IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jinfst/v71y2020i6p644-656.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is cross‐lingual readability assessment possible?

Author

Listed:
  • Ion Madrazo Azpiazu
  • Maria Soledad Pera

Abstract

Most research efforts related to automatic readability assessment focus on the design of strategies that apply to a specific language. These state‐of‐the‐art strategies are highly dependent on linguistic features that best suit the language for which they were intended, constraining their adaptability and making it difficult to determine whether they would remain effective if they were applied to estimate the level of difficulty of texts in other languages. In this article, we present the results of a study designed to determine the feasibility of a cross‐lingual readability assessment strategy. For doing so, we first analyzed the most common features used for readability assessment and determined their influence on the readability prediction process of 6 different languages: English, Spanish, Basque, Italian, French, and Catalan. In addition, we developed a cross‐lingual readability assessment strategy that serves as a means to empirically explore the potential advantages of employing a single strategy (and set of features) for readability assessment in different languages, including interlanguage prediction agreement and prediction accuracy improvement for low‐resource languages.

Suggested Citation

  • Ion Madrazo Azpiazu & Maria Soledad Pera, 2020. "Is cross‐lingual readability assessment possible?," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 71(6), pages 644-656, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jinfst:v:71:y:2020:i:6:p:644-656
    DOI: 10.1002/asi.24293
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24293
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/asi.24293?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bonsall, Samuel B. & Leone, Andrew J. & Miller, Brian P. & Rennekamp, Kristina, 2017. "A plain English measure of financial reporting readability," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 329-357.
    2. Fang, Bin & Ye, Qiang & Kucukusta, Deniz & Law, Rob, 2016. "Analysis of the perceived value of online tourism reviews: Influence of readability and reviewer characteristics," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 498-506.
    3. Joel Denning & Maria Soledad Pera & Yiu-Kai Ng, 2016. "A readability level prediction tool for K-12 books," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 67(3), pages 550-565, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Pinto, Inês & Morais, Ana Isabel & Quick, Reiner, 2020. "The impact of the precision of accounting standards on the expanded auditor’s report in the European Union," Journal of International Accounting, Auditing and Taxation, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    2. Umar, Tarik, 2022. "Complexity aversion when SeekingAlpha," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 73(2).
    3. Wu, Laurie & Shen, Han & Fan, Alei & Mattila, Anna S., 2017. "The impact of language style on consumers′ reactions to online reviews," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 590-596.
    4. Inmaculada Rabadán-Martín & Francisco Aguado-Correa & Nuria Padilla-Garrido, 2020. "Online reputation of 4- and 5-star hotels," Tourism and Hospitality Management, University of Rijeka, Faculty of Tourism and Hospitality Management, vol. 26(1), pages 157-172, June.
    5. Book, Laura A. & Tanford, Sarah & Chang, Wen, 2018. "Customer reviews are not always informative: The impact of effortful versus heuristic processing," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 272-280.
    6. Chychyla, Roman & Leone, Andrew J. & Minutti-Meza, Miguel, 2019. "Complexity of financial reporting standards and accounting expertise," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 226-253.
    7. Xiaowen Lin & Muhammad Afzaal & Hessah Saleh Aldayel, 2023. "Syntactic complexity in legal translated texts and the use of plain English: a corpus-based study," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-9, December.
    8. Carmela Iorio & Giuseppe Pandolfo & Antonio D’Ambrosio & Roberta Siciliano, 2020. "Mining big data in tourism," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 54(5), pages 1655-1669, December.
    9. Curti, Filippo & Kazinnik, Sophia, 2023. "Central bank communication and website characteristics," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 212(C), pages 1216-1241.
    10. Elisa Claire Alemán Carreón & Hugo Alberto Mendoza España & Hirofumi Nonaka & Toru Hiraoka, 2021. "Differences in Chinese and Western tourists faced with Japanese hospitality: a natural language processing approach," Information Technology & Tourism, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 381-438, September.
    11. Cory A. Cassell & Lauren M. Cunningham & Ling Lei Lisic, 2019. "The readability of company responses to SEC comment letters and SEC 10-K filing review outcomes," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 24(4), pages 1252-1276, December.
    12. Sunyoung Hlee & Hanna Lee & Chulmo Koo, 2018. "Hospitality and Tourism Online Review Research: A Systematic Analysis and Heuristic-Systematic Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-27, April.
    13. Xitong Li & Hongwei Zhu & Luo Zuo, 2021. "Reporting Technologies and Textual Readability: Evidence from the XBRL Mandate," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 32(3), pages 1025-1042, September.
    14. Yani Wang & Jun Wang & Tang Yao, 2019. "What makes a helpful online review? A meta-analysis of review characteristics," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 257-284, June.
    15. Zhang, Yi & Hu, Ailing & Wang, Jiahua & Zhang, Yaojie, 2022. "Detection of fraud statement based on word vector: Evidence from financial companies in China," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 46(PB).
    16. Christina Katsikari & Leonidas Hatzithomas & Thomas Fotiadis & Dimitrios Folinas, 2020. "Push and Pull Travel Motivation: Segmentation of the Greek Market for Social Media Marketing in Tourism," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-18, June.
    17. Sanjiv Das & Xin Huang & Soji Adeshina & Patrick Yang & Leonardo Bachega, 2023. "Credit Risk Modeling with Graph Machine Learning," INFORMS Joural on Data Science, INFORMS, vol. 2(2), pages 197-217, October.
    18. Song, Cen & Guo, Jingquan & Zhuang, Jun, 2020. "Analyzing passengers’ emotions following flight delays- a 2011–2019 case study on SKYTRAX comments," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    19. Cameron Truong & Thu Ha Nguyen & Thanh Huynh, 2021. "Customer satisfaction and the cost of capital," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 293-342, March.
    20. José Alberto Martínez-González & Eduardo Parra-López & Almudena Barrientos-Báez, 2021. "Young Consumers’ Intention to Participate in the Sharing Economy: An Integrated Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-21, January.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jinfst:v:71:y:2020:i:6:p:644-656. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.asis.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.