1887
Volume 160, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0019-0829
  • E-ISSN: 1783-1490
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Résumé

Avec la multiplication des documents disponibles, notamment sur le web, la tentation est grande, pour le professeur de français langue maternelle ou seconde, de se passer des manuels balisés et de proposer à ses étudiants un texte à son goût. Cependant, il risque alors de perdre un temps précieux à sélectionner un texte qui convienne au niveau de ses étudiants. Il existe pourtant des outils dont la vocation est de l’assister dans cette tâche : les formules de lisibilité. Peu connues dans la culture francophone, elles jouissent dans la culture anglo-saxonne d’un large succès. Cet article présente une nouvelle synthèse des études en lisibilité du français L1 et L2. Partant du constat que les études récentes sont trop rares, nous présentons le nouveau paradigme dominant dans les études anglo-saxonnes, que nous avons appelé la lisibilité computationnelle. Ces recherches combinent des techniques issues du traitement automatique du langage et de l’apprentissage automatisé afin de prendre en compte l’ensemble des dimensions d’un texte : lexicale, syntaxique, sémantique et organisationnelle. Nous clôturons ce parcours en présentant nos propres travaux dans le domaine et, en particulier, «Dmesure», un prototype de plateforme web pour la lisibilité du FLE.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/itl.160.04fra
2010-01-01
2019-10-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aluisio, S., Specia, L., Gasperin, C. & Scarton, C.
    (2010) Readability assessment for text simplification. Fifth Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications, 1–9.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Anagnostou, N.K. & Weir, G.R.S.
    (2006) From corpus-based collocation frequencies to readability measure. ICT in the Analysis, Teaching and Learning of Languages, 33–46.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Antoniadis, G. & Grusson, Y.
    (1996) Modélisation et génération automatique de la lisibilité de textes. In ILN 96 : Informatique et Langue Naturelle.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Beaudet, C.
    (2001) Clarté, lisibilité, intelligibilité des textes : un état de la question et une proposition pédagogique. Recherches en rédaction professionnelle, 1(1).
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Benoît, J.-P.
    (1986) Revue critique des formules de lisibilité, 60 ans de formules de lisibilité : qu’en reste-t-il?Pratiques, 52, 45–63.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bernhardt, E.
    (2005) Progress and procrastination in second language reading. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 25, 133–150. doi:  10.1017/S0267190505000073
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190505000073 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bormuth, J.
    (1966) Readability : A new approach. Reading research quarterly, 1(3), 79–132. doi:  10.2307/747021
    https://doi.org/10.2307/747021 [Google Scholar]
  8. (1969a) Development of Readability Analysis. Rapport technique, Projet n°7-0052, Washington, DC : U.S. Office of Education, Bureau of Research, Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
  9. (1969b) Factor validity of cloze tests as measures of reading comprehension ability. Reading Research Quarterly, 4(3), 358–365. doi:  10.2307/747144
    https://doi.org/10.2307/747144 [Google Scholar]
  10. Boyer, Y.
    (1992) La lisibilité. Revue Française de Pédagogie, 99, 5–14. doi:  10.3406/rfp.1992.1322
    https://doi.org/10.3406/rfp.1992.1322 [Google Scholar]
  11. Carver, R.P.
    (1975) Measuring prose difficulty using the Rauding Scale. Reading Research Quaterly, 11(4), 660–685. doi:  10.2307/747460
    https://doi.org/10.2307/747460 [Google Scholar]
  12. Catach, N.
    (1985) Les listes orthographiques de base du français. Paris: Nathan.
  13. Chall, J.
    (1958) Readability : An Appraisal of Research and Application. Rapport technique, Bureau of Educational Research Monographs, Columbus: Ohio State Univ. Press.
  14. Chall, J. & Dale, E.
    (1995) Readability Revisited : The New Dale-Chall Readability Formula. Cambridge: Brookline Books.
  15. Collins-Thompson, K. & Callan, J.
    (2004a) A language modeling approach to predicting reading difficulty. Proceedings of HLT/NAACL 2004, 193–200.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. (2004b) Information retrieval for language tutoring: an overview of the REAP project. Proceedings of SIGIR 2004, 545–546. doi:  10.1145/1008992.1009112
    https://doi.org/10.1145/1008992.1009112 [Google Scholar]
  17. Conquet, A. & Richaudeau, F.
    (1973) Cinq méthodes de mesure de la lisibilité. Communication et langages, 17(1), 5–16. doi:  10.3406/colan.1973.3978
    https://doi.org/10.3406/colan.1973.3978 [Google Scholar]
  18. Cornaire, C. M.
    (1988) La lisibilité : essai d’application de la formule courte d’Henry au français langue étrangère. Revue Canadienne des Langues Vivantes, 44(2), 261–273.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Crossley, S., Dufty, D., McCarthy, P. & McNamara, D.
    (2007) Toward a new readability : A mixed model approach. Proceedings of the 29th annual conference of the Cognitive Science Society, 197–202.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Dale, E. & J. S. Chall
    1948 A formula for predicting readability. Educational research bulletin, 27, 1–20.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Daoust, F., Laroche, L. & Ouellet, L.
    (1996) SATO-CALIBRAGE : Présentation d’un outil d’assistance au choix et à la rédaction de textes pour l’enseignement. Revue québécoise de linguistique, 25(1), 205–234. doi:  10.7202/603132ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/603132ar [Google Scholar]
  22. de Landsheere, G.
    (1963) Pour une application des tests de lisibilité de Flesch à la langue française. Le Travail Humain, 26, 141–154.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. (1972) Application du cloze test de W.L. Taylor à la langue française. Scientia Paedagogica Experimentalis, 9(2), 207–256.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. (1978) Le test de closure : mesure de la lisibilité et de la compréhension. Paris: Nathan.
  25. Dubay, W.
    (2004) The principles of readability. Impact Information. www.impact-information.com/impactinfo/readability02.pdf.
  26. Duffy, T.
    (1985) Readability formulas : What’s the use. Designing usable texts, 104, 113–143. doi:  10.1016/B978‑0‑12‑223260‑2.50011‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-223260-2.50011-6 [Google Scholar]
  27. Elley, W.B. & Mangubhai, F.
    (1988) The impact of reading on second language learning. Reading Research Quarterly, 19(1), 53–67. doi:  10.2307/747337
    https://doi.org/10.2307/747337 [Google Scholar]
  28. Flesch, R.
    (1948) A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32(3), 221–233. doi:  10.1037/h0057532
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0057532 [Google Scholar]
  29. Foltz, P., Kintsch, W. & Landauer, T.
    (1998) The measurement of textual coherence with latent semantic analysis. Discourse processes, 25(2), 285–307. doi:  10.1080/01638539809545029
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539809545029 [Google Scholar]
  30. Foucambert, J.
    (1983) Une lecture de la lisibilité. les Actes de lecture, 3, 37–39.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. François T. et Watrin, P.
    (2011) Quel apport des unités polylexicales dans une formule de lisibilité pour le français langue étrangère?Actes de la 18e Conférence sur le Traitement automatique des Langues Naturelles (TALN 2011), Montpellier.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Francois, T.
    (2009a) Combining a statistical language model with logistic regression to predict the lexical and syntactic difficulty of fexts for FFL. Proceedings of the EACL 2009 Student Research Workshop, 19–27.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. (2009b) Modèles statistiques pour l’estimation automatique de la difficulté de textes de FLE. Actes de RECITAL 2009.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. François, T.
    (2011) Les apports du TAL à la lisibilité du Français Langue Étrangère. (Thèse de doctorat non publiée). Université catholique de Louvain. Louvain-la-Neuve.
  35. Gélinas Chebat, C., Préfontaine, C., Lecavallier, J. & Chebat, J.-C.
    (1993) Lisibilité - intelligibilité de documents d’information. Cahier de recherche, 3, 19–35.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Gougenheim, G., Michéa, R., Rivenc, P. & Sauvageot, A.
    (1964) L’élaboration du français fondamental (1er degré). Paris: Didier.
  37. Graesser, A., McNamara, D., Louwerse, M. & Cai, Z.
    (2004) Coh-Metrix : Analysis of text on cohesion and language. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments & Computers, 36(2), 193–202. doi:  10.3758/BF03195564
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195564 [Google Scholar]
  38. Gray, W.S. & Leary A.B.
    (1935), What Makes a Book Readable, Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
  39. Greenfield, J.
    (2004) Readability formulas for EFL. Japan Association for Language Teaching Journal, 26(1), 5–24.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Gromer, B. & Weiss, M.
    (1990) Lire. Paris: Armand Collin.
  41. Gunning, R.
    (1952) The technique of clear writing. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  42. Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R. & Friedman, J.
    (2001) The elements of statistical learning. Data mining, inference, and prediction. New York: Springer. doi:  10.1007/978‑0‑387‑21606‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-21606-5 [Google Scholar]
  43. Heilman, M., Collins-Thompson, K., Callan, J. & Eskenazi, M.
    (2007) Combining lexical and grammatical features to improve readability measures for first and second language texts. Proceedings of NAACL HLT, 460–467.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Heilman, M., Collins-Thompson, K. & Eskenazi, M.
    (2008) An analysis of statistical models and features for reading difficulty prediction. Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications, 1–8.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Henry, G.
    (1975) Comment mesurer la lisibilité. Bruxelles: Labor.
  46. Hino, Y., Lupker, S. J., & Pexman, P. M.
    (2002) Ambiguity and synonymy effects in lexical decision, naming, and semantic categorization tasks: Interactions between orthography, phonology, and semantics. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28(4), 686–713.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Jacobson, M.D.
    (1974) Predicting reading difficulty from spelling. Spelling Progress Bulletin, 14, 8–10.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Kandel, L. & Moles, A.
    (1958) Application de l’indice de Flesch à la langue française. Cahiers Études de Radio-Télévision, 19, 253–274.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Kate, R., Luo, X., Patwardhan, S., Franz, M., Florian, R., Mooney, R., Roukos, S. & Welty, C
    (2010) Learning to predict readability using diverse linguistic features. Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics, 546–554.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Kemper, S.
    (1983) Measuring the inference load of a text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(3), 391–401. doi:  10.1037/0022‑0663.75.3.391
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.75.3.391 [Google Scholar]
  51. Kincaid, J., Fishburne, R., Rodgers, R. & Chissom, B.
    (1975) Derivation of new readability formulas for navy enlisted personnel. Rapport technique, n°8-75, Research Branch Report.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Kintsch, W.
    (1979) On modeling comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 14(1), 3–14. doi:  10.1080/00461527909529202
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00461527909529202 [Google Scholar]
  53. Kintsch, W. & van Dijk, T.
    (1978) Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological review, 85(5), 363–394. doi:  10.1037/0033‑295X.85.5.363
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.85.5.363 [Google Scholar]
  54. Kintsch, W. & Vipond, D.
    (1979) Reading comprehension and readability in educational practice and psychological theory. InL. Nilsson, (Ed.), Perspectives on Memory Research (pp.329–365). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Klare, G.
    (1963) The Measurement of Readability. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.
  56. (1974) Assessing readability. Reading Research Quarterly, 10(1), 62–102. doi:  10.2307/747086
    https://doi.org/10.2307/747086 [Google Scholar]
  57. (1984) Readability. InP. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal & R. Dykstra, (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research (pp.681–744). New York: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Koda, K.
    (2005) Insights into second language reading: A cross-linguistic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9781139524841
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524841
  59. Krashen, S.
    (1989) We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: additional evidence for the Input Hypothesis. The Modern Language Journal, 73(4), 440–464. doi:  10.1111/j.1540‑4781.1989.tb05325.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1989.tb05325.x [Google Scholar]
  60. Labasse, B.
    (1999) La lisibilité rédactionnelle : fondements et perspectives. Communication et langages, 121, 86–103. doi:  10.3406/colan.1999.2951
    https://doi.org/10.3406/colan.1999.2951 [Google Scholar]
  61. Landauer, T., Foltz, P. & Laham, D.
    (1998) An introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse processes, 25(2), 259–284. doi:  10.1080/01638539809545028
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539809545028 [Google Scholar]
  62. Laroche, J. M.
    (1979) Readability measurement for foreign language materials. System, 7, 131–135. doi:  10.1016/0346‑251X(79)90036‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0346-251X(79)90036-8 [Google Scholar]
  63. Lively, B. & Pressey, S.
    (1923) A method for measuring the “vocabulary burden” of textbooks. Educational Administration and Supervision, 9, 389–398.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Mastropieri, M. A., Leinart, A., & Scruggs, T. E.
    (1999) Strategies to increase reading fluency. Intervention in School and Clinic, 34, 278–283. doi:  10.1177/105345129903400504
    https://doi.org/10.1177/105345129903400504 [Google Scholar]
  65. Mesnager J.
    (1986) La lisibilité dans la littérature enfantine. Les actes de lecture, 13, 31–39 et 14, 25–33.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Mesnager, J.
    (1989) Lisibilité des textes pour enfants : un nouvel outil?Communication et Langages, 79, 18–38. doi:  10.3406/colan.1989.1081
    https://doi.org/10.3406/colan.1989.1081 [Google Scholar]
  67. (2002) Pour une étude de la difficulté des textes : la lisibilité revisitée. Le Français aujourd’hui, 137, 29–42. doi:  10.3917/lfa.137.0029
    https://doi.org/10.3917/lfa.137.0029 [Google Scholar]
  68. Miltsakaki, E. & Troutt, A.
    (2008) Real-Time Web Text Classification and Analysis of Reading Difficulty. Proceedings of the Third ACL Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications, 89–97.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. O’Connor, R. E., Bell, K. M., & Harty, K. R.
    (2002) Teaching reading to poor readers in the intermediate grades: A comparison of text difficulty. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 474–485. doi:  10.1037/0022‑0663.94.3.474
    https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.3.474 [Google Scholar]
  70. Pitler, E. & Nenkova, A.
    (2008) Revisiting readability : A unified framework for predicting text quality. Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, 186–195. doi:  10.3115/1613715.1613742
    https://doi.org/10.3115/1613715.1613742 [Google Scholar]
  71. Rabin, A.
    (1988) Determining difficulty levels of text written in languages other than English. InB. Zakaluk & S. Samuels (Eds.), Readability: Its Past, Present and Future (pp.46–76). Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Racle, G.
    (1988) La lisibilité : quelques aperçus neuropsychologiques. Communication et langages, 76(1), 20–41. doi:  10.3406/colan.1988.1037
    https://doi.org/10.3406/colan.1988.1037 [Google Scholar]
  73. Rayner, K. & Frazier, L.
    (1989) Selection mechanisms in reading lexically ambiguous words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(5), 779–790.
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Reitsma, P.
    (1988) Reading practice for beginners: effects of guided reading, reading-while-listening, and independent reading with computer-based speech feedback. Reading Research Quartely, 23(2), 219–235. doi:  10.2307/747803
    https://doi.org/10.2307/747803 [Google Scholar]
  75. Richaudeau, F.
    (1969) La lisibilité. Paris: Denoël.
  76. (1976) Faut-il brûler les formules de lisibilité?Communication et Langages, 30, 6–19. doi:  10.3406/colan.1976.4293
    https://doi.org/10.3406/colan.1976.4293 [Google Scholar]
  77. (1984) Recherches actuelles sur la lisibilité, Paris : Éditions Retz.
  78. Schwarm, S. & Ostendorf, M.
    (2005) Reading level assessment using support vector machines and statistical language models. Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, 523–530. doi:  10.3115/1219840.1219905
    https://doi.org/10.3115/1219840.1219905 [Google Scholar]
  79. Selzer, J.
    (1981) Readability is a four-letter word. Journal of business communication, 18(4), 23–34. doi:  10.1177/002194368101800403
    https://doi.org/10.1177/002194368101800403 [Google Scholar]
  80. Stevens, K.
    (1980) Readability formulae and McCall-Crabbs standard test lessons in reading. The Reading Teacher, 33(4), 413–415.
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Si, L. & Callan, J.
    (2001) A statistical model for scientific readability. Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, 574–576. doi:  10.1145/502585.502695
    https://doi.org/10.1145/502585.502695 [Google Scholar]
  82. Szalay, T.
    (1965) Validation of the Coleman readability formulas. Psychological Reports, 17(3), 965–966. doi:  10.2466/pr0.1965.17.3.965
    https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1965.17.3.965 [Google Scholar]
  83. Taylor, W.
    (1953) Cloze procedure : A new tool for measuring readability. Journalism quarterly, 30(4), 415–433.
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Timbal-Duclaux, L.
    (1984) La transparence du texte pour mesurer sa lisibilité. Communication et langages, 59(1), 9–20. doi:  10.3406/colan.1984.1596
    https://doi.org/10.3406/colan.1984.1596 [Google Scholar]
  85. (1985) Textes “inlisable” et lisible. Communication et Langages, 66, 13–31. doi:  10.3406/colan.1985.3652
    https://doi.org/10.3406/colan.1985.3652 [Google Scholar]
  86. (1989) Les 4 couleurs du texte. Communication et langages, 80(1), 5–26. doi:  10.3406/colan.1989.1096
    https://doi.org/10.3406/colan.1989.1096 [Google Scholar]
  87. Tharp, J. B.
    (1939) The Measurement of Vocabulary Difficulty. The Modern Language Journal24(3), 169–178. doi:  10.1111/j.1540‑4781.1939.tb02893.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.1939.tb02893.x [Google Scholar]
  88. Thorndike, E.
    (1921) Word knowledge in the elementary school. The Teachers College Record, 22(4), 334–370.
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Uitdenbogerd, A.L
    (2005) Readability of french as a foreign language and its uses. InJ. Kay, A. Turpin & R. Wilkinson (Eds.), Proc. Australian Document Computing Symposium, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 19–25.
  90. Vogel, M. & Washburne, C.
    (1928) An objective method of determining grade placement of children’s reading material. The Elementary School Journal, 28(5), 373–381. doi:  10.1086/456072
    https://doi.org/10.1086/456072 [Google Scholar]
  91. Wan, X., Li, H. & Xiao, J.
    (2010) EUSUM : extracting easy-to-understand english summaries for non-native readers. Proceedings of the 33rd international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, 491–498. doi:  10.1145/1835449.1835532
    https://doi.org/10.1145/1835449.1835532 [Google Scholar]
  92. Weaver, W. & Kingston, A.
    (1963) A factor analysis of the cloze procedure and other measures of reading and language ability. Journal of Communication, 13(4), 252–261. doi:  10.1111/j.1460‑2466.1963.tb02113.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1963.tb02113.x [Google Scholar]
  93. Willms, J. D.
    (2003) Literacy proficiency of youth: evidence of converging socioeconomic gradients. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(3), 247–252. doi:  10.1016/j.ijer.2004.04.005
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2004.04.005 [Google Scholar]
  94. Zakaluk, B.L. & Samuels, S.J.
    (1996) Issues related to text comprehensibility : The future of readability. Revue québécoise de linguistique, 25(1), 41–59. doi:  10.7202/603126ar
    https://doi.org/10.7202/603126ar [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/itl.160.04fra
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error