See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/391030567

A Corpus-based Evaluation of Syntactic Complexity Measures as Indices of

Advanced English Text Comprehension in EAP Textbooks and Academic
Research Papers

Article · June 2025

CITATIONS READS
0 11

4 authors, including:

Peyman Nasrabady
Chabahar Maritime University
12 PUBLICATIONS 10 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Peyman Nasrabady on 23 April 2025.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 A Corpus-based Evaluation of Syntactic Complexity Measures as Indices of
Advanced English Text Comprehension in EAP Textbooks and Academic
Research Papers

Peyman Nasrabady, PhD. Candidate

Department of English, Chabahar Maritime University, Chabahar, Iran
[email protected]

Hooshang Khoshsima*, Full Professor

Department of English, Chabahar Maritime University, Chabahar, Iran
[email protected]

Amir Mohammadian, Assistant Professor

Department of English, Chabahar Maritime University, Chabahar, Iran
[email protected]

Nahid Yarahmadzehi, Assistant Professor

Department of English, Chabahar Maritime University, Chabahar, Iran
[email protected]

Abstract

This study investigates the syntactic complexity of reading comprehension texts in English for
Academic Purposes (EAP) textbooks and academic research papers. By comparing these two text
types, the research aims to identify the challenges EAP learners may face in transitioning from
simplified instructional materials to complex scholarly texts. A corpus-based approach was
employed to analyze the syntactic parameters of 30 EAP textbook passages and 30 research paper
discussion sections across three disciplines (Psychology, Accounting, and Pharmacy). The L2SCA
tool was used to assess 14 syntactic measures, including sentence length, clause complexity, and
lexical density. The findings reveal significant differences in syntactic complexity between EAP
textbooks and academic research papers. EAP textbooks generally exhibit simpler syntactic
structures, shorter sentences, and a lower structural density compared to scholarly articles. These
disparities may hinder EAP learners' ability to comprehend and effectively engage with academic
research. The study's results emphasize the need for more discipline-specific EAP materials and
tailored language instruction to address the unique syntactic challenges encountered in academic
reading. By understanding the syntactic complexities of scholarly texts, educators can better
prepare learners for the demands of academic discourse.
Keywords: Corpus, EAP textbooks, Reading texts, Research papers, Syntactic complexity

1. The Role of Syntactic Complexity in EAP Textbooks and Academic Research Papers

Reading comprehension is one of the central points of academic success, particularly in

higher education, where much of the learning process is mediated through written texts (Hyland
& Rodrigo, 2007). Academic reading requires students not only to understand but also to critically
evaluate and synthesize information from complex materials. This skill is particularly challenging
for learners of English for Academic Purposes (EAP), who face specific obstacles when navigating
the intricate language and structures of scholarly texts (Grabe, 2008). Developing strong academic
literacy skills is essential for these learners to succeed in such an environment (Biber & Gray,
2010).

A primary challenge for EAP learners is the transition from simplified instructional
materials, such as textbooks, to authentic academic research papers. EAP textbooks are typically
designed to scaffold learning by simplifying syntax to enhance accessibility (Flowerdew, 2005).
However, academic research papers employ much more complex syntactic structures, including
extended noun phrases, subordinate clauses, and passive constructions. These features convey
nuanced and detailed arguments, creating a significant gap in text complexity (Biber et al., 2011).
This disparity can hinder learners' ability to engage with academic texts effectively, highlighting
the need for targeted instructional strategies to address these linguistic challenges (Arya et al.,
2011).

Syntactic complexity refers to the grammatical sophistication of sentence structures in a

text, which plays a crucial role in determining reading difficulty (Lu, 2011). Texts with intricate
grammatical constructions require advanced cognitive and linguistic skills to process. For many
EAP learners, these complexities present substantial barriers to comprehension, emphasizing the
need for instructional materials that better prepare students for academic reading challenges (Chen
& Meurers, 2018).

Despite the acknowledged significance of syntactic complexity, research comparing the

syntactic features of EAP textbooks and academic research papers is relatively sparse. This gap
limits our understanding of how well EAP materials align with the complexities of authentic
academic texts (Jin et al., 2020). Addressing this gap is crucial for developing EAP curricula that
bridge the divide between simplified learning materials and the linguistic demands of scholarly
texts, thereby supporting learners in their transition to advanced academic literacy (Biber et al.,
2011; Martinussen & Mackenzie, 2015).

This study aims to investigate the differences in syntactic complexity between EAP
textbooks and academic research papers. By identifying key syntactic features such as sentence
length, clause variety, and overall sentence complexity, the research seeks to provide insights that
can guide the development of more effective EAP instructional materials. Ultimately, this study
aims to enhance the alignment between EAP curricula and the linguistic demands of academic
scholarship, equipping learners with the tools they need for academic success.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Multidimensional Factors Influencing Reading Comprehension: Insights into Texts and
Learners
Reading comprehension is a complex process that involves the dynamic interaction of
reader- and text-related factors, working together to facilitate the construction of meaning. Reader-
related elements, such as linguistic proficiency, background knowledge, and reading strategies,
interact with text-based features like syntax, vocabulary, and genre. Together, these components
require learners to employ a range of cognitive and linguistic resources to navigate and interpret
texts effectively (Grabe & Stoller, 2019; Koda, 2005).

Syntactic complexity emerges as a critical determinant of comprehension, particularly for

EFL learners. The ability to process and engage with complex sentence structures is essential for
developing advanced reading skills. However, inconsistencies in the syntactic demands of
educational materials often limit learners’ exposure to the types of structures that foster
proficiency. This gap highlights the importance of designing materials that align with learners'
evolving linguistic capacities, ensuring they are appropriately challenged (Sun, 2020).

Similarly, lexical richness, which encompasses vocabulary diversity and sophistication,

plays a pivotal role in reading comprehension. While lexical richness can present challenges to
learners, it also deepens engagement and supports comprehension when balanced effectively.
Ensuring this balance allows texts to remain accessible while maintaining the intellectual rigor
necessary for the development of advanced reading abilities (Nation, 2006)

Despite these insights, many educational textbooks and assessment materials exhibit
inconsistencies in text complexity, which can hinder their overall effectiveness. Addressing these
shortcomings requires refinements in material design, supported by automated systems for
evaluating and optimizing text complexity. Such tools offer significant potential for improving
linguistic cohesion, ensuring fair assessments, and fostering more consistent learning outcomes
(Bogaerds-Hazenberg et al., 2022; Kupriyanov et al., 2022). By balancing syntactic, lexical, and
readability considerations, educators and material developers can create resources that effectively
meet learners' needs while promoting meaningful and successful reading comprehension.

2.2. EFL Countries, Reading Comprehension and Grammatical Complexity Challenges

In EFL countries, reading comprehension is particularly important as it is a primary way
for students to learn English. However, many students struggle with reading comprehension which
is influenced by both syntactic complexity of the texts and grammatical knowledge of the students.
Readers' grammatical proficiency is essential for facilitating comprehension, while limited
syntactic awareness often creates significant barriers (Tarlani-Aliabadi et al., 2022). To address
these challenges, pedagogical strategies must explicitly target syntactic understanding, equipping
learners with the skills to navigate complex sentence structures effectively (Ahmed & Ahmed,
2023). However, text-related factors frequently undermine these efforts. Insufficient syntactic
practice in textbooks were found in the literature which can negatively affect students' ability to
build strong comprehension skills (Alenezi, 2016; Mousavi et al., 2021). This challenge becomes
even more pronounced in advanced academic texts, where high levels of syntactic density and
structural complexity require explicit instructional focus (Grabe & Stoller, 2019). Despite these
insights, research has largely overlooked the inconsistencies between the syntactic features of EAP
textbooks and authentic academic texts, highlighting a critical gap that requires further
investigation.

2.3 Theoretical Framework

According to the RAND Reading Group (2002), the reading comprehension process can
be conceptualized through a heuristic approach involving three core elements: the reading activity,
the text, and the reader. These elements operate within a broad social and cultural context, where
diverse learning theories and practices interact dynamically. The reader contributes knowledge,
experience, and cognitive capacities to understand texts. Variations in individual characteristics,
both inter-individual and intra-individual, influence comprehension outcomes (RAND, 2002).

Figure 1
Heuristic for reading comprehension (source: adopted from RAND Group, 2002, p. xiv).

Regarding the text element, the Construction-Integration Model(Kintsch, 1988) posits that
readers’ cognitive strategies and the textual features they engage with impact comprehension. This
model introduces two guiding frameworks: the text model, which involves processing explicit
textual information, and the situation model, which integrates background knowledge to derive
meaning. To comprehend texts, learners must access word meanings, activate relevant prior
knowledge, and construct both textual and situational models. Consequently, text complexity,
including syntactic features, can introduce challenges in the reading process.

Reading Comprehension Process

Reading comprehension is a multifaceted process requiring the integration of linguistic,

cognitive, and contextual elements to build coherent representations of text. The interplay among
word meanings, syntactic structures, and background knowledge enables both literal
understanding and inferential reasoning. Foundational models, such as the Text Base Reading
Model (van Dijk & Kintsch, 1983) and the Construction-Integration Model (Kintsch, 1988),
emphasize this integrative approach, underscoring the importance of connecting explicit textual
information with implicit meanings derived from prior knowledge.
 Successful comprehension depends on balancing lower-level skills, such as word
recognition, with higher-order cognitive tasks, including inferencing and model building.
Automatizing basic processes like decoding and syntactic integration in mind is critical, as it frees
cognitive resources for more complex tasks (Perfetti, 1985) However, syntactic complexity
presents significant challenges for EFL learners, where advanced grammatical processing in the
mind is essential for integrating textual information into coherent mental models.

In EFL contexts, input materials such as textbooks play a crucial role in developing the
linguistic systems required for academic reading. Yet, studies indicate that these materials often
fail to align with the syntactic and lexical demands of advanced academic texts (Fender, 2001)
This misalignment can hinder learners’ ability to process and integrate complex grammatical
structures effectively. Addressing this gap requires instructional materials that mirror the linguistic
features of target academic contexts, equipping learners to navigate complex texts and enhancing
their overall language proficiency(Grabe, 2008). Accordingly, the current study poses the
following questions:

1) How syntactically complex are the advanced-level comprehension texts practiced within EAP
textbook materials?

2) How syntactically complex are advanced-level comprehension texts within respective academic
research papers?

3) How differently/similarly is the advanced reading comprehension operationalized among these

two types of sources (EAP textbook materials and advanced academic research papers)?

3. Methodology
3.1. Design and Context of the Study

The present study employs a corpus-based quantitative research design to examine the
syntactic complexity and readability of advanced reading comprehension texts, specifically
sourced from educational EAP textbooks and academic research papers in three distinct academic
disciplines: Psychology, Accounting, and Pharmacy. Each EAP textbook was paired with research
papers from the same discipline to ensure consistency and comparability across the corpora. Using
the L2 Syntactic Complexity Analyzer (L2SCA) as the analytical tool, the study quantitatively
evaluates key syntactic dimensions to uncover patterns and differences in linguistic structures
across these genres of EFL learner input. Statistical analyses, particularly MANOVA, are applied
to assess how these syntactic features vary, providing a framework for identifying meaningful
relationships and contrasts.

3.2. Instruments

The primary instruments used in this study were text document data and a linguistic
analysis tool, the L2 Syntactic Complexity Analyzer (L2SCA). Six corpora of advanced reading
texts were compiled from three academic disciplines: Psychology (EAP textbooks and research
papers), Accounting (EAP textbooks and research papers), and Pharmacy (EAP textbooks and
research papers). These texts were analyzed using the L2SCA to evaluate syntactic complexity.

SAMT, a prominent publisher of English for Academic Purposes (EAP) textbooks in Iran,
provided the materials for this study. The aim was to assess the syntactic complexity of SAMT's
EAP reading materials and compare them to that of academic research papers. EAP textbooks from
SAMT were selected, each containing at least 10 units with reading passages relevant to academic
disciplines. Three textbooks, serving as primary resources for "Specialized English" courses in the
targeted fields (Psychology, Accounting, and Pharmacy), were chosen (SAMT, 2024a, 2024b,
2024c). Ten texts were extracted from each textbook, resulting in 30 texts, compiled into three
separate EAP textbook corpora (see Appendix A).

To provide a comparison, 10 research papers from Scopus-indexed journals were selected

for each academic discipline, forming the second set of corpora. These research papers were
chosen based on Scopus subject areas, which include 26 main categories with various
subcategories. A total of 30 research papers—10 from each field—were compiled into three
separate academic research text corpora.

To ensure comparability and enhance the validity of the syntactic complexity analysis, only
the discussion sections of the research papers were included. These sections are recognized for
their focus on interpreting findings and advancing knowledge claims, critical aims of research
articles (Basturkmen, 2009; Le & Harrington, 2015). Unlike EAP textbook passages, research
papers contain significantly more content. Focusing on discussion sections helped maintain
balance and ensured a reliable comparison between corpora. Detailed information on the journals
and research papers is provided in Appendix B. And, more information on linguistic analysis tools
used to compare the corpora are covered in the “Data Analysis” section.

3.4. Data Collection Procedure

The process of compiling the corpora for this study was carefully aligned with its research
objectives. As McEnery and Brookes (2022) explain, corpora can be classified as either general or
specialized. General corpora encompass a broad spectrum of language data, whereas specialized
corpora focus on specific genres or varieties of language. For this study, specialized corpora were
developed by selecting advanced reading comprehension texts from EAP textbooks and academic
research papers, ensuring their relevance to the study's emphasis on EFL learner input.

In preparing the reading comprehension passages for syntactic complexity analysis, the
researchers undertook several steps to ensure validity. This included formatting the text in plain
text, ensuring proper punctuation, removing extraneous information, and addressing word
separation issues. These measures were crucial for creating a corpus compatible with the L2SCA
tool's requirements.

Authenticity, a key consideration in corpus design, involves including language data that
reflects real-world usage with minimal researcher interference (McEnery & Wilson, 2001). To
maintain authenticity, this study utilized random EAP textbooks and academic research papers,
which EFL learners commonly encounter in academic contexts. The EAP textbooks, published by
the SAMT Association, are widely used in Iran for various academic disciplines. Although not
internationally renowned, these textbooks are integral to university English courses in the region.
Their inclusion ensured that the texts reflected materials EFL learners typically engage with,
reinforcing the study’s focus on real-world learner input.

Representativeness was another crucial criterion, ensuring the language data reflected the
variability within the target genre(Biber, 1993). To achieve this, the study included a diverse
selection of advanced reading texts from three academic disciplines—Psychology, Accounting,
and Pharmacy. These texts, commonly encountered by EFL learners, form a significant portion of
their academic language input. Sampling from multiple disciplines enhanced the corpora's
representativeness, thereby supporting the validity of the syntactic complexity analyses.
 To ensure comparability, texts within each corpus were drawn from the same academic
discipline, with equal numbers of passages selected from each source. This approach facilitated
valid comparisons across corpora, as texts within each discipline shared common characteristics
and functions. As Hewavitharana and Vogel (2008), and Ji (2009) emphasize, comparability is
critical for aligning texts in terms of content and purpose. In this study, six corpora—covering texts
from three disciplines (Psychology, Accounting, and Pharmacy) and their respective research
papers—each comprised 10 advanced reading passages.

3.5. Data Analysis Procedure

To address the research questions and assess advanced reading texts, a series of procedures
was implemented. Initially, the textual data, comprising advanced reading passages from a
selection of EAP textbooks and academic research papers, were collected to create individual
corpora. Subsequently, an objective syntactic complexity analysis of the texts was conducted using
the L2SCA tool. This involved feeding each corpus into the tool and analysing all syntactic
measures of the texts, resulting in six analyses: three for the EAP textbooks individually and three
for the research papers across the three academic disciplines. The derived results formed the
foundation for subsequent comparisons. Each EAP textbook was juxtaposed with and compared
to the research papers within its corresponding academic discipline, leveraging the syntactic
complexity measures of the texts. The comparative results formed the basis for in-depth
discussions and further analyses.

Syntactic Complexity Measures and the linguistic analysis tool

According to the previous literature, readers process the texts linearly, decoding it word by
word; but as they read, they need to compile the linguistic items into a larger scale of syntactic
structures(Just & Carpenter, 1987; Rayner & Pollatsek, 1996). Accordingly, the mental demands
required for this operation can vary considerably on the basis of how complex the structure is
(Perfetti et al., 2005). Therefore, the collected texts were analysed using all 14 measures computed
by the syntactic complexity measures of L2SCA in order to make the analysis a comprehensive
one which covers each of the 4 core complexity measures. Additionally, the measures are divided
into 4 core groups which are called length of the production unit, amount of subordination, amount
of coordination, and degree of phrasal sophistication. Table 1 presents more information on the
syntactic complexity measures.
Table 1.

L2 Syntactic Complexity Measures

Category Label Description
Length of Production Unit MLC Mean length of clause
MLS Mean length of sentence
MLT Mean length of T-unit
Amount of Subordination C/T Number of clauses per T-unit
CT/T Complex T-unit ratio
DC/C Number of dependent clauses per clause
DC/T Number of dependent clauses per T-unit
Amount of Coordination CP/C Number of coordinate phrases per clause
CP/T Number of coordinate phrases per T-unit
T/S Number of T-units per sentence
Degree of Phrasal Sophistication CN/C Number of complex nominals per clause
CN/T Number of complex nominals per T-unit
VP/T Number of verb phrases per T-unit
Overall Sentence Complexity C/S Number of clauses per sentence

Note: Retrieved from "Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing" by Lu (2010), International Journal of
Corpus Linguistics, 15(4): 474-496. Copyright 2010 by John Benjamins Pulishing Company.

The amount of coordination is assessed through the number of coordinate phrases per
clause (CP/C), number of coordinate phrases per T-unit (CP/T), and number of T-units per sentence
(T/S) (Lu, 2010). These measures provide information about the level of coordination within the
text. Finally, the degree of phrasal sophistication is evaluated through the number of complex
nominals per clause (CN/C) (Lu, 2010) This index reflects the complexity of noun phrases, which
can impact the overall processing demands on the reader. Therefore, the L2SCA was used in the
current study because it offers a comprehensive framework for analyzing text complexity by
examining various aspects of syntactic complexity, including length of production unit, amount of
subordination, amount of coordination, and degree of phrasal sophistication. All these 14 measures
were calculated to ensure a comprehensive descriptive analysis of the variance between the
corpora. However, with regard to the inferential analysis of the data, a following study by Ai and
Lu (2013) provided a structured framework for analyzing syntactic complexity by grouping
measures into four distinct categories: length of production units, amount of subordination, amount
of coordination, and degree of phrasal sophistication. They compared texts by examining
differences in the mean values of these grouped measures across multiple writing samples. This
grouping allowed for a more focused and systematic analysis of syntactic patterns. The study
highlighted statistically significant differences between their groups, revealing how syntactic
complexity varied across proficiency levels and text types. Their groupings are reviewed in Table
2. Additionally, their study demonstrated the effectiveness of categorizing syntactic complexity
measures to uncover patterns and relationships in diverse text sources. Similarly, in the current
study, after calculating and alazying the descriptive data, the syntactic complexity measures were
systematically grouped into four distinct categories to enable effective statistical analysis. These
groups are: length of production unit, amount of subordination, amount of coordination, and
degree of phrasal sophistication. Therefore, the approach aligns with established methodologies
in prior research, facilitating the identification of meaningful differences and trends in syntactic
complexity among the corpora under investigation.

Table 2.

Grouping Syntactic Complexity Measures Based on Ai and Lu (2013)

Group Label Description
Length of Production Unit MLC Mean length of clause
MLS Mean length of sentence
MLT Mean length of T-unit
Amount of Subordination DC/C Number of dependent clauses per clause
DC/T Number of dependent clauses per T-unit
Amount of Coordination CP/C Number of coordinate phrases per clause
CP/T Number of coordinate phrases per T-unit
T/S Number of T-units per sentence
Degree of Phrasal Sophistication CN/C Number of complex nominals per clause
CN/T Number of complex nominals per T-unit

Methodological Procedure for the inferential Analyses

To examine variations in syntactic complexity across six corpora, a one-way MANOVA
(Multivariate Analysis of Variance) was conducted using SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences). This analytical approach was selected for its ability to assess multiple dependent
variables simultaneously while accounting for their interdependence, providing a comprehensive
examination of syntactic complexity across the corpora.

Variables and Data Organization

The analysis incorporated four dependent variables, representing distinct dimensions of

syntactic complexity:

1. Length of production unit, indicating overall syntactic elaboration.

2. Amount of subordination, measured as the frequency of dependent clauses relative to
other units.
3. Amount of coordination, reflecting the extent of coordinate structures.
4. Degree of phrasal sophistication, which captures the intricacy of phrasal elements.

The independent variable, corpus, consisted of six categories, each corresponding to a

distinct textual source. Data preparation involved calculating the syntactic complexity indices for
all samples within each corpus, ensuring consistency and comparability across groups, the
descriptive report of which is already presented above.

Statistical test

The MANOVA procedure was structured to test whether the mean vectors of the four
dependent variables varied across the six corpora. Wilks’ Lambda was employed as the primary
multivariate test statistic, evaluating the significance measure of the overall effect of the
independent variable on the combined dependent variables.

To ensure reliable results, the analysis treated each corpus as independent, with no overlap
or dependency between the groups. Each corpus was carefully organized to reflect the unique
characteristics of specific textbooks and research papers. MANOVA was chosen for its ability to
analyze multiple related variables at once, making it ideal for exploring differences in syntactic
complexity across the academic fields of Psychology, Pharmacy, and Accounting, as reflected in
their textbooks and research papers corpora. This approach was used to highlight how syntactic
features vary between these written genres.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1 Descriptive Analysis of the Results
Psychology Books and Research Papers
 Based on Table 3, the comparison between the "Psychology books corpus" and the
"Psychology papers corpus" revealed several key differences. The "Psychology papers corpus"
contained more words (12,720) than the "Psychology books corpus" (5,488), indicating that the
former was a significantly larger and more comprehensive text corpus.

In terms of sentence structure, the mean length of sentence (MLS) in the "Psychology books
corpus" was shorter (16.33) compared to the "Psychology papers corpus" (27.24). This suggested
that sentences in the books were more concise, while those in the papers were longer and more
information-dense. Similarly, the mean length of T-unit (MLT) and mean length of clause (MLC)
were higher in the "Psychology papers corpus," reflecting its use of more complex sentence
structures.

Table 3
Descriptive Results of the Syntactic Complexity Measure in Psychology EAP Textbooks versus
Papers
Measure Books Corpus Papers Corpus Difference
Words (nwords) 5,488 12,720 +7,232
Mean Length of Sentence (MLS) 16.3 27.2 +10.9
Mean Length of T-unit (MLT) 14.8 25.3 +10.5
Mean Length of Clause (MLC) 9.94 15.2 +5.26
Clauses per Sentence (C_S) 1.64 1.78 +0.14
Verb Phrases per T-unit (VP_T) 2.13 2.38 +0.25
Clauses per T-unit (C_T) 1.49 1.66 +0.17
Dependent Clauses per Clause (DC_C) 0.34 0.40 +0.06
Dependent Clauses per T-unit (DC_T) 0.52 0.67 +0.15
T-units per Sentence (T_S) 1.09 1.07 -0.02
Complex T-units per T-unit (CT_T) 0.38 0.47 +0.09
Complex Phrases per T-unit (CP_T) 0.60 0.87 +0.27
Complex Phrases per Clause (CP_C) 0.40 0.52 +0.12
Complex Noun Phrases per T-unit (CN_T) 1.75 3.90 +2.15
Complex Noun Phrases per Clause (CN_C) 1.17 2.34 +1.17

The papers also exhibited a greater reliance on dependent clauses and complex nominal
phrases. Higher ratios of dependent clauses per clause and per T-unit (DC_C and DC_T) in the
papers pointed to their use for structuring information and enhancing cohesion. Additionally, the
ratios of complex nominal phrases per T-unit and per clause (CN_T and CN_C) were also higher,
indicating a stronger use of intricate nominal constructions.
 These findings underscored Psychology’s tendency toward detailed and intricate discourse
in academic writing. The longer sentences, higher density of dependent clauses, and greater use of
complex nominal constructions in papers aligned with the discipline’s commitment to academic
rigor and comprehensive exploration of theoretical concepts and empirical findings(Beech, 2009;
Hartley, 2008). Furthermore, the larger word count in papers compared to the EAP psychology
textbooks reflected the expansive nature of psychological research, incorporating detailed analyses
and experimental findings that went beyond the brevity typical of textbook passages (Breakwell
et al., 2012)

These linguistic patterns not only highlighted the complexity of psychological writing but
also emphasized the discipline's dedication to effectively communicating the depth and richness
of its research. The statistical significance of these findings was further explored in the following
sections.

Accounting Books and Papers

The comparison of the "Accounting book corpus" and "Accounting papers corpus"
revealed key insights into their linguistic characteristics. According to Table 4, the "Accounting
papers corpus" was larger, containing 9,873 words compared to 6,387 words in the "Accounting
book corpus." This indicated that the papers corpus was more extensive and likely covered a
broader range of accounting topics, providing researchers and practitioners with a larger pool of
information for reference and analysis.

Table 4
Descriptive Results of the Syntactic Complexity Measure in Accounting EAP Textbooks versus
Papers
Measure Books Corpus Papers Corpus Difference
Words (nwords) 6,178 15,264 +9,086
Mean Length of Sentence (MLS) 19.9 28.31 +8.41
Mean Length of T-unit (MLT) 19.1 24.94 +5.84
Mean Length of Clause (MLC) 15.7 11.7 -4.0
Clauses per Sentence (C_S) 1.26 2.41 +1.15
Verb Phrases per T-unit (VP_T) 2.07 2.92 +0.85
Clauses per T-unit (C_T) 1.21 2.13 +0.92
Dependent Clauses per Clause (DC_C) 0.21 0.51 +0.30
Dependent Clauses per T-unit (DC_T) 0.25 1.10 +0.85
T-units per Sentence (T_S) 1.04 1.13 +0.09
 Complex T-units per T-unit (CT_T) 0.22 0.656 +0.436
Complex Phrases per T-unit (CP_T) 1.03 0.80 -0.23
Complex Phrases per Clause (CP_C) 0.85 0.37 -0.48
Complex Noun Phrases per T-unit (CN_T) 2.63 3.4 +0.77
Complex Noun Phrases per Clause (CN_C) 2.16 1.61 -0.55

In terms of sentence structure, the "Accounting papers corpus" exhibited longer and more
complex sentences than the "Accounting book corpus." The mean length of sentence (MLS) in the
papers corpus was 26.46, reflecting greater syntactic intricacy, while the books corpus had a lower
MLS of 19.72, indicating shorter and more concise sentences. This difference suggested distinct
writing styles and purposes between books and academic papers.

Both the mean length of T-unit (MLT) and mean length of clause (MLC) were higher in the
"Accounting papers corpus," further demonstrating its more elaborate syntactic structures. This
linguistic complexity likely stemmed from the academic rigor required to explore theoretical
concepts and empirical findings in the papers.

Additionally, the "Accounting papers corpus" showed a greater prevalence of dependent

clauses and complex nominal phrases. Higher ratios of dependent clauses per clause (DC_C) and
per T-unit (DC_T) highlighted its reliance on these structures for cohesion and detailed
information. Similarly, the higher ratios of complex nominal phrases per T-unit (CN_T) and per
clause (CN_C) reflected frequent use of intricate nominal constructions, contributing to the
precision and specificity expected in scholarly writing.

In the domain of Accounting, these findings underscored differences between books and
papers. The longer, more complex sentences in the papers, alongside a higher density of dependent
clauses and complex nominal phrases, emphasized the precision and specificity characteristic of
academic writing. This also suggested that EAP textbooks could benefit from better alignment
with the academic language found in accounting research.

Consistent with these findings, Davidson (2005) and Amnuai (2019) highlighted the need
for precision and specificity in scholarly writing within the field of accounting. Davidson's analysis
of accounting textbooks over the past century revealed a decrease in sentence complexity and an
increase in word complexity, while Amnuai's study of accounting research article abstracts
emphasized differences in rhetorical moves and linguistic realizations. These observations
supported the recommendation for EAP textbooks to align more closely with real-world academic
language in accounting. Loughran and McDonald (2016), and Hussain et al. (2020) further
stressed the importance of understanding textual nuances and the dichotomy in source material
usage in accounting research. The statistical significance of these findings is addressed in the
following sections.

Pharmacy Books and Research Papers

The comparison of the "Pharmacy book corpus" and the "Pharmacy papers corpus" reveals
significant differences in their linguistic characteristics. The "Pharmacy papers corpus" is larger,
containing 8,431 words compared to 5,749 words in the "Pharmacy book corpus," suggesting that
the papers corpus covers a broader range of pharmacy topics. This comprehensive collection of
academic papers provides researchers and professionals with access to more specialized subjects
and detailed research findings.

Table 5.
Descriptive Results of the Syntactic Complexity Measure in Pharmacy EAP Textbooks versus
Papers
Measure Books Corpus Papers Corpus Difference
Words (nwords) 7,483 8,135 +652
Mean Length of Sentence (MLS) 17.90 22.66 +4.76
Mean Length of T-unit (MLT) 18.29 21.57 +3.28
Mean Length of Clause (MLC) 14.58 13.90 -0.68
Clauses per Sentence (C_S) 1.227 1.62 +0.393
Verb Phrases per T-unit (VP_T) 2.01 2.05 +0.04
Clauses per T-unit (C_T) 1.254 1.55 +0.296
Dependent Clauses per Clause (DC_C) 0.19 0.35 +0.16
Dependent Clauses per T-unit (DC_T) 0.24 0.55 +0.31
T-units per Sentence (T_S) 0.97 1.05 +0.08
Complex T-units per T-unit (CT_T) 0.21 0.40 +0.19
Complex Phrases per T-unit (CP_T) 0.98 0.58 -0.40
Complex Phrases per Clause (CP_C) 0.78 0.37 -0.41
Complex Noun Phrases per T-unit (CN_T) 2.70 3.18 +0.48
Complex Noun Phrases per Clause (CN_C) 2.15 2.04 -0.11

In terms of sentence structure, the "Pharmacy papers corpus" exhibits longer and more
complex sentences. Its mean length of sentence (MLS) is 25.18, indicating greater syntactic
intricacy, whereas the "Pharmacy book corpus" has a lower MLS of 21.36, reflecting shorter and
more concise sentence structures. This distinction highlights variations in writing style and
potentially differing purposes between academic papers and textbooks.

Further analysis shows that the mean length of T-unit (MLT) and mean length of clause
(MLC) are both higher in the "Pharmacy papers corpus" than in the "Pharmacy book corpus,"
revealing that sentences in the papers corpus are more clause-dense and syntactically elaborate.
This complexity reflects the academic rigor and detailed exploration of theoretical or empirical
concepts characteristic of pharmacy papers.

Additionally, the "Pharmacy papers corpus" demonstrates a higher frequency of dependent

clauses and complex nominal phrases. The ratios of dependent clauses per clause (DC_C) and per
T-unit (DC_T) are greater in the papers corpus, indicating a stronger reliance on dependent clauses
for cohesion and the provision of supplementary information or evidence. Similarly, the ratios of
complex nominal phrases per T-unit (CN_T) and per clause (CN_C) are higher, reflecting the
frequent use of intricate nominal constructions. These linguistic features contribute to the
precision, specificity, and formal tone expected in scholarly writing.

In the field of Pharmacy, these findings underscore the more extensive and linguistically
complex nature of academic papers compared to EAP pharmacy textbooks. The longer sentences,
greater prevalence of dependent clauses, and higher frequency of complex nominal constructions
align with the in-depth discussions and specialized analyses typical of pharmacy research. This
comparison enhances understanding of the linguistic nuances and content specific to academic
literature in this domain.

4.2 Inferential Analysis of the Results

To deepen the insights from the descriptive analysis, a one-way MANOVA was conducted
to evaluate linguistic differences across six corpora: Psychology books (PsychoBok), Accounting
books (AccBok), Pharmacy books (PhrmBok), Psychology papers (PsychoPprs), Accounting
papers (AccPprs), and Pharmacy papers (PhrmPprs). The analysis included four dependent
variables: length of production unit, amount of subordination, amount of coordination, and degree
of phrasal sophistication. The results offered a robust statistical foundation for the trends identified
in the descriptive analysis. Additionally, the plots provided in the analysis visually summarized the
relationships between corpus type and dependent variables, illustrating patterns of variation for
each linguistic feature across the corpora.

The MANOVA results revealed a significant multivariate effect of corpus type on linguistic
features (Wilks’ Lambda = 0.000, p < 0.001), confirming significant linguistic differences across
the corpora. These findings supported the observation that academic papers generally employed
more complex syntactic and phrasal structures than textbooks. Table 6 displays the multivariate
test results from SPSS.

Table 6.
Multivariate Tests Results

Multivariate Testsa

Hypothesis
Effect Value F df Error df Sig.

Intercept Pillai's Trace 1.000 10682.348b 4.000 3.000 .000

Wilks' Lambda .000 10682.348b 4.000 3.000 .000

Hotelling's Trace 14243.130 10682.348b 4.000 3.000 .000

Roy's Largest 14243.130 10682.348b 4.000 3.000 .000

Root

corpus Pillai's Trace 2.904 3.179 20.000 24.000 .004

Wilks' Lambda .000 23.089 20.000 10.900 .000

Hotelling's Trace 647.333 48.550 20.000 6.000 .000

Roy's Largest 606.144 727.372c 5.000 6.000 .000

Root

According to Table 7, the length of production units, including sentences and clauses,
varied significantly across the corpora (F = 25.361, p < 0.001). Academic papers in Psychology
(M = 26.31), Accounting (M = 26.63), and Pharmacy (M = 22.12) consistently demonstrated
longer production units compared to textbooks. This aligned with the descriptive observation that
academic papers favored longer, information-rich sentences to meet the demands of academic rigor
and theoretical exploration. For example, the longer sentences in Psychology papers reflected the
field’s reliance on detailed empirical reporting. Additionally, the plot (Figure 2) for length of
production unit clearly highlighted the higher values for Psychology, Accounting, and Pharmacy
papers compared to their corresponding book corpora, showcasing the distinction between
complex academic writing and simpler textbook language.

Table 7.
Descriptive Results, Mean, and Standard Deviation Across all Corpora
Measure Corpus Mean Standard Deviation
Length of Production Unit PsychoBok 15.60 1.03
AccBok 19.53 0.57
PhrmBok 18.10 0.28
PsychoPprs 26.31 1.31
AccPprs 26.63 2.39
PhrmPprs 22.12 0.77
Amount of Subordination PsychoBok 0.44 0.12
AccBok 0.23 0.03
PhrmBok 0.22 0.03
PsychoPprs 0.54 0.19
AccPprs 0.81 0.41
PhrmPprs 0.45 0.14
Amount of Coordination PsychoBok 0.51 0.14
AccBok 0.94 0.13
PhrmBok 0.89 0.14
PsychoPprs 0.70 0.25
AccPprs 0.59 0.30
PhrmPprs 0.48 0.15
Degree of Phrasal Sophistication PsychoBok 1.46 0.41
AccBok 2.40 0.33
PhrmBok 2.43 0.39
PsychoPprs 3.12 1.10
AccPprs 2.54 1.29
PhrmPprs 2.62 0.80

Although MANOVA did not identify statistically significant differences for subordination
(F = 2.347, p = 0.164), descriptive trends indicated that papers, particularly in Psychology (M =
0.54) and Accounting (M = 0.81), employed higher ratios of dependent clauses than textbooks.
This suggested that papers relied on subordination to achieve cohesion and elaborate on complex
ideas. Table 7 shows the descriptive statistics for subordination. The plot for subordination
revealed a slight increase in paper corpora, particularly in Psychology and Accounting papers,
though the difference between book and paper corpora was less pronounced, consistent with the
MANOVA results.

No significant differences were found for coordination (F = 2.006, p = 0.211). However,

descriptive statistics indicated greater coordination in textbooks, particularly in Accounting (M =
0.94) and Pharmacy (M = 0.89). This supported the observation that textbooks favored simpler
structures with coordinated clauses for accessibility, contrasting with the subordination-dominated
style of academic papers. Table 7 presents data on coordination. The coordination plot (Figure 2)
reflected higher coordination in the Accounting and Pharmacy book corpora, with a reduction in
coordination in the Pharmacy papers corpus. This suggested that while coordination was prevalent
in textbooks, academic papers favored more syntactically complex structures involving
subordination.

Figure 2
Plots for Length of Production Unit, Amount of Subordination, Amount of Coordination, and
Degree of Phrasal Sophistication Across all Corpora
 The degree of phrasal sophistication did not show statistical significance in MANOVA (F
= 0.586, p = 0.542). Nonetheless, descriptive trends suggested a higher degree of sophistication in
papers, especially in Psychology (M = 3.12), reflecting the field’s linguistic demand for precise
expression of nuanced concepts. Table 7 provides data on phrasal sophistication. The plot for
phrasal sophistication confirmed the descriptive results, with academic papers generally exhibiting
greater sophistication than textbooks. The Psychology papers corpus stood out with the highest
sophistication level, supporting the idea that academic papers require more complex linguistic
features.
 The inferential results validated the descriptive analysis trends, demonstrating that
academic papers across disciplines consistently displayed longer production units, greater
syntactic complexity, and higher phrasal sophistication than textbooks. These findings highlighted
a significant linguistic disparity between EAP textbooks and authentic academic written language,
particularly their inability to capture the syntactic complexity required in disciplines such as
Psychology and Accounting.

Similar to the findings of the present study, Grabowski (2015) reported that academic
pharmaceutical texts exhibited a unique phraseological profile, significantly differing from non-
academic pharmaceutical texts. While the academic genre in his study utilized fewer frequent
phrase frames, these frames showed considerable phraseological variation. Although
phraseological variation alone does not determine syntactic complexity, other factors such as
sentence length, subordination, coordination, and clause arrangement also contribute to overall
complexity. Text types with a wide range of phraseological variation appear to facilitate more
manipulated sentence structures and intricate syntactic devices, thus indicating greater complexity
in pharmaceutical academic texts.

Moreover, Grabowski (2015) found that academic pharmacy texts relied more heavily on
variable frames composed of function words, indicating a preference for grammatical phraseology.
Text genres favoring function words over content words tend to exhibit more intricate syntactic
structures, as function words serve as the grammatical scaffolding that connects sentences and
establishes conceptual relationships. Function words such as articles, conjunctions, prepositions,
and pronouns act as grammatical "glue," linking nouns, verbs, and adjectives to clarify
relationships and guide readers through complex arguments. Conversely, genres relying heavily
on content words, such as nouns and verbs, tend to be more straightforward and less syntactically
demanding, as content words primarily convey meaning while lacking the grammatical scaffolding
provided by function words.

The comparison across disciplines highlighted the varied linguistic demands and purposes
of academic writing. While Psychology and Pharmacy papers employed longer sentences and
denser complex constructions, Accounting papers focused on detailed conceptual exploration
within concise sentence structures. These distinctions underscored the need for tailored language
instruction and curriculum development within each discipline. Additionally, the findings
indicated that EAP textbooks need better alignment with authentic academic content to include
more syntactically complex language patterns and meet students’ needs effectively.

5. Conclusions
In conclusion, the analysis of linguistic features in Psychology, Accounting, and Pharmacy
enhanced our understanding of academic discourse in these disciplines. Patterns in sentence
structures, clause lengths, and the use of dependent clauses and complex nominal phrases offered
valuable insights for educators, curriculum developers, and academic material authors.

The distinctions between books and papers in each discipline highlighted the need to
recognize the specific linguistic characteristics of scholarly communication. These findings carry
significant pedagogical implications, encouraging educators to design language instruction
programs that address the unique linguistic demands of students in Psychology, Accounting, and
Pharmacy.

Implications for textbook development are particularly noteworthy, advocating for the
inclusion of discipline-specific reading materials, targeted vocabulary exercises, and strategies to
address linguistic challenges. Aligning content with professional practices, integrating research
findings, and promoting interdisciplinary learning further enhance the relevance and effectiveness
of educational materials.

One limitation of this study lies in its reliance on a selected corpus of texts from
Psychology, Accounting, and Pharmacy, which, while representative, may not capture the full
breadth of linguistic variation within these disciplines. The focus on specific text types, such as
textbooks and research papers, excludes other potentially relevant academic genres, such as case
studies or conference proceedings, that might reveal additional nuances in linguistic features.
Moreover, the study's findings, though valuable, are context-dependent and may not fully
generalize to other educational settings or disciplines. Future research could address these gaps by
expanding the corpus to include a wider range of academic materials and exploring how linguistic
features evolve across different genres and contexts.

Ultimately, this analysis not only revealed the complexity of academic language across
disciplines but also outlined a framework for improving language instruction and materials. By
addressing these linguistic nuances, educators and authors can enhance the quality of language
learning in Psychology, Accounting, and Pharmacy, better preparing students for academic and
professional success.

References
Ahmed, Z. A. D. A., & Ahmed, F. E. Y. (2023). Difficulties Encountered by Saudi EFL Learners
in English Reading Comprehension. Russian Law Journal, 11(8s).
Ai, H., & Lu, X. (2013). A corpus-based comparison of syntactic complexity in NNS and NS
university students’ writing. Automatic treatment and analysis of learner corpus data, 59.
Alenezi, S. (2016). The suitability of the EFL reading texts at the secondary and preparatory
levels as a preparation for academic reading at first year university level in Saudi Arabia
University of Essex].
Amnuai, W. (2019). Analyses of rhetorical moves and linguistic realizations in accounting
research article abstracts published in international and Thai-based journals. Sage open,
9(1), 2158244018822384.
Arya, D. J., Hiebert, E. H., & Pearson, P. D. (2011). The effects of syntactic and lexical
complexity on the comprehension of elementary science texts. International Electronic
Journal of Elementary Education, 4(1), 107-125.
Basturkmen, H. (2009). Commenting on results in published research articles and masters
dissertations in language teaching. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 8(4), 241-
251.
Beech, J. R. (2009). How to write in psychology: A student guide. Wiley-Blackwell Publishing.
Biber, D. (1993). Representativeness in corpus design. Literary and linguistic computing, 8(4),
243-257.
Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2010). Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity,
elaboration, explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9(1), 2-20.
Biber, D., Gray, B., & Poonpon, K. (2011). Should we use characteristics of conversation to
measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development? Tesol Quarterly, 45(1), 5-
35.
Bogaerds-Hazenberg, S. T., Evers-Vermeul, J., & van den Bergh, H. (2022). What textbooks
offer and what teachers teach: an analysis of the Dutch reading comprehension
curriculum. Reading and writing, 35(7), 1497-1523.
Breakwell, G. M., Smith, J. A., & Wright, D. B. (2012). Research methods in Psychology. SAGE
Publications Ltd.
Chen, X., & Meurers, D. (2018). Word frequency and readability: Predicting the text‐level
readability with a lexical‐level attribute. Journal of Research in Reading, 41(3), 486-510.
Davidson, R. A. (2005). Analysis of the complexity of writing used in accounting textbooks over
the past 100 years. Accounting Education, 14(1), 53-74.
Fender, M. (2001). A review of L1 and L2/ESL word integration skills and the nature of L2/ESL
word integration development involved in lower‐level text processing. Language
learning, 51(2), 319-396.
Flowerdew, L. (2005). An integration of corpus-based and genre-based approaches to text
analysis in EAP/ESP: Countering criticisms against corpus-based methodologies. English
for Specific Purposes, 24(3), 321-332.
Grabe, W. (2008). Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice. Cambridge
university press.
Grabe, W., & Stoller, F. L. (2019). Teaching and researching reading. Routledge.
Grabowski, Ł. (2015). Phrase frames in English pharmaceutical discourse: a corpus-driven study
of intra-disciplinary register variation. Research in Language, 13(3), 266-291.
Hartley, J. (2008). Academic writing and publishing: A practical handbook. Routledge.
Hewavitharana, S., & Vogel, S. (2008). Enhancing a statistical machine translation system by
using an automatically extracted parallel corpus from comparable sources. Proceedings of
the Workshop on Comparable Corpora, LREC’08,
Hussain, S., Liu, L. Y. J., & Miller, A. D. (2020). Accounting as a dichotomised discipline: An
analysis of the source materials used in the construction of accounting articles. Critical
Perspectives on Accounting, 66, 102086.
Hyland, K., & Rodrigo, I. H. (2007). English for academic purposes: An advanced resource
book. Miscelánea: A journal of english and american studies(35), 99-108.
Ji, H. (2009). Mining name translations from comparable corpora by creating bilingual
information networks. Proceedings of the 2nd Workshop on Building and Using
Comparable Corpora: from Parallel to Non-parallel Corpora (BUCC),
Jin, T., Lu, X., & Ni, J. (2020). Syntactic complexity in adapted teaching materials: Differences
among grade levels and implications for benchmarking. The Modern Language Journal,
104(1), 192-208.
Just, M. A., & Carpenter, P. A. (1987). The psychology of reading and language comprehension.
Allyn & Bacon.
Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: a construction-
integration model. Psychological review, 95(2), 163.
Koda, K. (2005). Insights into second language reading: A cross-linguistic approach. Cambridge
University Press.
Kupriyanov, R. V., Solnyshkina, M. I., Dascalu, M., & Soldatkina, T. A. (2022). Lexical and
syntactic features of academic Russian texts: A discriminant analysis. Научный
результат. Вопросы теоретической и прикладной лингвистики, 8(4), 105-122.
Le, T. N. P., & Harrington, M. (2015). Phraseology used to comment on results in the Discussion
section of applied linguistics quantitative research articles. English for Specific Purposes,
39, 45-61.
Loughran, T., & McDonald, B. (2016). Textual analysis in accounting and finance: A survey.
Journal of Accounting Research, 54(4), 1187-1230.
Lu, X. (2010). Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing.
International journal of corpus linguistics, 15(4), 474-496.
Lu, X. (2011). A corpus‐based evaluation of syntactic complexity measures as indices of college‐
level ESL writers' language development. Tesol Quarterly, 45(1), 36-62.
Martinussen, R., & Mackenzie, G. (2015). Reading comprehension in adolescents with ADHD:
Exploring the poor comprehender profile and individual differences in vocabulary and
executive functions. Research in developmental disabilities, 38, 329-337.
McEnery, T., & Brookes, G. (2022). Building a written corpus: what are the basics? In The
Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics (pp. 35-47). Routledge.
McEnery, T., & Wilson, A. (2001). Corpus Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh University
Press. https://books.google.de/books?id=nwmgdvN_akAC
Mousavi, M., Ganji, M., & Kordi Tamandani, K. (2021). Let’s Judge a Book by its Cover: The
Case Study of Active Skills for Reading. Journal of Modern Research in English
Language Studies, 8(4), 183-206.
Nation, I. (2006). How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening? Canadian modern
language review, 63(1), 59-82.
Perfetti, C. A. (1985). Reading ability. oxford university Press.
Perfetti, C. A., Landi, N., & Oakhill, J. (2005). The acquisition of reading comprehension skill.
In M. J. S. C. Hulme (Ed.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 227-247).
Blackwell.
RAND. (2002). Reading for Understanding. Toward an R&D Program in Reading
Comprehension. RAND Reading Study Group: Santa Monica.
Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (1996). Reading unspaced text is not easy: Comments on the
implications of Epelboim et al.'s (1994) study for models of eye movement control in
reading. Vision research, 36(3), 461-465.
SAMT. (2024a). ‫حسابداری‬-‫رشته‬-‫دانشجویان‬-‫برای‬-‫انگلیسی‬. SAMT. Retrieved 2024, Jan. 24 from
https://samt.ac.ir/fa/book/421/%D8%A7%D9%86%DA%AF%D9%84%DB%8C%D8%
B3%DB%8C-%D8%A8%D8%B1%D8%A7%DB%8C-
%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%B4%D8%AC%D9%88%DB%8C%D8%A7%D9%
86-%D8%B1%D8%B4%D8%AA%D9%87-
%D8%AD%D8%B3%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B1%DB%8C-
%DB%B2-
SAMT. (2024b). ‫انگلیسی‬-‫داروسازی‬-‫رشته‬-‫دانشجویان‬-‫برای‬. SAMT. Retrieved 2024, Jan. 24 from
https://samt.ac.ir/fa/book/441/%D8%A7%D9%86%DA%AF%D9%84%DB%8C%D8%
B3%DB%8C-%D8%A8%D8%B1%D8%A7%DB%8C-
%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%B4%D8%AC%D9%88%DB%8C%D8%A7%D9%
86-%D8%B1%D8%B4%D8%AA%D9%87-
%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%B3%D8%A7%D8%B2%DB%8C
SAMT. (2024c). ‫شناسی‬-‫روان‬-‫رشته‬-‫دانشجویان‬-‫برای‬-‫انگلیسی‬. SAMT. Retrieved 2024, Jan. 24 from
https://samt.ac.ir/fa/book/1581/%D8%A7%D9%86%DA%AF%D9%84%DB%8C%D8%
B3%DB%8C-%D8%A8%D8%B1%D8%A7%DB%8C-
%D8%AF%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%B4%D8%AC%D9%88%DB%8C%D8%A7%D9%
86-%D8%B1%D8%B4%D8%AA%D9%87-%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%86-
%D8%B4%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%B3%DB%8C
Sun, H. (2020). Unpacking reading text complexity: A dynamic language and content approach.
Studies in Applied Linguistics and TESOL, 20(2).
Tarlani-Aliabadi, H., Tazik, K., & Azizi, Z. (2022). Exploring the role of language knowledge
and background knowledge in reading comprehension of specific-purpose tests in higher
education. Language Testing in Asia, 12(1), 1-23.
van Dijk, T. A., & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. Academic Press.
View publication stats