Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Computational study measures text difficulty by assessing structural-lexical friction in English passages, indicating distinct readability outcomes across registers.
Classical readability formulas predict text difficulty from surface counts and bring grammatical structure into the calculation only through sentence length. This paper introduces structural-lexical friction — the cognitive cost a reader pays when lexical and syntactic demands rise together — and measures it with a transparent index set across 16,904 English passages. The corpus pulls from four high-density informational registers (anchored by the Korean College Scholastic Ability Test and LogiQA) and five baseline registers. A pre-pooling Mann-Whitney U test shows that CSAT and LogiQA cannot be combined: every parser-derived index distinguishes them. The headline ablation runs in two stages — length-controlled classification, then a length-matched sub-corpus restricted to 150–190 words per passage. Parser-aware features yield a reliable AUC gain over surface-only baselines (p<10^(-4), paired DeLong), and the gap grows as length is held first by feature exclusion and then by sample selection. A word-count-matched adversarial design then separates the construct cleanly. Mean Clausal Depth (MCD) shifts by 1.36 units (p<10^(-4)) while Flesch Reading Ease registers no detectable movement. Three independent dependency parsers reproduce the headline signal, ruling out a single-pipeline artefact. What looks like redundancy of parser-aware indices in conventional readability tasks turns out to be mechanical, since Flesch's W/S term absorbs clausal embedding through sentence length; once length is pinned down physically, the structural signal recovers in full.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
JaeHo Kim (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: