Обработка естественного языка и изучение сложности дискурса

2014: 5-6). Применение таких методик позволяет, например, выявить в тексте 70 % повествовательности и 30 % информативности.

Многочисленные исследования валидировали алгоритмы Coh-Metrix, доказав ее значимость как для исследовательских, так и практических целей: Coh-Metrix обеспечивает надежный анализ пяти уровней дискурса.

Заключение

Современная парадигма дискурсивной комплексологии как интегрального научного направления, предметом которого является оценка абсолютной и относительной сложности дискурса, сформирована на фундаменте лингвистических и психолингвистических достижений, а также успехов в области компьютерной лингвистики. Пройдя пять этапов своего развития - формирующего, классического, закрытых тестов, структурно-когнитивного и обработки естественного языка - дискурсивная комплексология разработала и валидировала более двухсот предикторов абсолютной сложности и десятки критериев относительной сложности. Дискурсивная комплексология подняла проблематику сложности текста на новый уровень, доказав, что оценка сложности текста должна быть дополнена оценкой когнитивных и лингвистических способностей языковой личности реципиента текста, а также анализом коммуникативной ситуации.

Специфика современного этапа - этапа искусственного интеллекта - состоит в использовании как традиционного «параметрического подхода», так и новых методов - методов машинного обучения для создания текстовых профайлеров, осуществляющих оценку сложности, подбор и модификацию текстов. Одним из наиболее успешных проектов в данной области следует признать разработку автоматического анализатора текстов на английском языке Coh-Metrix, в которой реализована пятиуровневая когнитивная модель восприятия текста. В дополнении к дескриптивным и «классическим» параметрам, таким как длина текста и индекс читабельности, Coh-Metrix успешно осуществляет оценку параметров текстового уровня, ситуационной модели и жанровых характеристик.

Перспектива научных исследований лингвистической комплексологии состоит в параметризации текстов - разработке перечня типологических параметров сложности текстов различных типов и жанров. Параметризация текстов разных языков позволит автоматизировать процесс подбора текстовых материалов для решения образовательных, социальных и профессиональных задач, а также добиться большей точности внутри- и межъязыковых исследований.

References / список литературы

Anderson, Philip. 1972. More is different: Broken symmetry and the hierarchical nature of science. Science 177 (4047). 393-396.

Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation Across Speech and Writing. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700014201

Biemiller, Andrew. 2009. Words Worth Teaching. Columbus, OH: SRA/McGraw-Hill.

Bormuth, John R. 1969. Development of Readability Analysis. Technical report, Projet number 7-0052, U.S. Office of Education, Bureau of Research, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Washington, DC.

Bulte, Bram & Alex Housen. 2012. Defining and operationalising L2 complexity. In Housen Alex, Folkert Kuiken & Ineke Vedder (eds.), Dimensions of L2 performance and proficiency: Complexity, accuracy and fluency in SLA, 21-46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.32.02bul

Chall, Jeanne S. & Edgar Dale. 1995. Readability Revisited: The New Dale-Chall Readability Formula. Cambridge: Brookline Books.

Charniak, Eugene. 2000. A maximum-entropyinspired parser. In Proceedings of the 1st North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics Conference. 132-139.

Coleman, Edmund B. 1965. On Understanding Prose: Some Determiners of Its Complexity. NSF Final Report GB2604, Washington, D.C, National Science Foundation.

Collins-Thompson, Kevyn. 2015. Computational assessment of text readability: A survey of current and future research. ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics 165 (2). 97-135.

Crossley, Scott A., Philip M. Mccarthy, David F Duffy & Danielle McNamara. 2007. Toward a new readability: A mixed model approach. In Proceedings of the 29th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. 197-202.

Dale, Edgar & Jeanne S. Chall. 1948. A formula for predicting readability. Educational Research Bulletin 27. 11-20, 37-54.

Dale, Edgar & Joseph O'Rourke. 1981. Living Word Vocabulary. Chicago: World Book - Childcraft International.

Danielson, Wayne A. & Sam D. Bryan. 1963. Computer automation of two readability formulas. Journalism Quarterly 40 (2). 201-205.

https://doi.org/10.1177%2F107769906304000207

Daoust, Fran?ois, Leo Laroche & Lise Ouellet. 1996. SATO-CALIBRAGE: Presentation d'un outil d'assistance au choix et a la redaction de textes pour l'enseignement. Revue Quebecoise de Linguistique 25 (1). 205-234.

Dascalu, Mihai. 2014. Analyzing discourse and text complexity for learning and collaborating. In Analyzing Discourse and Text Complexity for Learning and Collaborating, 1-3. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-03419-5

Flesch, Rudolf. 1948. A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology 32 (3). 221-233. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0057532

Foltz, Peter W., Walter Kintsch & Thomas Landauer. 1998. The measurement of textual coherence with latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes 25 (2). 285-307. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539809545029

Gatiyatullina, Galya, Marina Solnyshkina, Valery Solovyev, Andrey Danilov, Ekaterina Martynova & Iskander Yarmakeev. 2020. Computing Russian morphological distribution patterns using RusAC Online Server. In 13th International

Conference on Developments in eSystems Engineering (DeSE). 393-398.

https://doi.org/10.1109/DeSE51703.2020.9450753

Graesser, Arthur C. & Danielle S. McNamara. 2011. Computational Analyses of Multilevel Discourse Comprehension. Topics in Cognitive Science 3. 371-398.

Graesser, Arthur C., Matthew Singer & Tom Trabasso. 1994. Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review 101. 371-395.

Gray, William & William Leary. 1935. What Makes a Book Readable. University of Chicago Press, Chicago: Illinois.

Hall, Charles, Debra S. Lee, Gwenyth Lewis, Phillip M. McCarthy & Danielle S. McNamara. 2006. Language in law: Using Coh-Metrix to assess differences between American and English/Welsh language varieties. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society 28.

Heilman, Michael, Le Zhao, Juan Pino & Maxine Eskenazi. 2008. Retrieval of reading materials for vocabulary and reading practice. In Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Innovative Use of NLP for Building Educational Applications. 80-88. https://doi.org/10.3115/1631836.1631846

Hendrix, Gary G. 1980. Future prospects for computational linguistics. In ACL '80: Proceedings of the 18th Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics. 131-135. Association for Computational Linguistics, United States. https://doi.org/10.3115/981436.981476

Jones, Michael N., Walter Kintsch & Douglas J. Mewhort. 2006. High-dimensional semantic space accounts of priming. Journal of Memory and Language 55(4). 534-552.

Kemper, Susan. 1983. Measuring the inference load of a text. Journal of Educational Psychology 75 (3). 391-401.

Kintsch, Walter & Vipond Douglas. 1979. Reading comprehension and readability in educational practice and psychological theory. In Lars-Goran Nilsson (ed.), Perspectives on memory research, 329-365. Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum.

Klare, George R. 1963. The Measurement of Readability. Iowa State University Press.

Kortmann, Bernd & Benedikt Szmrecsanyi (eds.). 2012. Linguistic Complexity: Second Language Acquisition, Indigenization, Contact. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Laposhina, Antonina N. & Maria Yu. Lebedeva. 2021. Tekstometr: Online-instrument opredeleniya urovnya slozhnosti teksta po russkomu yazyku kak inostrannomu. Rusistika 19(3). 331-345. (In Russ.) http://dx.doi.org/10.22363/2618-8163-2021-19-3-331-345

Lively, Bertha & Sidney Pressey. 1923. A method for measuring the `vocabulary burden' of textbooks. Educational Administration and Supervision 9. 389-398.

Marujo, Luis, Jorge Baptista, Jose Lopes, Maxine Eskenazi, Ceu Viana, Juan Pino & Isabel Trancoso. 2009. Porting reap to European Portuguese. In SLaTE. 69-72. Citeseer.

McCall, William & Lelah Crabbs. 1925. Standard Test Lessons in Reading. New York: Teacher's College Press.

McCarthy, Philip M., John C. Myers, Stephen Briner & Arthur C. Graesser. 2009. A psychological and computational study of sub-sentential genre recognition. JLCL 24 (1). 23-55.

McClusky, Howard. 1934. A quantitative analysis of the difficulty of reading materials. The Journal of Educational Research 28. 276-282.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.1934.10880487

McLaughlin, G. Harry. 1969. Smog-grading - a new readability formula. Journal of Reading 13. 639-646.

McNamara, Danielle & Arthur C. Graesser. 2012. Coh-Metrix: An Automated Tool for Theoretical and Applied Natural Language Processing. IGI Global.

https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-60960-741-8.ch011

McNamara, Danielle S., Arthur C. Graesser, Philip M. McCarthy & Zhiqiang Cai. 2014. Coh- Metrix: Theoretical, Technological, and Empirical Foundations. In Automated Evaluation of Text and Discourse with Coh-Metrix. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511894664.006

Meyer, Bonnie J. F. 1982. Reading research and the composition teacher: The importance of plans. College Composition and Communication 33 (1). 37-49. https://doi.org/10.2307/357843

Nelson, Jessica, David Liben, Meredith Liben & Charles Perfetti. 2012. Measures of Text Difficulty: Testing their Predictive Value for Grade Levels and Student Performance. New York, NY: Student Achievement Partners.

Ojemann, Ralph. 1934. The reading ability of parents and factors associated with the reading difficulty of parent education materials. University of Iowa Studies in Child Welfare 8. 11-32.

Rabin, Mikhael'. 1993. Slozhnost' vychislenii. In ACM Turing Award Lectures. 371-391. Moscow: Mir. (In Russ.)

Rescher, Nicholas. 1998. Complexity: A Philosophical Overview. London: Transaction Publishers.

Rosch, Eleanor & Carolyn B. Mervis. 1975. Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology 7. 573-605.

Rubakin, Nikolai A. 1890. Notes on literature for the people. Russkoe Bogatstvo 10. 221-231. (In Russ.)

Saimon, Gerbert. 2004. The Sciences of the Artificial. Moscow: Editorial URSS. (In Russ.)

Schwarm, Sarah E. & Mari Ostendorf. 2005. Reading level assessment using support vector machines and statistical language models. In ACL '05: Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics. 523-530. https://doi.org/10.3115/1219840.1219905

Sheehan, Kathleen M., Irene Kostin, Diane Napolitano & Michael Flor. 2014. The TextEvaluator tool: Helping teachers and test developers select texts for use in instruction and assessment. The Elementary School Journal 115 (2). 184-209. https://doi.org/10.1086/678294

Sherman, Lucius A. 1893. Analytics of Literature: А Manual for the Objective Study of English Prose and Poetry. Boston: Ginn.

Si, Luo & Jamie Callan. 2001. A statistical model for scientific readability. In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management. 574-576. ACM New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/502585.502695

Simon, Herbert A. 1996. The Sciences of the Artificial. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Smith, Edgar A. & John Quackenbush. 1960. Devereux teaching aids employed in presenting elementary mathematics in a special education setting. Psychological Reports 7. 333-336. https://doi.org/10.2466/PR0.7.6.333-336

Solnyshkina, Marina I., Elena V. Harkova & Aleksander S. Kiselnikov. 2014. Comparative Coh-metrix analysis of reading comprehension texts: Unified (Russian) state exam in English vs Cambridge first certificate in English. English Language Teaching 7 (12). 65-76. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v7n12p65

Solnyshkina, Marina I. & Kisel'nikov Aleksandr. S. 2015. Slozhnost' teksta: Etapy izucheniya v otechestvennom prikladnom yazykoznanii. Vestnik Tomskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta. Filologiya 6(38). (In Russ.)

Solnyshkina, Marina I., Elena V. Harkova & Maria B. Kazachkova. 2020. The structure of Cross-Linguistic differences: Meaning and context of 'Readability' and its Russian equivalent 'Chitabelnost'. Journal of Language & Education 6 (1). 103-119. https://jle.hse.ru/article/view/7176/12052. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2020.v6.i1

Solnyshkina, Marina I., Ehl'zara Gizzatullina-Gafiyatova, Ekaterina V. Martynova & Valery Solovyev. 2022. Text complexity as an interdisciplinary problem. Voprosy Kognitivnoi Lingvistiki 1. (In Russ.)

Solovyev, Valery D., Vladimir V. Ivanov & Marina I. Solnyshkina. 2018. Assessment of reading difficulty levels in Russian academic texts: Approaches and Metrics. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems 34 (5). 3049-3058. https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-169489

Solovyev, Valery, Marina Solnyshkina, Vladimir Ivanov & Ildar Batyrshin. 2019. Prediction of reading difficulty in Russian academic texts. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems 36 (5). 4553-4563. https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-179007

Solovyev, Valerii, Yulia Volskaya, Maria Andreeva & Artem Zaikin. 2022. Russian dictionary with concreteness/abstractness indexes. Russian Journal of Linguistics 2. 514-548. (In Russ.)

Spivey, Nancy N. 1987. Construing constructivism: Reading research in the United States. Poetics 16 (2). 169-192. https://doi.org/10.1016/0304-422X%2887%2990024-6

Steger, Maria & Edgar W. Schneider. 2012. Complexity as a function of iconicity: The case of complement clause constructions in New Englishes. In Kortmann Bernd & Benedikt Szmrecsanyi (eds.), Linguistic complexity: Second language acquisition, indigenization, contact, 156-191. Berlin: De Gruyter.

Stevens, Kathleen C. 1980. Readability Formulae and McCall-Crabbs Standard Test Lessons in Reading. The Reading Teacher 33 (4). 413-415.

Sun, Haimei. 2020. Unpacking reading text complexity: A dynamic language and content approach. Studies in Applied Linguistics & TESOL at Teachers College 20 (2). 1-20. https://doi.org/10.7916/salt.v20i2.7098

Taylor, Wilson L. 1953. Cloze procedure: A new tool for measuring readability. Journalism Quarterly 30 (4). 415-433. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F107769905303000401

Thorndike, Edward. 1921. Word knowledge in the elementary school. The Teachers College Record 22 (5). 334-370.

van Dijk, Teun A. & Walter Kintsch. 1983. Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New York: Academic.

Vergara, Fermina & Rachelle Lintao. 2020. War on drugs: The readability and comprehensibility of illegal drug awareness campaign brochures. International Journal of Language and Literary Studies 2 (4). 98-121. https://doi.org/10.36892/ijlls.v2i4.412

Vogel, Mabel & Carleton Washburne. 1928. An objective method of determining grade placement of children's reading material. The Elementary School Journal 28 (5). 373-381. https://doi.org/10.1086/456072

Zwaan, Rolf A. & Gabriel A. Radvansky. 1998. Situation models in language comprehension and memory. Psychological Bulletin 123. 162-185.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.123.2.162

Zeno, Susan, Robert T. Millard & Raj Duvvuri. 1995. The Educator's Word Frequency Guide. Brewster: Touchstone Applied Science Associates, Inc.

Internet Resources / Электронные ресуры

Antonini, Alessio, Francesca Benatti, Edmund King, Fran?ois Vignale & Guillaume Gravier. 2019. Modelling Changes in Diaries, Correspondence and Authors' Libraries to Support Research on Reading: The READ-ITApproach. URL: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal- 02130008/document (accessed 25 January 2022).

Antunes, Helder M. M. 2019. Automatic Assessment of Health Information Readability. URL: https://repositorio-aberto.up.pt/bitstream/10216/121810/4/345408.pdf (accessed 25 January 2022).

Development of the ATOS Readability Formula. 2014. URL: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:rWV4zvGcnhMJ:https://doc.re nleam.com/KMNet/R004250827GJ11C4.pdf+&cd=14&hl=ru&ct=clnk&gl=ru (accessed 25 January 2022).

Fran?ois, Thomas & Hubert Naets. 2011. Dmesure: A readability platform for French as a foreign language. URL: https://cental.udouvain.be/team/tfrancois/articles/CLIN21.pdf (accessed 25 January 2022).

Lennon, Colleen & Hal Burdick. 2004. The Lexile Framework as an Approach for Reading Measurement and Success. URL: http://www.lexile.com/rn/resources/materials/

Lennon Burdick_2004.pdf (accessed 25 January 2022).

Renaissance. 2022. URL: https://ukhosted43.renlearn.co.uk/2171850/ (accessed 25 January 2022).

Special Collections. Accelerated Reader (ATOS Level: 5.0-5.9). Bookshare a Benetech Initiative. 2002-2022. URL: https://www.bookshare.org/browse/collection/371895

(accessed 25 January 2022).

T.E.R.A.: The Coh-Metrix Common Core Text Ease and Readability Assessor. 2012-2022.

URL: http://129.219.222.70:8084/Coh-Metrix.aspx (accessed 25 January 2022).

The ATOS Readability Formula for Books and How it Compares to Other Formulas. 2000.

URL: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED449468.pdf (accessed 25 January 2022).

The Lexile Framework for Reading. 2022. URL: https://lexile.com (accessed 25 January 2022).Размещено на Аllbest.ru