skip to main content
research-article

Approaches, Methods, and Resources for Assessing the Readability of Arabic Texts

Published:25 March 2023Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Text readability assessment is a well-known problem that has acquired even more importance in today’s information-rich world. In this article, we survey various approaches to measuring and assessing the readability of texts. Our specific goal is to provide a perspective on the state-of-the-art in readability assessment research for Arabic, which differs significantly from other languages on which readability studies have tended to focus. We provide background on readability assessment research and tools for English, for which readability studies are the most advanced. We then survey approaches adopted for Arabic, both classical formula-based approaches and studies that combine Machine Learning (ML) with Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques. The works we cover target text corpora for different audiences: school-age first language readers (L1), foreign language learners (L2), and adult readers in non-academic contexts. Therefore, we explore differences between reading in L1 and L2 and consider how they play out specifically in Arabic after describing language characteristics that may impact readability. Finally, we highlight challenges for Arabic readability research and propose multiple future directions to improve readability assessment and related applications that would benefit from more attention.

REFERENCES

  1. [1] Ababou N. and Mazroui A.. 2016. A hybrid arabic POS tagging for simple and compound morphosyntactic tags. International Journal of Speech Technology 19, 2 (2016), 289302. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. [2] Abdelali Ahmed, Guzman Francisco, Sajjad Hassan, and Vogel Stephan. 2014. The AMARA corpus: Building parallel language resources for the educational domain. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation. European Language Resources Association (ELRA), Reykjavik, Iceland, 18561862. Retrieved from http://www.lrec-conf.org/proceedings/lrec2014/pdf/877_Paper.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. [3] Al-Ajlan A. A., Al-Khalifa H. S., and Al-Salman A. S.. 2008. Towards the development of an automatic readability measurements for arabic language. In Proceedings of the 2008 3rd International Conference on Digital Information Management. 506511. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  4. [4] Al-Aqeel Sinaa, Abanmy Norah, Aldayel Abeer, Al-Khalifa Hend, Al-yahya Maha, and Diab Mona. 2018. Readability of written medicine information materials in arabic language: Expert and consumer evaluation. BMC Health Services Research 18, 1 (2018), 17. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. [5] Al-Busaidi Fatma, Alhashmi Abdullah, Al-Musawi Ali S., and Kadhim Ali. 2016. Teachers’ perceptions on the effectiveness of using arabic language teaching software in omani basic education. International Journal of Education and Development Using Information and Communication Technology 12, 2 (2016), 139157. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. [6] Al-Khalifa Hend and Al-Ajlan Amani. 2010. Automatic readability measurements of the arabic text: An exploratory study. Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering 35, 2010 (2010), No. 2c, 103124.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. [7] Khalil Muhamed Al, Habash Nizar, and Jiang Zhengyang. 2020. A large-scale leveled readability lexicon for standard arabic. In Proceedings of the 12th Language Resources and Evaluation Conference. European Language Resources Association, Marseille, France, 30533062. Retrieved from https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/2020.lrec-1.373.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. [8] Khalil Muhamed Al, Saddiki Hind, Habash Nizar, and Alfalasi Latifa. 2018. A leveled reading corpus of modern standard arabic. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation. European Language Resources Association (ELRA), Miyazaki, Japan. Retrieved from https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/L18-1366.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. [9] Al-Sulaiti Latifa, Abbas Noorhan, Brierley Claire, Atwell Eric, and Alghamdi Ayman. 2016. Compilation of an arabic children’s corpus. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation. European Language Resources Association (ELRA), Portorož, Slovenia, 18081812. Retrieved from https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/L16-1285.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. [10] Al-Tamimi Abdel-Karim, Jaradat Manar, Aljarrah Nuha, and Ghanim Sahar. 2014. AARI: Automatic arabic readability index. International Arab Journal of Information Technology 11, 4 (2014), 370378.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. [11] Almujaiwel Sultan. 2016. Free/open KACSTAC and its processing tools: Lexical resources for arabic lexicogrammatical microstructures based on collocational indicators. In Proceedings of the Input a Word, Analyze the World: Selected Approaches to Corpus Linguistics. Newcastle Upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing (2016), 153–170.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. [12] Alotaibi Sihaam, Alyahya Maha, Al-Khalifa Hend, Alageel Sinaa, and Abanmy Nora. 2016. Readability of arabic medicine information leaflets: A machine learning approach. Procedia Computer Science 82 (2016), 122126. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. [13] Alsughayr Abdulrahman. 2013. King abdullah bin abdulaziz arabic health encyclopedia (www.kaahe.org): A reliable source for health information in arabic in the internet. Saudi Journal of Medicine and Medical Sciences 1, 1 (2013), 53. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. [14] Altmisdort Gonca. 2016. The effects of L2 reading skills on L1 reading skills through transfer. English Language Teaching 9, 9 (2016), 2835.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. [15] Aluisio Sandra, Specia Lucia, Gasperin Caroline, and Scarton Carolina. 2010. Readability assessment for text simplification. In Proceedings of the NAACL HLT 2010 5th Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications. Association for Computational Linguistics, 19.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. [16] Anderson Jonathan. 1983. Lix and rix: Variations on a little-known readability index. Journal of Reading 26, 6 (1983), 490496. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/40031755.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. [17] Belet Dilek, Gursoy Esim, et al. 2008. A comparative study on strategies of the children for L1 and L2 reading comprehension in K12. College Teaching Methods and Styles Journal 4, 2 (2008), 3748.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. [18] Bhargava Neeraj, Sharma Girja, Bhargava Ritu, and Mathuria Manish. 2013. Decision tree analysis on j48 algorithm for data mining. In Proceedings of The International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer Science and Software Engineering 3, 6 (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. [19] Boudchiche M. and Mazroui A.. 2018. Improving the arabic root extraction by using the quadratic splines. In Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Intelligent Systems and Computer Vision. 15. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. [20] Boudchiche Mohamed and Mazroui Azzeddine. 2019. A hybrid approach for arabic lemmatization. International Journal of Speech Technology 22, 3 (2019), 563573. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. [21] Breiman Leo. 2001. Random forests. Machine Learning 45, 1 (2001), 532.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. [22] Bruce Bertram, Rubin Andee, and Starr Kathleen. 1981. Why readability formulas fail. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication1 (1981), 5052.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. [23] Buckwalter Tim and Parkinson Dilworth. 2014. A Frequency Dictionary of Arabic: Core Vocabulary for Learners. Routledge.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. [24] Cavalli-Sforza Violetta and Mezouar Mariam El. 2014. Matching an arabic text to a learners’ curriculum. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Arabic Language Processing.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. [25] Clark John L. D. and Clifford Ray T.. 1988. The FSI/ILR/ACTFL proficiency scales and testing techniques: Development, current status, and needed research. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 10, 2 (1988), 129147.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. [26] Cronin M., O’Hanlon S., and O’Connor M.. 2011. Readability level of patient information leaflets for older people. Irish Journal of Medical Science 180, 1 (2011), 139142.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. [27] Crossley Scott A., Kyle Kristopher, and McNamara Danielle S.. 2016. The tool for the automatic analysis of text cohesion (TAACO): Automatic assessment of local, global, and text cohesion. Behavior Research Methods 48, 4 (2016), 12271237.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. [28] Crossley Scott A., Skalicky Stephen, Dascalu Mihai, McNamara Danielle S., and Kyle Kristopher. 2017. Predicting text comprehension, processing, and familiarity in adult readers: New approaches to readability formulas. Discourse Processes 54, 5-6 (2017), 340359.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. [29] Dale Edgar and Chall Jeanne S.. 1948. A formula for predicting readability: Instructions. Educational Research Bulletin (1948), 3754.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. [30] Dascalu Mihai, Crossley Scott A., McNamara Danielle S., Dessus Philippe, and Trausan-Matu Stefan. 2018. Please readerbench this text: A multi-dimensional textual complexity assessment framework. In Proceedings of the Tutoring and Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Nova Science Publishers, Inc., 251271.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. [31] Daud Nuraihan Mat, Hassan Haslina, and Aziz Normaziah Abdul. 2013. A corpus-based readability formula for estimate of arabic texts reading difficulty. World Applied Sciences Journal 21 (2013), 168173.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. [32] Dawood BAK. 1977. The relationship between readability and selected language variables. Tesis Unpublished Master Thesis (In Arabic), Iraq Baghdad University.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. [33] Dell’Orletta Felice, Montemagni Simonetta, and Venturi Giulia. 2014. Assessing document and sentence readability in less resourced languages and across textual genres. ITL-International Journal of Applied Linguistics 165, 2 (2014), 163193.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. [34] Deutsch Tovly, Jasbi Masoud, and Shieber Stuart. 2020. Linguistic features for readability assessment. In Proceedings of the 15th Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. [35] Edmunds Matthew R., Barry Robert J., and Denniston Alastair K.. 2013. Readability assessment of online ophthalmic patient information. JAMA Ophthalmology 131, 12 (2013), 16101616.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. [36] El-Haj Mahmoud and Rayson Paul Edward. 2016. OSMAN: A novel arabic readability metric. (2016). Retrieved from http://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/78553/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. [37] Feng Lijun, Elhadad Noémie, and Huenerfauth Matt. 2009. Cognitively motivated features for readability assessment. In Proceedings of the 12th Conference of the European Chapter of the ACL. 229237.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. [38] Feng Lijun, Jansche Martin, Huenerfauth Matt, and Elhadad Noémie. 2010. A comparison of features for automatic readability assessment. In Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Posters. Association for computational linguistics, 276284.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. [39] Flesch Rudolph. 1948. A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology 32, 3 (1948), 221. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. [40] Forsyth Jonathan. 2014. Automatic readability detection for modern standard arabic. Thesis Dissertation, Brigham Young University - Provo (2014). Retrieved from http://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/3983.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. [41] François Thomas and Miltsakaki Eleni. 2012. Do NLP and machine learning improve traditional readability formulas?. In Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Predicting and Improving Text Readability for Target Reader Populations. Association for Computational Linguistics, 4957.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. [42] Ghani Kamarulzaman Abdul, Noh Ahmad Sabri, and Yusoff Nik Mohd Rahimi. 2014. Linguistic features for development of arabic text readability formula in malaysia: A preliminary study. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research 19, 3 (2014), 319331.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  43. [43] Gonzalez-Dios Itziar, Aranzabe María Jesús, Ilarraza Arantza Díaz de, and Salaberri Haritz. 2014. Simple or complex? Assessing the readability of basque texts. In Proceedings of the COLING 2014, the 25th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: Technical Papers. 334344.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. [44] Grabe William. 1991. Current developments in second language reading research. TESOL Quarterly 25, 3 (1991), 375406.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  45. [45] Graesser Arthur C., Lu Shulan, Jackson George Tanner, Mitchell Heather Hite, Ventura Mathew, Olney Andrew, and Louwerse Max M.. 2004. AutoTutor: A tutor with dialogue in natural language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers 36, 2 (2004), 180192.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  46. [46] Graesser Arthur C., McNamara Danielle S., Louwerse Max M., and Cai Zhiqiang. 2004. Coh-metrix: Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers 36, 2 (2004), 193202.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. [47] Gunning Robert. 1969. The fog index after twenty years. Journal of Business Communication 6, 2 (1969), 313.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. [48] Habash Nizar, Mohit Behrang, Obeid Ossama, Oflazer Kemal, Tomeh Nadi, and Zaghouani Wajdi. 2013. QALB: Qatar arabic language bank. In Proceedings of the Qatar Annual Research Conference. Doha, Qatar.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. [49] Habash Nizar, Rambow Owen, and Roth Ryan. 2009. MADA+TOKAN: A toolkit for arabic tokenization, diacritization, morphological disambiguation, POS tagging, stemming and lemmatization. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Arabic Language Resources and Tools (MEDAR’09). Cairo, 62.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. [50] Halboub Esam, Al-Ak’hali Mohammed Sultan, Al-Mekhlafi Hesham M., and Alhajj Mohammed Nasser. 2021. Quality and readability of web-based arabic health information on COVID-19: An infodemiological study. BMC Public Health 21, 1 (2021), 17.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  51. [51] Heilman Michael, Collins-Thompson Kevyn, Callan Jamie, and Eskenazi Maxine. 2006. Classroom success of an intelligent tutoring system for lexical practice and reading comprehension. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Spoken Language Processing.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  52. [52] Imperial Joseph Marvin. 2021. BERT embeddings for automatic readability assessment. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing. 611618.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. [53] International RTI and Ifrane Al Akhawayn University in. 2015. USAID (2015) research on reading in morocco: Analysis of the national education curriculum and textbooks. final report. USAID. Part 1 (Curriculum Analysis), Part 2 (Textbook Analysis, Parts A and B) (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. [54] Jasem Zahraa, AlMeraj Zainab, and Alhuwail Dari. 2022. Evaluating breast cancer websites targeting arabic speakers: Empirical investigation of popularity, availability, accessibility, readability, and quality. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 22, 1 (2022), 115.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  55. [55] Jiang Zhengyang, Habash Nizar, and Khalil Muhamed Al. 2020. An online readability leveled arabic thesaurus. In Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations. International Committee on Computational Linguistics (ICCL), Barcelona, Spain (Online), 5963. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  56. [56] Kauchak David and Leroy Gondy. 2020. A web-based medical text simplification tool. In Proceedings of the 53rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  57. [57] Khallaf Nouran and Sharoff Serge. 2021. Automatic difficulty classification of arabic sentences. arXiv:2103.04386. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.04386.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. [58] Kincaid J. Peter, Jr Robert P. Fishburne, Rogers Richard L., and Chissom Brad S.. 1975. Derivation of new readability formulas (automated readability index, fog count, and flesch reading ease formula) for navy enlisted personnel. Naval Technical Training Command Millington TN Research Branch.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  59. [59] Klare George Roger et al. 1963. Measurement of readability. (1963).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. [60] Lee Bruce W., Jang Yoo Sung, and Lee Jason Hyung-Jong. 2021. Pushing on text readability assessment: A transformer meets handcrafted linguistic features. arXiv:2109.12258. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/2109.12258.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. [61] Martin Louis, Fan Angela, Clergerie Éric de la, Bordes Antoine, and Sagot Benoît. 2020. Multilingual unsupervised sentence simplification. arXiv:2005.00352. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.00352.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. [62] Martinc Matej, Pollak Senja, and Robnik-Šikonja Marko. 2021. Supervised and unsupervised neural approaches to text readability. Computational Linguistics 47, 1 (2021), 141179.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  63. [63] Laughlin G. Harry Mc. 1969. SMOG grading-a new readability formula. Journal of Reading 12, 8 (1969), 639646.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  64. [64] McNamara Danielle S. and Graesser Arthur C.. 2012. Coh-metrix: An automated tool for theoretical and applied natural language processing. In Proceedings of the Applied Natural Language Processing: Identification, Investigation, and Resolution. IGI Global, 188205.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  65. [65] McNamara Danielle S., Graesser Arthur C., McCarthy Philip M., and Cai Zhiqiang. 2014. Automated Evaluation of Text and Discourse with Coh-Metrix. Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  66. [66] Mohammadi Hamid and Khasteh Seyed Hossein. 2019. Text as environment: A deep reinforcement learning text readability assessment model. arXiv:1912.05957. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.05957.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  67. [67] Nassiri Naoual, Cavalli-Sforza Violetta, and Lakhouaja Abdelhak. 2019. MoSAR: Modern standard arabic readability corpus for L1 learners. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Big Data and Internet of Things. 17.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  68. [68] Nassiri Naoual, Lakhouaja Abdelhak, and Cavalli-Sforza Violetta. 2018. Arabic readability assessment for foreign language learners. In Proceedings of the Natural Language Processing and Information Systems. Silberztein Max, Atigui Faten, Kornyshova Elena, Métais Elisabeth, and Meziane Farid (Eds.), Springer International Publishing, 480488. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  69. [69] Nassiri Naoual, Lakhouaja Abdelhak, and Cavalli-Sforza Violetta. 2018. Modern standard arabic readability prediction. In Proceedings of the Arabic Language Processing: From Theory to Practice. Lachkar Abdelmonaime, Bouzoubaa Karim, Mazroui Azzedine, Hamdani Abdelfettah, and Lekhouaja Abdelhak (Eds.), Springer International Publishing, 120133. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  70. [70] Nassiri Naoual, Lakhouaja Abdelhak, and Cavalli-Sforza Violetta. 2021. Arabic L2 readability assessment: Dimensionality reduction study. Journal of King Saud University-Computer and Information Sciences 34, 6 (2021), 3789–3799. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  71. [71] Nassiri Naoual, Lakhouaja Abdelhak, and Cavalli-Sforza Violetta. 2022. Combining classical and non-classical features to improve readability measures for arabic first language texts. In Proceedings of the Advanced Intelligent Systems for Sustainable Development.Kacprzyk Janusz, Balas Valentina E., and Ezziyyani Mostafa (Eds.), Springer International Publishing, Cham, 463470. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  72. [72] Nye Benjamin D., Graesser Arthur C., and Hu Xiangen. 2014. AutoTutor and family: A review of 17 years of natural language tutoring. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 24, 4 (2014), 427469.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  73. [73] Pasha Arfath, Al-Badrashiny Mohamed, Diab Mona T., Kholy Ahmed El, Eskander Ramy, Habash Nizar, Pooleery Manoj, Rambow Owen, and Roth Ryan. 2014. MADAMIRA: A fast, comprehensive tool for morphological analysis and disambiguation of arabic. In Proceedings of the LREC. 10941101.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  74. [74] Qiu Xinying, Chen Yuan, Chen Hanwu, Nie Jian-Yun, Shen Yuming, and Lu Dawei. 2021. Learning syntactic dense embedding with correlation graph for automatic readability assessment. arXiv:2107.04268. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/2107.04268.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  75. [75] Redish Janice. 2000. Readability formulas have even more limitations than klare discusses. ACM Journal of Computer Documentation 24, 3 (2000), 132137.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  76. [76] Saddiki H., Bouzoubaa K., and Cavalli-Sforza V.. 2015. Text readability for arabic as a foreign language. In Proceedings of the 2015 IEEE/ACS 12th International Conference of Computer Systems and Applications.18. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  77. [77] Saddiki Hind, Habash Nizar, Cavalli-Sforza Violetta, and Khalil Muhamed Al. 2018. Feature optimization for predicting readability of arabic L1 and L2. In Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Natural Language Processing Techniques for Educational Applications. Association for Computational Linguistics, Melbourne, Australia, 2029. Retrieved from http://aclweb.org/anthology/W18-3703.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  78. [78] Santos Roney, Pedro Gabriela, Leal Sidney, Vale Oto, Pardo Thiago, Bontcheva Kalina, and Scarton Carolina. 2020. Measuring the impact of readability features in fake news detection. In Proceedings of the 12th Language Resources and Evaluation Conference. European Language Resources Association, Marseille, France, 14041413. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  79. [79] Senter R. J. and Smith Edgar A.. 1967. Automated Readability Index. Technical Report. CINCINNATI UNIV OH.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  80. [80] Shevade Shirish K., Keerthi S. Sathiya, Bhattacharyya Chiranjib, and Murthy Karaturi Radha Krishna. 2000. Improvements to the SMO algorithm for SVM regression. IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks 11, 5 (2000), 11881193.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  81. [81] Singhal Meena. 1998. A comparison of L1 and L2 reading: Cultural differences and schema. The Internet TESL Journal 4, 10 (1998), 410.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  82. [82] Spearritt Donald. 1972. Identification Of Sub-skills Of Reading Comprehension By Maximum Likelihood Factor Analysis 1. ETS Research Bulletin Series 1972, 1 (1972), i–24.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  83. [83] Thorndike Edward L.. 1921. The teacher’s word book. (1921).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  84. [84] Vajjala Sowmya. 2021. Trends, limitations and open challenges in automatic readability assessment research. arXiv:2105.00973. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.00973.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  85. [85] Vajjala Sowmya and Meurers Detmar. 2012. On improving the accuracy of readability classification using insights from second language acquisition. In Proceedings of the 7th Workshop on Building Educational Applications Using NLP. Association for Computational Linguistics, 163173.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  86. [86] Widdowson Henry George. 1983. Learning Purpose and Language use. Oxford University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  87. [87] Zerrouki Taha and Balla Amar. 2017. Tashkeela: Novel corpus of arabic vocalized texts, data for auto-diacritization systems. Data in Brief 11 (2017), 147151. DOI:Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  88. [88] Zipf George Kingsley. 1949. Human behavior and the principle of least effort. Ravenio Books, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Approaches, Methods, and Resources for Assessing the Readability of Arabic Texts

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in

    Full Access

    • Published in

      cover image ACM Transactions on Asian and Low-Resource Language Information Processing
      ACM Transactions on Asian and Low-Resource Language Information Processing  Volume 22, Issue 4
      April 2023
      682 pages
      ISSN:2375-4699
      EISSN:2375-4702
      DOI:10.1145/3588902
      Issue’s Table of Contents

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 25 March 2023
      • Online AM: 17 November 2022
      • Accepted: 6 November 2022
      • Revised: 15 September 2022
      • Received: 13 September 2021
      Published in tallip Volume 22, Issue 4

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)210
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)20

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Full Text

    View this article in Full Text.

    View Full Text

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format .

    View HTML Format
    About Cookies On This Site

    We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

    Learn more

    Got it!