The typical New Yorker article is CEFRL C2 [1] or ILR 3/3+ [2]. Most internet comments are at CEFRL A2 or so, with some (often faulty) more thoughtful responses at B1 or B2.
Said another way, your median high schooler can read and understand a typical internet comment, but the median high school student cannot read and comprehend a typical New Yorker article.
There are three aspects of writing in the New Yorker that elevates the level:
1. Vocabulary level. Often this is used to add color, and it typically does so well.
2. Complex structure at passage level with appropriate cohesive devices. This loses a lot of people, but makes the article linguistically rich.
3. There can be a great deal of inference and/or tone in New Yorker articles that some folks just don’t get. It will sometimes cause less proficient readers to take away substantial misunderstandings about the contents of the article.
If you try to talk about a New Yorker article in detail with most people, it is not that tough to reach linguistic breakdown.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_European_Framework_of...
The standard ways to measure text complexity in English for native speakers are the Flesch-Kincaid readability and grade level tests. These depend on the length of words and on the number of words in sentences so they're obviously not perfect, in particular they do not measure the use of rare vocabulary or references nor of difficult content.
I tested the OP and found: Flesch reading ease 53.2 (fairly difficult)
Gunning Fog 11 (hard to read)
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level 10.1 grade
Coleman-Liau 10th grade
SMOG Index 9.6 grade
ARI 9.5 grade
Linsear Write Formula 11.4 grade
Where the references to grade are to American school grades. In other words this text can be read by average American 10th graders without difficulty.
I ran an article from the current New Yorker through as well (the one on Basquiat) and that came out as 11th grade reading level.
This is almost exactly equivalent to saying that an average ten year old can read the New Yorker. A ten year old already has their native language down, the rules of grammar and syntax, the accent, the vocabulary, the capacity to discriminate between words with the same denotation but different connotations. There are ten year olds who can profitably read the New Yorker but very few. At least 10% of the adult population will have an absolute score on an IQ test similar to the average ten year old’s.
There are undoubtedly New Yorker articles that a ten year old could completely understand with sufficient exegesis but it’s the US’ premier literary journal and has been for decades. If they haven’t published articles with the depth and complexity of a Supreme Court judgment on some level I will be greatly surprised.
Most people are literally incapable of passing a law degree just as they are of learning calculus. You can write formal logic in English prose instead of using the symbols. The English prose version will be no more comprehensible to an average native English speaker than the one with mathematical symbols.
It is not because it is fundamentally incorrect to say that the New Yorker is a C2 level text.
The CEFR is not intended as a scale to measure the complexity of written text for native speakers and/or readers of a language, it is intended as a four part (listening, reading, speaking, writing) assessment scale of the overall language abilities of people. At most, one could say that a text was consistent with what would be expected of a successful CEFR C2 candidate in the reading portion of the test.
One of the reasons that you cannot use the CEFR to characterise the proficiency of native speakers is that it assumes that you can understand texts of a similar complexity in your native language. Most such assessments are given to educated people, usually adults, so the texts reflect that.
Yes, there are people who are not highly proficient by the standards of a native speaker at reading and particularly writing in their native language. Who knows, I may be wrong to think that they would easily pass the written portion of a CEFR test, certainly they would smash the oral portions.
However the CEFR tests are fundamentally not designed to assess quality of education for native speakers. You could shoehorn them into that role but we already have other measures of language ability (in the US often calibrated to grade level) that are specifically designed to measure this.
That's a ten dolla word if I ever saw one.
:)
19% of Americans cannot read well enough to fill out a job application correctly.
The organization for economic cooperation and development found that 50% of U.S. adults can't read a book written at an 8th grade level, which is a statistic which obviously requires the estimate of "average American reading at a 7th or 8th grade level" be questioned heavily.
I've seen many estimates that the average high school student reads at a 6th grade level, and only 15% of the country is at an undergraduate level despite 30% of people having a degree.
I don't know where you get the idea that "grade level" relates to grades completed, but the average American is likely at a 5th grade reading level.
It doesn't change the fact that the CEFR framework is not intended either to measure native proficiency nor to assess the difficulty of a written text.
I'm not disputing that the New Yorker is written at a higher level than the average American cares to read, just disputing the use of CEFR framework to assess the text.
You’re right about this, but these are the systems I know, and they are arguably more useful in this context that most of the grade-level models you listed (very abstract, and most folks don’t really understand the level they are based on).
> Everyone that speaks English as a first language would pass a C2 level examination very easily.
C2 is the equivalent of a highly educated native speaker. This does not describe most Americans, even ones with seemingly appropriate credentials.
A discussion I’ve heard about native speakers of English expected to pass a C1 test in a foreign language: “Can they pass C1 in English?” The answer was not always so clear.
> In other words this text can be read by average American 10th graders without difficulty.
These are more like ideal goals for a high-performing Xth grader. I have worked with the vocab lists that textbooks writers are supposed to use — the expectations are very high.
Anyway, thank you for your response.
The most prolific example of the reading level mismatches causing trouble is Paul Krugman's August 2002 column: Dubya's Double Dip? https://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/opinion/dubya-s-double-di...?
The famous sentence from the article:
> To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.
If you read the whole article and think that Krugman says this housing bubble is a good idea your reading level can't be that good. Too many people did read the whole article and failed to grasp the tone and nuance. Even Arnold Kling had to point out this to his readers http://www.econlib.org/archives/2009/06/defending_what.html
That kind of writing can still be inaccessible to lower reading comprehension levels. If you are uncertain of his writing skills, I don't know what to say.
https://econjwatch.org/articles/a-beginner-s-guide-to-esoter...
> This article is a republication, by permission, of a chapter of the author’s book Philosophy Between the Lines: The Lost History of Esoteric Writing (University of Chicago Press, 2014). The piece provides a beginner’s guide to techniques and devices used in esoteric writing. Among the techniques and devices described are the following: dissembling the true message (sometimes by presenting it as from a disputant, beggar, or buffoon, sometimes by arguing against it in ways that enhance awareness of its truth); dissembling the true target (exoterically speaking of Y when the real target is some other thing Z); developing a compelling argument and then taking it back; textual incongruity (for example, departing from a declared plan); conspicuous inconsistency or self-contradiction; the commission of errors that the author’s demonstrated competence and mastery would not allow (for example, altering a quotation in a significant way); dispersal (dispersing argumentation for a tacit viewpoint throughout the text); expressing very striking or intense thoughts in an oblique or ancillary fashion, such as in a meandering digression or in the notes; meaningful silence or conspicuous omission (as when the text creates expectations of coming to something that then remains unaddressed or unstated); alluding subtly to the writings or opinions of a significant figure; and placing thoughts of particular significance in middle of the text or in the exact center of a list or sequence.
That's really not a meaningful argument as to its merit. In fact, it's so famously not a meaningful argument that it has its own fancy name: argumentum ad antiquitatem.
I wonder if there is a similar scale for cartoons, and if (inscrutable) New Yorker cartoons are at D1 or higher.
whereas in the UK a cartoon might make a reference to a cartoon from 50-60-70 years ago and you would be expected to understand the reference with out labelling
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2019/jun/0...
It's a comment on the pageantry around the 75th anniversary of D-Day, and directly refers to a famous cartoon from WW2, which was published on VE Day by the (also socialist) cartoonist Philip Zec:
http://www.cartooncounty.com/serendipity2/uploads/Zec2site.J...
The whole genre isn't self-referential, but it's not unusual for leader cartoons to refer to other cartoons, famous paintings, television, or other things.
2. A scale for cartoons would be interesting. The top level would probably require something like awareness of current events, knowledge of one or more complex/academic theoretical concepts, and deep cultural embeddedness and awareness of cultural trends.
Regardless, all of the main points still hold.
The Romances can have hugely brutal nested sentences as nothing.
Would you dare to read Don Quixote in the original and non-modernized Spanish? I think not.
That book mixed a parody of Medieval Spanish and the pre-Enlightentment era one.
The discovering of America put the Church on a lower-closer to the Earth place and became the roots of modern Humanism.
Don Quixote is a pun on the Dark Ages, myth and religion, compared it to Sancho Panza who is a metaphor of the almost Enlightened humanistic/pragmatic folk who doesn't believe on myths and doesn't have crazy religious-like hallucinations on giants.
Trust me, a lot of grammar from the crazy knight is stilL¡l valid today even if looks outdated.
Heck, it already was outdated, as I said Don Quixote was the old fart pun from the 1600s.
English' grammar is a joke compared to the versatibility of Romances. And, even forther back in time, Latin used similar traits.
No, thank you. I studied Italian and French (old, middle, and modern), Latin, and Ancient Greek, though most of that has vanished from disuse.
I'm not talking about the grammar (which is simply different in English despite a couple centuries of attempts to make it fit into Latin), or the degree of nuance Cervantes or Rabelais can extract from their linguistic milieu. I'm talking about the range of nuance that a educated, contemporary speaker of the language has available to them. It is simply vastly greater in English than in, say, modern French.
I'm not talking about inflection. English doesn't use inflection except vestigially, though our grammar is every bit as subtle (compare English verb tenses to those of a Romance language). I'm talking about the employment of reference, accent, dialect...