 - 2.593 .578 #1 100.3 67.8 21.8 514.138 102.2 80.2 20.6 11.817 21.8 182.8 68.282 20.6 198.3 21.869 .650 -62- TABLE 9 -ENGLISH PASSAGES WITH DIFFICULT RATINGS USING FARR- JENKINS- PATERSON'S NEW READING EASE INDEX. RATINGS FOR. THE CORRESPONDING SPANISH PASSAGES. AND FLESCH RATINGS FOR THE SAME PASSAGES. FARR-J BIKINS-PATIRSON PLESCH IDOL!” SPAN!!! ENGLISH SPANISH E lung: .7 luw' a . lung: 01 u: mung. a '1 Ruby: ‘ 89.171 111 50 11.1 37.166 10.3 150 69.880 11.1 216 12.832 .6” 88.309 101 38 12.61 10.060 18.3 92 118.888 12.6 199 25.697 .565 36.131 107 39 21:6 8.920 32.6 138 60.382 21.6 220 -32.726 .667 86.056 115 53 22.2 30.697 37 188 88.072 22.2 206 10.026 .531 33.033 99 38 28.6 -2.272 26.2 118 83.798 28.6 223 -6.9‘W .631 88.123 100 85 20 20.138 20 155 55.805 20 213 6.337 .585 69 98 68 31.6 85.181 102 86 31 10.572 31.6 135 63.089 31 178 28.782 .777 78 106 78 82 88.179 108 85 26 18.088 82 177 51.687 26 203 8.707 .833 88 102 59 25.5 36.981 108 80 26 -6.053 25.5 172 31.210 _26 221 - 6.521 .505 89 106 60 21.2 82.905 120 56 30 27.577 21.2 189 25.823 30 292 470.687 .513 90 108 68 38.6 35.700 107 88 35.6 2.705 38.6 160 36.356 35.6 219 -18.573 .667 91 97 60 28.2 39.860 105 88 26.2 12.286 28.2 150 55.372 26.2 205 ' 5.8.12 .880 93 97 61 28.2 81.859 126‘ 58 31.5 29.252 828.2 169 39.298 31.5 282 «9.870 .583 96 100 58 31 29.760 120 82 52 -17.139 31 188 81.702 52 217 -29.527 .565 106 103 59 20.6 81.915 95 38 18.8 10.233 20.6 172 80.818 18.8 209 10.939 .316 115 103 67 25.7 89.530 102 83 25.5 11.357 25.7 162 83.697 25.5 202 10.060 .570 128 105 63 “35. 33.695 102 86 37.3 8.217 35 158 781.026 37.3 223 -19,722 .910 130 92 53 23 30.000 100 37 33.3 - 5.889 23 158 89.822 33.3 216 -9.700 .736 133 98 52 18 37.821 98 80 18 18.000 18 189 67.000 18 201 23.800 .667‘ 138 95 58 18 80.619 105 39 15.71 18.000 18 119 103.000 15.71188 66.000 .631 133 98 56 15.83 81.960 110 82 17.5 18.500 15.83 156 58.792 17.5 233 2.117 .619 136 102 60 20.8 83.717 102 85 20.8 17.600 20.8 156 58.153 20.8 206 11.853 .700 137 105 58 17.5 37.066 117 85 23.8 16.600 17.5 168 86.800 23.8 250 -18.816 .558 138 109 56 21.8 35.960 107 81 26.75 7.8 21.8 180 66.600 26.75 219 - 5.59 .628 183 93 57 .25 36.027 101 83 25.25 11.611 23.25 131 72.680 2525 208 8.712 .652 169 108 55 20.8 33.316 98 87 19.6 28.100 20.0 180 “33.883: 19.6 286 -21.175 .698 170 106 60 1.2 82.905 110 82 22 18.000 .2 167 $2,903” 22 252 -27.657 .727 [18101.1 539 28.. 3.959 116.2 83.6 2'88 12.596 28- 50.5 55.288 28.8 23.1 -2.213 .616 -63- Correlations for Test with the Original Parr-Jenkins-Pateraon and Flesch Indices. F. J. P. Ratings: r - .772 nosw: r - -.891 81: r = .956 Flesch Ratings: r - .983 wl: r - .945 81: r - .994 -64- TEST NO. 2 USE OF FLESCH READING EASE INDEX WITH REARRANGED PASSAGES Tables 10 to 14 TABLE 10 ENGLISH EASSAGES WITH EASY RATINGS USING FLESCH INDEX, AND THEIR SPANISH EQUIVALENTS FE;:TL ENGLISH SPANISH I A , ii 31 wl Ratings s1 wl Listings A T 4’ 6.86 136 89.816 6.53 191 . 38.627 10 6.31 136 85.374 6.31 193 37.152 13 5.50 133 88.734 5.55 179 49.768 17’ 6.33 133 87.892 5.93 161 64.610 27 8.00 130 88.735 7.30 185 42.915 38 10.00 128 88.397 9. 70 186 39 . 633 43 10.20 134 83.118 9.80 189 36.994 46 11.33 127 87.893 9.67 179 45.586 48 12.00 127 87.213 11.33 173 48.906 49 16.10 125 84. 743 13.40 185 36.824 50 12.70 123 89.886 11.55 207 20.101 13 8.17 134 85.168 8.67 199 29.681 20 19.00 126 80.054 23.20 203 11.549 20 16.20 119 89.718 14.75 201 27.818 20 8.90 137 81.879 7.60 201 29.075 21. 17.10 121 87.112 17.50 185 32.562 21 29.20 108 85.829 28.50 163 40.009 21. 9.30 131 86.569 11.00 169 52.696 21 6.10 133 88.125 6.20 197 33.840 23 6.90 140 81.391 7.20 209 22.713 H Means 11.31 129.05 86.382 11.08 187.75 37.053 Differences between: Khan Ratings I -49.329 Mean Word Length 8 +58.70 Mean Sentence Length - -0.22 -66- TABLE 1 1 ENGLISH PASSAGES WITH FAIRLY EASY RATINGS USING FLESCH INDEX, AND THEIR SPANISH EQUIVALENTS 9 a ENGLISH SPANISH a g A a 31 wl Ratings 81 wl Ratings 40 8.30 146 74.894 8.50 194 - 34.083 56 23.50 131 72.156 17.00 210 11.920 57 16.85 133 77.214 13.10 197 26.876 71 25.20 131 71.431 24.20 182 28.300 72 24. 75 123 77 . 656 24.00 177 32 . 733 73 19.60 135 72.731 18.20 179 36.928 74 20.00 129 77.401 19.60 177 37.199 143 23 . 25 131 72 . 680 25.25 204 8. 712 145 13.30 135 79.125 16.83 181 37.080 180 8 . 25 145 75 . 795 8 . 30 193 35.325 181 7.10 149 73.575 6.83 176 51.007 182 8 . 75 141 78 . 668 8 . 50 183 43 . 389 199 10.10 141 78.297 11.30 209 18.552 210 15.50 143 70.124 17.30 204 16.691 223 12 . 75 141 78. 749 8 . 67 193 34.731 227 35.25 119 70.382 31.50 178 24.274 229 27.25 126 72.073 25.50 201 10.906 230 8.33 147 74.018 8.67 192 35.603 234. 16.67 140 71.475 16.25 191 28.037 245 25.50 131 70.126 26.25 200 10.991 ‘Means 17.51 135.85 74.428 16.79 191.05 28.167 Differences between: Mean Ratings = +46.24l Mean Word Length = +55.20 Mean Sentence Length 8 -0.72 -67- ENGLISH PASSAGES WITH STANDARD RATINGS USING FLESCH INDEX, TABLE 12 AND THEIR SPANISH EQUIVALENTS 3 u ENGLISH SPANISH a b ‘ g s1 w1 Ratings s1 *wl Ratings # 41 10.30 150 69.480 11.10 216 12.832 53 25.00 142 61 .328 21. 70 183 29.991 54 32.60 134 60.382 21.60 220 -32. 726 55 18.00 151 60.819 21.40 201 15.069 64 17.00 147 65.218 16.10 203 18. 755 67 15.00 155 60.480 14.00 212 16.273 69 31.60 132 63.089 31.00 178 24. 782 100 17.80 144 66. 944 26.50 239 -22.256 175 27.50 132 67.250 26.00 167 39.163 132. 17.33 152 60.663 17.33 222 l .433 133 14.00 149 66.571 14.00 201 22.559 138 21.80 140 66.265 26. 75 219 -5.590 142 20.40 148 60. 737 18.80 203 16. 115 144 25.25 139 63.612 28. 75 169 34.680 190 26.00 140 62.005 25.00 193 18.182 191 11.33 156 63.359 12.25 188 35.353 192 30.50 129 66. 743 30.50 199 7.253 197 25.30 136 66.099 25.80 201 10.602 226 29. 75 132 64.967 28.00 187 20.213 L243 20.40 148 60. 931 18.80 203 16.015 Means 21.84 142.8 63.847 21.77 200.2 13.940 Differences between: Mean Ratings = +49.907 Mean Word Length - +57 . 4 Mean Sentence Length - -.07 TABLE 13 ENGLISH PASSAGES WITH FAIRLY DIFFICULT RATINGS USING FLESCH INDEX, AND THEIR SPANISH EQUIVALENTS 5 g ENGLISH SPANISH . a a 3 sl wl Ratings 81 wl Ratings 52 47.50 127 51.180 56.50 224 -40.175 63 20.00 155 55.405 20.00 213 6.337 65 27.50 151 51.170 21.50 169 42.038 75 21.80 150 57.808 20.60 209 9.112 179 36.00 133 57.777 28.60 165 38.216 91 24.20 150 55.372 26.20 205 6.812 95 31.00 148 50.162 52.00 217 -29.527 127 25.25 145 58.535 25.7 207 6.230 198 20.00 156 54.559 23.2 196 17.469 135 15.83 156 58.789 17.5 233 2.117 136 20.40 156 54.159 20. 206 11.853 141 22.25 148 59.047 28.2 217 -5.415 296 17.10 160 54.126 15.3 197 24.644 178 42.00 133 51.687 26.0 203 8.707 187 31.66 137 58.798 32.0 189 14.461 220 38.00 137 52.363 38.0 201 1.781 228 37.30 139 51.381 36.3 204 -2.593 236 23.10 146 59.872 20.7 192 23.342 241 11.33 164 56.591 12.5 228 1.259 246 25.25 144 59.382 28.7 179 17.041 Means 26.87 146.75 55.408 27.51 202.7 7.690 Differences between: Mean Ratings I 47.718 Meand Wbrd Length I 55.95 Mean Sentence Length I 0.64 -69- TABLE 14 ENGLISH PASSAGES WITH DIFFICULT RATINGS USING FLESCH INDEX, AND THEIR SPANISH EQUIVALENTS -70- § 3: ENGLISH SPANISH . a a g 81 'wl Ratings sl ‘wl Ratings 55 51.50 142 34.430 28.75 240 -25.386 58 38.30 141 48.674 21.40 187 26.912 59 37.00 148 44.072 22.20 206 10.026 61 18.00 168 46.437 21.40 214 4.070 76 37.60 152 40.079 33.00 183 18.512 80 38.00 155 37.135 26.50 210 2.278 ‘ 105 20.60 172 40.414 18.80 209 10.939 115' 25.70 162 43.697 25.50 202 10.060 124- 35.00 154 41.026 37.30 223 -19.722 130 23.00 158 49.822 33.30 216 - 9.700 137 17.50 168 46.944 23.40 250 -18.416 170 21.20 167 41.173 22.00 252 -27.657 172 21.20 164 46.571 23.80 229 -11.089 176 18.10 172 42.953 18.40 190 29.425 185 32.30 151 46.304 25.50 203 9.630 188 146.00 134 46.781 46.30 208 -16.127 «193 48.50 138 42.551 49.50 200 -12.607 224- 34.50 163 33.920 33.30 189 13.141 225 36.00 171 25.629 38.00 196 2.449 Means 31.9 156.4 42.083 30.00 212.2 -1.639 Differences between: Mean Ratings I -43.722 Mean Word Length I +55.8 Mean Sentence LengthI -l.9 Correlations of Ratings and Variables for Rearranged Passages, Using Flesch Reading Ease Index. Ratings: r I .991 s1: r I .994 VI: r I .994 -71- TEST NO. 3 'HDDIFIED PARRIJENKINS-PATERSON READING EASE INDEX Tables 15 to 19 TABLE 15 PASSAGES WITH EASY RATING USING THE MODIFIED FARRIJENKINS- PATERSON INDEX, AND THEIR SPANISH EQUIVALENTS .. ram 5. n sauna 6 .2 fl nosw s1 Ratinss ES 1 a Zn a). mm 2 79 7.20 87.496 94 84 6.70 95.998 4 103 76 6.86 83.044 98 73 6.53 78.582 5 100 77 5.88 85.278 93 85 5.47 98.848 8 102 76 5.67 84.272 100 82 5.50 94.018 9 98 81 8.17 89.709 92 72 7.67 75.828 10 101 76 6.31 83.602 u01 86 6.31 99.593 18 103 78 6.43 86.679 88 63 5.55 63.587 21 97 78 8.08 85.004 87 70 7.25 73.055 23 98 79 9.80 84.857 88 69 8.80 69.882 24 102 78 8.50 84.577 96 75 7.38 80.917 25 100 77 10.00 81.456 98 71 9.80 71.965 26 97 75 8.05 82.207 92 69 7.50 71.201 27 104 80 8.00 88.263 95 71 7.30 74.602 29 97 79 10.77 83.872 93 75 10.33 77.923 33 100 77 8.33 .83.151 87 73 7.25 77.851 34 103 79 9.36 85.304 99 72 9.00 74.476 35 100 79 8.30 86.379 91 73 7.58 77.516 200 103 76 7.00 82.902 107 84 7.20 95.491 203 101 81 9.10 88.600 03 79 6.00 88.814 205 98 76 6.70 83.207 1 83 8.00 93.080 Means 77.8 7.92 84.99 75.5 7.36 81.66 Differences between: nosw and 1 & 2sw I s1 Ratings I .36 I 3.33 2.3 TABLE 16 PASSAGES'HITH PAIRLY EASY RATINGS USING THE MODIFIED PARR- JENKINS-PATERSON INDEX, AND THEIR SPANISH EQUIVALENTS Immuln I; a Banana ‘5‘. nosw s1 Rafiuuu; ll Ililabzsw s1 lumina- 71 6.25 75.668 96 67 6.00 69.526 72 5.70 77.825 102 76 6.00 83.917 12 98 71 6.50 75.770 89 56 5.56 52.383 13 100 72 5.50 78.028 100 73 5.55 79.577 17 95 70 6.33 73.988 89 71 5.93 75.993 22 99 74 7.60 79.095 89 76 5.93 83.988 28 99 72 8.25 75.237 87 60 7.90 56.404 45 98 72 10.88 72.568 96 . 71 10.77 71.080 46 102 71 11.33 70.512 96 80 9.67 86.588 58 115 91 38.30 75.115 107 78 21.40 71.484 64 102 75 17.00 71.153 97 61 16.10 64.388 72 99 85 24.75 79.277 96 77 24.00 67.246 76 113 92 37.60 77.427 99 87 33.00 74.101 79 111 86 35.00 70.472 107 73 28.60 56.181 95 101 70 5.60 74.729 104 74 6.50 80.212 96 102 68 5.30 71.836 103 73 7.10 78.003 84 25.3 77.119 107 81 25.80 71.815 73 9.90 75.161 103 70 8.75 71.532 71 10.10 71.761 100 78 11.3 81.735 76 ~19.00 70.722 107 87 23.2 84.048 h. Means 75.8 14.81 74.67 73.5 13.45 73.010 Differences between: nosw and 1 & 2sw I 2.3 81 I 1.36 Ratings I 1.66 TABLE I7 PASSAGES WITH STANDARD RATINGS USING THE DDDIFIED FARR-JENKINS PATERSON INTER, AND THEIR SPANISH EQUIVALENTS “ .. ram 3 '4 mm 223 '21a 15 :3. Inmw s1 Remnant g llbzhw s1 lunanss 15 99 66 7.07 66.841 102 89 7.28 103.405 36 98 66 10.88 62.974 87 70 9.74 70.527 37 00 69 11.10 67.547 102 r 78 11.50 81.532 38 00 68 10.00 67.065 97 75 9.70 78.563 39 99 69 9.90 68.765 93 65 9.30 62.978 42 98 67 9.80 65.669 98 80 9.80 86.456 56 94 74 23.50 62.956 102 71 17.00 80.286 57 01 69 16.85 61.711 105 70 13.10 67.116 62 08 74 18.00 68.539 107 80 21.40 74.682 65 10 80 27.50 68.490 86- 60 21.50 42.600 71 01 76 25.20 64.429 97 73 24.20 60.647 74 00 74 20.00 66.509 98 67 19.60 55.722 75 09 76 21.80 67.880 103 76 20.60 69.098 80 14 82 38.00 61.031 106 76 26.50 63.109 132 04 73 17.33 67.620 104 74 17.33 69.219 141 89 75 22.25 65.824 113 80 28.25 67.729 149 98 78 30.00 62.755 107 74 36.00 50.269 194 02 65 8.67 63.618 114 58 5.70 55.440 207 00 68 10.20 66.862 106 57 8.41 51.090 235 97 71 16.00 65.772 109 72 16.30 67.066 Means 72 17.7 65.64 72.3 16.66 67.88 Differences between: nosw and 1 6. 2sw I - .3 Ratings I -2.24 -75- PASSAGES WITH PAIRLY DIPFICULT RATINGS USING THE IMDDIEIED PARR-JENKINS-PATERSON INDEX, AND TABLE 18 THEIR.SPANISH.EQUIVALENTS '1 S “m 5 S 8mm O E E nosw 81 Ratings 2:9 1 8 2w s1 Ratings 30 60 9.70 54.577 89 58 8.09 53.014 40 58 8.30 52.800 02 72 8.50 74.983 43 62 10.20 57.268 98 64 9.80 60.872 44 64 11.25 58.893 90 74 11.25 75.390 48 64 12.00 58.639 91 62 11.33 52.191 49 63 16.10 52.878 94 68 13.40 63.614 50 62 12.70 54.730 66 11.55 62.294 53 67 25.00 50.241 57 21.70 37.601 55 84 51.50 50.526 77 28.75 62.425 68 61 15.00 50.797 61 14.00 51.812 73 66 19.60 54.123 98 61 18.20 47.549 127 69 25.25 53.185 69 25.75 52.678 128 69 25.00 53.439 64 23.20 47.271 139 61 8.17 57.729 4 68 8.67 68.415 142 68 20.40 56.509 4 62 18.80 48.539 145 63 13.30 55.770 71 16.83 64.930 146 63 17.10 51.863 59 15.30 47.293 172 69 21.20 57.296 71 23.80 57.855 176 64 18.10 52.447 58 18.40 42.549 182 59 8.75 53.943 59 8.50 54.196 Means 64.8 17.43 54.38 65.1 15.79 56.27 Differences between: ,nosw and l & 28w I s1 Ratings -03 1.64 8 “1.89 TABLE 19 PASSAGES HITH.DIFPIGULT RATINGS USING THE MODIFIED FARR! JENKINS-PATERSON INDEX, AND THEIR.SPANISH.EQUIVALENTS Means Differences between: llfllfllfl "2u§ saunas 0 run! d1 kahuna. ‘3 §:1«hzum a1 kahuna 57 10.30 49.171 111 63 11.10 41.964 59 14.30 48.309 101 56 12.60 45.238 63 32.60 36.131 107 59 21.60 40.900 72 37.00 46.056 115 '71 22.20 59.479 57 26.20 33.033 99 60 24.60 39.094 60 20.00 44.123 100 60 20.00 44.123 68 31.60 45.141 102 64 31.00 39.354 74 42.00 44.179 104 .67 26.00 49.226 59 25.50 36.941 104 68 26.00 50.825 60 21.20 42.905 120 69 30.00 48.364 64 34.60 35.700 107 72 35.60 47.477 60 24.20 39.860 105 68 26.20 50.622 59 20.60 41.915 95 56 18.80 38.945 67 25.70 49.530 102 69 25.50 52.931 63 35.00 33.695 112 73 37.30 47.350 52 14.00 37.421 98 63 14.00 55.010 56 15.83 41.960 110 66 17.50 56.254 60 20.40 43.717 102 63 20.40 48.514 54 17.50 37.066 117 66 23.40 50.266 106, 60 21.20 42.905 110 63 22.00 , 46.890 61.2 24.48 41.500 64.8 23.29 47.64 nosw and 1 & 28w I -3.6 81 I +1.19 Ratings I -6.14 -77- Modified- l'arr-Jenkins-Paterson Inner-Correlations Correlations Ratings: r I .996 nosw and l & 2sw: r I .941 s1: r I .923 Hecue no.-- gnu fistualouwbuflhog EVEN Hg 85 no.3 iconuueoue teno- oeu Eon—eso tonne 36 none oven»:- . 095" 6:01.2— guanuueoue todos. cos are e! nsouev. sol-no as weuevuee as one n cos ouuevee. Au o n are Awene unouoe oceans eouo use oeueonee as can euusoe. one up lee-a nevusv. Average Sentence Length (in words) Lot-cited Pro-e810 de Oraciones (en palabras) GONG uo uu un uu ub uu uo un uo uo no nu nn nu nb nu no nn no no uo uu un uu uu uo un uo uo ob on oo no no nb nn no oo oo ob on oo uo uo ub un uo bo bo bb bn bo uo uo ub on ou oo on ob ou nn nu nu oo ob ou uo uu un bo bu bu uo uo un uo no nu no uo oo on oo oo ou oo no nb no on ou oo uo ub uu bn bb bn uo uu uu no nu nn uo uu ou ou oo ou on no nu nu oo oo on uo un uu uo bo bu bu un ub uo no nb nu uo ub ob oo on ob ou no nb nn oo ou ou uo uo un bo bu bn bo uo uu no nn nu no un uu ou oo oo ou oo nn nu nu on ob oo un uu uu bo bb bu uo uu un no no nn uo uo un on oo ou on no no nn no oo ou uo uo ub uo bn bu bo uo ub uu nn nu nu uo uu uu ou on ob ou no nu nu oo ou on uo uu uu bo bo bn uo un uu uo no nb no un ub uo oo oo ou oo nn nb no oo ob ou un ub un bo bu bu uo uu un no nu nu uo uo uu o oo ou on no no nn oo on ou oo uo uu uo bn bb bo un ub uu no nb nn uo uu un o oo ob ou no nu nu oo oo on uo uu un bo bo bu uo uo uu uo nn nu nu un ub uu n on ou oo nn nb no on ou ou uo ub uu bo bu bn uo uu un no no nn no uo uu uo o oo on no no nu oo oo ob oo un uu uo bn bb bu un ub uu no nu nu uo uu un o u ou ou no nu nn oo ou ou uo uo un bo bo bu bo uo uu uo nn nb no uo ub uu o b ou oo nn nb nu on ob ou uo uu uu bo bu bn uo uu un no no nu uo un uu uo n u on no no nu no oo ou oo un ub uo bn bb bu uo ub uu no nu nn uo uo u» o o n ou no nu nn oo ou on uo uo uu bo bo bu bo un uu uo nn nb nu un uu uu o u .u oo nn nb nu oo ob ou uo uu un bo bu bn uo uo un no no nu no uo ub uo n b ano no nu no on ou oo un ub uu bn bb bu uo uu uu no nu nn uo uu uu o o n no nu nn oo oo on uo uo uu uo bo bu bo un ub uo nn nb nu uo ub un o u u - nn nb nu oo ou ou uo uu un bo bu bn uo uo uu no no nu no un uu uu n b nw no nu no on ob oo un ub uu bo bb bu uo uu un no nu nn uo uo un uo o u . nu nn oo oo ou uo uo uu uo bn bu bo un Ub uu nn nb nu uo uu uu o u n nb nu oo ou on uo uu un bo bo bn uo uo uu uo no nu no un uu uo o b u nu no on ob ou un ub uu bo bu bu uo uu un no nu nn uo uo un o n u nn oo oo ou oo uo uu uo bn bb bo un ub uu nn nb nu uo uu uu o o n nu oo ou on uo uu un bo bo bu uo uo uu uo no nu no un ub uo n u u no on ob ou uo ub uu bo bu bn uo uu un no nu nn uo uo uu o o b oo oo ou oo un uu uo bn bb bu un ub uu no nb nu uo uu un o u n oo ou ou uo uo un bo bo bu bo uo uu uo nn nu no un ub uu n b u on ob oo uo uu uu bo bu bn uo uu un no no nn uo uo uu uo o u oo ou uo un ub uo bn bb bu un Ub uu no nu nu uo uu un o u n ou on uo uo uu bo bo bu bo uo uu uo nn nb no un ub uu o b u ob ou un uu un bo bu bn uo uu un no no nu uo uo uu uo n u ou oo uo ub uu bn bb bu uo Ub uu no nu nn uo uu un o o n on uo uu uu uo bo \wmw bo un uu uo nn nb nu un ub uu o u u avenue-Foe.— on seas-nos on on. help. u. nee—nuns. nee-unto." on are canons-u ManueeRuSuosneNe-H nae-=3 See Home”. gun»!— ne unousoe o. n. o. uo So bout-=6 Susana. Agneoev. APPENDIX C BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. 3. 4. 5. 7. BIBLIOGRAPHY Chall, Jeanne S. "Readgbilitz, 2 appraisal 93 research 29!. application, Ohio State University, 1958. Buchanan, M. A. .A_ Graded Spanish Word Book, University of Toronto Press , Toronto, 1929. (Third ldition 1941). Spaulding, Seth "Two Formulas for Estimating Reading Difficulty in Spanish", Educational Research Bulletin, m, 4, May 16, 1951, pp. 117-24. Superior Rducational Council of the University of Puerto Rico. " Recuento g: Vocabulario Sspaflol" (Spanish Vocabulary Count), University of P.R. , 1952. Flesch, Rudolph Lb; £1; 2; Readable writing. N.Y. Harper 1949. larr, James R; "Sinplification of Flesch Reading Ease Jenkins, J. J.; For-Ina". Journal g_f_ Applied Psychology, and Peterson, an 5. Oct. 1951, pp. 333-337. Donald G. Klare, Geo. R. 1h: Measurement 2; Readability, Iowa State University Press, 1963, pp. 24-25. Criado del Val, "risonomia §_e_1_ M Se aflol" (Physiog- Manuel nony of the Spanish Language . Madrid, Aguilar, S. A. de Idiciones, 1954. ”74114 @411 1144111147 ’1'“