The effects of syntactic and lexical complexity on the comprehension ...

<strong>The</strong> Effects <strong>of</strong> Syntactic <strong>and</strong> Lexical / Arya, Hiebert & PearsonTable 1. Example <strong>of</strong> Manipulated Version <strong>of</strong> Topical Texts: Jelly BeansSyntactically SimpleSyntactically SimpleEveryday VocabularyA scientist wanted to make anew flavor. He wanted to makegrass flavor. Grass is not safefood. He could not use realgrass. He used other things.<strong>The</strong>se things are safe. His newjelly bean smells like grass. Ittastes like grass.A scientist wanted to make anew flavor. He wanted to makegrass flavor. Grass is not safefood. He could not use realgrass. He used other things.<strong>The</strong>se things are safe. His newjelly bean smells like grass. Ittastes like grass.Academic VocabularyOne scientist wanted to invent 1a flavor. This was grass flavor.Grass is not edible. He couldnot manufacture the flavor. Heused different ingredients. Thisjelly bean had the odor <strong>of</strong>grass. It had the taste <strong>of</strong> grass.One scientist wanted to invent 1a flavor. This was grass flavor.Grass is not edible. He could notmanufacture the flavor. Heused different ingredients. Thisjelly bean had the odor <strong>of</strong> grass.It had the taste <strong>of</strong> grass.Syntactically EmbeddedOne scientist wanted to make anew flavor, grass flavor, by 2using other things becausegrass is not safe to eat. Hecould not use real grass tomake the flavor, but it smelled<strong>and</strong> tasted like grass.1Academic vocabulary2Word indicating an embedded structureOne scientist wanted to invent aflavor, grass flavor. by usingdifferent ingredients becausegrass is not edible. He could notuse grass to manufacture theflavor, but this jelly bean had theodor <strong>and</strong> taste <strong>of</strong> grass.Table 2. Indexed Features <strong>of</strong> Syntactic <strong>and</strong> Lexical ComplexitySyntactic Complexity (Average Number<strong>of</strong> Propositions within Version)Lexical Complexity (Average St<strong>and</strong>ardFrequency Index (SFI) within Version)Simple Embedded Everyday AcademicTree Frogs 2.9 7.3 65.9 52.1Soil 2.9 7.3 63 48.3Jelly Beans 2.6 7 67 47.5Toothpaste 2.7 6.8 63.4 47<strong>The</strong> middle section <strong>of</strong> the text was rewritten so that there were four texts for each topic: (a)<strong>syntactic</strong>ally simple with everyday vocabulary (simple/everyday), (b) <strong>syntactic</strong>ally complexwith everyday vocabulary (embedded/everyday), (c) <strong>syntactic</strong>ally simple with academicvocabulary (simple/academic), <strong>and</strong> (d) <strong>syntactic</strong>ally complex with academic vocabulary(embedded/academic).For this study, a high level <strong>of</strong> <strong>syntactic</strong> <strong>complexity</strong> was defined as the presence <strong>of</strong> two ormore embedded structures within a sentence; sentences with one or no embeddedstructures were deemed as low in <strong>syntactic</strong> <strong>complexity</strong>. Embedded structures includedrelative clauses, nominalizations, appositives <strong>and</strong> multiple modifiers. An illustration <strong>of</strong> the“treated” portion <strong>of</strong> a text <strong>and</strong> the nature <strong>of</strong> embedded structures appears in Table 1.115