The existence of a “literary dialect” was postulated on several grounds. Specific syntactic structures were hypothesized to be literary or nonliterary. This hypothesis was tested by obtaining judgments from adults on hypothesized literary and nonliterary structures, each presented at two levels of vocabulary difficulty. Results confirmed that the two structure types could be reliably differentiated statistically, and showed large absolute differences in the percentage of times they were judged as being literary. In addition, vocabulary exhibited a significant main effect, with structures containing infrequent vocabulary being judged as literary more often. Finally, there was a significant structure by vocabulary interaction, where literary structures with infrequent vocabulary were judged to be particularly literary.
References
1.
BormuthJ.R.Development of readability analyses. Project No. 7–0052, United States Office of Education (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 029 116).
2.
BormuthJ.R.ManningJ.CarrJ.PearsonP.D.Children's comprehension of between and within sentence syntactic structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1970, 61, 349–357.
3.
BrassardS. S.Direct comparisons between listening and reading as language abilities in the intermediate grades. Paper read at the Annual American Educational Research Association, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 1970 (ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 040 824).
4.
CarteretteE.C.JonesM. H.Contextual constraints in the language of the child. Cooperative Research Project No. 1877, Los Angeles, California, 1965.
5.
ChomskyC.The acquisition of syntax in children from five to tenCambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1969.
6.
ClarkH. H.The language-as-fixed-effect-fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1973, 12, 335–359.
7.
DevitoJ. A.Comprehension factors in oral and written discourse of skilled communicators. Speech Monographs, 1965, 32, 124–128.
8.
DixonM.Biomedical computer programs. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971.
9.
DriemannG. H. J.Differences between written and spoken language. Acta Psychologica, 1962, 20, 36–57.
10.
DurrellD., Durrell Listening-Reading Series, Advanced Manuals, Forms DE and EF. New York: Harcourt, Brace. Jovanovich, 1970.
11.
HamplemanR.S.Comparison of reading comprehension ability of fourth and sixth graders. Elementary English, 1958, 35, 49–53.
12.
HarwoodK. A.Studies in listenability: 1. Listenability and readability. Speech Monographs, 1958, 22, 49–53.
13.
KlareG. R.The measurement of readability. Ames, Iowa: The Iowa State University Press, 1963.
14.
LarsonR. P.Common and differential factors in reading and hearing comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1940, 31, 241–252.
15.
ManyW. A.Is there really any difference: Reading versus listening. The Reading Teacher, 1966, 19, 110–113.
16.
OlsonD. R.The languages of instruction: The literate bias of schooling. In AndersonR.C.SpiroR.R.RubinA.D.. Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1977. Cited in D.L. Schallert, G.M. Kleiman, & A.D. Rubin. Analyses of differences between written and oral language. Champaign, Ill.: Center for the Study of Reading, Technical Report No. 29, 1977.
17.
RichekM. A.Reading comprehension of anaphoric forms in varying linguistic contexts. Reading Research Quarterly, 1976–1977, 12, 145–165.
18.
RuddellR. B.The effect of oral and written patterns of language structure on reading comprehension. The Beading Teacher, 1965, 18, 270–275.
19.
SchallertD.L.KleimanG.M.RubinA.D.Analyses of differences between written and oral language. Champaign, Ill.: Center for the Study of Reading, Technical Report No. 29, 1977.
20.
StricklandR. C.The language of elementary school children: Its relationship to the language of reading textbooks and the quality of reading selected by children. Bulletin of the School of Education, Indiana University, 1962, 38 (4).
21.
WinerB.F.Statistical principles in experimental design (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.
22.
YoungW. E.The relation of reading comprehension and retention to hearing comprehension and retention. Journal of Experimental Education, 1936, 5, 30–39.
