Cover not available

Article published In: ITL - International Journal of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 160 (2010) ► pp.75–99

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

La Lisibilité Computationnelle

Un Renouveau Pour la Lisibilité Du Français Langue Première et Seconde?

 | Aspirant F.N.R.S. (CENTAL, UCLouvain)

Article language: French

Published online: 1 January 2010
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/itl.160.04fra
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.
References (94)
Bibliographie
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Antoniadis, G. & Grusson, Y. (1996). Modélisation et génération automatique de la lisibilité de textes. In ILN 96 : Informatique et Langue Naturelle.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Benoît, J.-P. (1986). Revue critique des formules de lisibilité, 60 ans de formules de lisibilité : qu’en reste-t-il? Pratiques, 521, 45–63. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bernhardt, E. (2005). Progress and procrastination in second language reading. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 251, 133–150. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bormuth, J. (1966). Readability : A new approach. Reading research quarterly, 1(3), 79–132. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1969b). Factor validity of cloze tests as measures of reading comprehension ability. Reading Research Quarterly, 4(3), 358–365. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boyer, Y. (1992). La lisibilité. Revue Française de Pédagogie, 991, 5–14. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carver, R.P. (1975). Measuring prose difficulty using the Rauding Scale. Reading Research Quaterly, 11(4), 660–685. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Catach, N. (1985). Les listes orthographiques de base du français. Paris: Nathan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chall, J. (1958). Readability : An Appraisal of Research and Application. Rapport technique, Bureau of Educational Research Monographs, Columbus: Ohio State Univ. Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chall, J. & Dale, E. (1995). Readability Revisited : The New Dale-Chall Readability Formula. Cambridge: Brookline Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Collins-Thompson, K. & Callan, J. (2004a). A language modeling approach to predicting reading difficulty. Proceedings of HLT/NAACL 2004, 193–200.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2004b). Information retrieval for language tutoring: an overview of the REAP project. Proceedings of SIGIR 2004, 545–546. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Conquet, A. & Richaudeau, F. (1973). Cinq méthodes de mesure de la lisibilité. Communication et langages, 17(1), 5–16. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Dale, E. & J. S. Chall. 1948. A formula for predicting readability. Educational research bulletin, 271, 1–20.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
de Landsheere, G. (1963). Pour une application des tests de lisibilité de Flesch à la langue française. Le Travail Humain, 261, 141–154.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1972). Application du cloze test de W.L. Taylor à la langue française. Scientia Paedagogica Experimentalis, 9(2), 207–256.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1978). Le test de closure : mesure de la lisibilité et de la compréhension. Paris: Nathan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dubay, W. (2004). The principles of readability. Impact Information. [URL].
Duffy, T. (1985). Readability formulas : What’s the use. Designing usable texts, 1041, 113–143. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Elley, W.B. & Mangubhai, F. (1988). The impact of reading on second language learning. Reading Research Quarterly, 19(1), 53–67. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Flesch, R. (1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32(3), 221–233. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Foltz, P., Kintsch, W. & Landauer, T. (1998). The measurement of textual coherence with latent semantic analysis. Discourse processes, 25(2), 285–307. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Foucambert, J. (1983). Une lecture de la lisibilité. les Actes de lecture, 31, 37–39.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
(2009b). Modèles statistiques pour l’estimation automatique de la difficulté de textes de FLE. Actes de RECITAL 2009.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gélinas Chebat, C., Préfontaine, C., Lecavallier, J. & Chebat, J.-C. (1993). Lisibilité - intelligibilité de documents d’information. Cahier de recherche, 31, 19–35.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gougenheim, G., Michéa, R., Rivenc, P. & Sauvageot, A. (1964). L’élaboration du français fondamental (1er degré). Paris: Didier.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gray, W.S. & Leary A.B. (1935), What Makes a Book Readable, Chicago : University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Greenfield, J. (2004). Readability formulas for EFL. Japan Association for Language Teaching Journal, 26(1), 5–24.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gromer, B. & Weiss, M. (1990). Lire. Paris: Armand Collin.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gunning, R. (1952). The technique of clear writing. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R. & Friedman, J. (2001). The elements of statistical learning. Data mining, inference, and prediction. New York: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Henry, G. (1975). Comment mesurer la lisibilité. Bruxelles: Labor.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Jacobson, M.D. (1974). Predicting reading difficulty from spelling. Spelling Progress Bulletin, 141, 8–10.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kandel, L. & Moles, A. (1958). Application de l’indice de Flesch à la langue française. Cahiers Études de Radio-Télévision, 191, 253–274.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Kemper, S. (1983). Measuring the inference load of a text. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(3), 391–401. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Kintsch, W. (1979). On modeling comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 14(1), 3–14. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kintsch, W. & van Dijk, T. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological review, 85(5), 363–394. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kintsch, W. & Vipond, D. (1979). Reading comprehension and readability in educational practice and psychological theory. In L. Nilsson, (Ed.), Perspectives on Memory Research (pp. 329–365). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Klare, G. (1963). The Measurement of Readability. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1974). Assessing readability. Reading Research Quarterly, 10(1), 62–102. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1984). Readability. In P. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal & R. Dykstra, (Eds.), Handbook of Reading Research (pp. 681–744). New York: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koda, K. (2005). Insights into second language reading: A cross-linguistic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krashen, S. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: additional evidence for the Input Hypothesis. The Modern Language Journal, 73(4), 440–464. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Labasse, B. (1999). La lisibilité rédactionnelle : fondements et perspectives. Communication et langages, 1211, 86–103. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Landauer, T., Foltz, P. & Laham, D. (1998). An introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse processes, 25(2), 259–284. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Laroche, J. M. (1979). Readability measurement for foreign language materials. System, 71, 131–135. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lively, B. & Pressey, S. (1923). A method for measuring the “vocabulary burden” of textbooks. Educational Administration and Supervision, 91, 389–398.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mastropieri, M. A., Leinart, A., & Scruggs, T. E. (1999). Strategies to increase reading fluency. Intervention in School and Clinic, 341, 278–283. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mesnager J. (1986). La lisibilité dans la littérature enfantine. Les actes de lecture, 131, 31–39 et 141, 25–33.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mesnager, J. (1989). Lisibilité des textes pour enfants : un nouvel outil? Communication et Langages, 791, 18–38. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2002). Pour une étude de la difficulté des textes : la lisibilité revisitée. Le Français aujourd’hui, 1371, 29–42. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
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, 941, 474–485. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rabin, A. (1988). Determining difficulty levels of text written in languages other than English. In B. Zakaluk & S. Samuels (Eds.), Readability: Its Past, Present and Future (pp. 46–76). Newark, Delaware: International Reading Association.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Racle, G. (1988). La lisibilité : quelques aperçus neuropsychologiques. Communication et langages, 76(1), 20–41. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Richaudeau, F. (1969). La lisibilité. Paris: Denoël.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1976). Faut-il brûler les formules de lisibilité? Communication et Langages, 301, 6–19. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1984). Recherches actuelles sur la lisibilité, Paris : Éditions Retz.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Selzer, J. (1981). Readability is a four-letter word. Journal of business communication, 18(4), 23–34. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stevens, K. (1980). Readability formulae and McCall-Crabbs standard test lessons in reading. The Reading Teacher, 33(4), 413–415.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Si, L. & Callan, J. (2001). A statistical model for scientific readability. Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, 574–576. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Szalay, T. (1965). Validation of the Coleman readability formulas. Psychological Reports, 17(3), 965–966. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taylor, W. (1953). Cloze procedure : A new tool for measuring readability. Journalism quarterly, 30(4), 415–433. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Timbal-Duclaux, L. (1984). La transparence du texte pour mesurer sa lisibilité. Communication et langages, 59(1), 9–20. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1985). Textes “inlisable” et lisible. Communication et Langages, 661, 13–31. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1989). Les 4 couleurs du texte. Communication et langages, 80(1), 5–26. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tharp, J. B. (1939). The Measurement of Vocabulary Difficulty. The Modern Language Journal 24(3), 169–178. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thorndike, E. (1921). Word knowledge in the elementary school. The Teachers College Record, 22(4), 334–370.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Uitdenbogerd, A.L (2005). Readability of french as a foreign language and its uses. In J. Kay, A. Turpin & R. Wilkinson (Eds.), Proc. Australian Document Computing Symposium, Sydney, NSW, Australia, 19–25.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Willms, J. D. (2003). Literacy proficiency of youth: evidence of converging socioeconomic gradients. International Journal of Educational Research, 39(3), 247–252. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zakaluk, B.L. & Samuels, S.J. (1996). Issues related to text comprehensibility : The future of readability. Revue québécoise de linguistique, 25(1), 41–59. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue