Cover not available
Article published In:
Australian Review of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 12:2 (1989) ► pp.107–120

Re-reading readability

A critique of Fry’s formula

| Victoria College

This brief article critically examines the assumptions and shortcomings of lexico-syntactically based measures of readability, using the popular Fry’s readability scale as its prime example. Thereafter, it explores an alternative semantic approach to the issue by re-focusing upon three crucial cohesive factors in the development of textual meaning that Fry’s formula ignores, to its cost.

Published online: 1 January 1989
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.12.2.07goo
References
Butler, C.S.
(1985) Systemic linguistics. London, Batsford.Google Scholar
Forsyth, F.
(1971) The day of the jackal. London, Corgi Books.Google Scholar
Fry, E.B.
(1968) A readability formula that saves time. Journal of Reading 11, 7: 513–516 & 575–578.Google Scholar
(1977) Fry’s readability graph: clarifications, validity, and extension to level 17. Journal of Reading 21, 6: 242–252.Google Scholar
Gardner, P.L.
(1981) Students’ difficulties with logical connectives in science. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 4, 2: 50–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K.
(1988) An introduction to functional grammar. London, Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, M.A.K. and R. Hasan
(1976) Cohesion in English. London, Longmans.Google Scholar
Harrison, C.
(1980) Readability in the classroom. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Keller, H.
(1971) Closer towards a theory of music. The Listener 85, 6: 218–219.Google Scholar
Joyce, J.
(1928) Anna Livia Plurabelle. In H. Levin (ed.) (1966) The portable James Joyce. New York, Viking Press: 721–744.Google Scholar
Rosen, H.
(1967) The language of textbooks. In J.N. Britton (ed.) Talking and writing. London, Methuen: 100–114.Google Scholar
Syme, R.
(1939) The Roman revolution. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Weaver, N.
(1980) Picture to the editor. Afterimage 7, 9: 2.Google Scholar