TEXCT COMPLEXITY: THE LAST VICTIM OF THE WAR (STORY) BY OTKIR HOSHIMOV
Keywords:
Keywords: Text complexity; linguistic features; syntactic sophistication; lexical density; discourse cohesion; conceptual difficulty; readability metrics; quantitative analysis; qualitative evaluation; cognitive load; metacognitive strategies; reader proficiency; comprehension processes; educational assessment; literacy development.Abstract
Abstract: Text complexity constitutes a multidimensional construct that
encapsulates the intricate interplay between linguistic, cognitive, and conceptual
elements within written discourse. It extends beyond mere lexical difficulty,
encompassing syntactic sophistication, discourse cohesion, thematic profundity, and
inferential demands placed upon the reader. Accurate assessment of text complexity
necessitates an integrative approach combining quantitative metrics, such as
readability indices and corpus-based analyses, with qualitative evaluations that
consider narrative structure, genre-specific conventions, and conceptual abstraction.
Moreover, comprehension is profoundly mediated by reader-intrinsic factors,
including prior knowledge, metacognitive strategies, and motivational orientation. A
nuanced understanding of text complexity is pivotal for optimizing pedagogical
practices, facilitating differentiated instruction, and promoting higher-order literacy
skills, thereby fostering critical engagement with complex texts across diverse
educational contexts.
References
References
1. Bailin, A., & Grafstein, A. (2001). The linguistic assumptions underlying
readability formulae: A critique. Language & Communication, 21(3), 285–301.
2. Chall, J. S., & Dale, E. (1995). Readability revisited: The new Dale–Chall
readability formula. Brookline Books.
3. DuBay, W. H. (2004). The principles of readability. Impact Information.
4. Flesch, R. (1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology,
32(3), 221–233.
5. Flesch, R. (1951). How to test readability. Harper & Brothers.
6. Fry, E. (1977). Fry’s readability graph: Clarifications, validity, and extension to
level 17. Journal of Reading, 21(3), 242–252.
7. Gunning, R. (1952). The technique of clear writing. McGraw–Hill.
8. Harrison, C. (1980). Readability in the classroom. Cambridge University Press.
9. Kincaid, J. P., Fishburne, R. P., Rogers, R. L., & Chissom, B. S. (1975). Derivation
of new readability formulas for Navy enlisted personnel. Naval Technical Training
Command.
10. McLaughlin, G. H. (1969). SMOG grading: A new readability formula. Journal of
Reading, 12(8), 639–646.
11. Mesmer, H. A. E. (2008). Tools for matching readers to texts: Research-based
practices. Guilford Press.
12. Nelson, J., Perfetti, C., Liben, L., & Liben, D. (2012). Measures of text difficulty:
Testing their predictive value for grade levels and student performance. Student
Achievement Partners.
13. Pearson, P. D., & Hiebert, E. H. (2014). The state of the field: Qualitative measures
and the future of text complexity. In E. H. Hiebert (Ed.), Text complexity (pp. 44–
64). International Reading Association.
14. Smith, E. A., & Kieras, D. E. (1983). Readability formulas and comprehension.
Technical Communication, 30(2), 12–17.
15. Wray, D., & Medwell, J. (2006). Teaching literacy effectively in the primary school.
Routledge.
