Prominent linguistic features of pedagogical texts to provide consideration for authentic text simplification

Try Mahendra Siregar, Widyastuti Purbani


Teaching materials are significant items that are unique and specific. Therefore, the selections should be relevant to students’ proficiency. This research aimed (1) to disclose lexical density, readability, nominalizations, and modifiers in pedagogical texts as teaching materials, (2) to reveal the linguistic features functional roles on text for pedagogical demand, and (3) to attempt to suggest consideration for simplification on authentic text. This research employed qualitative content analysis. The data sources were 18 pedagogical texts from senior high school textbooks by the Indonesian Ministry of Education. Human instruments and a text analyser for the automatic computation were utilized for the analysis under Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) pilots. This research disclosed the appropriate text lexical density for senior high school students is a fairly difficult construction. Then, nominalizations within the texts are unpreventable and process nominalization is frequently used. The nominalization and the modifiers affect sentence complexities; the nominalizations function to condense information, collocate words, create cohesiveness, interfere with conciseness, and use as trans-categorization while modifiers are to add explicitness to nouns. The simplification considerations are by utilizing lexical density and readability algorithm, de-nominalization, measuring modifiers, and splitting substance of modifiers to increase text accessibility.


lexical density; modifiers; nominalization; pedagogical texts; simplification

Full Text:



Aamotsbakken, B. (2008). The Pedagogical Text–an important element in the textual world? Reflections on the concepts of ‘text’, ‘context’, and ‘literacy culture’. Designs for Learning, 1(1), 23-40.

Arikunto, S. (2010). Prosedur penelitian: Suatu pendekatan praktik [Research procedures: A practical approach]. Rineka Cipta.

Bengtsson, M. (2016). How to plan and perform a qualitative study using content analysis. NursingPlus Open, 2, 8-14.

Brunato, D., Dell’Orletta, F., Venturi, G., & Montemagni, S. (2015). Design and annotation of the first Italian corpus for text simplification. In A. Meyers, I Rehbein, & H. Zinsmeister (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th Linguistic Annotation Workshop (pp. 31-41). Association for Computational Linguistics.

Campbell, A. (1979). How readability formulae fall short in matching student to text in the content areas. Journal of Reading, 22(8), 683-689.

Castello, E. (2008). Text complexity and reading comprehension tests. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(3), 512-513.

Christie, F. (2012). Language education throughout the school years: A functional perspective. Wiley.

Collantes, M., Hipe, M., Sorilla, J. L., Samson, B., Tolentino, L., & Samson, B. (2015). Simpatico: A text simplification system for senate and house bills. In The 11th National Natural Language Processing Research Symposium (pp. 26-32). De La Salle University.

Crossley, S. A., Allen, D., & McNamara, D. S. (2012). Text simplification and comprehensible input: A case for an intuitive approach. Language Teaching Research, 16(1), 89-108.

Crossley, S. A., Louwerse, M. M., McCarthy, P. M., & McNamara, D. (2007). A linguistic analysis of simplified and authentic texts. Modern Language Journal, 91(1), 15-30.

Crossley, S. A., Yang, H. S., & Mcnamara, D. S. (2014). What’s so simple about simplified texts? A computational and psycholinguistic investigation of text comprehension and text processing. Reading in a Foreign Language, 26(1), 92-113.

Dmitrieva, A., & Tiedemann, J. (2021). Creating an aligned Russian text simplification dataset from language learner data. In B. Babych, O. Kanishcheva, P. Nakov, J. Piskorski, L. Pivovarova, V. Starko, J. Steinberger, R. Yangarber, M. Marcińczuk, S. Pollack, P. Přibáň, & M. Robnik-Šikonja (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th BSNLP Workshop on Balto-Slavic Natural Language Processing (pp. 73-79). Association for Computational Linguistics.

Droga, L., & Thomson, E. (2012). Effective academic writing: An essay-writing workbook for school and university. Phoenix Education.

Fang, Z. (2005). Scientific literacy: A systemic functional linguistics perspective. Science Education, 89(2), 335-347.

Flesch, R. (2006). The classic readability studies (A new read)—impact Information.

Greenfield, J. (2004). Readability formula for EFL. JALT Journal, 26(1), 5-24.

Gómez, I. P. (2009). Nominal modifiers in noun phrase structure: Evidence from contemporary English. Universidade De Santiago De Compostela.

Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2014). Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar (4th ed.). Routledge.

Hengeveld, K., & Mackenzie, J. L. (2015). Functional discourse grammar. In B. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of linguistic analysis (pp. 311–344). Oxford University Press.

Javourey-Drevet, L., Dufau, S., François, T., Gala, N., Ginestié, J., & Ziegler, J. C. (2022). Simplification of literary and scientific texts to improve reading fluency and comprehension in beginning readers of French. Applied Psycholinguistics, 43(2), 485-512.

Johansson, T. (2006). Teaching material in the EFL classroom: Teachers’ and students’ perspectives [Bachelor’s thesis, Växjö University]. DiVA.

Karakaya, K. (2017). A corpus-based and systemic functional analysis of syntactic complexity and nominal modification in academic writing [Doctoral dissertations, Iowa State University]. Iowa State University Digital Repository.

Kirana, D. P. (2016). Authentic materials in EFL classrooms. Cendekia: Jurnal Kependidikan dan Kemasyarakatan, 12(2), 353-364.

Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications Inc.

Latif, M. (2015). An evaluation of English textbooks for the Eighth [Bachelor’s thesis, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta]. Lumbung Pustaka UNY.

Margarido, P. R., Pardo, T. A. S., Antonio, G. M., Fuentes, V. B., Aires, R., Aluísio, S. M., & Fortes, R. P. M. (2008). Automatic summarization for text simplification: Evaluating text understanding by poor readers. In C. A. S. Santos, R. F. Rodrigues, & J. G. P. Filho (Eds.), Proceedings of the XIV Brazilian Symposium on Multimedia and the Web (pp. 310-315). University of Stuttgart.

Mayring, P. (2000). Qualitative content analysis. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 1(2),10-20.

Mueller, B. M. (2015). Analysis of nominalization in elementary and middle school science textbooks [Master’s thesis, Hamline University] DigitalCommons@Hamline.

Nastase, V., Fritz, D., & Frank, A. (2018). Demodify: A dataset for analyzing contextual constraints on modifier deletion. In N. Calzolari, K. Choukri, C. Cieri, T. Declerck, S. Goggi, K. Hasida, H. Isahara, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, H. Mazo, A. Moreno, J. Odijk, S. Piperidis, & T. Tokunaga (Eds.), Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2018) (pp. 1357–1363). European Language Resources Association.

Petersen, S. E., & Ostendorf, M. (2007). Text simplification for language learners: A corpus analysis. Speech in Language Technology in Education, 1(3), 69-72.

Prastowo, A. (2011). Panduan kreatif membuat bahan ajar innovatif [Creative guide in making innovative teaching materials]. Diva Press.

Pribady, H. (2019). Pengantar metodologi penelitian linguistik [Introduction to linguistic research methodology]. Pusat Studi Humaniora Indonesia.

Safari, M., & Montazeri, M. M. (2017). The effect of reducing lexical and syntactic complexity of texts on reading comprehension. Journal of Teaching Language Skills, 36(3), 59-83.

Saggion, H., Gómez-Martínez, E., Etayo, E., Anula, A., & Bourg, L. (2011). Text simplification in simplex: Making texts more accessible. Procesamiento de Lenguaje Natural, 47(September), 341–342.

Sheang, K. C. (2020). Context-aware automatic text simplification. In E. Lloret, E. Saquete, P. Martínez-Barco, & R. Sepúlveda-Torres (Eds.), Proceedings of the Doctoral Symposium of XXXV International Conference (pp. 56-62). Spanish Society for Natural Language (SEPLN).

Simonsen, R. (2019). An analysis of the problematic discourse surrounding “Authentic Texts.” Hispania, Johns Hopkins University Press, 102(2), 245-258.

To, V. (2018). Linguistic complexity analysis: A case study of commonly used textbooks in Vietnam. SAGE Open, 8(3).

Tomlinson, B. (2011). Material development in language teaching (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Tomlinson, B. (2012). Materials development for language learning and teaching. Language Teaching, 45(2), 143-179.

Wei, M., & Yu, G. (2019). On nominalization metaphor and its discourse function. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 10(5), 1005-1009.

Yudono, K. D. A. (2022). Autentisitas bacaan dalam buku ajar BIPA “Sahabatku Indonesia” untuk Tingkat BIPA 4 [Authenticity of readings in the BIPA textbook “My Indonesian Friends” for BIPA Grade 4]. Jurnal Pendidikan Bahasa dan Sastra Indonesia Undiksha, 12(1), 10-15.

Yue, L., Wang, J., & Zhang, Y. (2018). Nominalizations: From features to applications in abstracts of linguistics academic papers. Global Journal of Human-Social Science: G Linguistics & Education, 18(4), 1-9.


Article Metrics

Abstract view : 0 times
PDF - 0 times


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Print ISSN: 2355-2794, Online ISSN: 2461-0275

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

View Journal Stats